Making (Ab)sense of Women’s Agency and Belonging in Citizenship Debates in India: Analysing the Shaheen Bagh Protests as ‘Act(s) of Citizenship’

The developments in citizenship in India that took place in 2019–2020 witnessed intervention from women belonging to minority communities who have emerged as forebears of resistance to the authoritarian-masculine imposition of citizenship as religious exclusion in the form of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019. The article revisits the women protests against the Act through the lens of ‘acts of citizenship’. The Shaheen Bagh protests, as these are called popularly, have been studied mainly as Muslim women exhibiting their defiance against a draconian law adversely affecting them. I argue that these protests can be interpreted as acts of citizenship where women spearheaded demonstrations against the Indian state to withhold their rights of citizenship as ‘activist citizens’, asserting the constitutional value of respecting diversity and democratic citizenship, thereby demonstrating ‘constitutional patriotism’. The article contributes to the ongoing debate on gendered citizenship in India providing an alternative approach, moving away from the popular binaries of ‘cultural diversity’ and cultural nationalism’.

Verfassungspatriotismus und Integration

Im Mittelpunkt der Untersuchung steht die Frage, inwieweit der Gedanke des Verfassungspatriotismus in der von Jürgen Habermas vorgeschlagenen Fassung geeignet sein kann, in einer kulturell-religiös pluralen Gesellschaft ein ausreichendes Maß an „Bürgersolidarität“ zu gewährleisten. Habermas setzt dabei entscheidend auf eine Entkoppelung der Ebene der allgemeinen und gleichen politischen Integration von der Ebene der ethisch-kulturellen Integration. Dies stößt jedoch immer dann auf Schwierigkeiten, wenn es um die Auslegung und Anwendung zentraler Rechtsbegriffe wie Menschenwürde oder der Menschenrechte geht. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht könnte bei den zwischen Mehrheit und Minderheit wechselseitig notwendigen „Perspektivenübernahmen“ ausgleichend wirken. Begriffe wie „nationale Identität“ oder „Verfassungsidentität“ können zwar gerichtlich praktiziert werden, sind aber als analytische Kategorien unbrauchbar. Entscheidungen in verfassungspatriotisch korrekt angeleiteten Verfahren müssen auch in „Parallelgesellschaften“ als legitim akzeptiert werden. The essay is focused on the question whether the idea of ‚constitutional patriotism‘ may ensure a sufficient degree of ‚civic solidarity‘ in a cultural-religious pluralistic society. The main argument of Habermas lies in the separating of the two levels: the sphere of general and equal political integration and the sphere of ethical-cultural integration. But this always produces particular difficulties when interpretation and application of basic juridical concepts, like human dignity or human rights at all, are at stake. In the reciprocally necessary adoption of perspectives between majority and minorities the Federal Constitutional Court could operate in an equalizing manner. Concepts like „national identity“ or „constitutional identity“ may be practised judicially, but taken as analytic categories they are worthless. Decisions, taken in procedures conducted correctly by constitutional patriotism, must be accepted as legitimate also by ‚parallel societies‘ (Parallelgesellschaften).

The Refugees We Are: Solidarity, Asylum, and Critique in the European Constitutional Imagination

This Article aims to reimagine post-national legal solidarity. It does so by bringing debates over Habermasian constitutional theory to bear on the evolving use of mutual recognition and mutual trust in the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (AFSJ), particularly in the context of European asylum law and reforms to the Dublin Regulation. Insofar as critiques of Habermasian “constitutional patriotism” apply to the principle of mutual trust, the Article suggests why post-national solidarity requires fallibilism and dynamic responsiveness that exceed formalized rules of forbearance and respect.On this revised view, legal solidarity guarantees a particular form of adjudication through which individual litigants in a particular case challenge the transnational structural conditions that give rise to individual harm. Because it acknowledges that violations of individual rights are always potentially or in part the result of a collective systemic failure, this conception of solidarity restores meaning to the transformative “transfer” of sovereignty that post-national law had promised. In the field of asylum law, I detail how this application of solidarity would offer a much-needed corrective to structural imbalances in the existing Dublin regime. I conclude with reflections on the principle’s application in additional fields of EU law, as well.

Jürgen Habermas

This chapter argues that Jürgen Habermas’s engagement with the debates on the German student movement of 1968 led him to question the common tendency to consider the transience of spontaneous popular action a failure. Habermas’s democratic theory construes the ephemerality of such events as an asset that ensures they remain unrestricted by existing norms. The “wild” and “anarchic” moments of direct citizen action constitute the radical core of deliberative democracy. Yet, even as he emphasizes the democratic moments’ unrestricted quality, Habermas, like Rousseau, is also wary of their unpredictability. In his discussions on civil disobedience, Habermas turns to “constitutional patriotism” as a normative criterion to contain the dangers that emanate from the unpredictability of spontaneous action. In doing so, however, Habermas risks transforming political theory into a disciplinary mechanism whereby the theorist, à la Rousseau, takes on the role of an authority figure charged with guiding democratic action.

Between Affects and Norms

This article seeks to explore the meaning of emotional content in a transnational public sphere, in particular with regard to the concept of solidarity. The main normative question that the author discusses here is how far it is possible – if it’s the case at all – to move beyond the basic structure of nation-linked patriotic feeling to solidarity as a transnational political emotion. He divides his argument into two steps. First, he analyzes how the concept of constitutional patriotism could be reframed around the contours of post-national contexts. He suggests that Hegel’s concept of patriotism as a political disposition can contribute to a transnational framework. In a second step, the author discusses solidarity as a transnational political emotion, arguing that one should have in view both its formative process and its contingencies in order to understand the institutional and symbolic mediation of affective contents of social praxis.

Migrants and 'Patria'. The imagined community of the radical left in Spain

The emergence of inclusive populist parties disputes the social construction of the ‘people’ to the exclusive populism, recently generating new academic debates. Do the new radical left parties have a nationalist character? Are populism and nationalism two inseparable dimensions? Drawing on an original dataset in Spain, this article shows that Podemos’ supporters are significantly less nationalist, expressing more open attitudes towards cultural diversity and immigration, and lower levels of Spanishness than voters from other parties. Arguably, Podemos operates as an antagonistic political option to the traditional positions of the populist radical right (PRR), building an inclusive imagined community around a type of constitutional patriotism or republican populism. These findings contribute to the scholar debate on the relationship of nationalism and populism, bringing to discussion the core values of the supporters of a populist party as a complementary element to its categorization.