Vox – Spanish Variant of Radical Right Party in Present-Day Europe

2021 ◽  
Vol 65 (11) ◽  
pp. 69-78
Author(s):  
S. Khenkin
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Radical Right ◽  
Democratic Regime ◽  
Traditional Values ◽  
Political Pluralism ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Mass Consciousness ◽  
Systemic Crisis ◽  
Democratic System

For many years, Spain was one of a few European countries without an influential radical right party. In the recent years, the situation has changed sharply as a marginal right radical party VOX turned into a significant force – a third party in the Cortes according to the number of votes. The stormy take off of VOX cannot be separated from the systemic crisis of the Spanish polity which manifested itself particularly in the Catalan conflict. The threat to territorial integrity gave rise to a sense of impaired national dignity. Spanish nationalism, which seemed to recede into the background of the societal agenda during the first post-Francoist decades, has revived in a more radical guise. VOX advocates militant nationalism and upholds traditional values challenging the liberal paradigm of societal development. By sharply criticizing the liberal democratic regime VOX intends not to dismantle but to reform it. The revision assumes the reinforcement of centralizing and unitary origins in the Spanish state through the abolition of the autonomies’ rights and also the radical restrictions of the rights of ethnic minorities (Catalans, Basques, immigrants). Such standpoint entails the strengthening of authoritarian tendencies in the mass consciousness. At the same time, the party does not stand against the democratic system and does not raise the question on the restoration of authoritarianism in Spain. VOX, therefore, discards some principles of liberal democracy (a number of elements of political pluralism), without rejecting the other (rights and freedoms for the majority of the population).

Marxism and The End of History and the Last Man: A Critical Review

2000 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuhu O. Yaqub
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Capitalist System ◽  
End Of History ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Core Concepts ◽  
Democratic System ◽  
The End Of History ◽  
Last Man ◽  
The One ◽  
The Last Man

This review of The End of History and the Last Man sets out to achieve two major objectives: first, to establish whether or not the collapse of the Soviet state system and the alleged triumph as well as reconsolidation of liberal democracy have finally sounded the death knell of Marxism as a body of thought and a guide to action. The paper tries to achieve thisobjective by examining some of the core concepts of Marxism e.g., alienation and exploitation; inequality and freedom; the question of the state; and the nature of imperialism to see the extent to which they have been made otiose by the alleged triumph of liberal democratic system. The evidence emerging from their analyses, however, is not only the correctness and profundity of the position of Marx and his disciples Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Hoxher, Castro, Cabral, Fanon, Mao, Machel, etc. but that as long as Fukuyama attempts to mystify the insidiousness of the capitalist cum liberal democracy visavis alienation and exploitation of the worker on the one hand, and the predatoriness of imperialism over other peoples and lands on the other, so long shall the unscientific assertions and assumptions of the book continue to be subjected to critical pulverizations and attacks. Arising from this conclusion, the second and related objective is to exhort workers in both the advanced capitalist and the superexploited Third World countries towards greater and more focused struggles to bring down the moribund capitalist system, which is to be replaced with socialism/communism

Popular Perceptions of Democracy

1998 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAN OTTEMOELLER
Keyword(s):  
Survey Data ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Full Range ◽  
National Elections ◽  
Democratic Attitudes ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Democratic System ◽  
Election Results ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Range Of Values

This essay examines the potential for liberal democracy in Uganda by analyzing four sources: (a) results of recent national elections, (b) survey data about how Ugandans define democracy, (c) survey data about Ugandans' democratic attitudes, and, in a more theoretical vein, (d) Guillermo O'Donnell's notion of “informally institutionalized” polyarchy. Most of the survey data suggest that Ugandans hold democratic attitudes that should support a liberal democratic system. However, election results, as well as a survey of popular definitions of democracy, suggest that Ugandans do not endorse the full range of values associated with liberal democracy. O'Donnell's description of informally institutionalized polyarchy as a semiliberal form of democracy aids our conceptualization of democracy in Uganda. The essay concludes that the definition of democracy is, and is likely to remain, a contested issue in Ugandan politics.

Associational voluntarism in interwar Britain

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen McCarthy
Keyword(s):  
Social Relations ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Voluntary Sector ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
National Council ◽  
Associational Life ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Democratic System ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Religious Stratification

This chapter examines the interwar voluntary sector to demonstrate that associational life did not come to be dominated by the ideologies of class and mass political parties, but rather continued to develop an independent voice, oriented towards support for liberal democracy more generally. Considering organisations such as the League of Nations Union, the National Council of Women, the Club and Institute Union, and the British Legion, it outlines the ‘ideological work’ performed by voluntary associations: educating and socialising the new mass electorate into the workings of the liberal democratic system; and assisting in the democratisation of social relations. While class, gender and religious stratification continued to exist, significant ecumenism and gender- and class-mixing meant there was ‘a democratising logic at work’.

The Implications of Parekh's Cultural Pluralism

Politics ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Tyler
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Diversity ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Culturally Diverse ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Cultural Pluralism ◽  
Pluralistic Society ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Cultural Specificity ◽  
Diverse Society ◽  
Democratic System

This paper assesses the special difficulties faced by a liberal democratic system which seeks to maintain its democratic credentials when governing a culturally diverse society. The argument focuses upon the analysis of cultural pluralism developed in two recent pieces of Bhikhu Parekh. After clarifying the nature of Parekh's culturally pluralistic society, the cultural specificity of liberal democracy is examined Finally, Parekh's attempt to reconcile the two through ‘operative public values’ is shown to be inadequate in such a manner that the ability of a liberal democratic system to ever bring lasting well-being in a situation of cultural diversity is thrown into doubt.

Populism as a Threat to Liberal Democracy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Rummens
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Popular Sovereignty ◽  
Wide Spread ◽  
Beneficial Effects ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Democratic System

This chapter argues that liberal democracy and populism, despite both being committed to the idea of popular sovereignty, rely on incompatible conceptualizations of the demos and, consequently, embody antagonistic and irreconcilable understandings of the concept of democracy. It subsequently challenges the wide-spread assumption that populism might have beneficial effects. Although populism operates as a symptom, signaling an underlying malfunctioning of our liberal democratic system, it can never itself function as the remedial corrective. Instead, it should be considered an important threat to democracy, which ought to be countered by actions aiming to remedy both the symptom and the underlying problem.

Sovereignty, the Corporate Religious, and Jurisdictional/Political Pluralism

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean L. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Public Authority ◽  
Popular Sovereignty ◽  
Modern State ◽  
Public Power ◽  
Political Pluralism ◽  
Social Democratic ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Power Rule ◽  
Important Challenge ◽  
Principles Of Justice

We typically associate sovereignty with the modern state, and the coincidence of worldly powers of political rule, public authority, legitimacy, and jurisdiction with territorially delimited state authority. We are now also used to referencing liberal principles of justice, social-democratic ideals of fairness, republican conceptions of non-domination, and democratic ideas of popular sovereignty (democratic constitutionalism) for the standards that constitute, guide, limit, and legitimate the sovereign exercise of public power. This chapter addresses an important challenge to these principles: the re-emergence of theories and claims to jurisdictional/political pluralism on behalf of non-state ‘nomos groups’ within well-established liberal democratic polities. The purpose of this chapter is to preserve the key achievements of democratic constitutionalism and apply them to every level on which public power, rule, and/or domination is exercised.

Recalling and/or Repressing German Marxism? The Case of Ernst Fraenkel

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
William E. Scheuerman
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Bill Clinton ◽  
Third Wave ◽  
Third Way ◽  
Tony Blair ◽  
Political Theorist ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
The Us ◽  
Judith Shklar ◽  
Third Way Politics

I spent a few unseasonably hot summer days in 1996 digging around in the German Federal Archives in Koblenz for what later became a lengthy essay on Ernst Fraenkel (1898–1975), the neglected German socialist political and legal thinker. I still recall struggling to justify my efforts not simply as an historian of ideas but also as a political theorist who, at least in principle, was expected to make systematic contributions to contemporary debates. The problem was that Fraenkel had focused his acumen on investigating liberal democratic instability and German fascism, matters that did not seem directly pertinent to a political and intellectual constellation in which political scientists were celebrating democracy's “third wave.” With Tony Blair and Bill Clinton touting Third Way politics, and many former dictatorships seemingly on a secure path to liberal democracy, Fraenkel's preoccupations seemed dated. Even though Judith Shklar had noted, as late as 1989, that “anyone who thinks that fascism in one guise or another is dead and gone ought to think again,” political pundits and scholars in the mid-1990s typically assumed that capitalist liberal democracy's future was secure. When I returned to the US and described my research to colleagues, they responded, unsurprisingly, politely but without much enthusiasm.

Does Liberal Democracy Presuppose a Cultural Nation? Four Arguments

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
ARASH ABIZADEH
Keyword(s):  
Social Integration ◽  
National Culture ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Public Culture ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Democratic Deliberation ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Shared Norms

This paper subjects to critical analysis four common arguments in the sociopolitical theory literature supporting the cultural nationalist thesis that liberal democracy is viable only against the background of a single national public culture: the arguments that (1) social integration in a liberal democracy requires shared norms and beliefs (Schnapper); (2) the levels of trust that democratic politics requires can be attained only among conationals (Miller); (3) democratic deliberation requires communicational transparency, possible in turn only within a shared national public culture (Miller, Barry); and (4) the economic viability of specifically industrialized liberal democracies requires a single national culture (Gellner). I argue that all four arguments fail: At best, a shared cultural nation may reduce some of the costs liberal democratic societies must incur; at worst, cultural nationalist policies ironically undermine social integration. The failure of these cultural nationalist arguments clears the way for a normative theory of liberal democracy in multinational and postnational contexts.

Does Liberal Democracy Require a Gandhian Approach to Religion?

Acorn ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-129
Author(s):  
Sanjay Lal ◽  
Jeff Shawn Jose ◽  
Douglas Allen ◽  
Michael Allen ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Democratic Theory ◽  
Political Liberalism ◽  
Religious Values ◽  
Public Justification ◽  
Liberal State ◽  
Absolute Truth ◽  
Democratic Socialism ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Unity In Diversity

In this author-meets-critics dialogue, Sanjay Lal, author of , argues that Gandhian values of nonviolence raise aspirations of liberal democracy to a higher level. Since Gandhian values of nonviolence are closely associated with religious values, liberal democracy should make public commitments to religions on a non-sectarian basis, except for unreasonable religions. Critic Jeff Shawn Jose agrees that Gandhian values can strengthen liberal democracy. However, Jose finds a contradiction in Lal’s proposal that a liberal state should support reasonable religions only. A more consistent Gandhian approach would focus on everyday interactions between citizens and groups rather than state-directed preferences. Critic Douglas Allen also welcomes Lal’s project that brings Gandhian philosophy into relation with liberal democratic theory; however, he argues that universalizing the Absolute Truth of genuine religion is more complicated than Lal acknowledges. D. Allen argues for a Gandhian approach of relative truths, which cannot be evaluated apart from contingency or context, and he offers autobiographical evidence in support of his critical suspicion of genuine religion. Critic Michael Allen argues that Lal’s metaphysical approach to public justification violates a central commitment of political liberalism not to take sides on any metaphysical basis. M. Allen argues that democratic socialism is closer to Gandhi’s approach than is liberalism. Lal responds to critics by arguing that Gandhi’s evaluation of unreasonable religions depends upon an assessment of violence, which is not as problematic as critics charge, either from a Gandhian perspective or a liberal one. Furthermore, by excluding unreasonable or violent religions from state promotion, Lal argues that he is not advocating state suppression. Finally, Lal argues that Gandhian or Kingian metaphysics are worthy of support by liberal, democratic states seeking to educate individuals regarding peaceful unity in diversity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document