Party Proscription, Militant Democracy and Party System Institutionalization
Prescribing Democracy? Party Proscription, Militant Democracy and Party System Institutionalization Angela K. Bourne and Fernando Casal Bértoa Introduction When democracies ban political parties, one of the central issues that usually emerges in both public and academic debate concerns the effects of proscription. Some argue that proscription may lead to radicalisation, a growth of militancy and readiness to use violence (Minkenberg, 2006, 36). Restrictions on the party may be only temporary especially if a party has deep social and ideological roots in a community, or if state authorities are reluctant to prevent the party re-emerging under a different name (ibid, 37; Husbands, 2002, 64) The party ban is not a suitable mechanism for the „civic re-education‟ of extremists (Husbands, 2002, 64) and may merely treat the symptoms rather than the more complex underlying causes of dissatisfaction with the status quo (Gordon, 1987, 389). Ban proceedings may increase public exposure and opportunities to claim martyrdom or reinforce anti-establishment critiques (ibid, 391). Some also argued that, in the long-run, banning parties may damage the foundations of a democratic polity: The party ban may be interpreted as „lack of faith in the democratic process‟ and an „admission of failure‟ (ibid, 390) or its „chilling effect‟ may signify a silent weakening of democratic rights in the state (Niesen, 2002, 256). On the other hand, proscription may be punishing for the targeted party, as the „cost of claim- making increases across the board and for particular members‟ (Tilly, 2005, 218). A party subject to ban proceedings may see its room for manoeuvre, its visibility and mobilising capacity severely curtailed by reductions in its organisational and financial resources, access to the media and through stigmatisation.
[Show full text]