The proscription of parties and the problem with 'militant democracy'

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

In 2003, Spain banned the political party Herri Batasuna and its successors Euskal Herritarrok and Batasuna for integration in the Basque separatist terrorist group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna. Since then, eleven other parties or electoral groupings deemed successors to the illegal parties have also been banned. The party bans in Spain highlight weaknesses in leading theoretical accounts of proscription and democratic responses to extremism, weaknesses that are symptomatic of broader problems with the paradigmatic concept of ‘militant democracy’. More specifically, closer examination of the Spanish case illustrates an error of classification in Fox and Nolte’s (2000) distinction between ‘tolerant’ and ‘intolerant’ democracies, but also suggests a strategy for responding to a more fundamental problem of internal inconsistency in their model.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftJournal of Comparative Law
Vol/bind7
Udgave nummer1
Sider (fra-til)196-213
Antal sider17
ISSN1477-0814
StatusUdgivet - 2012

Citer dette

@article{9d744ac1de964045b27ce64b66a64baf,
title = "The proscription of parties and the problem with 'militant democracy'",
abstract = "In 2003, Spain banned the political party Herri Batasuna and its successors Euskal Herritarrok and Batasuna for integration in the Basque separatist terrorist group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna. Since then, eleven other parties or electoral groupings deemed successors to the illegal parties have also been banned. The party bans in Spain highlight weaknesses in leading theoretical accounts of proscription and democratic responses to extremism, weaknesses that are symptomatic of broader problems with the paradigmatic concept of ‘militant democracy’. More specifically, closer examination of the Spanish case illustrates an error of classification in Fox and Nolte’s (2000) distinction between ‘tolerant’ and ‘intolerant’ democracies, but also suggests a strategy for responding to a more fundamental problem of internal inconsistency in their model.",
keywords = "proscription , party bans, militant democracy, Batasuna, Spain",
author = "Angela Bourne",
year = "2012",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "196--213",
journal = "Journal of Comparative Law",
issn = "1477-0814",
publisher = "Wildy, Simmonds and Hill Publishing",
number = "1",

}

The proscription of parties and the problem with 'militant democracy'. / Bourne, Angela.

I: Journal of Comparative Law, Bind 7, Nr. 1, 2012, s. 196-213.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The proscription of parties and the problem with 'militant democracy'

AU - Bourne, Angela

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - In 2003, Spain banned the political party Herri Batasuna and its successors Euskal Herritarrok and Batasuna for integration in the Basque separatist terrorist group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna. Since then, eleven other parties or electoral groupings deemed successors to the illegal parties have also been banned. The party bans in Spain highlight weaknesses in leading theoretical accounts of proscription and democratic responses to extremism, weaknesses that are symptomatic of broader problems with the paradigmatic concept of ‘militant democracy’. More specifically, closer examination of the Spanish case illustrates an error of classification in Fox and Nolte’s (2000) distinction between ‘tolerant’ and ‘intolerant’ democracies, but also suggests a strategy for responding to a more fundamental problem of internal inconsistency in their model.

AB - In 2003, Spain banned the political party Herri Batasuna and its successors Euskal Herritarrok and Batasuna for integration in the Basque separatist terrorist group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna. Since then, eleven other parties or electoral groupings deemed successors to the illegal parties have also been banned. The party bans in Spain highlight weaknesses in leading theoretical accounts of proscription and democratic responses to extremism, weaknesses that are symptomatic of broader problems with the paradigmatic concept of ‘militant democracy’. More specifically, closer examination of the Spanish case illustrates an error of classification in Fox and Nolte’s (2000) distinction between ‘tolerant’ and ‘intolerant’ democracies, but also suggests a strategy for responding to a more fundamental problem of internal inconsistency in their model.

KW - proscription

KW - party bans

KW - militant democracy

KW - Batasuna

KW - Spain

M3 - Journal article

VL - 7

SP - 196

EP - 213

JO - Journal of Comparative Law

JF - Journal of Comparative Law

SN - 1477-0814

IS - 1

ER -