Militant Democracy and its Hybridity

Abstract

Traditionally, militant democracy is seen as a typical hybrid concept. Militant democracy combines democracy with non-democratic interventions against political parties and other political actors to ward off antidemocratic threats to its democratic procedures and/or values. This hybridity has, since militant democracy’s inception, been one of the main lines of criticism against the concept: incorporating measures as, for instance, party bans applied by judges, turns militant democracy into the mirror image of what it aims to combat. This panel focusses on papers that question, discuss or criticize the concept’s hybridity or attempt to alleviate its consequences. For instance, what sets militant democracy apart from other less contested, but arguably also, hybrid concepts of democracy, such as liberal democracy? What regular (non-militant) elements of democratic systems (e.g. procedures, selection) could be considered “hybrid” in itself, as they perform an additional, but implicit militant function? And if one accepts that militant democracy blends democratic and non-democratic elements, to what extent can the latter be reconciled with democratic principles?