Refine
Year of publication
- 2016 (75) (remove)
Document Type
- Report (50)
- Article (15)
- Review (4)
- Working Paper (3)
- Part of Periodical (2)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Language
- English (75) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (75)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (75)
Keywords
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (75) (remove)
This is the 26. article in our series Trouble on the Far-Right.
In Poland, the long lasting culture war1 over gender roles and religion has been easily framed by the far right into Samuel Huntington’s concept of the “clash of civilizations”. A well-known juxtaposition used in right-wing propaganda: ‘civilization of life’ vs. ‘civilization of death’ in reference to anti-abortion and pro-choice movements respectively is now used to refer to Christians and Muslims. The role of Polish women and the right to abortion remain in the center of the conflict of modernity.
In Europe, the far right heats up the moral panic caused by fear of terrorism, pointing to Muslims as a threat to ‘European’ liberties, especially women’s and LGBT rights. The assaults on women celebrating New Year’s Eve on the streets of Cologne, serve Pegida and many nationalist organizations in Europe as a proof of Arab’s attitude to ‘Western’ expressions of femininity. This argument in the anti-immigration discourse of the far right is well-grounded in nationalists’ ideal of a strong man defending ‘his’ woman. Although, the task might be understood literally, in the context of the assaults in Cologne, protecting wives, mothers, sisters and daughters of the nation has a broader symbolic meaning. Scholars interested in relationship between gender and nation, state that in nationalists discourse women symbolize the nation and are bearers of values.2 In islamophobic discourse female citizens of Europe signify Europeans’ equality and freedom...
An analysis of the UK's counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST, and the challenges in its evaluation
(2016)
The UK’s Counter-Terrorism strategy, known as CONTEST, is recognized as one of the most successful soft-focus strategies in the world, with an intended emphasis on community support and what have become known as ‘Prevent’ (or counter-extremism) measures. In all, there are four limbs to CONTEST: PREVENT, PROTECT, PURSUE and PREPARE. While there is much crossover between these areas, for example policing activities take place in all four limbs, each one has a specific focus with its own intrinsic goals. This article intends to provide an overview of CONTEST, and to explore the challenges of evaluating counter-terrorism strategies in general. In doing so, I intend to show that while robust and independent evaluation of CONTEST has not been undertaken from a quantitative approach, some level of evaluation has taken place and can be taken into consideration when moving forward with future analysis of the strategy...
With the Open Conference "Being a Citizen in Europe" in Zagreb (Croatia, 29-30 June 2015) external scholars were invited to connect to the bEUcitizen-project and to explore theoretical foundations and political as well as practical realities of today’s European citizenship. The structuring idea was to highlight potential core barriers towards EU citizenship and to do so by way of conceptual discussions as well as empirical analyses mapping a variety of citizenship practices in the EU. This was reflected in four thematic streams gathering contributions from both external and bEUcitizen researchers. The streams reflected on different kinds of barriers, conceptual and practical ones. They revolve around the normative promise of citizenship, the diversity of practices and possible paths of future development.
While stream 1 reflected on the dynamic of (re)configuring citizenship as a bounded or unbounded concept, stream 2 applied a comparative perspective on the diversity of rights-based citizenship practices. Stream 3 addressed the political dimension of EU-Citizenship and discussed a lack of citizenship participation as a farreaching barrier as well as possible remedies. Finally, stream 4 focused on linguistic diversity and the difficulties it creates regarding the conceptual and practical dimension of EU-citizenship. Taken together the contributions lucidly reflect the variety of disciplines cooperating in the bEUcitizen-project and their different points of view on EU-citizenship.
The crucial lesson from the contributions to the Open Conference for the theoretical task of WP 2 and the bEUcitizen-project more generally is that without conceptual clarity about the meaning of EU-citizenship the task of identifying practical barriers and evaluating the latter’s effects remains ambivalent. A shared understanding of the meaning of a (future) EU citizenship is still missing. What shall EU citizenship be or become: a fully-fledged democratic citizenship or a market-citizenship, bundling certain rights implied by the internal market freedoms? This undecided question is at the core of the debate on EU citizenship. In order to prevent citizens from turning their backs on the EU a public contestation of our understanding of the EU is needed. European democracy à venir requires an ongoing public debate about what European integration is all about and where it should lead us to – even and especially when there is no consensus about it.
Beyond radicalism and resignation: the competing logics for public participation in policy decisions
(2016)
Participation – like justice or freedom – is a term that can be constructed in multiple ways. However, existing typologies of participation pay little attention to the alternative logics for public participation in policy decisions: either they assume one particular normative bias or categorise by institutional design features without reference to the broader ideology that informs the use of these designs. This paper outlines an alternative approach that connects the variety in participatory practices to competing theories of democracy and public administration. It identifies four archetypes of participation: knowledge transfer; collective decision-making; choice and voice; and arbitration and oversight.
This is the 20. article in our series Trouble on the-Far-Right.
Just a few days ago during a parliamentary session, a Kurdish deputy was violently attacked and injured by members of the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP). As if to support Charles Tilly’s statement that ‘political violence occurs when actors have few opportunities, yet enough resources to mobilize for violence’1, many groups in Turkey are currently involved in a battle against Kurdish, Alevi or left Turkish citizens. The Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in a political stalemate, uses military and police, but also the Nationalist Movement Party’s (MHP) youth organization Grey Wolves as well as Islamist militias like Esedullah Timleri (Arabic for: Lions of Allah) have increasingly resorted to violence as tool of action.
Political violence has been a central characteristic of the Turkish far right, which largely resembles street-based mobilization in Western Europe. Despite the common ultra-nationalist ideology, the Gülen Movement (GM) stands out. AKP’s former “soft-power instrument” now appears to be the only reasonable and non-violent player among all of these self-named animal groups. Since the power struggle escalated between Erdoğan and Fethullah Gülen in 2013, the GM has been seen as a victim of Erdoğan’s repressive measures, instead of making itself conspicuous by using violence. How can we explain this exception?
This is the eighth article in our series Trouble on the Far-Right.
Trouble’s brewing for the European Union – also in Finland, where the next country-wide elections will see several new, EU-hostile nationalist groups attempt to establish themselves on the political map. At the same time, Finnish Fascism is seeking to entrench and normalize itself into a respectable part of the political framework.
With disaffection growing, the time appears to be ripe. As Heikki Hiilamo, professor of social policy in Helsinki University notes, Finland has been particularly hard hit by the most recent economic downturn. The middle and lower classes are seeing their expectations fade into uncertainty, as globalization is bringing new and intangible threats in the form of vanishing jobs. Finland is heading towards increasing social inequality, with the reality of the educated and the employed drifting further apart from “globalization’s losers”. With no self-evident owner in sight, the accumulating political capital is attracting radical nationalist utilizers...
This is the 22. article in our series Trouble on the Far-Right.
Changing political and economic situations generate new types of political protagonists – the far right is no exception here. Whether its structures and organizational forms endure, whether they diffuse (trans)nationally, whether their models prove successful, depends on various factors. A model that is currently about to serve as a flagship for the far right in Europe is the neo-fascist movement / party CasaPound. So why is this organizational model within the far right in Italy and Europe so successful?
My contribution is intended to shed light on the hybridity of CasaPound and the resulting force for the renewal of fascism. To carry out my argument, I will first describe the evolution of CasaPound from a movement to a party. Then I will discuss strategies and practices in terms of organizational and ideological hybridization, to finally outline the European dimension of the self-proclaimed „fascists of the third millennium“...
On October the 2nd the Colombian people rejected the peace agreement between the government and the FARC in a referendum with a very thin majority of 0.4%. With this unexpected rejection, the referendum was in some ways similar to the Brexit referendum, for the results of which David Cameron was as little prepared as Juan Manuel Santos for his rejection; there was obviously no Plan B. In the last weeks, the government undertook ten changes to the agreement, but it will not go through a referendum again. Santos, as he said, has learned his lesson from the rejection and will seek to have the amended peace agreement approved in Congress. This will likely lead to the implementation of the peace agreement and the furtherance of its goals, such as a DDR process, land reforms, a transitional justice process and reparations for victims, just to mention a few. But this progress in peace will be seen as being at odds with popular opinion. Many of the “no” voters are still not satisfied with the adjustments made by the government and the FARC, and neither are the sectors of the opposition mainly responsible for the rejection. Nevertheless, the government and the FARC are progressing with the implementation, and peace talks with the second-largest – and now the last standing – guerrilla group, the ELN, are scheduled to start in 2017. The prospects for 2018 and onwards, when the presidency election will be held, are more questionable.