Neo-Hobbesianism in the DPRK: A Provisional Theory of Authoritarianism

This article presents an original historical-philosophical conception that attempts to discern the matter, form, and power of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (dprk). A panoramic and problematizing cognitive framework, the theory configurates 629 years of sociopolitical history from 1392 to 2021 and then comparatively discusses the dprk system in relation to ancient democracy and liberal democracy from Pericles to Samuel P. Huntington. The article is divided into three parts, which outline the theory and its principles, map historical foundations and political phases, and address social relations, state will, and political reality. Description and analysis convey the thesis that the dprk polity is home to a Neo-Hobbesian formation: a hybrid state entity that is historically modern, politically absolutist, and illiberally democratic, with a transforming cross-civilizational physiognomy. By design, the “soft” theory is conceived to stimulate academic discussion and debate, not declare a final solution.

Islamic Democracy and Popular Sovereignty: A Critical Essay on Andrew March’s The Caliphate of Man

In this review of Andrew March’s book, The Caliphate of Man, I shall focus on one central concept and one central claim to be found in the book: the concept of Islamic democracy, and the claim that al-Ghannūshī’s vision of popular sovereignty “reflects a genuine intellectual revolution in modern Islamic thought.” I suggest that the concept of Islamic democracy is logically possible only on the assumption of a purely procedural, value-neutral conception of democracy, and that the vision of the umma [the demos, populus] to be found in al-Ghannūshī is not such as to make the notion of popular sovereignty desirable by modern standards. I will suggest further that liberal Islamist thinkers stand to offer a superior view of Islamic democracy, one toward which al-Ghannūshī himself seems to be moving in his post-Revolutionary political practice.

The Authoritarian Temptation, and Its Radical Left Expressions

No political regime can be entirely immune from authoritarian temptations. This article focuses on the distinctive sources and dynamics that apply to post-revolutionary regimes. To prevail in bringing about radical and irreversible change they will require an effective security apparatus that overcomes the backlash that will arise from the previous order. These security requirements provide the first source of authoritarian temptation, but there are three more. Once the regime is firmly established the new rulers can choose what restraints on their conduct to accept. It is tempting to dispense with healthy channels of feedback. Moreover, even the most successful of revolutionary regimes polarise opinion between the old order and the new. And when material hardships arise loyalty may be rewarded above market rationality. In conjunction these amount to a serious set of authoritarian temptations. But there are also some countervailing considerations. A durably successful radical regime must counterbalance the requirements for unity and discipline against the need for creativity and adaptability. Initial emancipatory ambitions may be updated and renewed in order to inspire future generations and legitimise the revolutionary process. Such regimes can seesaw between authoritarian and empowering tendencies, rather than relying on repression alone to keep them in existence. Their legitimation strategy will contain three main components: i) reaffirming and updating their emancipatory origins; ii) downplaying/excusing any authoritarian “deviations”; iii) projecting future prospects for inclusionary development.

Reflections on Oppression, Domination, and The Humble Cosmopolitan

This brief response to The Humble Cosmopolitan centers on Luis Cabrera’s defense of an individualistic conception of trans-state democracy against illiberal nationalist claims of self-determination. While I acknowledge the force of Cabrera’s critique as applied to “dominant” nationalisms and similar group-based dominations, I am curious as to how far Cabrera’s critique can accommodate “subaltern” nationalisms and related claims to group autonomy. The latter, I imply, can be defended on both instrumental and intrinsic grounds. Regarding the book’s analytic framework, I am curious as to how far Cabrera’s concepts of cosmopolitan humility and national-state arrogance can be reduced to concepts of global and national justice and injustice. The latter terms, I suggest, are at least partial substitutes for the former.

The Rise and Fall of Sovereignty in Modern Islamic Political Thought

This essay responds to reviewers of The Caliphate of Man and proposes some questions for the future of Islamic political thought.

Ultimate Sovereignty and the Flexibility of the Islamic Caliphate/Democracy

March’s exceptional book profoundly deals with the ideas of popular sovereignty and the Caliphate in modern Islamic political thought. While this book covers the concept of popular sovereignty in quite detail, March’s portrayal fails to convince the reader whether or not Islamic democracies are possible as a result. Based on previous work on medieval Islamic political thought and public attitudes towards the Caliphate, I argue that conceptions of Islamic government have differed according to context, place and time, and in the modern era the public views the Caliphate as a vehicle for justice and welfare. This implies that Islamic government can still be broadly based on the principles of modern Islamic political thought while the exact institutional configurations may still be able to differ according to place, time and context. In conclusion, while March’s book carefully synthesizes the theoretical debates, it might not have far-reaching practical implications for Islamic democracy.

Cosmopolitan Humility and Local Self-Governance

Do local or grassroots level face-to-face self-governing communities have a place in theories of institutional cosmopolitanism? I pose this question in response to Luis Cabrera’s (2020) use of B. R. Ambedkar’s ideas to defend an instrumentally oriented democratic institutional cosmopolitanism that counters the arrogance objections raised against cosmopolitanism. Cabrera interprets Ambedkar as an exponent of political humility and having an instrumentalist approach to democracy. My response expands on a connection Cabrera briefly discusses – between humility and humiliation – and makes two observations. First, Ambedkar makes a distinction between institutions of democracy and democracy as a form of society. The latter is an end-in-itself synonymous with the practice of political humility. Second, Gandhi’s vision of self-governing village republics, which Ambedkar rejects, with universal franchise and guaranteed representation for marginalized groups that Ambedkar advocated at the national level could have been spaces for practicing political humility locally.

Recalibrating Our Levels of Analysis: Working towards Islamic Democracy from the Ground-Up

This review article aims to challenge Andrew March’s pessimism regarding the possibility of Islamic democracy in the modern world. It will argue that instead of conceptualizing the possibilities for Islamic democracy in a top-down manner, rooted in the language and imaginary of sovereignty, discussions about Islamic democracy ought to first focus on more empirically measurable and less theologically controversial things such as economic development, educational achievement, institutional functionality, and good governance. Such an approach removes the need for future Islamic political theorizing to be post-sovereigntist and/or post-statist as March contends. Instead, the future of Islamic political theorizing needs to actually be ‘political,’ addressing the same policy and administrative issues that any other form of contemporary democratic political thought aims to address.