ArticlePublisher preview available

Citizens’ responses to populists in the borderland between tolerance and intolerance

February 2023
Comparative European Politics 21(2):1-19

Authors:

Aarhus University

Having predominantly focused on the vertical relation between the state and (groups of) citizens, the literature on political toleration has neglected the practice of toleration in the horizontal relations between citizens and parties. This article remedies this in the context of discussing what practicing toleration implies in responses by civil society actors and pro-democratic parties to populist parties, who have an ambiguous commitment to the principles of liberal democracy. The article develops the basic features of a theory of political toleration covering both ideal and non-ideal circumstances. In continuation of the empirical cases analysed in this special issue, it argues that what can be considered tolerant responses varies with the circumstances and the nature of the political process, and, further, that there is an intermediary conceptual space, a borderland, between toleration and non-toleration, which indicates that toleration and non-toleration are not a matter of a clean dichotomous difference. The justifiability of responses, which are placed in this borderland and even beyond, increases when it becomes clear that populists do not merit toleration.

The borderland between tolerance and intolerance

…

Responses to populists between toleration and non-toleration

…

Figures - available from: Comparative European Politics

This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.

A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.

Learn more

Content available from Comparative European Politics

This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.

Vol:.(1234567890)

Comparative European Politics (2023) 21:866–884

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-023-00342-8

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Citizens’ responses topopulists intheborderland

betweentolerance andintolerance

ToreVincentsOlsen1

Accepted: 4 February 2023 / Published online: 16 February 2023

Abstract

Having predominantly focused on the vertical relation between the state and (groups

of) citizens, the literature on political toleration has neglected the practice of tol-

eration in the horizontal relations between citizens and parties. This article reme-

dies this in the context of discussing what practicing toleration implies in responses

by civil society actors and pro-democratic parties to populist parties, who have an

ambiguous commitment to the principles of liberal democracy. The article develops

the basic features of a theory of political toleration covering both ideal and non-ideal

circumstances. In continuation of the empirical cases analysed in this special issue,

it argues that what can be considered tolerant responses varies with the circum-

stances and the nature of the political process, and, further, that there is an interme-

diary conceptual space, a borderland, between toleration and non-toleration, which

indicates that toleration and non-toleration are not a matter of a clean dichotomous

diﬀerence. The justiﬁability of responses, which are placed in this borderland and

even beyond, increases when it becomes clear that populists do not merit toleration.

Keywords Populism· Political tolerance· Democratic defence· Non-ideal theory·

Parties· Civil society

Introduction

The case studies reported in this special issue analyse tolerant and intolerant modes

of engagement with populists. In relation to populists, the question of tolerance

emerges for two reasons. The ﬁrst is that some might object to the policies that pop-

ulists propose, for example with regard to immigration, family and education, just as

they would with any other political opponent. The other reason is that some popu-

lists, as discussed by Bourne (2023), Malkopoulou and Moﬃtt (2023) and Tuovinen

(2023) in this issue, do not have an unequivocal commitment to the principles of

* Tore Vincents Olsen

tvo@ps.au.dk

1 Department ofPolitical Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 7, 8000Aarhus, Denmark

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Increasing toleration for the intolerant? “Adapted militancy” and German responses to Alternative für Deutschland

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2023
Comp Eur Polit

Benedicte Laumond

While Germany is often conceived as the “ideal type” militant democracy, until the emergence of the AfD in 2013, the absence of a successful right-wing populist party made it an exceptional case in Europe. Unlike most former targets of militant democracy, the AfD accepts rules of the liberal democracy. This raises the central question addressed in the article: How does the emergence of a populist right-wing party affect practices of German militant democracy? I argue that AfD opponents have developed an adapted militancy towards the right-wing populist party. Data on initiatives opposing the AfD between 2013 and 2021 show that AfD opponents use a full range of initiatives spanning both tolerant and intolerant modes of engagement. If the proportion of tolerant initiatives is somewhat unexpected, intolerant responses were progressively introduced. With the help of semi-structured interviews conducted with the authors of initiatives opposing the AfD, I argue that four factors help explain the developments of initiatives against the right-wing populist party: the radicalization of the AfD; the militant democratic legacy in Germany; the distribution of power among AfD opponents; and learning dynamics affecting political actors, public authorities, and civil society groups differently.

Normalizing and Absorbing the Radical Right: The Danish People’s Party

Chapter

Sep 2024

Mathias Holst Nicolaisen

This chapter presents the results of a study of opposition to the Danish People’s Party undertaken by domestic and international actors from civil society, political parties, and public authorities. I map opposition using Bourne’s (2023) typology of opposition to populist parties, with data collected from newspapers between 1997 to 2001, and 2014 to 2019. The Danish model of democratic defence is characterized by a tolerant approach that has integrated and—over time—come to recognize the values and policies of the Danish People’s Party. The party was generally tolerated early on, despite being subject to failed attempts at ostracism by the Social Democratic-led government, and various actors using demonizing discourse and condemnation to distance themselves from it. After having established itself as support party for the Liberals-led governments in the 2000s, the Social Democrats and the centre-right parties intensified cooperation and co-optation strategies, thus recognizing and endorsing the primary policy of the Danish People’s Party, immigration. Alongside normalization of the Danish People’s Party, mainstream parties radicalized, leading civil society actors to conceive not only the Danish People’s Party as a threat to liberal values and the protection of refugees and minorities, but its governing partners as well.

Looking Back and Looking Forward: Evaluating the Typology, Explaining Patterns, and Effectiveness of Opposition

Chapter

Sep 2024

Angela Bourne

This chapter departs from the conclusion substantiated earlier in the book that in most, if not all, cases, opposition to populist parties in Europe is best conceived as Democratic Defence as Normal Politics. Reflecting on future research agendas, it discusses how research presented in this book can help to further understand the implications of the recent success of populist parties in Europe, and their transformation from a class of political pariahs into an integral part of Europe’s governing apparatus. Drawing on reflections from the country case studies, the chapter evaluates the Typology of Initiatives Opposing Populist Parties (IoPPs), pointing to a small number of ‘borderland cases’ which appear to have features of both tolerant and intolerant modes of engagement. Drawing further on arguments from the country case studies and other literature, the chapter then reflects on possible explanations for variation in patterns of IoPPs, including why intolerant IoPPs were rarely used against populist parties, why competing parties were more likely to use cooperative strategies than ostracism, when and how civil society actors opposed populist parties, and why international and transnational actors intervened in the domestic politics of opposition to populist parties. The chapter ends by reflecting on the application of theory developed elsewhere for studying the effectiveness of IoPPs.

Integrating the Polarizing Pariah: The Sweden Democrats

Chapter

Sep 2024

Mathias Holst Nicolaisen

This chapter presents the results of a study of opposition to the Sweden Democrats undertaken by domestic and international actors from civil society, political parties, and public authorities. I map opposition using Bourne’s (2023) typology of opposition to populist parties, with data collected from newspapers during three periods spanning 2014–2023. This period covers political intolerance towards the Sweden Democrats through to its normalization as a support party for a mainstream right government in 2022. The Swedish model of opposition to populist parties is characterized by polarization. The data shows that domestic political parties are predominant actors, applying both tolerant and intolerant initiatives. Indeed, for several years, Swedish politics were dominated by questions pertaining to the Sweden Democrats’ pivotal position in parliament. Civil society actors were also active opponents, using mainly tolerant means, although many civil society actors supported political ostracism and some initiatives lie at the boundary of intolerance and tolerance. Before cooperating formally, right-wing political parties occupied an ambiguous position, refusing to cooperate but accepting Sweden Democrats’ support. The analysis shows that democratic defence motivated ostracism but ended for the political right when it conflicted with office and policy goals.

Initiatives opposing populist parties in Europe: types, methods, and patterns

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2023
Comp Eur Polit

Angela Bourne

Departing from a critique of existing classification schemes in work on ‘militant’ and ‘defending’ democracy, the article presents a new typology for classifying initiatives opposing populist parties (IoPPs). The typology incorporates public authorities, political parties and civil society actors operating at state and supranational levels along one dimension, and tolerant and intolerant modes of engagement with populist parties on another dimension. The six types of opposition identified—rights-restrictions, ostracism, coercive confrontation, ordinary legal controls and pedagogy, forbearance, and adversarialism—are illustrated with empirical examples of opposition from populist parties in opposition and government, and by domestic actors and international organisations. The article then turns to outline methods for collecting data on IoPPs in contemporary Europe using a newspaper sampling techniques inspired by protest event and political claims analysis as a starting point. The final section presents four patterns of opposition to populist parties, ‘adapted-militancy’ (Germany), ‘political competition’ (Denmark); a ‘pincer-movement’ (Poland), and ‘differentiated ordinary opposition’ (Italy) models.

How not to respond to populism

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2023
Comp Eur Polit

Although the nature and definition of populism are a source of considerable disagreement, there seems to be a minimal consensus by now that populism poses a number of threats to liberal democracy, and that public authorities should therefore act in defence of the latter. In searching for appropriate responses, however, most scholars draw from strategies for combatting anti-democratic or extremist parties, without considering the important differences between populist parties and these other political actors. We argue that the two central types of democratic defence—the ‘intolerant’ militant democratic defence and the ‘tolerant’ defence—do not offer satisfying responses to populist parties precisely because they were conceived and developed as responses to different phenomena. For public authorities to successfully address populism, responses need to contain its most egregious characteristics, yet salvage its productive side.

Resisting ambiguously anti-democratic parties: What role for the state, political parties and civil society?

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2023
Comp Eur Polit

Juha Tuovinen

This paper considers how ambiguously anti-democratic political parties can be responded to in an effort to protect the constitutional system. The first part of the paper presents the idea of an ambiguously anti-democratic party and the potential dangers these may pose to the constitutional system. The central idea is that threats to democratic states arise often from parties who are able to disguise their anti-democratic ambitions. The second part considers the different ways in which public authorities, political parties and civil society have responded to ambiguously anti-democratic parties and how their different roles and positions in the constitutional system affect the way in which they can respond to different aspects of these parties. Broadly speaking, the different actors respond to different actions by the ambiguously anti-democratic party, creating different opportunities to oppose ambiguously anti-democratic parties. The final section considers some synergies between the different types of actors and their responses as well as the choice between tolerant and intolerant modes of engaging ambiguously anti-democratic parties, arguing in favor of modes that expose the intolerant nature of anti-democratic parties.

Tolerance in Conflict: Past and Present

Book

Jan 2013

Rainer Forst

Citizens’ Actions against Non-liberal-democratic Parties

Article

Sep 2022

Tore Vincents Olsen

Political parties are important for the functioning and consolidation of democracy – citizens should defend their rights against parties with agendas that conflict with the principles of liberal democracy – the types of actions that are permissible for citizens depends on the conditions of political legitimacy and the closeness to power of non-liberal-democratic parties – theories of both (un-)civil disobedience and violent self-defence are relevant here

A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition

Book

Dec 1999

John Rawls

Defending democracy politically

Article

Nov 2021

Tore Vincents Olsen

Liberal democracy is being challenged by non-liberal democratic parties (NLDPs). The literature on ‘protecting democracy’ discusses what kind of legal, cultural, socio-economic and political measures are right for countering NLDPs. This article focuses on political measures such as exclusion, collaboration and policy co-optation, which seem particularly promising because in contrast to other measures, they do not rely on state coercion but on the voluntary reactions of mainstream parties to their political peers. Still, collaboration and co-optation may involve compromises with core principles of liberal democracy. Based on the ethics of compromise, the article therefore asks to what extent it is permissible and obligatory for mainstream parties to venture into compromises in order to safeguard liberal democratic principles. It investigates three scenarios, one in which NLDPs are in opposition and two in which they are in government and, respectively, have/have not (yet) altered liberal democratic institutions. It argues that the space for compromise is larger the greater the threat is to the latter, but also that certainty about the effects of compromise is essential to their permissibility. Where certainty is lacking, the default political measure should be exclusion due to the moral loss and responsibility involved in making compromises.

Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy

Chapter