Democratic Self-Defense: Militant and Social

"According to the latest V‑Dem Institute report, the world has fewer democracies than autocracies for the first time in over two decades, with liberal democracy being the least common regime type. Also, countries that move in an autocratic direction by far outnumber countries that move in a democratic direction, and autocratization is to a large extent driven by populous and economically powerful"

"Central to these debates is the idea of a militant democracy, an idea often traced back to Karl Loewenstein (1891-1973). Writing in a period where fascism was on the rise, Loewenstein urged democrats to leave democratic fundamentalism behind and step up to militancy. When authoritarian movements and organizations seek to subvert democracy by democratic means, democrats cannot remain passively tolerant, but must be ready to limit certain forms of political activity by legal means."

"While contemporary debates are dominated by a similar focus on legal restrictions on rights to freedom of expression and political participation, critics of militant democracy have questioned the coherence of defending democracy in such ways. Some find that militant provisions contradict the normative logic of democracy because of an inherent arbitrariness in any decision as to who is an enemy of democracy."

Democracy is on a pronounced global decline, with fewer democracies than autocracies for the first time in over twenty years and liberal democracy the least common regime type. Autocratization outnumbers democratization, and the trend is driven largely by populous, economically powerful states able to exert international influence. Debates on democratic self-defense focus on how democracies can protect themselves from anti-democratic forces. The concept of militant democracy, traced to Karl Loewenstein, advocates limiting certain political activities by legal means when authoritarian movements seek to subvert democracy through democratic channels. Interwar anti-fascist measures included bans on militias and antidemocratic parties, restrictions on speech and assembly, and political policing. Critics question whether such militant provisions coherently align with democratic norms, citing arbitrariness in identifying enemies of democracy.

Read at Apaonline