Book of Abstracts

1 Table of Contents

Director’s Welcome 3

Conference Schedule 4

Day 1 - Keynote 1: John Keane, 9:00 - 10:00am 10 The New Populism and the Refusals of Civil Society...... 10

Day 1 - Parallel Session 1: 10:30 - 12:00pm 11 Room 1: Democracy, Deliberation and Dialogue �� 11 Room 2: Political Theory, Populism and the Far-Right �� 12 Room 3: Comparing Populisms �� 14

Day 1 - Keynote 2: Ruth Wodak, 1:00 - 2:00pm 16 'Austrian Ibiza' and 'Italian Moscow'...: A Politics of Shameless Normalization...... 16

Day 1 - Parallel Session 2: 2:30 - 4:00pm 17 Room 1: Populism in South Asia I �� 17 Room 2: Populism, Liberalism and Citizenship �� 19 Room 3: Refugees, Migration and Populist Rhetoric I �� 20

Day 1 - Parallel Session 3: 4:00 - 5:30pm 22 Room 1: Populism in South Asia II �� 22 Room 2: The Left and Progressive Populisms �� 23 Room 3: Refugees, Migration and Populist Rhetoric II �� 25

Day 2 - Keynote 3: Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, 9:00 - 10:00am 26 The 'Migration Gap': Research, Policy-Making and Populism in Democracy...... 26

Day 2 - Parallel Session 4: 10:30 - 12:00pm 27 Room 1: Authoritarianism and Populism in Islam �� 27 Room 2: Measuring and Managing Populisms �� 29 Room 3: Populism and Politics in Latin America �� 31

Day 2 - Plenary Panel 1: 1:00 - 2:00pm 32 Populism Beyond the Anglosphere �� 32

Day 2 - Parallel Session 5: 2:30 - 4:00pm 34 Room 1: East and South East Asian Populisms �� 34 Room 2: New Media and Populism �� 35 Day 2 - Parallel Session 6: 4:00 - 5:30pm 36 Room 1: Populism and Democracy Across Asia and Africa �� 36 Room 2: Populism and Political Parties �� 37

Day 3 - Keynote 4: Tamir Bar-On, 9:00 - 10:00am 39 Fascism, Populism, or Democracy? Problems With the Literature on the Radical Right...... 39

Day 3 - Parallel Session 7: 10:30 - 12:00pm 40 Room 1: Populist Demagoguery and Democracy �� 40 Room 2: Democracy, Cosmopolitanism and Violence �� 41 Room 3: Science, Technology and Democracy �� 43

Day 3 - Parallel Session 8: 1:00 - 2:30pm 44 Room 1: Australian Politics and Populisms �� 44 Room 2: Populism and Political Leadership �� 45

Day 3 - Parallel Session 9: 2:30 - 4:00pm 47 Room 1: Australian Foreign Policy and Liberalism �� 47 Room 2: Liberalism, Populism and Climate Change �� 48

Day 3 - Plenary Panel 2: 4:30 - 5:30pm 50 The Future of Populism and Democracy? �� 50 Director’s Welcome I am delighted to welcome you to ‘After Liberalism? Populism and the Future of Democracy’, the third in our new Annual International Conference series for the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation.

There is no doubt that we are currently witnessing new movements of contestations that question long held assumptions about democracy, world order and citizens’ involvement in domestic and global affairs. The level and intensity of some of these disruptions and contestations extend across sectors and geographies: from a rise in populist ideologies and Right-wing extremism, to the sudden outbreak of the so-called 'fourth wave' of democracy sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa, to new patterns of human mobility and forced migration, as well as a rising global consciousness around sustainable development and environmental concerns.

This conference captures these dynamics and their inherent related tensions and reflects on some of the key challenges and opportunities facing democracies today.

The Alfred Deakin Institute is dedicated to undertaking problem-oriented research into the political and social issues associated with globalising processes. This conference recognises the distinctly multi-disciplinary approach that this dedication must take, bringing together scholars and experts from a diverse range of research areas including politics, international relations, religion and diversity, migration studies, history and cultural studies.

I would like to officially thank the organising committee, which included Benjamin Isakhan, Steven Slaughter, Amy Nethery, Peter Ferguson, and Maria Rae, who have worked tirelessly this year to put together this superb three-day program. I would also like to acknowledge our dedicated team of administrative and professional staff in ADI who supported the organising committee and all of you in ensuring the smooth running of the conference.

I look forward to the various sessions, panels and lively discussions that this conference promises to deliver.

Alfred Deakin Professor Fethi Mansouri Director, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation

Twitter: @FethiMansouri

Youth Futures: Connection and Mobility in the Asia Pacific 15 – 16 November 2018 Deakin Downtown

3 Conference Schedule

Wednesday 20 November

8:00 - 8:30am Registration

8:30 - 9:00am Welcome

Boon Wurrung Elder Welcome to Country

Fethi Mansouri Director, Alfred Deakin Institute

Benjamin Isakhan Convenor, After Liberalism Conference

9:00 - 10:00am Keynote John Keane The New Populism and the Refusals of Civil Society

10:00 - 10:30am Morning Tea

10:30 - 12:00pm Parallel Session 1 Room 1: Mike Hardy Dialogue, Inequality and the Dying of Democracy: The Politics Democracy, of Exclusion Deliberation and Russell Varley The Content of Public Deliberation: Towards a Normative Dialogue Standards Approach Room 2: Political Matt Sharpe Heidegger After Liberalism? Philosophy and the Far Right in Theory, Populism the Age of Neofascism and the Far-Right Paul Geri Gray Populism, ‘the Mob’ and Arendt’s Dreyfus Analysis: Parallels for Today Ronald Beiner The Plague of Bannonism

Room 3: Andrew Vandenberg, Conservative Parties’ Contrary Responses to the Far Right in Comparing Geoffrey Robinson & John Sweden and Australia, 2000-2020 Populisms Bourdouvalis Matthew Coote A Tale of Two National Elections: Estonia and Finland

12:00 - 1:00pm Lunch

1:00 - 2:00pm Keynote Ruth Wodak ‘Austrian Ibiza’ and ‘Italian Moscow’...: A Politics of Shameless Normalization

2:00 - 2:30pm Afternoon Tea

4 2:30 - 4:00pm Parallel Session 2

Room 1: Populism Benson Rajan Democracy and Fake News: Locating Neo-Liberalism in in South Asia I Ancient India

Ankur Yadav The Indian Liberal Script and the Rise of Right-Wing Populism

John Vater The Cultural Anxieties of Indian Populism: Hindu Nationalism’s Many Faces Room 2: Populism, Steven Slaughter Populism, Patriotism and Republican Political Thought Liberalism and Brendan Laurie Liberal Internationalism’s Neo-Liberal Crescendo and the Citizenship Resurgence of Populist Nationalism Lucas Grainger-Brown Before Liberalism: How Populism Built the Liberal World Order Room 3: Refugees, Ashleigh Haw Australian Voters’ Responses to News Discourse Surrounding Migration and People Seeking Asylum Populist Rhetoric I Michal Krzyzanowski Right-Wing Populism and the Normalization of Racism: Discursive Shifts and the ‘Refugee Crisis’

4:00 - 5:30pm Parallel Session 3 Room 1: Populism Vera Heuer Identity Battles: Substate Populist Frames and Political in South Asia II Mobilization in West Bengal Rajni Gamage Authoritarian Populism and Rural Development in Sri Lanka

Pritam Dey Deliberative Democracy and the Common Law: Two Indian Supreme Court Judgments

Room 2: The Left Patrick Keane Exploring Progressive Populism: The Power of the Vote and Progressive Gearoid Brinn Populist Panic and Fear of the People Populisms John Bourdouvalis Narratives of Resistance for Rehabilitating Social Democratic Practice Room 3: Refugees, Evan Joymas & Zim Evidence-Based Democracy: Why Democracy Works Better Migration and Nwokora with Evidence Populist Rhetoric II Emily Foley Immigration Policy-Making, One Nation and the Australian Labor Party

5:30 - 6:00pm Canapés

6:00 - 8:00pm Alfred Deakin Institute Public Policy Forum

Multiculturalism, Peter Khalil, MP Member for Wills, Australian House of Representatives Inequality and the Director, Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations, Rise of Populism Mike Hardy Coventry University, UK Emerita Distinguished Professor of Discourse Studies, Ruth Wodak Lancaster University, UK 8:00pm Close Day 1

5 Thursday 21 November

8:30 - 9:00am Welcome

Gary Smith Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Deakin University

Amy Nethery Convenor, After Liberalism Conference

9:00 - 10:00am Keynote Catherine Wihtol The ‘Migration Gap’: Research, Policy-Making and Populism de Wenden in Democracy 10:00 - 10:30am Morning Tea

10:30 - 12:00pm Parallel Session 4 Room 1: Greg Barton The Limits of Authoritarian Populism, Illiberal Islam and Authoritarianism, Identity Politics in Indonesia Populism and Islam Ihsan Yilmaz & Islamic Identity Politics and the Emergence of Despotic Galib Bashirov Authoritarian Populism in Turkey Zahid Ahmed Popular But Not a Populist: Imran Khan, Islam, the Military and the Middle Way to Political Reform

Niamatullah Ibrahimi The Taliban as an Authoritarian Populist Movement

Room 2: Measuring Bogdan Ianosev The Moral Language of Populist Leaders: How Populist and Managing Leaders Enhance their Authority Populisms Sam Wilkins & Andrew Disaggregating and Measuring Populism Worldwide: Walter Introducing the Global Populism Dataset Intifar Chowdhury The Culpable Youth? An Age, Period and Cohort Analysis of Youth (Dis)Engagement Room 3: Populism Chris Brown Radical Glocality-Making: Towards an Alternative Socio- and Politics in Latin Political-Spatial Imaginary America Raul Sanchez-Urribarri Populism, Constitutional Democracy and the Rule of Law: Lessons from Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela

12:00 - 1:00 pm Lunch

1:00 - 2:00pm Plenary Panel 1

Populism Beyond Baogang He Authoritarian Management of Populism in China the Anglosphere Authoritarian Populism and the Politics of Resentful Priya Chacko Aspiration in India Paul Kenny Populism, Illiberalism, and Democracy in the Philippines

2:00 - 2:30pm Afternoon Tea

6 2:30 - 4:00pm Parallel Session 5 Room 1: East and Pavan Mano Antipoliticising the Demos: Government, Singapore, and a South East Asian Question of Trust Populisms Anthony Ware & Illiberal Liberalisation: The Role of Democratisation and Costas Laoutides Populism in Myanmar Room 2: New Maria Rae Hyperpartisan News: Rethinking An Emerging Journalism for Media and Populist Politics Populism Imogen Richards & Legal and Security Frameworks for Responding to Online Mark Wood Violent Extremism 4:00 - 5:30pm Parallel Session 6 Room 1: Populism Baogang He Taming Populism Through the Mixed Regime and Democracy Across Asia and Hamish Drummond The Decline of Democracy in Post-Conflict Burundi and Africa Rwanda Room 2: Populism Zim Nwokora The Dynamics of the Australian Party System: A Comparative and Political Parties Perspective Tarun Khaitan Constitutionalising the Party: Protecting the State from the Party and the Party from its Base Tom Daly Parties Versus Democracy: Addressing Today’s Political-Party Threats to Democratic Rule

5:30pm Close Day 2

7 Friday 22 November

9:00 - 10:00am Keynote Tamir Bar-On Fascism, Populism, or Democracy? Problems With the Literature on the Radical Right 10:00 - 10:30am Morning Tea

10:30 - 12:00pm Parallel Session 7 Room 1: Populist Daniel Bray Challenging Authoritarian Practices in Democratic States: In Demagoguery and Defence of Publicity Democracy Stephen Alomes How Populism Works – From Cliche to Meaning in Globalising Neoliberal Society Room 2: Gary Bouma & Countering Anti-Cosmopolitan Terror Democracy, Anna Halafoff Cosmopolitanism April Biccum Development, Security and the Active Global Citizen? and Violence Preventing Violent Extremism Through Education Shiri Krebs The First Casualty of War is the Truth: International Law and the Crisis of Trust in Israel Room 3: Science, Krisztian Szabados The Populist Anti-Science Challenge: Towards a New Technology and Analytical Framework Democracy Nardine Alnemr Non-Human Algorithmic Political Actors: A Deliberative Democratic View 12:00 - 1:00 pm Lunch

1:00 - 2:30pm Parallel Session 8 Room 1: Australian Isi Unikowski ‘Taking the Current When it Serves’: Australian Federalism Politics and and Democratic Experimentalism Populisms Priya Kunjan Locke-d Out of the Social Contract: Indigenous Sovereignties and Democratic Legitimacy Irfan Yusuf The Securitisation of Muslim Youth Identity Politics in Australia Room 2: Populism John Kane The Contemporary Failure of Liberal Democratic Leadership and Political (and What to do About it) Leadership Alan Scott Populism and Acclamatory Leadership Henrik Bang Problematizing Depoliticization Analysis and Politicising Populism

8 2:30 - 4:00pm Parallel Session 9 Room 1: Australian William Stoltz The Rise of Security Internationalism and Australia’s Response Foreign Policy and to Crises of the Liberal Order Liberalism Fabricio Chagas-Bastos Does Personality Predict Attitudes Towards International Issues? Evidence from Australia and US Room 2: Liberalism, Peter Ferguson The Rise of Resilience and the Crisis of Global Climate Populism and & Linda Wollersheim Governance Climate Change Benjamin Glasson Ending Climate Change by Shifting the Goalposts: The Retreat from Global Space

Emmanuel Karagiannis Fighting for the Right Cause? How Islamists View Climate Change 4:00 - 4:30pm Afternoon Tea

4:30 - 5:30pm Plenary Panel 2 The Future of Roland Axtmann In Fear of the People: Political Science and the Challenge of Populism and Democracy Democracy? Robyn Eckersley Populism, Democracy and Global Heating

Benjamin Moffitt Surveying the Populist Moment: The Normalisation of the Populist Right & the Waning of the Populist Left

5:30 - 6:00pm Thanks and Concluding Remarks Benjamin Isakhan Convenor, After Liberalism Conference

6:00pm Conference Close

9 DAY ONE - WEDNESDAY 20 NOVEMBER

Keynote 1: 9:00 - 10:00am The New Populism and the Refusals of Civil Society John Keane

Reports of the coming death of power-sharing democracy may be greatly exaggerated, but there’s mounting evidence in many different global settings that two different but entangled forms of populism are among the prime forces pushing for its weakening, or outright destruction. In recent years, argues John Keane, governments from Russia and China through Central Asia to the Middle East and Europe have mastered a formidable combination of political tools, including a new form of managed populism, that threaten or outright destroy the established ideals and practices of power-sharing, monitory democracy. Elsewhere, in so-named liberal or constitutional democracies, populism functions as an auto-immune disease of electoral democracy. In the name of ‘the people’, electoral populism unleashes yearnings for demagogues who favour unrestricted corporate and state power and delight in the confusion and suffering of their victims, who are said to be ‘not even people’ (Eric Trump).

In both cases, despite all the differences, the managed and electoral forms of populism show that abuse of power is a populist thing, which in these troubling times raises the political question of how most effectively people and power-sharing institutions can be defended against the corrupting effects of populism. John Keane probes the developing fight backs against populism in places otherwise as different as Hong Kong, Hungary and the United States. He notes the spirited public defences of good laws, independent journalism and local governments committed to social inclusion. He looks as well at the campaigns for civility against racial and sexual violence; efforts to protect mosques, synagogues and other places of worship; the street mutinies of green networks such as Extinction Rebellion; and citizens’ initiatives to build sanctuary cities, independent trade unions, police monitoring groups, queer initiatives and crowd-funded media platforms. His suggestion is that one thing these different refusals of populism have in common is their practical commitment to a new version of an old ideal: the defence of civil society against all forms of predatory power.

John Keane is Professor of Politics at the University of Sydney and at the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB). He was recently Distinguished Professor at Peking University. He is renowned globally for his creative thinking about democracy. He has contributed to The New York Times, Al Jazeera, The Times Literary Supplement, The Guardian, Harper’s, the South China Morning Post and The Huffington Post. His work has been translated into more than forty languages. His books include the best-selling Tom Paine: A Political Life(1995), Violence and Democracy (2004), Democracy and Media Decadence (2013) and the highly acclaimed full-scale history of democracy, The Life and Death of Democracy (2009). His most recent books are When Trees Fall, Monkeys Scatter: Rethinking Democracy in China (2017) and Power and Humility: The Future of Monitory Democracy (2018).

10 Wednesday 20, 9:00 - 10:00am Parallel Session 1: 10:30 - 12:00pm

Room 1: Democracy, Deliberation and Dialogue Dialogue, Inequality and the Dying of Democracy: The Politics of Exclusion Mike Hardy

Do inequality and weak intercultural connection polarise debate and lead to a less democratic society? Is modern-day democracy characterised by hyper short-termism with politicians and leaders speaking with confidence rather than competence or integrity? Dialogue is often presented as an effective method of communicating through cultural boundaries, both within and between communities. This paper examines the problems of shifting participations within dialogue in a changing world order. As part of a larger study on the power and potential of dialogue to create mutual empathy and non-domination, the paper reports initial findings that the reconstruction of the counterparts of intercultural dialogue appears to consolidate difference rather than bringing participants together. Dialogue has long been presented as a necessary if not sufficient imperative for democratic governance, but rarely as a tool for exclusion; such an observation had not been an expected result of exploring intercultural dialogue in the ten years since the Council of Europe’s White Paper, where such dialogue was presented as a powerful and inclusionary mutual bridge between individuals and cultures for the championing of the forces for pluralism. Dialogue and democracy must now take into account that politics has become very light on intellectual weight with both elected and aspiring politicians more concerned with image than evidence, and interconnections extended by the use and abuse of social media is showing dialogue as a feature of democratic breakdowns.

Professor Mike Hardy is founding Director of the Centre for Trust, Peace, and Social Relations at Coventry University. He was honoured in the UK for his peace-building work in the Middle East (OBE 2001), and for his work internationally in Intercultural Dialogue (CMG 2010). His work focuses on dialogue, cohesive society and peace-leadership. His prize-winning edited volume Muslim Identity in a Turbulent Age: Islamic Extremism Western Islamophobia was published in 2017, and a forthcoming co-authored book Democracy on the Run is due in 2020. Mike chairs the International Leadership Association (www.ila-net.org), directs the RISING Global Peace Exchange at Coventry (www.rising.org), and curates the World Forum for Intercultural Dialogue (http://bakuprocess.az).

Wednesday 20, 10:30 - 12:00pm 11 The Content of Public Deliberation: Towards a Normative Standards Approach Russell Varley There is something at least intuitively troubling to liberal democratic theory in the claim that, if public deliberative processes are perfect then all ideas are up for debate. However, to date, the attention of authors in this field has been mostly directed towards answering the ‘how’ questions of deliberation such as those which address the ‘necessary conditions for ideal participation’ and the basic normative requirements and limitations of deliberators themselves. In this paper, I instead explore the ‘what’ questions and argue that deliberative content, properly conceived, is, in fact, an antecedently epistemic concern for public deliberation per se. To motivate my argument, I examine the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) who have staked out a controversially permissive position towards which ideas should be publicly deliberated. Ideas which might, in more ‘disciplined’ fora, be ruled out of order or suppressed in some way in the interests of so-called ‘political correctness’ or due to their potentially harmful downstream consequences. Against this framework, I introduce a minimally deontological approach to deliberative content which promotes ‘deliberative standards’ as a way of both reinvigorating the epistemic benefits of public deliberation while simultaneously defending the moral character of deliberators.

Russley Varley is a PhD candidate at the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities (UQ) investigating the ‘epistemic crisis of democracy.’ His research traverses the line between Political Science and Analytical Philosophy.

Room 2: Political Theory, Populism and the Far-Right Heidegger After Liberalism? Philosophy and the Far-Right in the Age Neofascism Matt Sharpe

Since 1945, and despite his fierce advocacy of National Socialist Gleichschaltung in 1933-35, Martin Heidegger’s philosophy has been reborn in liberal states, where he has been read either apolitically, or as a source for ostensibly progressive political thinking. In 2014, Heidegger’s estate published his Black Notebooks, in which the full extent of the philosopher’s Nazism, knowledge of the Shoah, and virulent anti-semitism were revealed – this, on the back of the publication of Heidegger’s 1933-35 texts only since 1998 in Germany. Heidegger always kept faith with ‘the inner truth and greatness of Nazism,’ and his choice of the 100th year of the First World War to publish the most open evidence of its extent now looks remarkably prescient, as a place-marker for what he seems to have expected would be the inevitable collapse of modern liberal ‘nihilism.’ Yet the philosophical community’s response to the Notebooks, even as Putin, Erdogan, Trump, Le Pen, Bolsonaro et al have been rising, has been almost non-existent. Heidegger has 25,000 follows on academia; ‘Heidegger and Nazism,’ one of the stories of a century, has less than 10. One Anglophone book in 2019 (by Knowles), one collection of translations, one collection of Heideggerians; and then two works by Heidegger’s editor; and otherwise silence. This paper will take a multi-disciplinary look at the nonresponse of philosophy today to this ‘affaire’, and what it says about ‘after liberalism’ today.

Associate Professor Matt Sharpeteaches philosophy at Deakin. He has written books on Albert Camus and Slavoj Zizek, and articles on a wide range of subjects in political philosophy, critical theory and the history of ideas, including Heidegger and the ideas of the far-Right politician, Pauline Hanson.

12 Wednesday 20, 10:30 - 12:00pm Populism, ‘The Mob’ and Arendt’s Dreyfus Analysis: Parallels for Today Paul Geri Gray In her classic 1951 work on the rise of totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt devoted significant thought to ‘the Dreyfus affair,’ a case of wrongful conviction whose political repercussions came to threaten the existence of the French Third Republic in the 1890s. Arendt with others saw in ‘L’Affaire’ a full-scale dress rehearsal for the later catastrophe which ultimately threatened not just European Jews, but prospects for democracy in Europe. Here Arendt introduced the motif of ‘the mob,’ meaning alienated social forces awaiting the disciplined organising capacity of anti-democratic demagogues like Anti-Dreyfusard leader Jules Guérin, or later fascist leaders across Europe, to become politically potent in a way threatening to the constitutional viability of the nation state: ‘The mob always will shout for “the strong man,” the “great leader,” for the mob hates society from which it is excluded.’ In this paper I propose using Arendt’s analysis of ‘the mob’ and the Dreyfus affair to: 1. Recall the Affair’s salient political and historic features; 2. Contrast the potential relevance of this episode to current trends with other (e.g. Nazi) historical parallels; and 3. Note Arendt’s Dreyfus chapter as a characteristic example of the argumentative method she employs throughout her theoretical writings.

Paul Geri Gray is a PhD candidate at Deakin University and author of a book about political violence, Nightmare of the Prophet (2004.) Geri currently works as Speechwriter to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, and is a former senior columnist at News Limited, and former broadcaster. With Professor Baogang He as principal supervisor, Geri is writing a thesis on Hannah Arendt and immigration detention, and recently presented on Arendt’s work at Peking University in Beijing. The Plague of Bannonism Ronald Beiner

The paper seeks to sketch basic features of ‘Bannonism’ as an ideological tendency. Donald Trump’s thinking is too erratic and scattershot to count as a real system of ideas; Steve Bannon’s version of populism seems significantly more focused, more self-conscious, and hence more open to theory-based critical analysis. That’s not at all to say that Bannon’s ideas achieve intellectual coherence or consistency. Close examination of the defining components of his worldview in fact suggest the opposite. Still, engagement with contemporary Right-populism cannot, or should not, avoid Bannon and his attempts to stoke up a new ideology.

Ronald Beiner is Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. His books include Political Judgment (1983), What’s the Matter with Liberalism? (1992), Philosophy in a Time of Lost Spirit (1997), Liberalism, Nationalism, Citizenship (2003), Civil Religion: A Dialogue in the History of Political Philosophy (2011), Political Philosophy: What It Is and Why It Matters (2014), and Dangerous Minds: Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the Return of the Far Right (2018). He is also the editor of Hannah Arendt’s Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy (1982).

Wednesday 20, 10:30 - 12:00pm 13 Room 3: Comparing Populisms Conservative Parties’ Contrary Responses to the Far Right in Sweden and Australia, 2000-2020 Andrew Vandenberg, Geoffrey Robinson & John Bourdouvalis In this paper, we compare centre-Right parties’ responses to far-Right parties in Australia and Sweden. We outline the parties, their contexts, and their contrary responses, and canvas a range of possible explanations for why each party has responded as it has. When Pauline Hanson was elected to the Federal Parliament in 1996, the Liberal Party of Australia refused to negotiate with her. Since 2001, however, the Liberals have taken up some of her anti-immigration views and negotiated with her party on a range of issues. By contrast, the Moderate Party in Sweden upheld the Swedish mainstream parties’ quarantine tactic until 2019 and refused to negotiate with the Sweden Democrats on any matters of legislation or parliamentary administration. This tactic has become successively more difficult after the 2014 and 2018 elections. Conceivable explanations for these contrasting responses include differences between: • The electoral; • Ideological history; • The socio-economic context; • Non-economic dimensions of conflict; and • How populist reason works. This is a work in progress. We have not yet decided which of these explanations, or which combinations of explanation, are more plausible than others.

Andrew Vandenberg is a Senior Lecturer in Politics and Policy Studies at Deakin University. He researches issues related to the politics of unionism, social movements, and democratisation in Sweden, Australia, and Indonesia. His books include Democracy and Citizenship in a Global Era(2000), Cultural Citizenship and the Challenges of Globalisation (2010), Education Policy and the Australian Education Union: Resisting Social Neoliberalism and Auditing Technology (2018), and Trouble with Protection: Protection Organisations, Society and Democracy in Bali (forthcoming).

Geoffrey Robinson is a Senior Lecturer in Politics and Policy at Deakin University. He has taught at Deakin since 2004 and is a regular commentator on politics in the Australian media. He is the author of When the Labor Party Dreams: Class, Politics and Public Policy in New South 1930-32 (2008) and Being Left-Wing in Australia: Identity, Culture and Politics After Socialism (2019).

John A. Bourdouvalis is a PhD candidate with the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at Deakin University. His dissertation involves examining the future of social democracy and progressive social mobilisations since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. John’s research focuses on critiques of neo-liberalism, post-Marxism, social democracy, democratic theory and political economy. He is particularly interested in the effects of neo-liberal austerity on democracy in Southern Europe after the Global Financial Crisis, and the progressive movements that have emerged in response.

14 Wednesday 20, 10:30 - 12:00pm A Tale of Two National Elections: Estonia and Finland and the Implications for the European Political Landscape Matthew Coote High-profile elections in larger European nations such as Germany, France, Italy, Poland and Hungary have drawn attention to potential role of Right-wing nationalist and populist parties in redrawing the political landscape across Europe. In early 2019, national elections were held in Estonia and Finland and in both cases political parties on the far-Right performed strongly. A closer look at these elections provide the opportunity to consider the contemporary political impact of the far-Right in two European nations that tend to fly under the radar. Both Estonia and Finland are active member states of the European Union (EU) and the electoral gains and growing political influence of the far-Right demonstrate a serious challenge to the liberal European project.

Matthew Coote is a Research Officer at the EU Centre at RMIT. Matthew is currently researching contemporary election results in northern Europe having previously researched the EU Digital Single Market and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and European film festivals as tools for cultural diplomacy and soft power. Matthew is also an Executive Committee Member of the Contemporary European Studies Association of Australia (CESAA).

Wednesday 20, 10:30 - 12:00pm 15 Keynote 2: 1:00 - 2:00pm ‘Austrian Ibiza’ and ‘Italian Moscow’...: A Politics of Shameless Normalization Ruth Wodak

Many context-dependent socio-political, economic, cultural, and historical factors, apart from the performance of allegedly charismatic leaders, lead to the rise of the populist far-Right, supported by conservative mainstream parties and the (social) media (Bevelander & Wodak 2019). Recently, huge scandals (such as in Austria – ‘Ibizagate’ – and in Italy – ‘Moscowgate;’ e.g., Wodak 2018, 2019a, b) illustrate that formerly taboo subjects and expressions in mainstream discourse are being accepted more and more (‘normalization’) and have become part and parcel of mainstream politics. Such normalization goes hand in hand with a certain ‘shamelessness’: the limits of the sayable are shifting regarding both the frequency of lies (Block 2019) and the violating of discourse and politeness conventions – as well as regarding repeated attacks on central democratic institutions. Discursive strategies of provocation, blame avoidance, denial, Manichean division, victim-perpetrator reversal as well as eristic argumentation and conspiracy theories dominate official communication, accompanied by ever more nativist nationalism and the racialization of space.

In this vein, I claim that such rejection of dialogue relates to a ‘post-shame era’ rather than merely to a ‘post-truth era’ (e.g., Scheff 2000; Hahl et al 2018). For example, normalizing the assessment of migrants and refugees (all labelled as ‘illegal migrants’) as a threat to inner security, a burden on the welfare state and education system must be perceived as an international development – generally instrumentalizing a ‘politics of fear’ (Wodak 2015).

Ruth Wodak is Emerita Distinguished Professor of Discourse Studies at Lancaster University, UK, and affiliated to the University of Vienna. Besides various other prizes, she was awarded the Wittgenstein Prize for Elite Researchers in 1996, an Honorary Doctorate from University of Örebro in Sweden in 2010, and the Life Achievement Prize (Austria, Ministry of Women’s Affairs) in 2018. She is member of the British Academy of Social Sciences and of the Academia Europaea. Ruth is senior editor of The Journal of Language and Politics, and co-editor of Discourse & Society and Critical Discourse Studies. Her research interests focus on (critical) discourse studies; (national) identity politics and politics of the past; prejudice and discrimination; and on ethnographic methods of sociolinguistic fieldwork. Recent book publications include Europe at the Crossroads (2019, with Bevelander); The Handbook of Language and Politics (2018, with Forchtner); Kinder der Rückkehr. Geschichte einer marginalisierten Jugend (2018, with Berger); The Politics of Fear. What Right-wing Populist Discourses Mean (2015; translation into the German Politik mit der Angst. Zur Wirkung rechtspopulistischer Diskurse. Konturen, 2016), and The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual (2011). See http://www. ling.lancs.ac.uk/profiles/Ruth-Wodak for more information on on-going research projects and other recent publications.

16 Wednesday 20, 1:00 - 2:00pm Parallel Session 2: 2:30 - 4:00pm

Room 1: Populism in South Asia I Democracy and Fake News: Locating Neo-Liberalism in Mythologies of Misrepresented Scientific Achievements of Ancient India Benson Rajan An ideological state project of assigning scientific achievements to that of Hindu mythologies is indirectly undermining democratic structures. Emergence of the fake news phenomenon within the current post- truth era has threatened India’s state harmony. Even though the discourse around fake news became relevant with President Donald Trump’s win in the 2016 presidential elections in USA, fake news penetrated into politics in India as well. This paper would try to locate the role of the instant messaging application WhatsApp in establishing Hindu mythological achievements as the predecessor of modern science in India. To understand the participation of online platforms in facilitating this spread of fake news, WhatsApp has been chosen as the online chatting platform to study the impact of fake news in the working of a democratic nation state. The research universe would take into account individuals who have come across fake news through WhatsApp in order to share how it had an impact on them and people surrounding them while they shared the news further into different groups. It would employ purposive and snowball sampling. A sample of 100 respondents would be selected for the study from 4 metropolitan cities of India namely; Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai. This paper would use in-depth interviews to understand the construction of their experience. A pilot study would be conducted in each of the four cities to determine the awareness of the participants of the various fake news construction around Hindu Mythology and its impact on their community.

Benson Rajan is an Assistant Professor at Christ University Bangalore, Department of Media Studies. He has completed his FPM degree from Mudra Institute of Communications Ahmedabad (MICA). He also holds a Masters degree in Media Governance from Jamia Millia Islamia and a Bachelors in Sociology (Hons) from Delhi University. His research interests include studies on representation, visual culture, Sufi music in India, human-computer interactions, digital religion and affect, gender studies, semiotics methodology, and social media’s role in mental health issues. The Indian Liberal Script and the Rise of Right-Wing Populism Ankur Yadav The proposed research project will analyse the recent development of the last five years in terms of alienation of the liberal script and try to understand where the status quo of the Indian society lies: within or outside the liberal space. A variety of research projects have been conducted to understand the challenges to liberalism as well as the emergence of populism and nationalism. However, despite the fact that India is the largest democratic country in the world, little research has been conducted to understand India’s recent development within or outside of the liberal space. Whereas populism and nationalism must not be inevitable threats to democracy, certainly minorities and people on the lower end of the caste hierarchy (Dalits, previously called ‘untouchables’) are likely to face adversities in a non-liberal society. Has the current Hindu-nationalist government targeted the core of the Indian liberal script during their rule 2014-2019? Can the current Indian script be considered a liberal script? Unlike in other countries with emerging nationalist and anti-liberal movements like in Europe, the experience of India with five years of a Hindu-nationalist government being in power, the findings will provide insights in possible future developments in other parts of the world.

Wednesday 20, 2:30 - 4:00pm 17 Ankur Yadav is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Freie Universität Berlin. His research focuses on the rise of Right- wing populism and challenges for the liberal values in the world. The research topic of Ankur’s post-doc is ‘The Indian Liberal Script and the Rise of Right-Wing Populism – Can Only One Survive?’ Ankur has published research articles, book reviews and commentaries in different reputed journals including International Studies, Europe-Asia Studies, Contemporary South Asia, Political Studies Review, Human Rights Review, Insight Turkey and Group De Trabajo Sobre India, Boletin.

The Cultural Anxieties of Indian Populism: Hindu Nationalism’s Many Faces John Vater The crisis confronting liberal democracies has been accompanied by a demonization of Right-wing populists for deepening cultural, racial, and religious divides. One problem masked by the discourse surrounding economic equalities propelling populism is the twin evil of social inequality, and the inability of the secular liberal elite to appreciate the grievances (articulated in cultural terms) of large numbers of citizens who feel marginalized in their own countries. This phenomenon was nowhere more apparent than in the 2019 Indian general election, in which the huge electoral mandate won by Prime Minister Narendra Modi proved populism to be not merely an economic feud but also deeply embedded in social hierarchies and resentment toward the privileges of a Westernized, English-speaking elite and their ‘false secular’ politics. In Indian English media, ‘secularism’ and ‘Hindu nationalism’ are often presented as polar opposites: Hindu nationalism is reduced to Right-wing fundamentalism, and the concerns of its adherents generalized. Perhaps because of this, English reporting was criticized after the election for covering economic issues (job growth and the agrarian crisis) rather than the more salient resonance of Hindu nationalist rhetoric on the ground. My paper will complicate the discourse on Hindu nationalism by analysing different types of Hindu nationalist identities posed over social media (which played a major role in the campaign of the Bharatiya Janata Party) to better understand the needs and grievances expressed through this particular brand of populism.

John Vater is a Research Associate at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), Singapore. A translator by training, he is interested in questions of politics, language, and identity, especially as they pertain to political challenges regarding globalization and democracy in the 21st century. His essays and translations have been published in journals such as 91st Meridian, Words Without Borders, Indian Literature Today, Ploughshares, The Quint, and the Asian Literary Review. He is co-translator of the forthcoming book of short stories Near About Shapes (2020) by Hindi author Kunwar Narain.

18 Wednesday 20, 2:30 - 4:00pm Room 2: Populism, Liberalism and Citizenship Populism, Patriotism and Republican Political Thought Steven Slaughter In recent years there has been an increasing prominence of populist movements in many societies around the world. Populist movements are evident in strident forms of disenchantment with liberalism and globalisation as well as the growing presence of various forms of nationalism, xenophobia and authoritarianism. This paper considers the neo-Roman republican response to these contemporary forms of populism. It contends that the conventional neo-Roman republican response developed by Phillip Pettit offers good grounds of countering populism because of its account of democratic institutions, the economic and social policy it articulates, and its conception of sovereignty and global governance. However, this paper also contends that this conventional focus on institutions and policy misses important questions about the type of citizens needed to support these institutions and moderate populism. As such, it contends that a wider consideration of different and diverse types of citizenship is required to support contemporary republican thought and this in turn requires engagement with scholars associated with philosophical pragmatism and critical theory. This paper first outlines the contemporary dynamics of populism, then outlines the contours of Pettit’s institutional account, and lastly outlines the various forms of citizenship and scholarship required to moderate populism and support republican politics.

Steven Slaughter is an Associate Professor in International Relations at Deakin University. His main publications areLiberty Beyond Neo-Liberalism: A Republican Critique of Liberal Governance in a Globalising Age (2005), Globalisation and Citizenship: The Transnational Challenge (2007, co-edited with Hudson), Democracy and Crisis: Democratising Governance in the Twenty-First Century (2014, co-edited with Isakhan,) and Global Democratic Theory: A Critical Introduction (2015, co-authored with Bray). His research interests focus upon globalisation and global governance, with a particular interest in democratic theory, transnational activism, and the G20. Liberal Internationalism’s Neo-Liberal Crescendo and the Resurgence of Populist Nationalism Brendan Laurie The failures of neo-liberalism and globalisation have resulted in a resurgence of populist nationalism in Europe and the United States. The resentment stirred by these failures led to the election of Donald Trump, Britain’s decision to leave the EU, the rise of Right-wing nationalist parties in Europe and the election of potential autocrats in Hungary and Poland. The EU is in danger of collapsing, and with it one of the cornerstones of European stability and liberal internationalism. To combat the scourge of Right-wing populist nationalism, the liberal internationalist principles of economic openness, security cooperation, democratic solidarity and respect for human rights must be upheld, and elites in Europe and the US must address the concerns of their citizens regarding inequality, immigration and national sovereignty. America must reclaim its position as leader of the international order and reassure its partners that it is willing to uphold the principles of liberal internationalism. If not, the liberal international order will disintegrate and what will emerge is an environment that will enable populists to harness fear and resentment in pursuit of nationalistic and realist foreign policy, resulting in a more crisis prone and unstable international order.

Brendan Laurie is a student at the University of Canberra. His undergraduate studies were in Psychology, Political Science and International Relations. His research interests lie in the transition states make from authoritarianism to democracy and the factors that lead to democratic decline.

Wednesday 20, 2:30 - 4:00pm 19 Before Liberalism: How Populism Built the Liberal World Order Lucas Grainger-Brown This paper will argue that liberalism and populism are not antithetical. In fact, in the case of Britain and America, liberalism only became something worth defending through the concerted efforts of populist organisations that forced democratic reform. Liberalism relies upon the state to entrench individual rights and protect private property. In turn, a functional state needs to be under the control of the people to prevent the excesses of autocracy. Historically speaking, populism is the vital force that imposed democracy upon autocratic polities, thereby rendering liberalism a public good for the general population. Populism is a simple mode of politics in which a group of citizens, in their self-legitimising role as citizens, oppose authorities. The Levellers, Luddites, Chartists, Radicals, suffragettes, New Liberals, American revolutionaries, abolitionists, the People’s Party of America, the American Civil Liberties Union, the League of Women Voters, the National Congress of American Indians – these were all populist movements that struggled against state power and the elites wielding it. Through their success liberalism was rendered workable. Liberalism owes its hegemony to progressive forms of populism. It is a worrying sign that these two historical symbiotes are now thought of as antithetical.

Lucas Grainger-Brown is a PhD candidate at the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne. His thesis approaches and evaluates the 2016 EU referendum as the latest chapter in the long history of British democratisation. Lucas’s other research interests are democratic theory, Australian politics, Continental philosophy, and existentialism.

Room 3: Refugees, Migration and Populist Rhetoric I Australian Voters’ Responses to News Discourse Surrounding People Seeking Asylum: Implications for Policy and Democracy Ashleigh Haw While there is evidence to suggest that media narratives about people seeking asylum can shape and reinforce public opinion concerning Australia’s humanitarian policies, little is known about how audiences critically engage with media representations of the issue. To address this, Critical Discourse Analysis was used alongside an Audience Reception framework to examine the perspectives of 24 Western Australians concerning news discourses about asylum seekers. Most participants were informed about issues impacting asylum seekers either solely or primarily through news coverage, and most considered the nation’s asylum seeker policies as an important issue impacting their voting decisions during federal elections. Most, however, stated that they feel inadequately informed about the issue, citing negativity, sensationalism, dehumanisation and the lack of asylum seekers’ voices as key issues impacting their trust in Australian coverage. While these findings highlight the important democratic function of media discourse surrounding asylum seekers, they also indicate a high level of mistrust among audiences, despite their evident reliance on media content as a source of information about people seeking asylum. This paper considers these findings with respect to their implications for democracy as well as communications practice and scholarship.

Ashleigh Haw recently completed her PhD in the School of Social Sciences at the University of Western Australia. She specialises in research exploring social cohesion outcomes for refugees and migrants in Australia, as well as constructions of people seeking asylum in Australian media, political and public discourse. She is an editor at Refugee Research Online, an initiative of the Melbourne Social Equity Institute. Ashleigh is also a chief investigator on a project exploring the socio-economic and social- cohesion outcomes for African migrants and refugees residing in public housing developments in inner-city Melbourne, which is funded by the Economic and Social Participation Research Initiative (ESPRIt) at the University of Melbourne.

20 Wednesday 20, 2:30 - 4:00pm Right-Wing Populism and the Normalization of Racism: Discursive Shifts and the ‘Refugee Crisis’ Michal Krzyzanowski My presentation highlights strategies of normalization (Krzyzanowski 2020a, 2020b) seen as discursive processes of legitimising views, ideologies and positions that, although traditionally treated as radical and politically/socially unacceptable, now become accepted within the norms of public expression. I draw on the concept of normalization as used in social-psychological studies (Vaughan 1996) and critical social research (Link 2013, Wodak 2015) to explore dynamics of political discourses on the recent ‘Refugee Crisis’ in Europe (Krzyzanowski 2018a & 2018b; Krzyzanowski, Triandafyllidou & Wodak 2018). I look specifically at the case of Poland where Right-wing populist imaginaries of immigration have acted as carriers of unprecedented discourses of racism and hate since 2015. I intend to show that normalization is part and parcel of a wider multistep process of strategically orchestrated ‘discursive shifts’ (Krzyzanowski 2013, 2018a) wherein racism, discrimination and hate are enacted, perpetuated and eventually normalized as part of pronounced Right-wing populist strategies (Wodak & Krzyzanowski 2017).

Professor Michal Krzyzanowski holds a Chair in Media and Communication Studies at Örebro University, Sweden. He is also research Chair in Communication & Media at the University of Liverpool, UK and in 2018-19 Albert Bonnier Jr. Guest Professor in Media Studies at Stockholm University, Sweden. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the international Journal of Language and Politics and a co-editor of the Bloomsbury Advances in Critical Discourse Studies book series. More information: https://www.oru.se/english/ employee/michal_krzyzanowski and https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/communication-and-media/staff/michal- krzyzanowski.

Wednesday 20, 2:30 - 4:00pm 21 Parallel Session 3: 4:00 - 5:30pm

Room 1: Populism in South Asia II Identity Battles: Substate Populist Frames and Political Mobilization in West Bengal Vera Heuer Substate populism has been defined as a mobilization frame used by state politicians to reassert political influence by claiming that corrupt national elites harm(ed) or neglect(ed) ‘local’ people (Heuer & Hierman 2018). By tapping into pre-existing group-level resentment of the state population, populist entrepreneurs juxtapose the identity of the ‘local’ people against the power holders at the national centre. This paper will further explore the applicability of the concept of substate populism and its danger to democratic institutions by comparing two different populist strategies utilized in West Bengal, India. Between 1977- 2000 Jyoti Basu was Chief Minister of West Bengal focusing on unifying the agrarian and labour population against the dominant Congress party; whereas under the rule of Mamata Banerjee in 2011 the mobilization frame became more ethnified emphasizing West Bengali identity. Both Basu and Banerjee faced two different sets of national elites, the Congress party and the BJP, against which to mobilize the state population – during Basu’s term Congress was in power between 1980-96 and the BJP between 1996-2000; Banerjee faced Congress between 2011-14 and the BJP respectively since 2014. This raises the question, given the shifts in the centre and the diverting ideological outlooks between Basu and Banerjee, how each populist entrepreneur constructed resonating local identities encompassing enough people to guarantee electoral victories at the state level. To analyse the two cases shifts in frames will be traced using various rhetorical materials.

Vera Heuer is an Associate Professor in the Department of International Studies and Political Science at Virginia Military Institute, and received her PhD from Indiana University, Bloomington. Her research focuses on social mobilization and the relationship between state vactors and social movement organisations, and how these dynamics are framed in the public sphere in India and beyond. Authoritarian Populism and Rural Development in Sri Lanka Rajni Gamage A number of theoretical approaches are used to understand authoritarian populism. Foremost among them are the ideological, the discursive, and the organisational (concerned with institutional manifestations of populism). The link between these institutional expressions of populism and broader social conflict over power and tangible resources, however, remains understudied, as does the study of authoritarian populism within non-Western contexts, including South Asia. The politics of authoritarian populism has been a recurring feature in postcolonial Sri Lanka. More recently, authoritarian populism under the Rajapaksa regime (2005-2015) was consolidated and reproduced through a political ideology comprising populist- nationalism, networks of political patronage, and rapid centralisation of state power within the executive. This paper seeks to understand the relationship between authoritarian populism and the discourse and practice of development in rural Sri Lanka. Populism in Sri Lanka has been commonly associated with the rural Sinhala-Buddhist demographic, due to a crisis of legitimacy evident in the immediate years after independence, when the new political elite appeared to be a continuation of the colonial ruling class. This paper uses a critical development approach to argue that the contradictions between the promises of development and their actual practice limits durability and success of authoritarian populism in Sri Lanka.

Rajni Gamage is a PhD candidate in the School of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Queensland. Research focus is on authoritarian populism under the Rajapaksa regime in Sri Lanka. 22 Wednesday 20, 4:00 - 5:30pm Deliberative Democracy and the Common Law: Understanding the Tale Through Two Indian Supreme Court Judgments Pritam Dey It can be justifiably argued that deliberative democracy underpins the structure of common law thinking, the legal system that, for better or worse, is the Indian legal system. It encompasses philosophical defences of both Aristotelian – the notion of collective pooling and the Burkean – the concept of incremental evolution. As the name suggests, the process in the idea of deliberation is a structured arena in both law making and judicial decisions (as a counter to majoritarian decision making) which is a sine qua non for a functioning democracy. My paper posits an intuit that the inherent rightness and effective functioning of substantive Indian democracy are under challenge from both the majoritarian government and an independent judiciary which is supposed to protect it. I presume to discern through my analysis of two judgements that were given by the Constitutional Court in last decade that has propitiated the hegemonic discourses of majoritarian government in India, i.e. Rajbala v. Haryana (Disqualification of citizens from participating in the electoral process) and Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar v. State of Maharashtra (Beef Ban). On this ground, I have divided my paper into two parts; the first part discusses the crisis of deliberative democratic norms in India by fanning through the laws that had been enacted by the government against which the legal challenge was mounted. The second part is an operational one which links the substantive part of the paper with the analysis of two judgements and its grotesque effects on the communities in India.

Pritam Dey is a PhD candidate at the School of Law, University of New England and a Research Assistant at Deakin Law School, Deakin University. As a doctoral student, his project explores the relationship between non-state actors like corporations and Constitution guarantees. Pritam’s background spans a diverse range of disciplines and mediums: Business and Human Rights, Comparative Constitutional Law and Legal Theory. In recent years, he has enthusiastically taken an interest in the understanding of democratic governance and its manifestation through the Constitutional Courts in India.

Room 2: The Left and Progressive Populisms Exploring Progressive Populism: The Power of the Vote Patrick Keane The contemporary dominant trend of the populist Right sees social movements, political parties and politicians speak in the name of a pure, virtuous or authentic people that are threatened by a corrupt, unrepresentative, or leftist elite, and a dangerous other, migrants and the unemployed. However, there are also outliers in populist trends, progressive populists for example, seek to include hitherto marginalised groups. Progressive populists across the Atlantic seek to achieve progressive goals like an equality of opportunity or Green New Deal by framing electoral politics as a contest between a people who are not reduced to a class or demographic but rather their lack of political power and an unrepresentative system of politics that empowers the elite. Progressive populists contend that only by building electoral power can the unrepresentative political system be fixed. Is there any empirical basis for progressive populist claims? This paper will analyse some of these agents using case studies to provide some evidence for electoral power and some influence over the political systems from which they emerge. This project seeks to contribute to political science scholarship by assessing the opportunities populism may or may not afford progressives and populist scholarship with an analysis of populist outliers.

Patrick Keane is a PhD candidate in political science at Griffith University, Brisbane. His interests are social movements, populism and political narratives. Before beginning his PhD at Griffith, he worked for Greenpeace Australia Pacific and a Labor Senator for Queensland.

Wednesday 20, 4:00 - 5:30pm 23 Populist Panic and Fear of The People Gearoid Brinn Populism is ‘bad’. Populists represent a dangerous threat to democracy. They cynically pander to base instincts, leveraging the passions and small-mindedness of the ignorant and fickle masses. Whether of Right or Left-wing variety, populism leads to demagoguery and nativism, always threatening to slide into illiberal authoritarianism. Or so goes the standard narrative on populist politics, which is emphatically reaffirmed in the recent outpouring of anti-populist panic in numerous academic debates. This paper argues that the fundamental and irreconcilable differences between many political projects that draw the descriptor ‘populist’ makes use of the term as a broad category problematic, and in practice useful only if our aim is to defend intellectual elitism and managerial democracy against the ‘threat of the people.’ Attention to the range of aims and approaches by radical Left movements that have been described as populist reveals that the term serves primarily to obfuscate the scope of anti-elitist politics. Broad application of the populist label conflates movements for the recovery and deepening of democracy with those that seek to subvert it, providing defensible cover to the re-articulation of the traditional elitist fear of popular democracy as the rule of ‘the mob’.

Gearoid Brinn is a PhD candidate in political theory at the University of Melbourne’s School of Social and Political Sciences. His research area is contemporary political theory and philosophy, with particular interests in radical or critical perspectives, environmental political theory, and political economy. His current research addresses the role of the state in Radical Democratic theory and anarchism.

Narratives of Resistance for Rehabilitating Social Democratic Practice John Bourdouvalis In recent years, new populist movements emerged in response to widespread fatigue and frustration at the failure of democratic institutions and political elite to address growing inequality and increasing social precarity. The ineffectiveness of European social democracy in the post-GFC period is evidenced by the fact that despite the social, political and economic problems caused by neo-liberal capitalism there is no clear road map to an alternative, equitable future in Europe. Movements in Greece, Iceland and Spain were symptomatic of a broader disruption of the political field and signalled to a decaying, yet persistent hegemonic formation. The narratives that emerged from these movements articulated practical responses to the problems of financialised capitalism. Using these cases as examples, this paper argues that the need to radicalise social democracy stems from redeeming its historical contribution to the material conditions of democracy. People do not vote purely on the basis of electing leaders; they vote on the basis of the expectations they have of their democratic institutions. The renewal of social democracy, therefore, cannot be addressed without a commitment to the radicalisation of liberal democracy and the recovery of popular sovereignty from the dictates of the market.

24 Wednesday 20, 4:00 - 5:30pm Room 3: Refugees, Migration and Populist Rhetoric II Evidence-Based Democracy: Why Democracy Works Better with Evidence Evan Joymas & Zim Nwokora The role of evidence in democratic theory and practice is contentious. Populist movements occupy one pole: they derive their legitimacy from the notion of popular sovereignty, and reject the argument that evidence is an important criterion for evaluating policies. Technocratic regimes occupy the other pole: they, as well as advocates of evidence-based policy, are criticised for being undemocratic because they do not derive their legitimacy from popular sovereignty. We aim to clarify the intermediate positions between these poles, arguing that evidence-based policy is both inherently democratic and indeed necessary for democracy. To do so, we first develop a typology of democratic purposes, including (a) protection against tyranny and violence, (b) collective self-rule and (c) pursuit of the common good. On this basis, we argue that evidence-based policy is crucial for democracy because it serves as a mechanism to pursue the common good. We develop this theoretical argument in more practical terms with a critical examination of Australian asylum seeker policy. This case study shows clearly how ignoring evidence can undermine democratic legitimacy and democratic institutions.

Evan Joymas is a PhD candidate at Deakin University who focuses on deliberative democracy, institutional design and ideas of the common good in democratic processes. He has taught Policy and Politics at Deakin University for several years.

Zim Nwokora is a Senior Lecturer in Politics and Policy Studies at Deakin. His research concentrates on comparative politics and political theory, with a focus on political parties, constitutions and democracy.

Immigration Policy-Making, One Nation and the Australian Labor Party Emily Foley The nature of contemporary globalisation has fundamentally reshaped the nature of Australia’s immigration program from the establishment of a permanent settler-migrant nation, to a focus on temporary migration. With over one million temporary migrants currently living in Australia, these changes provide key challenges for states such as the exploitation and reliance on these individuals by sectors such as higher education and the agriculture industry. The early stages of my research examines the positioning of the Federal Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the extent to which it supported or opposed these great shifts in contemporary immigration policy. It also seeks to understand the extent to which the resurgence of populist anti-immigration party One Nation, has influenced the contemporary immigration policies of Australia’s major centre-Left political party. Despite claiming to operate on either side of the Left-Right political spectrum, the recent addition of former Labor Party leader Mark Latham to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party in November 2018 requires an investigation exploring the effect of rising anti-immigrant populist parties on traditionally working-class labour movements and the influence on immigration policy-making.

Emily Foley is a PhD candidate in Politics at La Trobe University. Her research focuses on comparative immigration policy in centre-Left liberal democratic political parties. She is the current overseeing coordinator of the Sudanese Australian Integrated Learning (SAIL) program and her areas of interest include comparative migration studies and Australian politics.

Wednesday 20, 4:00 - 5:30pm 25 DAY TWO - THURSDAY 21 NOVEMBER

Keynote 3: 9:00 - 10:00am

The ‘Migration Gap’: Research, Policy-Making and Populism in Democracy Catherine Wihtol de Wenden

For several decades, migration policy has been at the centre of political debates. However, it is astonishing to see how little the research developed by prestigious universities, international organization and expert groups has had an impact on political decision-making when it comes to international migration and refugees. This presentation will analyse some reasons behind this ‘migration gap’ in modern democracies. Among the many contributing factors is the political pressure of public opinion, especially when populist movements can condemn migration as an illegitimate and undesirable phenomenon, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Catherine Wihtol de Wenden is Professor of Political Science at the Centre de Recherches Internationales (Centre for International Research) at SciencesPo and the Director of Research at Le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (National Centre for Scientific Research) in France. For 30 years she has been a researcher on international migration, from a Political Science and Public Law approach. Her research focuses on the relationship between migrations and politics in France, migration flows, migration policies and citizenship in Europe and in the rest of the world. She has published 20 books, alone or as co-writer, and around 150 articles. Her many publications include: Immigrants and Politics (1988), The Migratory Challenge (1995), The Right to Emigrate (2013), To Support Migrations in the Mediterranean (2013), Should We Open Up Our Borders? (2014), and Migrations in the Mediterranean: Socio-Economic Perspectives(2016).

26 Thursday 21, 9:00 - 10:00am Parallel Session 4: 10:30 - 12:00pm

Room 1: Authoritarianism and Populism in Islam The Limits of Authoritarian Populism, Illiberal Islam and Identity Politics in Indonesia Greg Barton One of the most resilient and persistent issues in Indonesian politics over the seven decades of the Republic’s existence has been the role of Islam in the state and the power of religion in informing identity politics. It has become the one clear axis of conviction politics. The sharp contest between Left and Right in the early decades of the new nation has all but disappeared but the question of who speaks for Islam remains a perennial focus of contestation. Indonesia’s first two presidents, Sukarno, from the Left, and Suharto, from the Right, both displayed strong elements of populism, sometimes progressive but ultimately authoritarian. The five presidents of the democratic era, in contrast, have but dabbled with populism. Like the parties they represent, they defy categorisation in terms of Left and Right, and appeal to inclusive rather than exclusive understandings of Islam. The most potent challenger to this twenty-year pattern of centrist democracy has been retired Special Forces commander Prabowo Subianto. Twice, in 2014 and 2019, he has made concerted attempts to harness the dynamics of authoritarian populism and channel nationalist and Islamist sentiment to defeat President Joko Widodo (Jokowi). This paper explores why this powerful combination of primordial sentiments has failed to dominate in the world’s largest and most successful Muslim democracy.

Greg Barton is Professor of Global Islamic Politics at ADI. His research is concerned with Islam, civil society and democratisation, religion and modernity, and with countering violent extremism, with a particular focus on Indonesia, Turkey and Asia. Over the past 30 years he has undertaken extensive research on Indonesia politics and society, especially of the role of Islam as both a constructive and a disruptive force. The central axis of his research interests is the way in which religious thought, individual believers and religious communities respond to modernity and to the modern nation state.

Erdogan, the AKP, Islamic Identity Politics and the Emergence of Despotic Authoritarian Populism in Turkey Ihsan Yilmaz & Galib Bashirov This paper focuses on the rise of the Islamist AKP in Turkish politics, its early democratization and later authoritarian turn, and the fall of civil Islam accompanied by the rise of Salafism and Caliphism in Turkey’s socio-political sphere. The AKP vigorously promoted democratization and reforms aimed at the EU accession up until 2007. In later years, however, the AKP pivoted towards authoritarianism. This reorientation became increasingly clear following the 2011 elections, when it managed to dismiss secular establishment figures from positions of power and incrementally cement hegemonic control. The AKP government began to crack down on opposition parties, movements and media, and advance its hegemonic project of creating palatable, ‘Erdoganist citizens.’ The government’s crackdown on the Gulen movement effectively brought an end to civil Islam in Turkey, which was instead replaced by militant, radical interpretations of religion that emphasized civilizational warfare and militant jihad. This Islamist outlook also manifested itself in a neo-Ottomanist foreign policy trajectory that dismissed Western alliances, norms and institutions, and emphasized Islamic civilizational identity. Finally, the government’s response to the July 2016 ‘coup attempt’ brought a clear and conclusive end to democratic politics in Turkey and replaced it with electoral authoritarianism where elections are farce and the incumbent elites are impossible to be changed through democratic process.

Thursday 21, 10:30 - 12:00pm 27 Professor Ihsan Yilmaz is Research Chair of Islamic Studies and Intercultural Dialogue at the Alfred Deakin Institute, Deakin University. His research is focused on Islam-state-society relations, along with research into political participation and legal pluralism in Muslim minority communities, particularly in the United Kingdom and Australia. Professor Yilmaz is one of the Muslim World’s leading social scientists, especially on Islam, secularism, Muslim minorities in the West and Islamic legal pluralism. His book Muslim Laws, Politics and Society in Modern Nation States: Dynamic Legal Pluralism in England, Turkey and Pakistan has been a pathbreaker in Islamic legal pluralism in secular nation-states.

Galib Bashirov is a PhD student and a researcher at Deakin University’s Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation. Galib’s research deals with democratization in the Middle East, political Islam and Islamic religiosity. His previous work was published in Democratization, Third World Quarterly and Cambridge Review of International Affairs. Popular But Not a Populist: Imran Khan, Islam, the Military and the Middle Way to Political Reform Zahid Ahmed Long one of Pakistan’s best-known and most popular figures Imran Khan might appear set to be merely a populist prime minister trading on Islamist support. This paper argues, however, that the reality is much more complex. After demonstrating his leadership on the cricket field in 1992 by leading Pakistan team to a remarkable win of the cricket world cup in Australia, Imran Khan has proven his equally formidable capacity for politics by winning the majority in the 2018 elections through the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). This ‘overnight success’ came after two decades of struggle, learning how to thread the needle of Pakistani politics, securing support within the military and within conservative sections of Pakistani society. While his critics are blaming the establishment for bringing him in power, his voters appear to have full confidence on Khan for meeting his ultimate goal of a ‘new Pakistan’ which is free from corruption. In fact, PTI’s anti-corruption dharnas gave the party a much-needed momentum with a climax when Nawaz Sharif was sentenced to 10 years in jail – right before the 2018 elections. Whereas PTI made a lot of promises in its 2018 election manifesto, it is important to assess how much of that it he can actually achieve.

Zahid Shahab Ahmed is a Research Fellow in the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation at Deakin University. Prior to joining Deakin University, he was Assistant Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at the National University of Sciences and Technology, Pakistan. His work examines the impacts of sectarianism and violent extremism on domestic, regional and global peace and security, with a focus on Asia and the Middle East. He is also engaged in research and educational projects on countering violent extremism. In his research he draws upon rich grassroots level experience in the development sector in Pakistan and across Asia.

28 Thursday 21, 10:30 - 12:00pm The Taliban as an Authoritarian Populist Movement: Between Nationalism, Islamism and Trans-National Jihadism Niamatullah Ibrahimi Since its emergence in 1994, the Taliban, as an inherently authoritarian populist movement, have been struggling to maintain a fine balance between its jihadist ideology and its local constituency and national objectives. As a jihadist group, the movement found a common cause with a range of transnational militant groups, entering into alliances with groups such as Al Qaeda, which also provided it with material and symbolic resources. In the meantime, the movement has also argued that it has a popular support base in Afghanistan. Drawing on Afghanistan historical narratives and social grievances with the Afghan government, the movement has sought to increase its legitimacy as a nationalist group fighting the Afghan government and its US and NATO allies since 2001. These tensions are likely to become even more prominent in the context of ongoing peace talks with the United States, which, among other things, seeks to obtain assurances from the Taliban that it will not allow other ‘terrorist’ groups to operate from the territories controlled by the group in Afghanistan. This paper will take a chronological approach to examine how these tensions have shaped the Taliban and tease out their implications for a future political settlement with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Niamatullah Ibrahimi is an Associate Research Fellow at the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University where researches politics, conflict, identity and religion in Afghanistan. He is a graduate of the London School of Economics and Political Science, and completed his PhD at the Australian National University. He is author of The Hazaras and the Afghan State: Rebellion, Exclusion and the Struggle for Recognition (2017). Room 2: Measuring and Managing Populisms The Moral Language of Populist Leaders: How Populist Leaders Enhance Their Authority Bogdan Ianosev How can we interpret post-liberalism using evolutionary theory, behavioural economics, and historical linguistics? Here, we propose a model for reconstructing the universal moral language of political power acquisition. More specifically, how political leaders seek the position of maximum possible power within their environment and aim to build the strongest possible coalitions to achieve superior status and establish hegemony. Our model assumes the presence of an axis ranging from democracy to autocracy, incorporating a range between liberalism and illiberalism, where we will trace the leader’s progress against four constraints: (1) checks and balances, (2) mass media and new media, (3) geopolitical status, (4) internal legitimacy. Insomuch as any political leader can circumvent all of these constraints, our model will predict that they will instate a fully autocratic regime, the endpoint of the continuum. Conversely, a political leader is expected to arrive near the maximum available point on the continuum, depending on the constraints’ strength and on the leader’s ability to overcome them. Afterwards, we calibrate the model against selected case studies, Hungary, Poland, Turkey, and deploy it to predict the likely outcomes of current developments in effect to post-liberal order. Hence, this paper contributes to populism, liberalism, and foreign policy themes.

Bogdan Ianosev is a PhD candidate at the Glasgow School for Business and Society, at Glasgow Caledonian University. He was previously awarded an MA in Philosophy from the University of Bucharest, as well as an MA in Cognitive Anthropology from Queens University, Belfast. He presently works for DEMOS, as well as doing research into the cognitive & evolutionary underpinnings of populist discourse surrounding the Brexit referendum for his PhD thesis.

Thursday 21, 10:30 - 12:00pm 29 Disaggregating and Measuring Populism Worldwide: Introducing the Global Populism Dataset Sam Wilkins & Andrew Walter In this paper we introduce our Global Populism Dataset (GPD) – a dataset comprising 60 countries since 1980, and the product of over two years of research by scholars at the University of Melbourne, RMIT, and LSE. With good reason, there is currently a surge of interest in understanding populist candidates and movements throughout the world. However, the term ‘populism’ has been among the more contested and controversial in the field of comparative politics, accused of being vague, plastic, and inconsistently applied. Regardless of the merit of these critiques, it is undeniable that the theoretical difficulty of the term has always made it easier to study in individual countries or regions than in large-n research designs based on common variables. This paper will discuss how our GDP addresses this challenge by disaggregating ‘populism’ and investing heavily in its qualitative interpretation. Rather than using only one precise interpretation of populism, we use a broad minimal definition along with a number of sub-variables that have been associated with the concept, or which are notable correlates of it. Our paper will discuss these variables, the challenges of quantitative studies of populism, the potentialities of the dataset, and preliminary findings.

Sam Wilkins is a Lecturer in International Business at RMIT University in Melbourne, where he teaches political economy. His doctoral research at the University of Oxford focused on the rural politics of authoritarian survival in Uganda, and he has been involved in a number of other research projects in East Africa. More recently, he has turned to the quantitative study of populism. His research interests include democratization, authoritarianism, party systems and populism.

Andrew Walter is Professor of International Relations in the School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne. He has M.Phil. and D.Phil. degrees from Oxford University. His previous academic positions were at Oxford University and the London School of Economics and Political Science. He has published numerous articles on the political economy of international money and finance and their governance among and within countries. His most recent book is forthcoming with Cambridge University Press: The Wealth Effect: How the Great Expectations of the Middle Class Have Changed the Politics of Banking Crises (2019, with Chwieroth). The Culpable Youth? An Age, Period and Cohort Analysis of Youth (Dis) Engagement in Advanced Democracies Intifar Chowdhury Despite the rise in education levels, younger cohorts in advanced, liberal societies are seemingly turning away from democracy. Precipitous decline in youth turnout may be an ominous sign for an uninterested electorate in future democratic politics. It is, however, still unclear whether young people are rejecting fundamental democratic values (e.g. rule of law, equal rights) or whether their apathy reflects transient disapproval of incumbent authorities. Using the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) dataset, I investigate whether young people are turning away from liberal principles or from elite-directed processes in 35 OECD countries. The analysis follows a cross-sectional hierarchical random effects model to isolate the highly collinear time effects- age, period and cohort (APC). The findings suggest that younger cohorts have changed engagement preferences; yet, their endorsement of democratic principles remain unabridged. This is in line with generational theories: younger cohorts with higher cognitive resources (e.g. education), political sophistication and emancipatory values are shunning traditional modes of participation such as voting. Noteworthily, university education emerges as a crucial variate of the causal mechanism as it uniquely and consistently promotes pro-democratic attitudes and behaviours, irrespective of generational membership. Overall, this study highlights an optimistic aspect of the youth disengagement problem.

30 Thursday 21, 10:30 - 12:00pm Intifar Chowdhury is a PhD candidate at the ANU School of Politics and International Relations. Her thesis focuses on young people and their aversion towards democracy. It constitutes a quantitative inquiry on advanced democracies using survey data from comparative databases and aims to highlight the factors which are influencing young people to turn against liberal democracy. Prior to this, Intifar obtained a double degree in Genetics and International Relations at the ANU. Her wider interests include youth behaviour in politics, women in the executive, the politics of genetic testing and the psychological impacts of hereditary diseases and genetic counselling. Room 3: Populism and Politics in Latin America Radical Glocality-Making: Towards an Alternative Socio-Political- Spatial Imaginary Chris Brown In this paper I explore and develop the emerging concept of radical glocality-making. Drawing primarily upon the ongoing struggle of the Peace Community of San Jose de Apartado in Colombia, I argue that radical glocality-making represents an alternative socio-political-spatial imaginary that seeks to challenge and transcend the liberal democratic state. In making this argument, I first explore the idea of scale, examining the social unit from which the process of glocality-making begins. I argue that the radical- glocality making process is built upon localised or place-based struggle which, through its assertion of localised autonomy, resists the dominance and authority of the state in which it occurs. Next, I examine a further component of glocality-making – namely, the ways in which place-based struggles employ a range of inter-scalar supports and solidarity which serve to bolster the local initiative against the threat and re-assertion of state and capitalist power. In conclusion, I explore the potential for this glocal network of support and solidarity to strengthen and expand, and in particular, ask as to the possibility of it forming a kind of parallel socio-political-spatial order.

Chris Brown is an Honorary Associate with the School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences at UNE. His research interests include nonviolent action, revolution and social change. He holds a PhD in Peace and Conflict Studies from the University of Sydney. He lives on Wamba Wamba Perrepa Perrepa Country. Populism, Constitutional Democracy and the Rule of Law: Lessons from Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela Raul Sanchez-Urribarri This paper looks at three key aspects of the roles and relevance of high courts – especially institutions in charge of constitutional adjudication – in populist administrations in Latin America following the Third Wave of Democracy, with an emphasis on the role of the TSJ in Hugo Chávez’s regime in Venezuela (1999-2013), and brief comments about other cases, including Bolivia’s experience under Evo Morales and Ecuador under Rafael Correa (in exploratory fashion). The three key themes to explore are: i. The crafting of a politicized, submissive Supreme Court, especially via judicial appointments; ii. The High Court’s reactive role vis-à-vis constitutional challenges attempted by political opponents; iii. The High Court’s proactive role in response to requests filed by pro-government actors. The paper focuses on the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, TSJ), especially on its Constitutional Chamber. This is an emblematic example of a court of last resort that fulfils a reliable supportive role on behalf of a populist regime over time, actively participating in the dismantlement of democracy and contributing to building an authoritarian regime.

Raul Sanchez-Urribarri is a Senior Lecturer in Crime, Justice and Legal Studies at the Department of Social Inquiry, La Trobe University. His research focuses on democracy, rule of law and comparative judicial studies, with an emphasis on Latin America and Venezuela in particular. His work has been published in journals such as the Journal of Politics, Law and Social Inquiry, the Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences, edited volumes and other outlets. His main project involves assessing the politicisation of the Venezuelan Supreme Court in comparative perspective and its role in the country’s democratic deterioration. Thursday 21, 10:30 - 12:00pm 31 Plenary Panel 1: 1:00 - 2:00pm

Populism Beyond the Anglosphere Authoritarian Management of Populism in China Baogang He This paper examines the politics of authoritarian management of populism through a case study of public deliberation in China. China has introduced a series of public consultations across the country since the late 1990s and in particular since the early 2000s. To deal with modern complex issues Chinese governments are under pressure to engage with citizens and carry out public consultation and deliberation as one way to respond popular demand and pressure. Nevertheless, public consultation and deliberation face a number of collective action problems, including difficulty in reaching consensus when dealing with conflicts of interest. In particular after lengthy discussions a division still exists and a tough decision is required. This is a common problem in all modern politics. This paper investigates several options to handle the disagreement that arises from public deliberation in China. It examines why Beijing tries to utilize populism for political legitimacy, and at the same time it attempts to limit its force, in particular its normative idea that fully empowered deliberation, in the sense that citizens make the final decision, is not necessarily normatively better. This Chinese way of dealing with populism offers a common lesson for all modern politics in search for a better governance.

Authoritarian Populism and the Gender Politics of Resentful Aspiration in India Priya Chacko The promotion of conservative gender values has been a feature of the rise of authoritarian populism globally. In the case of India, this paper argues that the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) authoritarian populist politics, which combines populist strategies, neoliberal policies and Hindu nationalist moral frameworks, appeals to, and positions men and women in distinctive ways. This reflects the gendered nature of neoliberal reform and crises, and the patriarchal gender values associated with Hindu nationalism. Through the use of populist discursive and leader-centred mobilizational practices, the BJP aims to suture together a broad social base through the creation of an aspirational identity for ‘the people’. This identity is underpinned by a regime of ‘virtuous market citizenship’ that brings together Hindu nationalist social norms with neoliberal market rationalities. Concurrently, the BJP government stokes resentment against a liberal-Left ‘establishment’ and religious minorities for holding back the aspirations of the people. This politics of resentful aspiration underpins an ‘empowerment’ agenda that promotes marketized social policies aimed at transforming poor and lower middle class women into virtuous market citizens. Simultaneously, it underpins a ‘protection’ agenda consisting of political campaigns that mobilise young, lower middle class unemployed or underemployed men to protect women as potential virtuous market citizens from a liberal-Left elite and Muslim men.

32 Thursday 21, 1:00 - 2:00pm Priya Chacko is a Senior Lecturer in International Politics at the University of Adelaide. Her current research is on the intersection of populism, neo-liberalism and ethnoreligious nationalism in India and the political economy of foreign policy in India and the Indo-Pacific and has published on these topics in Modern Asian Studies, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Third World Quarterly and European Journal of International Relations. She is President of the South Asian Studies Association of Australia and co-editor-in-chief of Contemporary Politics.

Populism, Illiberalism, and Democracy in the Philippines Paul Kenny Rodrigo Duterte is by all accounts the consummate populist. With his victory, his pre-election promise to ‘kill all drug addicts’ has been raised from the level of campaign rhetoric to actual state policy. His government’s anti-narcotics campaign has left over 27,000 people dead, either executed in police operations or killed by unknown assailants, making his regime one of the most murderous peacetime governments in modern history. In this panel discussion, I explore the relationship between populist attitudes, illiberalism, and support for Duterte and the war on drugs. Drawing on survey data and fieldwork in the Philippines, I show that contrary to the common perception regarding support for populist leaders as being driven by populist or illiberal attitudes in general, support for and approval of Duterte is largely driven by policy preferences. The war on drugs is a major driver of support for Duterte, but it is also notable that his approval ratings are also dependent on economic conditions. Popular support for Duterte is largely rational and contingent on performance. Approval of the war on drugs, whatever its human rights consequences, does not imply a blanket endorsement of illiberalism or authoritarianism for most Filipinos. I discuss some of the implications of what these new findings mean for political theories of populism.

Paul D. Kenny is Fellow and Head of the Department of Political and Social Change at the ANU, which he joined in 2013 after completing his PhD in political science at Yale University. He is the author of two books, Populism and Patronage: Why Populists Win Elections in India, Asia, and Beyond, which won APSA’s 2018 Robert A. Dahl Award, and Populism in Southeast Asia. He is currently working on two new books, Situation Normal: Populism from Ancient Greece to the Age of Trump, and Killing Democracy: The War on Drugs and the Myth of Illiberalism in the Philippines.

Thursday 21, 1:00 - 2:00pm 33 Parallel Session 5: 2:30 - 4:00pm

Room 1: East and South East Asian Populisms Antipoliticizing the Demos: Government, Singapore, and a Question of Trust Pavan Mano Taking Singapore as an example, I focus on (the) government – both as an institution and in its Foucaludian sense – and its demand to trust. Singapore is formally a liberal democracy but it rejects one of the basic assumptions of liberal democracy that the government ought to be guarded against because it might abuse its power; instead, the Singaporean government demands that citizens trust it to govern responsibly, without encumbrance, in the national interest – where national interest is defined by the government itself. Using the distinction that Clare Birchall makes between depoliticization and antipoliticization , I suggest the result of this distinctly Singaporean approach to government is the production of an antipoliticized public that is taught to be uninterested in participating in, and shaping, the political sphere; and a corollary of such a mode of governance is that it limits the form and possibilities of resistance for fear of appearing to present as opposing the national interest. Finally, I use the example of Pink Dot, a Singaporean movement in support of LGBT rights, to show how it actively depoliticizes itself in order to gain traction in a country where the heterosexual family unit is cast as the foundation of the nation.

Pavan Mano is a PhD candidate at the Department of English, King’s College London. He works at the intersections of language, ideology, and power – mainly interrogating their social reverberations through the lenses of social theory and critical discourse analysis. His current research seeks to untangle the politics of kinship and the attendant constructions of national identity. Illiberal Liberalisation: The Role of Democratisation and Populism in Worsening the Plight of Minorities in Myanmar Anthony Ware & Costas Laoutides Nearly ten years after democratic transition began in Myanmar, democratisation has failed to deliver significant peace dividends across most of this conflict-plagued country and has dramatically worsened the plight of the Rohingya. Over a million Rohingya have fled the country, in horrific violence labelled ethnic cleansing and genocide by the UN, which was perpetrated and worsened as the transition progressed. As bad as this case is, however, it is not unique, with a multitude of conflicts worsening as liberalisation and transition has unfolded. This paper argues that the political and economic liberalisation, after decades of autocracy, allowed nationalist voices to multiply and enabled the exploitation of populism by vested interests. The military, in particular, have exploited populist sentiment to exacerbate divisions in protection their political and economic interests, and the furtherance of their own power, despite handing over formal governance to democratically elected government. This paper examines these dynamics, particularly questioning Western expectations and engagement around liberal peacebuilding based on democratic economic and reform, in light of the events that have occurred in the Rohingya conflict and beyond.

Anthony Ware is a Senior Lecturer in International & Community Development at Deakin University. His research focus is on international development in conflict-affected situations, and the relationship between everyday peacebuilding and community-led local development, particularly in Myanmar. More broadly, his research revolves around the impact of sociopolitical factors on participatory development. He has published four books, including Myanmar’s Rohingya Conflict (2018, with Laoutides), and more than two dozen academic papers/chapters. More broadly, his research revolves around the impact of sociopolitical factors on participatory development, and thus he has also worked on issues such as Myanmar’s previous sanctions regime, fragile states, democratic transition, and faith. 34 Thursday 21, 2:30 - 4:00pm Costas Laoutides is a Senior Lecturer in International Relations at Deakin University. His research focuses on separatist conflicts, particularly on the relation between negotiated settlements and modes of political accommodation. He has published three books: Myanmar’s Rohingya Conflict (2018, with Ware), Self- Determination & Collective Responsibility in the Secessionist Struggle (2015), and Territorial Separatism in Global Politics (2015, with Kingsbury, eds). He has also published on hegemony and secession in Transnistria, together with a number of book chapters examining unrecognised states, the institutional structures of secessionist movements in PKK, Iraqi Kurdistan, and Transnistria, and the moral agency of secessionist groups.

Room 2: New Media and Populism Hyperpartisan News: Rethinking An Emerging Journalism for Populist Politics Maria Rae Online media sites such as Breitbart in the US and The Canary in the UK have come to prominence as powerful new agents. Their reach and influence in the contemporary digital media ecology have been widely highlighted yet there has been relatively little scholarship to situate these important new players in the field of political communication studies. Firstly, I argue that these ‘interlopers’’(Eldridge 2018), known as the Alt-Right and Alt-Left, need to be understood as embedded in the context of rising populist politics. Secondly, I argue that ‘hyperpartisan’ describes these sites better than the framework of alternative media as it mirrors populism’s ideological pillar of ‘us’ versus ‘them’. Finally, I pose the deliberate provocation of considering these digital start-ups as news to create a starting point for conceptualising the ‘most disruptive and least understood forces in media’ (Herrman 2016).

Maria Rae is a Lecturer in Politics and Policy at Deakin University. Her research focuses on political communication, human rights, justice and the media. She is also a former newspaper journalist.

Legal and Security Frameworks for Responding to Online Violent Extremism: A Comparison of Far-Right and Jihadist Contexts Imogen Richards & Mark Wood In recent years, there has been an intensification of international extremist violence linked in varying degrees to Internet-facilitated radicalisation. This has related to, among other things, a growth in prevalence of politically violent actors, including far-Right and jihadist collectives. Extreme political polarisation, sometimes termed the ‘hyper-tribalism’ of those with violent or extreme views, is to some extent reinforced by these entities’ participation in social media. Radicalisation to terrorism is also arguably facilitated by the architectures of social media platforms, which comprise of personalisation algorithms and the re-mediating functions of ‘likes,’ ‘shares,’ and ‘re-tweets.’ This paper reflects on characteristics of social media that can be perceived to support violent extremism and terrorism, and legal, security, and technological measures that have been developed internationally to prevent and counter online violent extremist expression. With reference to recent terrorism- related trends, it also highlights a disparity in legal measures to address far-Right hate speech, relative to those used to police and restrict online activity related to jihadism.

Imogen Richards is a Lecturer in Criminology and a member of the Alfred Deakin Institute at Deakin University. She specialises in the areas of surveillance, social media, and counter/terrorism, and has published on issues related to online extremism, with a focus on comparative and cross-disciplinary approaches to online criminological research. Her work has appeared in the International Journal of Cyber Criminology, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Critical Studies on Terrorism, among others. Her wider research interests include the performance of security, theories of violence, and drugs and crime.

Thursday 21, 2:30 - 4:00pm 35 Mark A. Wood is a Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Most of his research falls within the field of digital criminology, and investigates how digital technologies shape the ways crime is experienced, understood and responded to. Mark’s first book, Antisocial Media: Crime-watching in the Internet Age, was published by Palgrave Macmillan 2017 in the publisher’s Palgrave Studies in Crime, Media and Culture series. His work has been published in Theoretical Criminology, Surveillance and Society, Crime Media Culture, The International Journal of Cyber Criminology, The International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, and Feminist Media Studies. Parallel Session 6: 4:00 - 5:30pm

Room 1: Populism and Democracy Across Asia and Africa Taming Populism Through the Mixed Regime Baogang He Populism has posed a great threat to democracy’s cause. Described as a ‘thin-centred ideology’ (Cass Mudde and Cristobal Kaitwasser 2017), or as a ‘political strategy’ used by personalistic leaders (Kurt Weyland 2001), or as corrupt majoritarian tyranny at the cost of minorities and their rights, populism invariably underpins the contemporary crisis of democracy. How to tame the more extreme forms of populism has become imperative. In finding a solution, this paper tracks back the idea of the mixed regime developed by Aristotle and Polybius to examine three modern versions of the mixed regime in Iran, Thailand and China. Through historical and contemporary case studies of the mixed regime, the paper shows a variety of approaches to tame the most extreme aspects of populism and the serious problems associated with these taming institutional designs.

Baogang He is Alfred Deakin Professor, Chair in International Relations, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts & Education, Deakin University. Professor He graduated with a PhD in Political Science from Australian National University in 1994, and has become widely known for his work in Chinese democratization and politics, in particular the deliberative politics in China as well as in Asian politics covering Asian regionalism, Asian federalism and Asian multiculturalism. Professor He has published 6 single-authored books, 1 co-authored book, 5 co-edited books, 79 international refereed journal articles, and 66 book chapters. His publications are found in top journals including British Journal of Political Science, Journal of Peace Research, Political Theory, Political Studies and Perspectives on Politics. In addition, he has published 3 books, 15 book chapters and 63 journal papers in Chinese. The Decline of Democracy in Post-Conflict Burundi and Rwanda Hamish Drummond The political space in Burundi and Rwanda in the post-conflict period has steadily progressed to authoritarian rule. The two cases have many similarities and a shared history which make them a good case for comparison. Both suffered catastrophic ethnic violence: Burundi experiencing a 12 year civil war; Rwanda a bloody genocide. Because the violence in these cases were different, the peace processes were also divergent. Thus, the democratic institutions that were installed in both Burundi and Rwwanda are also differing means of dealing with ethnic identity, yet both are defined as not free by freedom house. If the procedural methods of democracy development seem to have little impact on the health of democratic institutions, then what does? The simple answer is the participatory element of democracy must be strong to have a healthy democratic space. Civil society acts as a lobby for interests while not directly participating in the decision making. This means that it fulfils a role that is neither the elite nor the individuals within the system, but rather acts as a conduit between the two. A healthy civil society acts as a means of ensuring that the state’s arbitrary use of power is constrained from the bottom-up.

36 Thursday 21, 4:00 - 5:30pm Hamish Drummond is PhD candidate at Deakin University. His research is focusing on the post-ethnic conflict democracy development that has occurred in Burundi and Rwanda. Hamish is exploring the shift from early liberal peace in the 1990s through to the developing push for localisation and hybrid theory in the post-conflict environment. It is Hamish’s theory that a strong ethnically crosscutting civil society can bridge the deeply divided society while maintaining a democratic system for the even distribution of power.

Room 2: Populism and Political Parties The Dynamics of the Australian Party System: A Comparative Perspective Zim Nwokora In recent years, several headline-grabbing observations have raised serious questions about the state of party politics in Australia. These observations include: leadership instability, as prime ministers from both sides of politics have been replaced between elections; the growth in electoral support for minor parties in what has traditionally been a two-party system; and declining public trust in the major parties and the institutions they dominate. As this list suggests, these debates often draw together many different issues, which need to be considered separately and in some depth in order to make sense of how party politics in Australia is changing. This article examines one of the central contentions in these debates, namely the suspicion that the party system has become more unstable in recent times. More particularly, I test this expectation with empirical data to reveal how party system dynamics in Australia have varied over time and across jurisdictions, and assess some of the potential explanations of these trends.

Constitutionalising the Party: Protecting the State from the Party and the Party from its Base Tarun Khaitan Political parties have featured in constitutional practice and theory largely in the context of party bans by militant democracies. In this paper, I will argue that democratic constitutions should seek to achieve two design objectives in relation to political parties: 1. Protect the state from capture by a political party; and 2. Protect political parties from capture (by an autocratic leadership, wealthy donors etc). These design objectives are drawn from the value of democracy itself. With respect to the first objective, a regime where the party and the state are sufficiently fused cannot be described as a democracy because the fundamental democratic tenet requiring genuine political competition is breached. Regarding the second objective, a political party that is captured by a narrow base, an autocratic leadership or wealthy donors-I will argue-is bad for democracy. The paper will then discuss some design solutions that, depending on the context, could be deployed towards these objectives.

Tarun Khaitan is an Associate Professor at Oxford University, currently on a 4-year leave to undertake a Future Fellowship project on democratic resilience in South Asia at the Melbourne Law School. He is also the General Editor of the Indian Law Review.

37 Thursday 21, 4:00 - 5:30pm Parties Versus Democracy: Addressing Today’s Political-Party Threats to Democratic Rule Tom Daly The growing threat to liberal democracy worldwide is, in many ways, a political-party threat. Recent years have witnessed the rise of a range of authoritarian populist, illiberal, far-Right, nativist, and extremist parties. Some have entered government in countries including Hungary, Poland, Austria and Italy. Germany’s Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD) is now the main parliamentary opposition. Beyond Europe we see democratic structures threatened or incrementally dismantled through the subversion of an established democratic party by an outsider (e.g., Donald Trump in the U.S., or Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines) or ascendance of the extremist wing of a Right-wing party (e.g., India’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)). Parties and party leaders occupying an ill-defined space on the political spectrum – a form of ‘far-Right lite’ – today generally present a much greater threat to democratic governance than overtly anti-democratic fringe outfits, such as the National Democratic Party (NPD) of Germany. The ambiguity of such parties, their growing size, their entry into government, the subversion of ‘good’ democratic parties by a ‘bad’ leadership, and the rise of the ‘shadow party’ and intensifying external control mean that contemporary political-party threats seriously frustrate the possibility of remedial action afforded by existing public law and policy mechanisms. They also require us to reflect anew on crafting novel remedies and to revisit our deep assumptions about parties as creatures of central constitutional importance.

Tom Daly is Assistant Director of Melbourne School of Government, Director of Democratic Decay & Renewal (DEM-DEC-www.democratic-decay.org), Associate Director of the Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Law, and Co-Editor of the International Association of Constitutional Law (IACL-AIDC) Blog.

Thursday 21, 4:00 - 5:30pm 38 DAY THREE - FRIDAY 22 NOVEMBER

Keynote 4: 9:00 - 10:00am

Fascism, Populism, or Democracy? Problems With the Literature on the Radical Right Tamir Bar-On My talk examines the literature on the radical Right in three different decades. The main question I pose for my lecture is the following: When we examine the contemporary radical Right, are we dealing with fascism (or neo-fascism), populism, or democracy? This is a difficult question to answer because: 1) We must compare the radical Right in different epochs; 2) The tactics of the radical Right have become more parliamentary and meta-political compared to the violence of the inter-war years; 3) The radical Right varies in strength in different countries in Europe (and beyond); 4) There are different tendencies within the radical Right ideologically and tactically; and 5) Most of the radical Right in Europe today is not in favour of the fascist principles of the inter-war years, including colonialism, the use of violence, the aim of totalitarianism, or an authoritarian leadership principle.

While I acknowledge that the resurgence of populism and the radical Right are serious issues for liberal democracies, I argue that the literature on populism and the radical Right tends to mischaracterize and exaggerate the ‘fascist threat;’ ignores and minimizes the ‘Islamist threat;’ and fails to agree on basic terms such as ‘radical Right,’ ‘far Right’ and ‘fascism.’ I suggest ways in which the literature on the radical Right might improve and highlight scholars that offer us a more measured approach to the study of the radical Right.

Tamir Bar-On received his PhD in political science from McGill University (2000); and attained an MA and BA in political science from York University in 1991 and 1990 respectively. Considered one of world’s leading experts on the French and European New Right, Bar-On is a tenured Professor in Department of International Relations, School of Social Sciences and Government, Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education), and has taught at Yale University, University of Toronto, Wilfrid Laurier University, and University of Windsor, and George Brown College. He is a member of the Mexico’s National System for Researchers (2015-2020), and author of Where Have All The Fascists Gone? (2007), Rethinking the French New Right: Alternatives to Modernity (2013), The World Through Soccer: The Cultural Impact of a Global Sport (2014), and Beyond Soccer: International Relations and Politics as Seen Through the Beautiful Game (2017).

Friday 22, 9:00 - 10:00am 39 Parallel Session 7: 10:30 - 12:00pm

Room 1: Populist Demagoguery and Democracy Challenging Authoritarian Practices in Democratic States: In Defence of Publicity Daniel Bray This paper seeks to shed light on the authoritarian practices that operate in established liberal democracies while elections and civil rights remain in place. Specifically, the central aim is to develop a theoretical framework of publicity that can be used as critical tool to identify and remedy authoritarian practices of representation within contemporary democracies. At its most general, ‘publicity’ refers to a social process of disclosure and justification directed at a generalised audience in which government officials and citizens support policies, laws, proposals or claims with reasons, arguments, and information accessible to the public at large. The paper first outlines how ‘elections plus rights’ approaches to evaluating democracy miss a range of practices that deliberately supress or manipulate the communicative flow of information in public spheres. Addressing this problem, the next section argues that publicity is a core ingredient of any working definition of democracy because it is necessary for the operation of democratic representation. In this light, the paper develops a generalised account of publicity that can be used to critically evaluate government practices of representation. Here, violations of publicity are considered authoritarian when they produce epistemic deprivations and distortions that systematically orchestrate ignorance in the citizenry. Finally, based on this account of publicity, the article offers a set of criteria based on the quantity and quality of communicative exchanges that could serve as a publicity standard when evaluating democracy in practice.

Daniel Bray is Senior Lecturer in International Relations in the Department of Politics, Media and Philosophy at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. His research lies at the intersection of International Relations and Political Theory, focussing on using philosophical Pragmatism to develop theories of cosmopolitanism, analyse contemporary global governance and protest movements, and investigate the problems and prospects of representative democracy. He is the author of two books,Pragmatic Cosmopolitanism: Representation and Leadership in Transnational Democracy (2011), and Global Democratic Theory (2015, with Slaughter). How Populism Works – From Cliche to Meaning in Globalising Neoliberal Society Stephen Alomes Is populism, the Cambridge Dictionary’s 2017 word of the year, just a sub-editors’ headline, a hook for clickbait in articles showing little understanding? A general political scientist’s introductory word for an anxious discussion of the ‘democratic deficit’? The result of popular fears, from foreign terrorism to more general prejudice against foreigners, immigrants and alleged criminality? Consider examples: Salvini and the (Northern) League; Hanson 1996 – Australia is being ‘swamped by Asians’; UK Daily Mail, Trump and Peter Dutton on foreign and refugee criminals. Views often most popular with those with no experience of the foreign ‘threat’ – Ipswich, Qld, Sunderland UK, MidWest, USA. Analyses stressing populist emotions, prejudice against outsiders and elites and the party political expressions and performances of populism miss the point. This research focuses on two aspects, primarily regarding Australia and the Trump election. The first is the failure of most serious media and academic discourse to understand the character, technical specifications and power of populism as demonstrated by Gellner and Ionesco (1970) and Canovan (2005). The corollary, in a neo-liberal era of global and digital disruption, is the utilisation of populism as a political device by tabloid columnists, shock jocks and political conservatives to orchestrate conservative attitudes and voting based ona rejection of the middle class moralist radicalism associated with political correctness and identity politics. 40 Friday 22, 10:30 - 12:00pm The second analysis draws on Frank Parkin (1970) and the concept of middle class moral radicalism and analysis of the divide between the ‘Bobos’ (bourgeois bohemians) and the ‘periphery’ by the French geographer Christophe Guilluy (2019). Is populism a symptom, not a cause, and significantly a means to an end?

Stephen Alomes has published books on nationalism, artists, Australia and Japan and on sport and social change and articles on different populisms – including celebrity populism in Europe and Japan, the 1999 Australian Republic referendum, ‘people vs celebrities’ and the 2000 Olympic Torch, and on tabloid culture and politics and politics as sport. An expressionist painter of populist leaders, his exhibition ‘Faces of Populism’ was held at the Charles University Prague May 2019 5th international Populism conference. Room 2: Democracy, Cosmopolitanism and Violence Countering Anti-Cosmopolitan Terror Gary Bouma & Anna Halafoff From Vladimir Putin, to Brexit, to Donald Trump, anti-cosmopolitan voices are rising globally. They attract support particularly from older, class stagnated members of current and former elites, and also those who feel their way of life to be threatened and blocked from achieving their aspirations, blaming newly arriving communities and minorities for their ills. The worst manifestation of this is anti-cosmopolitan terror, as witnessed in the Breivik and Tarrant attacks and manifestos. Is this simply an inevitable reaction to the blandishments of liberalism and neo-liberalism? Or is it time, as Ulrich Beck suggested, to counter anti- cosmopolitanism with a ‘more cosmopolitan sense of reality,’ recognising that the fight for equality and respect for diversity is far from over? This paper explores the intensifying clash between cosmopolitans and anti-cosmopolitans globally, and the role of education in potentially countering this anti-cosmopolitan terror.

Emeritus Professor Gary Bouma is the UNESCO Chair in Interreligious and Intercultural Relations – Asia Pacific, at Monash University. Professor Bouma’s research has primarily focused on the interaction between religion and society in Western societies including Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Europe. Current work includes a major study of religious plurality in multicultural Australia which makes strategic comparisons with other societies; research into the management of religious diversity and continuing work on Post-Modernity as a context for interfaith dialogue and theological reflection.

Anna Halafoffis an Associate Professor in Sociology, and a member of the Alfred Deakin Institute at Deakin University. She is also a Research Associate of the UNESCO Chair in Interreligious and Intercultural Relations – Asia Pacific, at Monash University. Anna’s current research interests include: religious diversity; preventing violent extremism; education about religions and beliefs; and Buddhism in Australia. In 2011, Anna was named a United Nations Alliance of Civilizations’ Global Expert in the fields of multi-faith relations, and religion and peacebuilding.

Friday 22, 10:30 - 12:00pm 41 Development, Security and the Active Global Citizen? Preventing Violent Extremism Through Education Meets the Knowledge Economy April Biccum Global Citizenship Education has been taken up by the UN its educational platform under SDG 4 at the same time that is has formed the central platform of its Preventing Violent Extremism through Education (PVE-E) initiative. Using documentary process tracing and Discourse Analysis, the paper argues that the UN/UNESCO formulation of GCE makes two gestures. On the one hand it is a further iteration in the combination of development and security as articulated by Mark Duffield, where the attitudes and aptitudes of the Global Citizen will make recipients of this education resilient to the mobilisation tactics of extremist groups, in addition to endowing them with skills necessary to the global knowledge economy. This is a peculiarly neo-liberal model of securitization, that the production of subjects for the market will inure them to ‘radicalising’ narratives and render recipients resilient. It will show that knowledge for economic development and knowledge for security are equated and divested of knowledge of Euro- Atlantic foreign policy. Secondly, the proposed subjectivity of the ‘global citizen’ as articulated by the texts and proposed education practices of UNESCO and its assemblage of partners is a Republican Citizen (in the absence of a global republic), that is a citizen whose capacity for participation in the market is also the same skills required for the construction of a global democracy. This paper critically examines what’s at stake in the UN’s marshalling of classical Republican cosmopolitanism in the context of the erosion of the legitimacy of ‘the global’.

April Biccum is Senior Lecturer in Postcolonial International Relations at the ANU. Her research focuses on global governance and education, political communication and political mobilisation in the study of Empire and Global Citizenship, looking specifically at the conceptualisation and theorisation of empire and imperialism and the politics of knowledge embedded in Global Citizenship Education. April’s books include Global Citizenship and the Legacy of Empire (2013).

The First Casualty of War is the Truth: International Law and the Crisis of Trust in Israel Shiri Krebs Free flow of information and respect for the rule of law are two cornerstones of democracy. International law is believed to play an important role in defending both, by transmitting information to various domestic actors, and by educating the public about the existence and extent of international legal norms. This article challenges this assumption, and argues that framing facts in legal terms is ineffective as an educational tool, and that international condemnation triggers backlash, anger and denial. To test this hypothesis, the article utilizes survey experiments fielded in Israel in 2017. Recent controversies concerning the Israeli military response to Palestinian uprising along the Gaza border in 2018 are analysed to complement and deepen the experimental evidence. The findings demonstrate that ‘war crimes’ terminology decreases Jewish Israelis’ willingness to believe information about Palestinian casualties; triggers anger; and fails to stimulate feelings of empathy toward the victims. The findings further suggest that rather than serving as an educational and informative tool, enhancing Israeli institutions and disseminating information, international law is perceived by a majority of Israelis as a political and counter-majoritarian tool, used to de-legitimize Israel.

Shiri Krebs is a Senior Lecturer and HDR Director at Deakin University, and a Stanford University Research Fellow. Krebs’ research focuses on fact-finding and conflict resolution, utilizing empirical research methods, including experiments. She has taught in top law schools, including Stanford, and won several teaching awards. Her publications granted her the Jordan Research Award (2017), the ASIL ‘New Voice’ in international law recognition (2016), the Franklin Award in International Law (2015), the Goldsmith Award in Dispute Resolution (2012), and the Steven Block Civil Liberties Award (2011). Krebs earned her PhD and JSM from Stanford University, and her LL.B., B.A. and M.A. from the Hebrew University. From 2005 to 2010 Krebs served as legal advisor to the Chief-Justice of the Israeli High Court. 42 Friday 22, 10:30 - 12:00pm Room 3: Science, Technology and Democracy The Populist Anti-Science Challenge: Towards a New Analytical Framework Krisztian Szabados The rise of populism has sparked fierce debate about the role of science, scientific evidence and scientists in society. Societies are embattled by the flood of fake news, and scientific misinformation further strengthens the ubiquitous sentiment of uncertainty and distrust in the public. The main research question this paper intends to answer is whether anti-science politics is an intrinsic part of the populist toolkit. To do so, it will propose a new, extended definition of anti-science politics as well as suggesting a novel analytical framework that may allow for a more precise examination of the topic. First, this paper will present the comparative empirical analysis of anti-science politics in the U.S., Russia, Turkey, and Hungary utilizing the definition and set of criteria put forward by Amend and Barney (2016). Second, this paper will argue why this definition needs to be revised following the recent anti-science developments in emblematic populist regimes such as Russia and Hungary. A novel analytical framework will be presented that reveals the subtle but all the more damaging instruments that populist regimes employ in pursuit of their anti-science politics.

Krisztian Szabados is the founder and director of Political Capital Institute, a Budapest-based think tank internationally renowned for its researches on populism, political extremism and Russian influence in Central Europe. Szabados’s major field of research has been the connection between political populism and anti-science sentiments in societies, and the origins of science denialism. He is a regular speaker at conferences of political science. He is currently writing his doctoral dissertation on the politics of transhumanism, a pro-science ideology that has recently emerged in response to the current technological and scientific revolution. He is a member of IPSA and ECPR. Non-Human Algorithmic Political Actors: A Deliberative Democratic View Nardine Alnemr Algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly feature in democratic contexts and debate about their appropriate use as non-human political actors. Interesting examples include virtual political candidates – a robot competing to be mayor in Japan, a virtual political candidate hoping to change political participation in New Zealand, an AI virtual assistant running against Vladimir Putin in the last Russian presidential election – through to a humanoid citizen of Saudi Arabia. A deliberative democracy perspective – which requires authentic communication and reasoning that must include those affected by decisions – is applied to these developments and questions their legitimacy in terms of human inclusion. The analysis extends to deliberative systems to assess the broader large scale consequences. To highlight the implications, the analysis draws on comparative assessments of these consequences between democratic and non- democratic systems. The analysis focuses on the reasons and arguments for these alternative actors to understand their impact on political systems. Based on primary assessment of these reasons and arguments, the rationale for these actors highlights deficiencies in a political system which a technological intervention can resolve. A deficiency can be the lack of transparency or rational reasoning in decision- making. In either case, close examination of the context in which this deficiency is identified and addressed is critical to understanding the consequences of alternative political actors.

Nardine Alnemr is a PhD student at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis at the University of Canberra. Prior to joining the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Governance, Nardine worked as a demonstrator in the political science department at the British University in Egypt. As well as this, Nardine worked on part-time basis with a development NGO in Egypt, and collaborating with a civil society organisation on their digital rights profile.

Friday 22, 10:30 - 12:00pm 43 Parallel Session 8: 1:00 - 2:30pm

Room 1: Australian Politics and Populisms ‘Taking the Current When It Serves:’ Australian Federalism and Democratic Experimentalism Isi Unikowski The paper canvasses the possibilities of incremental reform of Australia’s federation through the adoption of ‘democratic experimentalist’ forms of governance. By building on, rather than changing, some of the federation’s key structures and processes, experimentalist forms of governance have the potential to change the prevailing centralising direction of Australian federalism. These possibilities respond to the considerable challenges facing Australia’s federal system such as the decline of trust in political institutions and leaders, and suggest ways in which the public sector might contribute to meeting those challenges, along with its constraints in doing so.

Isi Unikowski is in his final year of a PhD candidacy with the Crawford School of Public Policy at the ANU. His research is on the work of officials in the federal system, with a particular focus on their role in contributing to innovation and institutional resilience. More generally, Isi’s interests and research broadly cover federalism, public sector governance and public administration. Before commencing a PhD, Isi worked for three decades in the Australian public service. He worked for a range of central, policy and service delivery agencies including the Prime Minister’s Department, the Australian Public Service Commission, Centrelink, the Departments of Climate Change, Human Services and others.

Locke-d Out of the Social Contract: Indigenous Sovereignties, Liberal Exclusion and Democratic Legitimacy in the Settler Colony Priya Kunjan Contemporary political debates both inside and outside of academia tend to highlight the multiple crises of liberalism and the post-WWII liberal world order, reducing such concerns to ‘West versus Rest’ or democratic versus populist/authoritarian. However, this paper seeks to complicate such binaries by suggesting that attending to the historicity of so-called liberal democracies can help us to locate the genesis of these ‘crises’ in the development of classic liberal theory. Settler colonies such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States exemplify the fundamental illiberalism of liberal democracy, due to their development on the disavowal of Indigenous peoples’ political agency and capacity. Characterising Australian liberal democracy as a reduced form of democratic governance reliant on the originary and ongoing violence of colonisation, this paper interrogates the implications and reception of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ assertions of sovereignty through protest. This paper identifies Indigenous peoples’ protests that incorporate a critique of the settler state as manifestations of popular sovereignty, articulated through the public assertion of ongoing Indigenous sovereignties. As such, these protest events are constitutive of an internal crisis of liberalism, challenging the legitimacy of settler colonial liberal democracy and the notion of a singular state sovereignty. This paper further attends to the necessity of such a crisis of liberalism as a key component of imagining de-colonial futurity.

Priya Kunjan is a first-year PhD student in Political Science at the University of Melbourne, living and working on unceded Kulin Nations territory. Their PhD research engages notions of sovereignty and the intelligibility of political claims made by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples outside of democratic electoral politics in Australia, looking in particular at the policing and representations of such claim-making in the form of public protest. More broadly, their research and personal interests include a focus on de- colonial social movements and the interplay between bio-political and necro-political forms of settler colonial governmentality. 44 Friday 22, 1:00 - 2:30pm The Securitisation of Muslim Youth Identity Politics in Australia Irfan Yusuf The identities of young people are forever a state of flux, switching between layers that may include ethnicity, religion and politics. Young people who identify as Muslim are no exception. This has become even more so since the emergence of securitised political and legal discourses of counterterrorism and national security. Following terror attacks in Western cities carried out by ‘home-grown’ Muslim citizens, beginning with Madrid (2004) and London (2005) bombings, the collective religious identities among Muslim youth in Western countries have become an issue of national security, seen through the prism of terrorism and radicalisation. This, despite the absence of consensus on how basic concepts such as ‘terrorism’ and ‘radicalisation’ are defined. The Australian Parliament has engaged in a flurry of ‘hyper’ legislative activity with over 67 separate pieces of counterterrorism legislation passed, effectively creating a separate parallel criminal justice system designed to not just criminalise acts deemed 'terrorist acts' but also a vast array of innocuous activities and alliances which, in conventional criminal law, may not be deemed offences. This study provides an analysis of how a sample of 30 Muslims aged between 18 and 35 feel their identity choices are affected in this overly securitised environment.

Irfan Yusuf is a PhD candidate at ADI, Deakin University. He graduated in Economics and Law at Macquarie University, completing a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice at UTS. He has practised as a lawyer since 1994 in NSW, QLD, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia. His 2009 book Once Were Radicals discussed young Muslims flirting with Islam and ‘Islamism’ during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and during the period before 9/11. He also wrote a chapter for the anthology Coming of Age–Growing Up Muslim In Australia. Irfan’s writing has appeared in Critical Muslim, The Drum, Crikey and Eureka Street.

Room 2: Populism and Political Leadership The Contemporary Failure of Liberal Democratic Leadership (and What To Do About It) John Kane This paper analyses the disarray or decline of long-established liberal democratic parties worldwide after the financial crisis of 2007-8 and the general failure of leadership it exposed. The considerable aftershocks of the meltdown, interacting with resurgent Russian nationalism, terrorism, Middle Eastern chaos and a consequent uncontrollable flood of refugees, threw Western governments into confusion and the whole post-war liberal international order into something resembling crisis. The pressing leadership issue became how to re-establish order and found some plausible orientation toward a positive liberal democratic future. The failure to achieve such reorientation is explained by the lack of any new leadership political consensus around a political-economic theory capable of addressing, not just economic issues, but the public outrage caused by the colossal ethical failure of the last crisis. The paper addresses the question of what now might plausibly be done to re-establish a sustainable global order founded on authentic liberal democratic principles.

John Kane is Professor in the School of Government and International Relations, Griffith University, Australia. He researches in political theory, leadership and US foreign policy and has been four times visiting professor to Yale University. He is author of The Politics of Moral Capital (2001) and Between Virtue and Power: The Persistent Moral Dilemma of US Foreign Policy (2008), and co-author of The Democratic Leader (2012, with Patapan).

Friday 22, 1:00 - 2:30pm 45 Populism and Acclamatory Leadership Alan Scott This paper will argue that the political sociology of plebiscitary leadership from Weber to Schumpeter is of renewed relevance in understanding the contemporary leader type who has (re)-emerged on the populist right. That literature emphasized that acclamation is grounded in emotion and in faith rather than in provisional loyalty. Thus a leader will be selected who - in Weber’s terms - is most exceptional, promises the most, and works best with provocation. Using contemporary examples, the paper will argue that we are currently witnessing (i) a shift towards the model of the leader-party; (ii) that this development is no longer confined to Right-populist parties, but can increasingly be found within established ‘people’s parties’. Contemporary Austrian politics will be used as the chief example. This case also raises questions concerning the viability of this style of politics under conditions that (as yet) remain constitutional and formally democratic, and what might happen when it fails.

Alan Scottis Professor of Sociology at the University of New England. His main research interests cover political sociology and social theory. Recent publications include Remaking Market Society (2018, with Palumbo) and chapters and articles on populism in Austria and the UK, and on plebiscitary leadership. Website: https://une-au.academia.edu/AlanScott. Problematizing Depoliticization Analysis and Politicising Populism: A Call for Democratic Innovation Henrik Bang Depoliticization analysis is about: ‘the narrowing of the boundaries of democratic politics. It is therefore intertwined with concerns about ‘the end of politics’ and the emergence of technocratic post-democratic forms of governance (Flinders and Wood 2014, 135). On this definition, new politicizing populism should be a godsend to politics and democracy. After populism, as was the case in the 1930s, politics has become a matter of the ‘world elite’ and ‘the world elite conspiracy’ vs. the ‘pure’ and sovereign people. Globalism vs. nativism is simply replacing Left vs. Right as the dominant cleavage and conflict in society. Like depoliticization researchers, populists are blaming neo-liberalism for hollowing out the state and atomizing the nation as the home of ‘we the people.’ Both aim at wrestling hegemony from neo-liberalism’s global army of success-driven ‘professionals’ by repoliticizing the silent crowd as a political movement for making the nation great again. This populist conflict politics of hegemony and collective identification need tobe thoroughly problematized, analytically and practically. It paves the way for a ‘strongman democracy’ which undermines not only liberal democracy’s general laws and procedures but also its practical goal of self- governance by peoples in all their ineradicable differences. Furthermore, in placing politics before policy, populism becomes a hindrance to handling high-consequence risks of accelerating climate change and technologically based surveillance, control and prediction of people’s behaviours. We need new political and democratic perspectives which can distinguish (de)politicization from (de)problematization and thereby demand-driven ‘politics-policy’ from outcome-driven ‘policy-politics.’ Otherwise we will not be able to innovate democracy by linking its abstract goal of equal freedom to its practical goal of popular self- determination.

Henrik P. Bang is Danish but has for nearly 7 years lived in Australia and been Professor of Governance at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis (IGPA) at the University of Canberra. He is mostly known for his theoretical and empirical work on the Everyday Maker and the Expert Citizens, but has in recent years concentrated on employing his book on Foucault’s Political Challenge (2015) to develop a new critical model for critiquing globalist neo-liberalism’s de-politicization of the population and nativist populism’s over-politicization of society. He writes for the moment on two books about (1) Habermas and the New Populisms and (2) The Political System Revisited.

46 Friday 22, 1:00 - 2:30pm Parallel Session 9: 2:30 - 4:00pm

Room 1: Australian Foreign Policy and Liberalism The Rise of Security Internationalism and Australia’s Response to Crises of the Liberal Order William Stoltz Australia has been a trustee of the liberal international experiment since Federation. However, the institutions and norms that have sustained the liberal world order – an order Australia helped to build – have been gradually corroded since the 1990s. This corrosion, driven by a multitude of revisionist forces, has been acutely accelerated in recent times by China’s open pursuit of its authoritarian global project and Russian revanchism. My paper argues that the Australian Government’s policy responses to anti-liberal forces since the end of the Cold War have been characterised by Security Internationalism: an approach to international security that has sought to fortify the liberal world order at its post-Cold War apogee. I argue that Australia’s Security Internationalism has led to a reactive, unconstructive response to the current crisis facing the liberal international order and as such Australia’s international security initiatives are likely to be less effective than in the past. By chronicling Australia’s contributions to international security as they accord to traditions of internationalism, in this paper’s case Security Internationalism, my PhD research provides unique historical insights for scholars and policy-makers to better inform their understanding of how strategic policy-making in Australia’s Westminster Cabinet system is affected by ideological inertia and the legacy of past events.

William A. Stoltz is an experienced strategic policy practitioner and national security scholar. He is currently completing his PhD at the ANU’s National Security College where he is also a sessional academic. In addition to academia, William works as a Commonwealth civil servant, having worked in several Commonwealth departments and the National Intelligence Community. He is also a reservist with the Royal Australian Air Force where he has applied the insights of his research to intractable strategic problems. William has previously published his research in the Fairfax press, with the Lowy Institute, and he is a member of the Wilson Center’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Project. Does Personality Predict Attitudes Towards International Issues? Evidence from Australia and the United States Fabricio Chagas-Bastos In 2016, Donald Trump’s campaign blamed US-China trade imbalances for the downgrade in American living standards. His strategy tapped voters’ ideological attitudes towards international issues to claim their support to ‘make America great again.’ The Brexit vote in 2016 exhibited the same patterns. The shifting political landscape of global politics in the twenty-first century shows that more and more candidate’s policy positions may also reverberate with particular individual traits. Although international affairs are relevant to domestic political processes, little work has examined the structure or psychological correlates of the citizenry’s attitudes towards international issues. Personality and foreign policy studies have been concentrated on the projection of leaders’ personalities, assuming that the individual differences do not affect political outcomes. Only recently, research has started to consider personality traits as predictors of attitudes towards international issues. This paper constitutes a first cut at examining the direct relationship between citizens’ personality traits and their foreign policy beliefs in the US and Australia. Across three studies, using survey experiments, we explore the associations between the Big Five model (domains and aspects), political ideology, and attitudes towards international issues. Our findings suggest new associations between Extraversion (and Assertiveness) and the endorsement of the use of military force, whereas the support of cooperative and non-isolationist postures is associated with Agreeableness (and Compassion). Friday 22, 2:30 - 4:00pm 47 Fabricio-Chagas Bastos is a PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne’s School of Psychological Sciences. He has participated in the Emerging Leaders in the Americas Program (Canada) and Endeavour Leadership Program (Australia) Alumnus, and holds a PhD in International Relations (University of Sao Paulo). He has completed postdoctoral research at the University of Cambridge and the Australian National University. Fabricio’s research draws on a range of disciplines including international relations, psychology (social, political and personality), political theory, political sociology, intellectual history, and social epistemology. More generally, he is interested in the study of ideologies, international and political theory, and security processes.

Room 2: Liberalism, Populism and Climate Change The Rise of Resilience and the Crisis of Global Climate Governance Peter Ferguson & Linda Wollersheim Since the 1980s, the dominant meta discourse of global environmental governance has been sustainable development. However, since about 2013, sustainable development has been discursively supplemented by the notion of resilience. This paper clarifies the key dimensions of this resilience discourse and argues that the shift from sustainable development to resilience is a reaction to two geopolitical factors. First, resilience has emerged in response to the post-Kyoto crisis of multilateral climate governance and the perceived shortcomings of market-based emissions mitigation strategies. Second, attempts, especially in the US and Europe, to articulate climate change as a security issue since 2007 have generated significant disquiet among both analysts who reject any causal relationship between climate change and insecurity and the BRICS nations who contend that climate change is an issue of sustainable development rather than national security. Just as sustainable development once offered an expedient compromise between environmental protection and development aspirations, today neo-liberal articulations of resilience offer a discourse of ecological risk mitigation that resonates with both globalist environmentalist perspective and populist sceptics of multilateralism, while articulating a climate security and development discourse that simultaneously satisfies the national security objectives of Western powers and the development aspirations of the BRICS nations.

Peter Ferguson has been a Lecturer in Politics and Policy Studies (PPS) at Deakin University since 2015, and is currently the PPS Discipline Convenor. Previously, he was a Lecturer in environmental politics at the University of Melbourne, from where he obtained his PhD in political science in 2014. Peter is a discourse analyst and critical theorist, whose research focusses on the political barriers to moving toward a socially just and ecologically sustainable states system and global economy, which was the focus of his recent book Post-Growth Politics: A Critical Theoretical and Policy Framework for Decarbonisation (2018). He has also published numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals on environmental politics, ecological security and green political economy. His most recent article, entitled ‘Discourses of Resilience in the Climate Security Debate,’ (2019) was published in Global Environmental Politics.

Linda Wollersheim is a PhD Candidate in Politics and Policy Studies at Deakin University. Her work explores policy aspects of renewable energies and environmental and social justice implications of renewable energy technologies. More specifically, her PhD project focuses on identifying opportunities of renewables to facilitate more democratic, bidirectional energy systems, and analyses policy levers facilitating ‘just’ low-carbon energy transitions in Australia and in Germany.

48 Friday 22, 2:30 - 4:00pm Ending Climate Change by Shifting the Goalposts: The Retreat From Global Space Benjamin Glasson Could fear of climate change be feeding popular disillusionment with the post-war liberal project? Bruno Latour claims that climate change and its denial have been structuring the politics of most of the world for three decades. While exploding inequalities, deregulation and globalisation constitute an integrated assault on the lives of most of the world’s people, their common denominator, Latour argues, is the degradation of the planet’s ecosystems. Cognisant of this, powerful elites are actively preparing for socio-ecological turmoil while aggressively promoting climate denial, abandoning any pretence of sharing a common future with the rest of the world. Latour claims that the Left, neglecting this situation and directing its efforts instead at a range of localist and globalist projects, is in denial of the fact that people feel abandoned by elites and disillusioned with modernity, and are retreating from globalism to the imaginary protection of national and ethnic borders. In this paper I interrogate Latour’s claim that ecological limits are driving liberalism’s retreat. To what extent is climate change, and the failure of the liberal world order to tackle it, fuelling popular desires to bypass the entire problem by trading global space for ancient terroir? I address the question through an analysis of climate change in nationalist and nativist party discourse across 10 countries.

Ben Glasson is a political scientist working at the intersection of environmental politics and political communication. His research focuses on climate politics and the media, with particular emphasis on the relationship between populism, social conflict, and public opinion. He is also working on theoretical problems emanating from new materialism, affect theory and actor-network theory. He has published on these themes in the Journal of Political Ideologies, Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, and Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, among others. Fighting for the Right Cause? How Islamists View Climate Change Emmanuel Karagiannis The environmental policies and approaches of Islamist groups have received scant scholarly attention. While there is a huge body of literature regarding Islam and nature, we know very little about how Islamists view the environment and its components. In the era of globalization, however, Islamist groups have increasingly addressed environmental problems and have offered solutions accordingly. The paper will focus on the emergence of Islamist environmentalism as a new phenomenon that requires a scientific investigation. More specifically, it will examine the position of Hezbollah, Hizb ut-Tahrir and Al Qaeda on global warming and climate change.

Emmanuel Karagiannis is an Associate Professor at King’s College London’s Department of Defence Studies. He obtained a PhD in Theology and Religious Studies from King’s College London and a PhD in Political Science from the University of Hull in Great Britain. Karagiannis received his BA in European Community Studies from London South Bank University and an MA in International Security Studies from the University of Reading. He held research positions in prestigious US and British universities (Yale University, Columbia University, Princeton University, London School of Economics, U.S Military Academy at West Point, Oxford University). He has published extensively on radicalisation and terrorism, political Islam in Central Asia and the Middle East, and Russian foreign and security policy. His new book The New Political Islam: Human Rights, Democracy and Justice has been published by the University of Pennsylvania Press. Also, he is the author of Political Islam in Central Asia (2010) and Energy and Security in the Caucasus (2002). His articles have appeared, among others, in Journal of North African Studies, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Terrorism and Political Violence, Journal of Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, Middle East Quarterly, Small Wars and Insurgencies, Contemporary Security Policy, Asian Security, European Security, Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, Mediterranean Politics, Mediterranean Quarterly, Harvard Asia Quarterly, Europe-Asia Studies, Nationalities Papers, Central Asian Survey, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, and Journal of Balkans and Near Eastern Studies. Friday 22, 2:30 - 4:00pm 49 Plenary Panel 2: 4:30 - 5:30pm

The Future of Populism and Democracy? In Fear of the People: Political Science and the Challenge of Democracy Roland Axtmann Throughout the history of political thought and political philosophy as well as in contemporary Western institutionalised political ‘science,’ we witness sustained efforts to ‘tame the people.’ The ‘institutionalisation’ of (Western-dominated) academic political science has been intended to be an ‘answer’ to ‘fascism’ and the perceived role of ‘the people’ in its rise and system dynamics: how can the power of the people to act be contained? Here opens up the theoretical concern with the relation between ‘democracy’ and ‘authoritarianism’ as well as the imprisoning of democracy within ‘liberalism.’ There is a very distinct danger that the academic concerns with ‘populism’ and ‘the future of democracy’ contribute to the traditional endeavours ‘to tame the demos as an actor.’

Professor Roland Axtmann is an Honorary Research Fellow at Swansea University. After his PhD with Michael Mann at the LSE, Roland taught for 15 years at Aberdeen University, before he moved to Swansea University as Professor of Politics and International Relations. He stepped down in January of this year and currently works as a consultant for a number of universities. He held visiting appointments in a number of universities, including Heidelberg, Graz, UCLA, British Columbia, Queensland, Tianjin, and Deakin. Populism, Democracy and Global Heating Robyn Eckersley Recent years have seen the emergence of two diametrically opposed transnational movements: ethno- nationalist populist movements which are generally sceptical of climate science and climate action versus movements for climate justice and climate action, such as the international school strike for climate movements and Extinction Rebellion, which are demanding radical climate action. In-between these opposing movement sits the French grassroots ‘yellow vest’ movement, which is a national movement for economic justice as much as a movement against a national fuel tax. This presentation will reflect on the connections and disconnections between these opposing movements in terms of the kinds of populism they represent, how they seek to legitimate their claims and what this reveals about the uphill struggle to build democratic legitimacy for transformatory action on climate change.

Robyn Eckersley is a Professor in Political Science in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne. She has served as Head of Political Science from 2008-2010, 2014 and 2015; Director of the Faculty of Arts Master of International Relations Program from 2011-2012, executive member of the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute (MSSI) and co-convenor of MSSI’s Climate Transformations, and Sustainability in the Anthropocene, research clusters. She has published widely on climate change politics, including climate justice, the international climate negotiations, the interplay between the trade and climate regimes, comparative climate politics and climate discourses. She was a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford in 2009-2010 and served as Arne Naess Chair in Global Justice and the Environment at the University of Oslo for the northern winter of 2010-2011. She was elected as a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia in 2007. Robyn has published widely in the fields of global environmental politics, political theory and international relations, with a special focus on the politics of climate change. Her books include Environmentalism and Political Theory (1992); Markets the State and the Environment (1995, editor); The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty (2004); Why Human Security Matters (2012, co-editor); Globalization and the Environment (2013, with Christoff). Friday 22, 4:30 - 5:30pm 50 Surveying the Populist Moment: The Normalisation of the Populist Right & the Waning of the Populist Left Benjamin Moffitt

Where is populism heading – and what does it mean for the future of liberal democracy? With the ‘populist moment’ seemingly in full swing, this presentation surveys the contemporary state of populism. On one hand, Right populism remains ascendant, in many places having become part of – or at very least, heavily influencing the direction of – the so-called political ‘mainstream.’ On the other hand, despite the exhortations of theorists like Chantal Mouffe, the Left populist project seems to be waning, with Syriza out of government, Podemos languishing in the polls, and the Latin American populist Left having taken a decidedly authoritarian turn. This context has important ramifications for the study of populism. On a conceptual level, what does it mean when populism has become normalised within the contemporary political landscape – does it make sense to delineate between ‘mainstream’ and ‘populist’ parties anymore? On a normative level, with the Left populist project clearly showing its limits, should radical democrats continue to defend it against liberal critics? Taking up these important questions, this presentation considers the challenges ahead for the burgeoning field of populism studies.

Benjamin Moffittis Senior Lecturer in Politics and Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow at the National School of Arts, Australian Catholic University (Melbourne). He is the author of The Global Rise of Populism (2016), Populism (Key Concepts in Political Theory) (2020) and Political Meritocracy and Populism (2020, with Chou and Bryant). His work on populism has appeared in leading journals including Political Studies and Government and Opposition, and in 2018, Benjamin was named one of the Top 5 researchers in Humanities and the Social Sciences in Australia by the ABC. He is currently working on a book on the visual politics of populism.

51 Friday 22, 4:30 - 5:30pm 52 Deakin Downtown

Deakin Downtown Level 12, Tower 2 727 Collins Street Docklands 3008

Deakin Downtown is a few minutes’ walk from Southern Cross Station and located directly in front of the D15 - Batman’s Hill/Collins Street tram stop (Lines 11 and 48).

Parking nearby is expensive so we recommend catching a taxi, tram or train to the Conference. Parking

Secure Parking 664 Collins Street, Melbourne Mon - Fri | 6:00am - 8:00pm Early Bird - [enter between 6:00am & 9:30am, exit between 3:00pm & midnight]

700 Collins Street, Docklands Mon - Sun | 24/7 Early Bird - [enter between 6:00am & 9:30am, exit between 3:00pm & midnight] secureparking.com.au

Wilson Parking 750 Collins Street, Docklands Mon - Fri | 6:00am - 7:00pm Early Bird - [enter between 6:00am & 9:30am, exit between 3:00pm & 7:00pm]

Southern Cross Station, Spencer Street, Melbourne Mon - Sun | 4:00am - 1:00am [Early Bird, limited spaces]. Check online for cheapest option. wilsonparking.com.au WiFi

Free Guest Wifi is available at Deakin Downtown - ask at reception Contact

There will be a number of Alfred Deakin Institute staff present on both days of the Conference who will be able to assist you with all enquiries.

Alfred Deakin Institute: 9244 6213; [email protected]

In the event of an emergency, Australia’s emergency services number is 000.

Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B Alfred Deakin Institute 53