Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bp2c4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T16:13:47.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transnational militant democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2018

ULRICH WAGRANDL
ULRICH WAGRANDL*
Affiliation:
Department of Legal Philosophy, University of Vienna, Schenkenstraße 8-10, 1010 Wien, Austria
*
*Email: ulrich.wagrandl@univie.ac.at
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Ordinarily, militant democracy is about restricting the rights of those who threaten to overthrow the very democracy that guarantees these rights. Hence, militant democracy permits the defence of democracy by disarming its opponents. Turkey’s recent constitutional reform, which arguably is a move away from liberal democracy, forces militant democracy to face up to its transnational application. Can we use militant democracy’s tools to defend not our own, but another democracy? Maybe we can and even should. This article examines the two transnational manifestations of militant democracy. The first is ‘transnational democracy gone militant’, epitomised by the European Union (EU)’s power to enforce liberal democratic standards in its Member States. The second is ‘militant democracy gone transnational’. This manifestation permits treating people rallying in the EU to attack democracy abroad in the same manner in which we are permitted to treat opponents of ‘our own’ democracy. As long as we are dealing with members of the Council of Europe (CoE), the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) gives us the instruments we need. Generally, militant democracy is a militant liberal democracy, which is not neutral towards itself, but is also an opponent of every system that is antithetical to it.

Keywords

democracyliberalismmilitant democracyparadox of democracytransnational democracy

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Global Constitutionalism , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , July 2018 , pp. 143 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 See New York Times (6 March 2017) <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/world/europe/turkey-referendum-germany-free-speech.html>.

2 See New York Times (12 March 2017) <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/12/world/europe/netherlands-recep-tayyip-erdogan-turkey.html>.

3 For a survey of European party bans, see Bourne, AK and Casal Bértoa, F, ‘Mapping ‘‘Militant Democracy”: Variation in Party Ban Practices in European Democracies (1945–2015)’ (2017) 13 European Constitutional Law Review 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Dworkin, R, ‘Foreword’ in Weinstein, J and Hare, I (eds), Extreme Speech and Democracy (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009) v, vii.Google Scholar In a similar vein, Dworkin, R, Freedom’s Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996) 226.Google Scholar

5 Loewenstein, K, ‘Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights I’ (1937) 31 American Political Science Review 417, 432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Chou, M, Democracy Against Itself: Sustaining an Unsustainable Idea (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2014) 72.Google Scholar

7 Müller, J-W, ‘Protecting Popular Government from the People? New Normative Perspectives on Militant Democracy’ (2016) 19 Annual Review of Political Science 249, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Schmitt, C, The Concept of the Political (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1995) 26.Google Scholar

9 Darwall, S, ‘Two Kinds of Respect’ (1977) 88 Ethics 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Scanlon, TM, The Difficulty of Tolerance: Essays in Political Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003) 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Popper, K, The Open Society and its Enemies, Volume I: The Spell of Plato (George Routledge & Sons Ltd, London, 1945) 109, n 4.Google Scholar

12 Forst, R, Toleranz im Konflikt (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 2003) 37–40, 594–6.Google Scholar

13 I am sure many thinkers have already made this point – see inter alia Becker, W, Die Freiheit die wir meinen. Entscheidung für die liberale Demokratie (Piper, Munich/Zurich, 1982) 192.Google Scholar

14 Capoccia, G, Defending Democracy: Reactions to Extremism in Interwar Europe (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 2005) 47–50.Google Scholar

15 Kelsen, H, ‘Verteidigung der Demokratie’ (1932) 2 Blätter der Staatspartei 90.Google Scholar Reprinted in Jestaedt, M and Lepsius, O (eds), Hans Kelsen – Verteidigung der Demokratie. Abhandlungen zur Demokratietheorie (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2006) 229.Google Scholar

16 Fox, G and Nolte, G, ‘Intolerant Democracies’ (1995) 36 Harvard International Law Journal 1, 68.Google Scholar

17 See also Locke, J, Second Treatise of Government, section 220 (quoted from Locke, J, Two Treatises of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration [Digireads.com Publishing, 2005] 138).Google Scholar

18 C Invernizzi Accetti and I Zuckerman, ‘What’s Wrong with Militant Democracy?’ (2017) 65 Political Studies 182.

19 See (n 7) 257–8.

20 Kirshner, A, A Theory of Militant Democracy: The Ethics of Combatting Political Extremism (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2014) 40–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 de Tocqueville, A, Democracy in America, Volume I (3rd American edn, George Adlard, New York, NY, 1839) 267–8;Google Scholar Hamilton, A or Madison, J, Federalist No. 51, available at <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp>..>Google Scholar

22 Thiel, M, ‘Comparative Aspects’ in Thiel, M (ed), The ‘Militant Democracy’ Principle in Modern Democracies (Ashgate, Farnham, 2009) 379, 413–16.Google Scholar

23 Doomen, J, ‘Mitigated Democracy‘ (2016) 102 Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 278.Google Scholar

24 Or was it Zakaria, F, ‘The Rise of Illiberal Democracy’ (1997) 76(6) Foreign Affairs 22?CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 See Bligh, G, ‘Defending Democracy: A New Understanding of the Party-Banning Phenomenon’ (2013) 46 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1321, who distinguishes the older ‘Weimar’ paradigm from the newer ‘legitimacy’ paradigm, which focuses more on safeguarding equal citizenship, human rights and non-discrimination.Google Scholar

26 Macklem, P, ‘Guarding the Perimeter: Militant Democracy and Religious Freedom in Europe’ (2012) 19 Constellations 575, 576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Even the great democratic formalist Hans Kelsen came to recognise this in his late work, see Kelsen, H, ‘Foundations of Democracy’ (1955) 66 Ethics 1, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 See Rawls, J, Political Liberalism (Columbia University Press, New York, NY, 1993) 174–6.Google Scholar

29 The need to take into account the specific reasons is emphasised by Nehushtan, Y, ‘Offensive Expression: The Limits of Neutral Balancing Tests and the Need to Take Sides’ (2016) 16 Human Rights Law Review 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Quong, J, ‘The Rights of Unreasonable Citizens’ (2004) 12 The Journal of Political Philosophy 314, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 This happens to be multiculturalism’s perennial question, see for example Kymlicka, W, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995) 152–172.Google Scholar

32 Appiah, KA, The Ethics of Identity (Princeton Universtiy Press, Princeton, NJ and Oxford 2005) 138–141.Google Scholar

33 See (n 23) 280.

34 For a kind of ‘who-started-it-approach’, see Nehushtan, Y, ‘The Limits of Tolerance: A Substantive-Liberal Perspective’ (2007) 20 Ratio Juris 230, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 Berlin, I, ‘The Pursuit of the Ideal’ in Berlin, I, The Crooked Timber of Humanity. Chapters in the History of Ideas (edited by Hardy, H, 2nd edn, Princeton Universtiy Press, Princeton, NJ and Oxford, 2013) 1, 14. Berlin’s thoughts are further expanded in The Decline of Utopian Ideas in the West, in the same volume, at 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 See Rawls (n 28) 196–7, referring to Berlin.

37 See Brons, L, ‘Othering, an Analysis’ (2015) 6 Transcience 69.Google Scholar

38 Morozov, V and Rumelili, B, ‘The External Constitution of European Identity: Russia and Turkey as Europe-makers’ (2012) 47 Cooperation and Conflict 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 See (n 20) 34–42.

40 Note the saddened tone in (n 28) 196–7.

41 See (n 20) 135–9.

42 Chantal Mouffe stresses that we should avoid moral condemnation and rather acknowledge this incompatibility; see Mouffe, C, On the Political (Routledge, London and New York, NY, 2005) 120–1.Google Scholar

43 Niesen, P, ‘Anti-Extremism, Negative Republicanism, Civic Society: Three Paradigms for Banning Political Parties – Part I’ (2002) 3 German Law Journal available at <https://www.germanlawjournal.com/volume-03-no-07>;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Niesen, P, ‘Banning the Former Ruling Party’ (2012) 19 Constellations 540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 Frankenberg, G, ‘The Learning Sovereign’ in Sajó, A (ed), Militant Democracy (Eleven International Publishing, Utrecht, 2004) 113.Google Scholar

45 For the context of immigration, this argument has been put forth by L Orgad, The Cultural Defense of Nations: A Liberal Theory of Majority Rights (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015).

46 See Macklem, P, ‘Militant Democracy, Legal Pluralism and the Paradox of Self-Determination’ (2006) 4 International Journal of Constitutional Law 488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 Carl Schmitt claimed it only to refute it. See Schmitt, C, Legality and Legitimacy (Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 2004) 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 Otto Pfersmann points out that as a matter of law, militancy is a question of degree and that every democracy is more or less militant; see Pfersmann, O, ‘Shaping Militant Democracy: Legal Limits to Democratic Stability’ in Sajó, A (ed), Militant Democracy (Eleven International Publishing, Utrecht, 2004) 47, 53.Google Scholar

49 See (n 7); Müller, J-W, ‘Should the EU Protect Democracy and the Rule of Law inside Member States?’ (2015) 21 European Law Journal 141;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Müller, J-W, ‘The EU as a Militant Democracy, or: Are There Limits to Constitutional Mutations within EU Member States?’ (2014) 165 Revista de Estudios Políticos (nueva época) 141;Google Scholar Müller, J-W, ‘Europe’s Other Democracy Problem: The Challenge of Protecting Democracy and the Rule of Law within EU Member States’ (2014) 21 Juncture 151;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Müller, J-W, Wo Europa endet: Ungarn, Brüssel und das Schicksal der liberalen Demokratie (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 2013) 36–64;Google Scholar Müller, J-W, ‘Beyond Militant Democracy?’ (2012) 73 New Left Review 39;Google Scholar Müller, J-W, Constitutional Patriotism (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2007) 112–19.Google Scholar

50 Ruffert, M, ‘Artikel 7’ in Calliess, C and Ruffert, M (eds), EUV/AEUV: Das Verfassungsrecht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grundrechtecharta (5th edn, CH Beck, Munich, 2016) Rn 24;Google Scholar Schorkopf, F, Homogenität in der Europäischen Union – Ausgestaltung und Gewährleistung durch Art. 6 Abs. 1 und Art. 7 EUV (Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 2000) 180.Google Scholar This issue remains quite obscure – technically, to be allocated seats in Parliament is a right of the Member State, just as voting in Council, and could therefore be suspended (I thank Michael Potacs for having brought this to my attention). Art 354 TFEU, however, which governs the voting modalities with respect to art 7 TEU, certainly excludes the Member State concerned from being a judge in its own cause, but not this country’s representatives in Parliament. One could therefore argue that art 7 does not allow the suspension of Parliament membership, because otherwise one would expect a provision barring MEPs from voting on their own exclusion, in analogy to the procedure in Council.

51 Habermas, J, ‘Democracy in Europe: Why the Development of the EU into a Transnational Democracy is Necessary and How it is Possible’ (2015) 21 European Law Journal 546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52 Müller, J-W, ‘The EU as a Militant Democracy, or: Are There Limits to Constitutional Mutations within EU Member States?’ (2014) 165 Revista de Estudios Políticos (nueva época) 141, 145.Google Scholar

53 Müller, J-W, Contesting Democracy (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2011) 110–13.Google Scholar

54 Moravcsik, A, ‘The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe’ (2000) 54 International Organization 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 Somek, A, The Cosmopolitan Constitution (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014) 176–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56 As Jan-Werner Müller seems to presume, see Müller, J-W, ‘Beyond Militant Democracy?’ (2012) 73 Jan/Feb New Left Review 39, 45.Google Scholar

57 On this last point, see Müller, J-W, ‘Should the EU Protect Democracy and the Rule of Law inside Member States?’ (2015) 21 European Law Journal 141, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

58 Fox and Nolte even argued that for the contracting parties of the ICCPR, see (n 16) 59–65.

59 See also Klamt, M, Die Europäische Union als Streitbare Demokratie: Rechtsvergleichende und europarechtliche Dimensionen einer Idee (Utz, Munich, 2011) 339–51.Google Scholar

60 See (n 52) 145, 151, 157.

61 See (n 57) 144.

62 Schmitt von Sydow, H, ‘Liberté, démocratie, droits fondamentaux et Etat de droit: analyse de l’article 7 du Traité UE’ (2001) Revue du droit de l’Union européenne 285, 288.Google Scholar

63 See Canor, I, ‘Solange horizontal – Der Schutz der EU-Grundrechte zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten’ (2013) 73 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 249Google Scholar, which is a translation of I Canor, ‘My Brother’s Keeper? Horizontal Solange: ‘‘An Ever Closer Distrust among the Peoples of Europe’’’ (2013) 50 Common Market Law Review 383.

64 An expression taken from art IV, section 1 of the United States Constitution.

65 This distinction was not clear when I first made the point in Verfassungsblog (10 March 2017) <https://verfassungsblog.de/die-transnationale-wehrhafte-demokratie/>; DOI: <https://dx.doi.org/10.17176/20170310-175223>.

66 United Communist Party of Turkey and others v Turkey, App No 19392/92 ECtHR (30 January 1998) at section 45.

67 An expression taken from Loizidou v Turkey (preliminary objections), App No 15318/89 ECtHR (23 March 1995) at section 75.

68 See (n 57) 157.

69 See (n 54).

70 See Greece v United Kingdom (I), App No 176/56 European Commission of Human Rights (7 May 1956); Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands v Greece (I), App Nos 3321/67, 3322/67, 3323/67 and 3344/67 European Commission of Human Rights (24 January 1968).

71 See Austria v Italy, App No 788/60 European Commission of Human Rights (11 January 1961).

72 See also (n 59) 413–14.

73 See (n 59) 414–17.

74 See for example Cavanaugh, K and Hughes, E, ‘Rethinking What Is Necessary in a Democratic Society: Militant Democracy and the Turkish State’ (2016) 38 Human Rights Quarterly 623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

75 Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and others v Turkey, App Nos 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98 ECtHR (13 February 2003) at section 98. The same passage was later used to justify the application of art 17, see Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov v Russia, App Nos 26261/05 and 26377/06 ECtHR (14 March 2013) at section 102.

76 See inter alia, J. Glimmerveen and J. Hagenbeek v The Netherlands, App Nos 8348/78 and 8406/78 European Commission of Human Rights (11 October 1979).

77 See inter alia, Michael Kühnen v Germany, App No 12194/86 European Commission of Human Rights (12 May 1988).

78 See inter alia, Roger Garaudy v France, App No 65831/01 ECtHR (23 October 2000).

79 See inter alia, Hizb ut-Tahrir and others v Germany, App No 31098/08 ECtHR (12 June 2012).

80 Cannie, H and Voorhoof, D, ‘The Abuse Clause and Freedom of Expression in the European Convention of Human Rights: An Added Value for Democracy and Human Rights Protection?’ (2011) 29 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

81 Flauss, JF, ‘L’abus de droit dans le cadre de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme’ (1992) 4 Revue universelle des droits de l’homme 461, 464.Google Scholar

82 A survey is offered by van Drooghenbroeck, S, ‘L’article 17 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme est-il indispensable?’ (2001) 46 Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme 541.Google Scholar

83 On this point see Müller, J-W, ‘Militant Democracy’ in Rosenfeld, M and Sajó, A (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012) 1253, 1266.Google Scholar