Marlene Laruelle Oxford Handbook of Illiberalism cover

The Oxford Handbook of Illiberalism

Marlene Laruelle (ed.)

Abstract

From the rise of populist leaders and the threat of democratic backsliding to polarizing culture wars and the return of great power competition, the backlash against the political, economic, and social liberalism is increasingly labeled “illiberal.” Yet, despite the increasing importance of these phenomena, scholars still lack a firm grasp on illiberalism as a conceptual tool for understanding societal transformations. The Oxford Handbook of Illiberalism addresses this gap by establishing a theoretical foundation for the study of illiberalism and showcasing state-of-the-art research on this phenomenon in its varied scripts—political, economic, cultural, and geopolitical. Bringing together the expertise of dozens of scholars, the Oxford Handbook of Illiberalism offers a thorough overview that characterizes the current state of the field and charts a path forward for future scholarship on this critical and quickly developing concept.

Introduction: Illiberalism Studies as a Field

by Marlene Laruelle

Abstract

This introductory chapter argues that the term illiberal(ism) provides a new model for understanding societal change. In contrast to existing concepts, illiberalism recenters our focus on liberalism and can therefore fruitfully account for different dimensions usually not taken into account. It first advances a definition of illiberalism—in contradistinction to other concepts such as populism, conservatism, and authoritarianism—before exploring five main contentions related to this definition. It then moves to a broader discussion on the entanglements between liberalism and illiberalism, looking at liberalism’s own spaces of contention, its multiple scripts, its encapsulation of Western metamodernity, and how illiberalism contributes to the ongoing deconstruction of liberal hegemony. Finally, it delves into the “amplifying feedback loop” effect of illiberalism, which is both a byproduct of the contradictions of liberalism and an amplification of liberalism’s challenges.
Forthcoming

Conceptualizing Illiberalism and its Companions

Illiberalism and Conservatism

by Edmund Fawcett

Abstract

Must conservatives be illiberal? If they must, can liberal democracies be conservative and stay healthy? As a retreat from liberal democracy, illiberalism may disavow liberalism, democracy, or both. Disavowal can be a rejection (by countries never liberal or democratic), a deflection (by countries aiming to become liberal democracies), or a defection (from the liberal-democratic core). The focus here is on right-wing or conservative defection—the two labels, for reasons explained, being used interchangeably. Intellectually, defections involve original conservative objections to liberalism and present-day criticism of liberal thought; politically, they reflect popular discontents with actual liberal democracy. Defection has undermined the liberal center right and strengthened an illiberal hard right. Fresh as it seems, their contest is endemic to conservatism and unlikely to bring final victory for either. Conservatives are often, but need not be, illiberal. Liberal democracies can stay healthy only if conservatives are liberal, not if they are illiberal.

View chapter

Illiberalism and Authoritarianism

by Julian G. Waller

Abstract

Illiberalism is often associated with the concept of “authoritarianism,” but their relation can be underspecified, confused, contradictory, or overlapping. This is in no small part due to the tricky conceptualization of authoritarianism itself, which holds to surprisingly different definitions across several social-scientific disciplines and deals with the same common problems of usage imprecision. This chapter conceptualizes the relationship between illiberalism and the several understandings of authoritarianism current in the mainstream academic literature. In doing so, it shows how the concept of authoritarianism understood as a form of political regime is the most useful for most scholars working on the subject of illiberalism, although in some ways also the most difficult to adhere. In support of this conclusion, the chapter reviews several prominent and influential alternative definitions of authoritarianism, including psychological-dispositional, psychological-behavioral, policy-ideological, and practice-process conceptualizations. It notes that these other variants of authoritarianism suffer from diverse, internal problems with conceptual coherency, parsimony, bias, rigor, and empirical replicability. Furthermore, they are particularly susceptible to obscuring or even hindering the empirical and theoretical application of illiberalism in scholarly study, although important exceptions and further avenues of exploration are noted as well. Familiarity with definitional problems associated with non-regime conceptualizations of authoritarianism will ultimately facilitate a more precise and nuanced scholarly research approach on illiberalism.

View chapter

Populism as Democratic Illiberalism

by Takis S. Pappas

Abstract

When all is said (mostly by the massive bibliography on populism) and done (mostly by the ever-growing number of populist regimes globally), modern populism is a novel political system that combines two core elements—the democratic method with illiberal values. Hence modern populism is appropriately conceived and minimally defined as “democratic illiberalism.” In this understanding, populism is finely distinguished from both liberal democratic and autocratic political systems. Based on these conceptual and theoretical propositions, the chapter has three aims. First, it elucidates the intimate relationship of populism with illiberalism. Second, it contrasts populism with other illiberal systems, both democratic and nondemocratic. Third, it proposes a comprehensive political systems typology inclusive of populism. The conceptual and theoretical clarity thus gained is expected to help make better sense of the renewed surge of illiberal politics that is evident around the world.

View chapter

Genealogies of Illiberalism

by Mihai Varga and Aron Buzogány

Abstract

Two lineages are at the intellectual core of illiberalism. The revolutionary-conservative New Right claims to defend an “ethno-pluralist” (European, Indo-European, or Eurasian) identity from the multiculturalist threat of a “Great Replacement” through immigration. By contrast, the national-conservative lineage is more concerned with threats to the moral order and the loss of moral bearing due to liberal relativism. Even though both illiberal lineages blame liberalism for undermining (traditional) identity and normative order, they engender different political projects regarding policies, institution-building, and transnational cooperation. Both lineages seek to appropriate conservatism as their ideological choice while ignoring established conservative traditions. This leads to significant differences regarding their relation to modernity, their positioning vis-à-vis fascism, their geopolitical orientations or envisioned socio-economic policies. The chapter underscores the need to view illiberalism as a temporary formation and that illiberalism is not monolithic and stable but a complex formation with nuanced relationships between intellectual circles and political networks, which are not devoid of tensions and differences.

View chapter

Illiberalism as a Culture

by Jan Kubik

Abstract

Illiberalism is examined here as a specific form of common sense or ethos, while anti-liberalism is approached as an ideology. The latter will be studied not through an examination of written works but through a close reading of two artistic exhibitions. They differ in their treatment of such topics as women’s rights, criticism of the European Union, and most prominently in their understanding of liberty. The analysis reveals several key ideological differences between liberal and anti-liberal modes of artistic representation. The contrast between liberal and illiberal types of ethos is illustrated by a comparison of political cultures in different locations in Poland. They are compared to show systematic association of illiberalism and liberalism with different types of social capital, conceptions of individualism, and models of authority. Challenges to liberalism are seen not as mere expressions of rebellion against an externally imposed call for imitation of the “West” but as components of the historically shaped illiberal forms of ethos in some areas that are amplified by the systematic propagation of anti-liberal ideologies.

View chapter

Liberalism's Entanglement with Illiberalism

Illiberalism of Their Own Making? A Post-Liberal Critique of Illiberalism Research

by Philipp Lottholz

Abstract

Illiberalism research has helped unpack the exclusion and violence wrought by regressive regimes across the world, but faces contradictions regarding the liberal-democratic ideal against which illiberal politics are analyzed and regarding its theoretical and historical grounding. This chapter elaborates these lines of critique and indicates how a post-liberal framework can better capture and reconcile the complexity of globally entangled political rule. It starts by engaging with recent illiberalism research, pointing to the risk of overlooking regressive and violent forms of ordering in liberal-democratic countries. The next section unpacks these coercive, identitarian, and authoritarian workings of post-World War II liberal democracy, complicating the prevalent narrative that illiberal politics are merely aberrations of otherwise liberal-democratic systems. The fourth section engages with the imperial and (de-)colonial critique of liberal democracy that reveal the racialized nature of the current capitalist order. The conclusion offers reflections on dialogue and analysis needed to consolidate these perspectives.

View chapter

Ghosts of Liberalism Past: Authoritarianism and Nationalism in the Liberal Tradition

by Anatol Lieven

Abstract

A systematic intellectual and political campaign is now under way to portray a clear-cut divide between “liberal democracy” and the mingled forces of authoritarianism and nationalism. As a picture of the longue durée of the past two and a half centuries, this portrait is largely false; and even today, it obscures as much as it illuminates. As a reformist ideology dedicated to smashing inherited traditions and institutions in the name of progress, liberalism has long been highly dependent not just on existing state powers but often on greatly expanded and widened state authority. Liberal programs also depended on the expanded powers of new national states, which in turn depended on nationalism for their legitimacy and mass support. For much of the twentieth century, the linkages between liberalism, authoritarianism, and nationalism were in abeyance in the West; in recent decades, however, these linkages have re-emerged and are likely to grow stronger.

View chapter

Neoliberalism and Its Others

by Reijer Hendrikse

Abstract

Where ongoing debates suggest that neoliberalism is ill, dying, or indeed dead—once again—this chapter sets out how the neoliberal order has increasingly morphed into its “other.” I first unpack key epochs of modern liberalism, having been built on top of each other since the nineteenth century. Although the divide between liberalism and illiberalism is anything but clear in practice, incompatibility with core liberal premises is understood as illiberal. Next, I highlight where and how neoliberalism relates to preceding liberal epochs; how neoliberalism harbors illiberal tendencies within; why it is compatible with politically illiberal regimes, and how it fuels illiberalization domestically and globally. As neoliberalism’s compatibility with its “other” becomes increasingly legible, we not only ought to revisit neoliberalism’s liberal credentials, but understand that modern liberalism has principally functioned as the core ideological ordering rationality undergirding global capitalism, with most liberal premises anything but sacrosanct across time and space.

View chapter

Illiberalism and Fear: The Crisis of Political Legitimacy in Western Liberal Democracies

by Natalie J. Doyle

Abstract

The notion of illiberalism has become increasingly influential in discussions surrounding the dysfunction of the party-based political systems of Western liberal democracies, which increasingly favor the election of populist anti-establishment figures, among them Donald Trump in the United States and Viktor Orbán in Hungary. Illiberalism is now associated with the resurgence of right-wing conservative values, which appear extremist in light of the accelerated social change experienced by Western societies with respect to individual rights or cosmopolitanism. The Covid-19 pandemic and the measures used by Western governments to respond to this presumed existential threat —lockdowns, surveillance technology, mask mandates, and vaccination mandates—have challenged this narrow understanding of illiberalism and highlighted its connection to the loss of legitimacy of democratic politics, which is increasingly managed through a politics of fear. Illiberalism is the byproduct of the destabilization of Western societies (both culturally and economically) by neoliberalism and concomitant attempts by elites to reassert their political authority over fragmented and scared populations.

View chapter

Illiberalism in Liberal Democracies

by Jasper Theodor Kauth

Abstract

How can we account for the persistence of illiberalism in liberal democracies? This chapter first offers a taxonomy of illiberalism to bring clarity to the empirical and theoretical aspects of the concept. Illiberal political practices in liberal democracies can be ordered along three dimensions relating to their relevant actors, targets, and sources: illiberal practices by private and state actors; disruptive illiberalism targeting democratic institutions (democratic backsliding) or liberal values (ideological illiberalism); and illiberalism originating from within the liberal democratic order or imported from outside its boundaries. Such an analytical schema allows researchers to investigate the logics causing illiberalisms as well as their consequences. The chapter then shows that illiberal practices by state actors emerge not only from anti-liberal political ideologies but also from conflicts over societal membership within political liberalism itself. Specific policy areas—illiberal pockets like migration, welfare, and security—are particularly prone to illiberal incursions.

View chapter

Covid-19 and the Left: Toward a Post-Ideological Totalitarianism

by Tove Soiland

Abstract

This chapter argues that the Covid-19 regime shows tendencies of a new form of totalitarianism. The novelty of this form lies in the fact that the authoritarianism of the Corona measures essentially serves the implementation of a new accumulation regime, but in its authoritarianism does not draw on classic insignia of a right-wing fascism. The left, in unreservedly supporting this authoritarianism, has thus taken on a role historically reserved for the right. The danger of such a coalition between a state that serves capital by authoritarian means and the left that supports it is that this authoritarianism no longer appears as such. This new form of totalitarianism is called post-ideological because it seems to renounce a higher ideal by referring to a (supposedly) uniform scientific opinion. Subsequently, any critique of the Corona measures is denied the status of the political, even if it is formulated from an explicitly left perspective.

View chapter

Is There a Left-Wing Illiberalism?

by Emmy Eklundh

Abstract

While considerable scholarly attention has focused on the rise of illiberalism on the right, there has been much less focus on the left. This oversight has obscured the fact that right-wing illiberalism is closely linked to much of the liberal tradition and its undemocratic past. Instead, the true illiberal alternative to contemporary liberal politics comes from the left. Far from posing a threat to democracy, as is often assumed, left-wing illiberalism holds the keys to safeguarding democracy, as it is able to overcome the undemocratic elements embedded in liberalism itself.

View chapter

An Illiberal Left? Assessing Current Anti-Pluralist Political Practices in the West

by Eszter Kováts

Abstract

Representatives of the progressive left in Western academia, social movements, and institutionalized politics aim to increase inclusion and democracy in various policy fields. Meanwhile, their opponents—Marxist leftists, universalist liberals, as well as conservative forces, both within and outside of academia—insist that the progressives’ anti-intellectual, quasi-religious moralizing and authoritarian tendencies threaten academic freedom, free speech, and democracy. Having been ubiquitous in public discourse for years, recently academics have started to describe these phenomena as “illiberal” too, indicating that more research is needed in this field. This chapter examines three policy fields in Germany where these debates are currently playing out: (1) the bill on gender self-identification, (2) gender-inclusive language use, and (3) the emergence of the Academic Freedom Network (Netzwerk Wissenschaftsfreiheit). The concrete political claims being made in these three fields (sex/gender, language, and scientificity/cancel culture) in Germany represent paradigmatic cases of crucial terms of liberal democracy being rewritten. This chapter explores the theoretical underpinnings of these progressive claims and asks to what extent these theories about power, reality, truth, and knowledge contribute to those political practices. It presents the research problems relating to this question using the three cases, as well as draws some preliminary observations relating to the democratic stakes of the debate.

View chapter

Illiberal Intersectionalities: Religion, Gender, Identity

Magical Thinking and Political Myths: Great Replacement versus Creolization

by Pierre-André Taguieff

Abstract

This chapter argues that the tension between rooting and emancipation offers a fruitful way to understand the conflicts of values and norms that arise when addressing the issue of collective identities in modern societies. It addresses two new political myths that offer competing interpretations of contemporary demographic, cultural, and social change: the Great Replacement on one side, the Creolization on the other. The first one is a repulsive and apocalyptic myth, the second is an attractive and redemptive one. Because both myths refuse to address the complexities of belonging and the need for both rootedness and emancipation, they produce new forms of magical thinking that offer no genuine long-term democratic solutions.

View chapter

Christianity and Illiberal Politics

by Anja Hennig

Abstract

This chapter aims to map empirically and frame conceptually the ways in which, particularly in Europe, illiberal politics are linked with “Christianity,” which refers not only to the religion but also to the construction of identity-political narratives. The “Christianity-illiberalism” nexus refers to Christian actors staunchly opposed to progressive morality politics; to a political and secular appropriation of Christianity that opposes the migration of Muslims by constructing them as a civilizational “Other”; to a sense of Christian nationalism; and to the idea of a European (Judeo-)Christian civilization. After systematizing different types of actors, their narratives, and contested issues, the final section offers a typology of how Christianity and illiberal politics are entangled. The chapter concludes by arguing that Christianity can be mobilized in a secularizing Europe because of the ambivalence that is inherent to modernization and globalization, creating a climate for identity-political needs and the appropriation of the illiberal potential of Christian religion.

View chapter

Gender and Illiberal Politics

by Agnieszka Graff and Elżbieta Korolczuk

Abstract

This chapter argues that gender plays a key role in the illiberal project of demonizing liberalism by reducing it to its sociocultural dimension and by culturalizing political cleavages. It explores what is meant by “resistance to gender” and how this trend resonates with core features of the illiberal worldview: its anti-modernism, anti-globalism, anti-individualism, and post-postmodernism. While anti-genderism’s origins are religious, the role of religion in illiberal anti-gender politics is often instrumental. We provide evidence of the convergence between illiberalism and anti-genderism from countries such as Poland, Hungary, Sweden, Spain, and the United States. Finally, the chapter discusses existing conceptualizations of the relationship between anti-genderism on the one hand and illiberalism as well as populism on the other. We propose the concept of opportunistic synergy to capture the growing ideological affinity and developing political collaboration between religious fundamentalists, ultraconservative civil-society actors, and right-wing politicians.

View chapter

Illiberalism and Islam

by Gulnaz Sibgatullina

Abstract

The evolution and spread of illiberalism occurs against the backdrop of increased contact between Muslim-majority countries and Western democracies. This chapter examines two ways in which non-Muslim illiberal movements engage with Islam to define themselves and their agendas. On the one hand, the growing visibility of Muslim groups in the Global North has led to the rise of illiberal discourse that seeks to exclude Muslims by portraying them as a threat. Nevertheless, some illiberal actors instead endorse certain Islamic principles, seek cooperation with Muslim groups, or even convert to Islam. The instrumental use of Islam by illiberal actors relies on images of the religion as a homogeneous, conservative, and male-centered system of faith. The discussion shows that the convergence between illiberal and Muslim elements primarily occurs as a critique of cultural liberalism, and it tends to be driven by expediency, is temporary in nature, and does not challenge existing power relations.

View chapter

Illiberal Memory Politics

by Maria Mälksoo

Abstract

This chapter conceptualizes the parameters of illiberal memory politics against the backdrop of its mirror notion—liberal memory politics—and its respective ethics. If memory politics is an unavoidable aspect of political life, its illiberal version has been pronounced a negative example of liberal memory. Commonly associated with the nationalization and centralization of historical research, restrictions on educational freedom and the advancement of “patriotic” history, and the delegitimization of competing mnemonical narratives—including the securitization of desirable perspectives on the past and the criminalization of undesirable ones—illiberal memory politics places restrictions on freedom of speech and historical research. The present conceptual work delineating the features, goals, and implications of illiberal memory politics is illustrated with examples from militant memory laws and policies in Eastern Europe, as well as contestations around the commemoration of settler colonialism and racist legacies in the United States and the United Kingdom.

View chapter

Illiberalism and the Economy: Globalization and Backlash

Political Economy of Illiberalism

by Maria Snegovaya

Abstract

This chapter discusses the role of economic factors in the rise of illiberal politics in today’s world. Unlike similar studies on this topic, it expands the focus beyond the “usual suspects,” such as populist, nativist, or far-right parties to also include the illiberal ideas, movements, and thought collectives in the conceptualization of illiberal actors driving this wave of democratic backsliding. Such an approach is arguably more instrumental in tracing how and when the ongoing backlash originated before illiberal parties and politicians had a chance to come to power. This chapter seeks to explore today’s illiberal wave by analyzing the role of economic factors such as accumulated frustration with the effects of neoliberalism, financial crises, and globalization. It also analyzes the economic policies embraced by incumbent illiberal parties and leaders. While focusing primary attention on Europe, it also traces parallels across countries’ trajectories in different regional contexts, including Asia and Latin America.

View chapter

Consuming the State: Illiberalism, Protests, and Demands for Redistribution in Kazakhstan

by Diana T. Kudaibergen

Abstract

This chapter explores the phenomenon of spontaneous rallies and contentions organized by groups united by demands for additional and often unsanctioned welfare, namely mothers with multiple children who unite sporadically to seek material gains from the Kazakhstani state. Other groups, especially nationalist and populist groups, are similarly demanding that the state write off certain citizens’ consumer debts on the grounds of these citizens’ rights to share the country’s resources. What unites them is how they justify their demands, even though the protesters are aware that their claims bypass the legal structures already in place. The demands for additional assistance—in the form of housing or of canceling one’s debts—are essentially calls for redistribution, even at the price of discriminating against other groups. These protesters’ claims emanate from the illiberal values these citizens have developed over the years spent living under an illiberal regime with endemic mass-scale corruption.

View chapter

The Trajectory of Illiberal Backlash

by Marco Garrido

Abstract

This chapter traces the trajectory of illiberal backlash in the Philippines. Conceptually, it emphasizes the work of time in the formation of an illiberal disposition. It espouses an historically embedded explanation of illiberalism centered on the question of “why now?” rather than simply “why?” and accounts for dynamics such as sequence, buildup, and contingency. Empirically, it roots the Philippines’ illiberal turn in the serial failures of actually existing liberal democracy. Repeated failure has given rise to calls for “disciplining” democracy. Rodrigo Duterte was seen as a “strong leader” and the answer to such calls, hence his enormous popularity. Over the course of his administration, Filipinos have developed a taste for illiberal rule. The concluding section looks beyond this trajectory to examine another aspect of illiberal backlash: class power. Here I argue that the election of Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos III was partly driven by anti-elitist sentiment, and that, in general, attending to class dynamics can help us appreciate illiberalism’s counterhegemonic aspect.

View chapter

The Illiberalism of Fox News: Theorizing Nationalism and Populism Through the Case of Conservative America’s Number One News Source

by Reece Peck

Abstract

This chapter theorizes the similarities and differences between populism and nationalism through the case of Fox News, conservative America’s main news source. The first sections chart the Fox News careers of Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson to explain the rise of ethno-nationalist discourse in the United States. The nativist logic at the core of their ethno-nationalist politics puts these conservative icons at odds with liberal conceptions of nationhood. The following sections reveal the discursive processes through which Fox pundits like Carlson articulate ethno-nationalist political appeals with populist class critiques. The goal of this programming strategy is, I argue, to create a cross-connotation between ethno-nationalism and populism. Consequently, one type of politics seems to evoke the other. But it is a mistake for analysts to fall for this strategy in their own analysis by conflating populism with ethno-nationalism a priori, a tendency that is all too common in writing on populism.

View chapter

Illiberalism, Left-Wing Populism, and Popular Sovereignty in Latin America

by Julio F. Carrión

Abstract

This chapter discusses the record of left-wing populism in power in relation to the exercise of popular sovereignty. Many left- and right-wing populist leaders claim to want to enhance the “people’s power” and reduce the influence of corrupt elites or politicians. Because populism has a strong illiberal orientation, these leaders seek to monopolize political representation and demonize those who refuse to support them. When unconstrained by existing liberal institutions, their illiberalism leads populist leaders to undermine the popular sovereignty they claim to not only defend but deepen. This manifests in unfair and rigged elections. Their illiberal anti-pluralism means that populist chief executives cannot accept the legitimacy of opposition, especially when it comes from civil society, because it threatens their contention that they are the sole embodiment of “the people.” Without liberal constraints, the illiberalism of populism weakens, not enhances, popular sovereignty. The chapter illustrates these points using evidence from Latin America.

View chapter

Illiberalism in Power: Regimes and Ideology

Autocratization—Not an “Illiberal Turn”

by Matthew C. Wilson, Amanda B. Edgell, Yuko Sato, Vanessa Boese-Schlosser, Staffan I. Lindberg

Abstract

This chapter argues that the concept of autocratization is preferable to alternatives such as democratic backsliding, regression, or illiberal turn. By capturing gradual movements away from democracy across a spectrum of institutions and practices, autocratization is a more encompassing and neutral concept. To that end, the chapter provides an operationalization and an overview of the extent of autocratization in the world over the last century, using the new Episodes of Regime Transformation (ERT) dataset, which draws on original data from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. We show the extent to which democratization has slowed down and autocratization has intensified during the most recent wave of autocratization. The number of countries in an episode of democratization peaked in 1991 at seventy-nine countries, but has since plummeted to sixteen in 2021. Meanwhile, the number of autocratizing countries increased steadily from five in 1990 to thirty-two. Notably, the third wave of autocratization has involved more democracies than autocracies. In 2019, roughly 74 percent of autocratization episodes (twenty-three of thirty-one) were occurring in countries that began as democracies. According to this analysis, the number of countries experiencing autocratization is at an all-time high, despite a slight decline in recent years. While most episodes of autocratization since the early 1900s occurred in countries already scoring low on democracy, suggesting a tendency for instability in autocracies, recent episodes tend to affect more democratic countries, illustrating the fragility of many third-wave democracies.

View chapter

Illiberal Constitutionalism in Central and Eastern European States

by Tímea Drinóczi and Agnieszka Bień-Kacała

Abstract

The post-communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) share a similar history, which created identities and value preferences that could accommodate illiberal constitutionalism. Nevertheless, illiberal constitutionalism has to date emerged only in Hungary and Poland, which have witnessed the gradual transformation of their political and legal systems (albeit to differing extents) over the past decade. The distinctive factor of illiberal transformation seems to be a charismatic leader who is willing to turn the existing constitutionalism into its illiberal version and attracts support for this project. Although other EU member states in the region have exhibited certain patterns of illiberalism, governing majorities have not transformed their respective constitutional systems into illiberal constitutionalism. In these cases, illiberalism—which may take the form of illiberal ideas in society, exclusion of certain ideas and people, and actions against the EU—remains only an element in political discourse rather than a dominating fact within constitutional and political regimes.

View chapter

From Backsliding to Illiberalism and Beyond: Law and Regressive Political Change in Brazil, India, and South Africa

by Fabio de Sa e Silva

Abstract

Around the world, scholars and citizens are facing winds of “democratic backsliding,” leading to “hybrid” regimes that feature elections (democracy) but lack political liberalism. The role of legal reforms and tools in such changes has become central to various interdisciplinary projects—including the Project on Autocratic Legalism (PAL). This chapter builds on PAL data from three large Global South democracies (Brazil, India, and South Africa) to examine the links between law and illiberalism in the multiple and contested definitions of the latter. The chapter arrives at three propositions: (1) there is fertile ground for studies connecting illiberalism and law, as evidence grows that law plays an intricate role in the erosion of liberalism within and across countries; (2) in these studies, attacks on liberalism must be understood broadly as targeting not just political liberalism but also liberal experiences and legacies more generally; and (3) studies of law and illiberalism must unfold in relation also to broader conceptions of freedom and equality.

View chapter

Illiberalism as a Key to De-Democratization: The Case of Turkey

by Elise Massicard

Abstract

Political developments in Turkey in the last decade have been conceived in the academic literature mostly in terms of de-democratization/autocratization and, more recently, populism—and much less in terms of illiberalism. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2002 with a liberalization program, not only on an economic level but also on a political platform of defending less state intervention and protecting rights and pluralism. Within a few years, however, the same rulers began to heavily restrict checks and balances, the rule of law, and basic rights and freedoms. This chapter argues that considering these developments in terms of illiberalism—by disentangling democracy and liberalism—provides new insights. It is based on the study of the political practices of the AKP in office and their evolution. It suggests ways to operationalize the notion of illiberalism in the recent Turkish experience, showing the analytical perspectives this case offers.

View chapter

Facets of India’s Illiberalism

by Christophe Jaffrelot

Abstract

Since 2014, India’s illiberalism has found expression in the authoritarian politics of the Modi government. Since then, checks and balances have declined, dissenting voices have been repressed, and the concentration of power (including economic power) in the hands of a few people has increased. This new orientation relies on an ethno-nationalist ideology, Hindutva, that is embodied in a century-old movement, the RSS, which has developed a huge network across society (including a student union and a labor union). This network comprises vigilante groups that—backed by the ruling party, the BJP—routinely target religious minorities, including Muslims. Anti-individualism, the social dimension of the Hindu nationalist brand of illiberalism, translates into hierarchies inherited from the caste system. Gender relations are also articulated in a traditionalist manner. Society being seen as a living organism, the state is not supposed to play a major role in this brand of illiberalism.

View chapter

Contending Illiberalisms in the People’s Republic of China

by Eva Pils

Abstract

After 1976, the autocratic Chinese party-state introduced economic reforms and mechanisms of “ruling the country in accordance with law” (yi fa zhi guo) that reflected the limited official recognition of liberal legal principles and prompted limited toleration of some freedoms. However, the Chinese leadership has since attempted autocratic reclosure, characterized by intensified domestic and transnational repression. This paper argues that the sovereigntist and anti-pluralist justification narratives advanced by China’s “New Left” (xin zuo pai) in support of changes to the Chinese party-state system under Xi Jinping are a form of droitisation “in the mirror.” These narratives echo and amplify illiberal and anti-globalist discourses directed against a world order supposedly dominated by “the West.” However, some of the views of a global populist and libertarian right wing are also being absorbed by persecuted oppositional groups within China. Together, these shifts weaken liberalism in China and strengthen illiberalism at a global level.

View chapter

Biopolitics and Illiberalism: A Critical Approach to Putin’s Russia

by Alexandra Yatsyk

Abstract

This chapter examines how the biopolitical approach can help to unpack the illiberal backsliding of national states. It demonstrates the Russian state’s illiberal degradation toward totalitarianism from the beginning of Putin’s presidency in the 2000s, moving from the “power of life” to the “power of death.” The chapter argues that the biopolitical approach revealed the Kremlin’s totalitarian potential during the presidency of Dmitry Medvedev in 2008–2012. Since 2012, Moscow has been intensively applying biopolitical regulations to consolidate Russian society on the basis of conservative values and imperial ressentiment. Body-oriented discourse has become popular among Russian politicians due to its ability to substitute post-ideological forms for public politics. As Putin’s regime continues to solidify, it replaces politico-ideological arguments with force and violence against political opponents. This chapter tells the story of the Kremlin’s zoe- and thanatopoliticization through the normalization of violence, its ultimate manifestation being the full-fledged war with Ukraine.

View chapter

Illiberalism and the World: The Global (Dis)Order

The International Politics of Illiberalism

by Hadas Aron and Jack Snyder

Abstract

Illiberalism has become an increasingly important force in global politics in recent decades. Though it draws its legitimation from the foundation of liberalism—the sovereignty of the people—it nonetheless represents a backlash against liberal values and the global liberal order. Illiberals in power in different countries share a similar discourse of rejection of liberal values, cosmopolitan globalism, and neoliberal economics. They employ similar methods of rule, including an authoritarian concentration of power, the elimination of checks and balances, and clientelist practices. However, the inherently transactional nature of illiberalism and its preoccupation with national sovereignty limit cooperation among illiberals. This puts them at a disadvantage with liberal states in many aspects of international competition. The chapter lays out a theory of the international behavior of illiberal regimes, demonstrating the points of similarity and connection between illiberals in power and their ultimate lack of a strong basis for mutual cooperation.

View chapter

The Illiberal Global Politics of Religions and Civilizations

by Gregorio Bettiza

Abstract

Religious and civilizational politics are widely recognized as powerful forces challenging key norms of the liberal international order in the twenty-first century. The chapter begins by emphasizing that religions and civilizations are not inherently illiberal phenomena incompatible with liberal principles and values. Upon clearing this conceptual ground, it turns to highlighting how resurging religious and civilizational politics are nonetheless involved in significant forms and processes of liberal contestation. On the one hand, much of the contemporary illiberal (global) politics of religion is implicated in a rejection of evolving transnational norms on gender, sexuality, and family associated with a cultural liberal script; on the other hand, the illiberal (global) politics of civilizationism mostly contests certain universalist, cosmopolitan, and globalist principles associated with liberal internationalism. While noting that the illiberal politics of religion and civilization can overlap and reinforce each other, both express an ambivalent and contextually specific attitude toward political liberalism.

View chapter

Illiberal Peace? Illiberalism in Peacebuilding, Mediation, and Conflict Resolution

by David Lewis

Abstract

Since the early 1990s, international responses to civil wars and conflicts have been dominated by a set of liberal discourses and practices that are often labeled “liberal peacebuilding.” But in the last decade, liberal peacebuilding has faced a growing range of challenges. In a series of recent conflicts, many states have rejected liberal ideas of peaceful negotiation to resolve conflicts. These policy responses have been described as forms of “illiberal peacebuilding,” a form of conflict management designed to end violent conflict through illiberal mechanisms. The terms “illiberal peace,” “illiberal peacebuilding,” “authoritarian peace,” and “authoritarian conflict management” all describe a form of conflict management that seeks to establish political order through top-down, state-centric methods, including the use of violence, while tactics of co-optation, corruption, and patronage are used to encourage compliance. This chapter explores the emergence of this phenomenon and the challenge it poses to existing ideas and practices of international peacebuilding.

View chapter

Illiberalism in the Global South and the Rise of China and Russia

by Erica Marat

Abstract

Illiberal governance is on the rise across the globe. In parallel, China and Russia are increasing their investments and political presence in many countries. This chapter argues that both actors are leveraging existing illiberal trends in the Global South to expand their global reach. I focus on three countries—Brazil, South Africa, and Pakistan—to demonstrate how the rise of domestic illiberalism, fueled by polarized politics, corruption, and an appeal to traditional values, has turned both China and Russia into attractive international partners in otherwise pro-Western and democratic countries of the Global South. Particularly  appealing are China’s one- party political system, responsible for the country’s economic growth, and Beijing’s investment in large infrastructure projects, as well as Russia’s positioning of the Orthodox Church at the center of domestic politics and its Soviet-era ties with the Global South.

Forthcoming

Beyond the Strong Leader: The Grassroots Actors of Illiberalism

Illiberal Revolts: on Grassroots Theorizing and Practicing of Illiberalism

by Agniezska Pasieka and David Petruccelli

Abstract

This chapter explores illiberalism at the grassroots level using both historical and anthropological lenses. Engaging in an investigation of both interwar and present-day il(liberalism), we uncover the process by which illiberals and liberals have reworked their ideologies in reference to the other and to their own readings of the past. Comparing contemporary illiberal youth movements in Poland and Italy with their interwar counterparts— particularly Corneliu Zelea Codreanu’s Romanian Holy Legion—we identify anti-individualism as a common thread uniting illiberal actors, past and present. Through this investigation, we begin to fill the gap in research focused specifically on grassroots illiberalism, and also contribute to efforts to further refine our understanding of illiberalism.

View chapter

Grassroots Origins of Russia’s Illiberalism

by Ivan Grek

Abstract

Conventional interpretations of civil society tend to present horizontal associations as an exclusively liberal phenomenon. However, civil societies can be illiberal and project illiberal values on state institutions. The literature identifies a cluster of horizontal associations in Eastern Europe that provide support to illiberal democracies, such as Poland and Hungary, through their ties with populist political parties and conservative church organizations. This chapter demonstrates that a similar trend existed in 1990s Russia and resulted in the ascendance of Vladimir Putin’s illiberal hegemony. After the collapse of the USSR, middle- and upper-middle-class citizens started to engage the Russian Orthodox Church and regional politicians in the creation of a variety of conservative civic organizations, which promoted a resurrection of Orthodox values and helped to build the foundations of a new political Russian conservatism through many projects, from school reforms to influencing the Russian Constitution and legislation.

View chapter

Illiberal Think Tanks

by Katarzyna Jezierska

Abstract

Think tanks, or organizations producing and disseminating policy knowledge to influence policymakers, are a given element of political systems around the globe. Depending on the national opportunity structure, think tanks take different forms. Individual think tanks usually represent a given ideological orientation or set of values. This chapter studies think tanks that align with the illiberal political agenda in Poland. These organizations, most of which self-identify as conservative, have played a significant role in the electoral success of Law and Justice, and after the party gained power, they have helped sustain the illiberal political orientation by providing the government with policy ideas and communicating policy decisions to the broader public domestically and abroad. Conservative think tanks form the intellectual infrastructure for the illiberal government, both proactively inspiring the illiberal agenda and reactively legitimizing it to external audiences. Benefiting from illiberal policymaking, they form the illiberal knowledge regime.

View chapter

Transnational Illiberal Networks

by Kristina Stoeckl and Phillip M. Ayoub

Abstract

This chapter analyzes both the emergence and the global diffusion of transnational actor networks that pursue illiberal political goals, such as the restriction of women’s and LGBTI rights. The timeline for analysis starts around 1995, when the inclusion of women’s and other gender-related issues on the United Nations’ human-rights agenda caused an international conservative religious reaction. The chapter gives an overview of relevant actors in transnational illiberal networks, homing in on the World Congress of Families as an example, and it analyzes the claims and strategies that make the collaboration between illiberal, conservative, and oft-nationalist actors possible. Our central claims are that transnational illiberal networks have global reach and bring together unusual suspects among far-right politicians, religious leaders, business sponsors, and civil-society activists. These strange bedfellows have been galvanized through vilifying rival networks—those representing liberal and progressive norm mobilization, such as the women’s and LGBTI rights movements—as threats.

View chapter

Media and Illiberalism

by Václav Štětka and Sabina Mihelj

Abstract

This chapter provides a critical overview of existing work on media and illiberalism, alongside research that examines issues of media and illiberalism under other headings (principally, populism, democratic deconsolidation, and conservatism). It starts by discussing present uses of “illiberalism” in the study of media and communication and draws on those uses—together with existing definitions of illiberalism in other disciplines—to propose a working definition of the term for media and communication scholarship. We define media illiberalism as a set of ideas and practices that undermine the ideological and institutional underpinnings of liberal democracy, and that either are enabled by media and communication technologies or affect the way they are used. With these conceptual considerations in mind, we then map three different scenarios of interaction between media and illiberalism: media as aids of illiberalism, media as victims of illiberalism, and media as channels of resistance to illiberalism. We conclude the chapter by pointing to some of the possible avenues for future research.

View chapter

Thinking Illiberalism: Intellectual Traditions and Renaissances

Illiberalism in the Doctrine of the Catholic Church and in the Works of Catholic Authors (19th-20th Centuries)

by Jean-Yves Camus

Abstract

The doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church has, since the Middle Ages, been very critical of any progress in the field of human activity, from money lending to the structure of the traditional family. The ideas that the King had to be anointed by God in order to be a legitimate sovereign and that society had to follow the Scriptures in order to function properly meant that the idea of democracy was not readily acceptable to the Church. It was only in the 20th century that it became obvious to the Church that it needed to adapt to democratic government in order to continue to have a say in secular affairs. This chapter aims to show the political and theological reasons why the Catholic Church was often at odds with liberal democracy and to what extent the proponents of illiberal democracy borrow from the Traditional Catholic tradition, and in some cases from the counter-revolutionary school of thought.

View chapter

Three Faces of Postliberalism

by Adrian Pabst

Abstract

Postliberalism is a multifaceted current of ideas that aims to correct the errors and excesses of liberalism. It encompasses a number of shared ideas, including society as a covenant rather than a contract, liberty as freedom of care for oneself and others, and individual fulfillment combined with mutual flourishing. This chapter explores three faces of postliberalism: National Conservatism, Catholic integralism, and communitarian pluralism, arguing that the first is both antiliberal and ultraliberal rather than postliberal, while the second combines a postliberal political economy with a cultural vision that privileges the nation-state and confessional religion. The third face is more truly postliberal in offering constructive alternatives to contemporary liberalism anchored in a personalist outlook. A postliberal politics needs to build a pluralist democracy, decentralize the state, and promote mutualist markets. Only a postliberalism fusing economic justice with social solidarity and ecological balance can overcome deep divisions and avert an authoritarian backlash.

View chapter

American Illiberal Thinkers

by Joshua Tait

Abstract

Given the dominant place of liberalism in the United States, American conservatism has always been post-liberal. The illiberal scripts and tools were present in the American conservative movement in its earliest articulations. American illiberalism’s leading voices in the United States emerged from conservatism, both intellectually and institutionally. “Traditionalist” intellectuals were most post-liberal. Due to alliances with classical liberals and libertarians against political liberals (both New Deal Democrats and liberal Republicans), and historical contingencies, the dominant formulation of American conservatism—“fusionism”—minimized illiberal scripts in favor of a right-wing liberalism. The social, economic, cultural, and political bases of fusionism collapsed in the 1990s. Illiberalism gained new resonance, particularly via Patrick Buchanan and paleoconservatism. Donald Trump’s election accelerated this trend. Contemporary illiberal thinkers can be broadly categorized as Catholic, national conservatives, and neoreactionaries, although the boundaries are porous. Both the traditionalist and illiberal right have drawn on European thought while indigenizing it.

View chapter

The Role of Éric Zemmour in the “Right-Wingization” of France

by Périne Schir

Abstract

France is currently experiencing a “right-wingization” of its public debate, as far-right ideas become largely detached from politics and are being spread among the academia, journalism, or the literary milieu. Éric Zemmour, a famous French journalist who became a far-right candidate for president in 2022, seems to represent a new stage in this process. His hitherto marginal ideas, with xenophobic, misogynistic, and homophobic themes, are now prospering in the public debate without serious counterweight. While his mediocre electoral results in 2022 may suggest that he has lost a battle, his ability to impose his pet themes—like nativism and traditional gender norms—in the political debate seems to suggest that he is winning the war. In this chapter, we offer a detailed textual study of the content and discursive techniques of Zemmour’s best-selling 2014 political essay, Suicide français, in which he opposes liberal ideology as cultural hegemony. Our hypothesis is that Zemmour is the French version of a transnational trend that has been rising for several decades, in which illiberal thinkers have been able to position themselves at the forefront of the current “culture war”.

View chapter

The Illiberalism(s) of Polish Conservative Intellectuals

by Valentin Behr

Abstract

Drawing on intellectual history and the sociology of intellectuals, this chapter takes a close look at the critiques of liberalism that have been formulated by Polish conservative intellectuals since the end of the communist era. It depicts the evolution of their ideology by distinguishing four types of critiques: (1) liberalism as a dominant ideology, in the context of the postcommunist changes; (2) liberalism as moral relativism; (3) liberalism as a threat to the natural (social and political) order; and (4) liberalism as Westernization/colonization. It also depicts the environment in which the intellectuals under study are evolving, comprising academia, the media, think tanks, the political landscape. Such an approach permits us to understand the social mechanisms and dynamics by which ideas gain power, and to identify what is contextual (i.e., specific to the Polish or postcommunist context) and what is common to a broader context of the global (far) right.

View chapter

Russia’s Illiberal Conservatism

by Katharina Bluhm

Abstract

In recent years, illiberalism as a counter-hegemonic movement against contemporary Western liberalism and global capitalism has developed into a right-wing, national-conservative project which, once again in history, stands in opposition to liberalism and communism. Russia’s illiberal conservatives constitute a more radical part of this larger movement. This chapter analyzes two major ideological strands of Russia’s illiberal conservatism: (1) a conservative-revolutionary strand that views Russia as an empire with a unique civilization, and (2) an evolutionary nationalist conservatism aiming at construction of a nation-state. Proponents of the first strand aggressively oppose the West, while supporters of the second have hoped for a transformation of Putin’s regime without completely breaking with the West. Both strands position themselves in relation to contemporary Western liberalism and its perceived crisis. While both embraced the annexation of Crimea and the “Russian Spring” in Donbas, they have responded differently to the 2022 war in Ukraine, which has finally ended the evolutionary nationalist project.

View chapter