Two paths emerge for defending democracies against autocratic threats
A new analysis compares competing strategies for protecting democracy: one relies on strong constitutional safeguards to block would-be autocrats early, while the other emphasizes grassroots civic engagement. The findings reveal persistent tensions between legal protections and public involvement—critical for policymakers designing democratic resilience.
Originaltitel: Democratic self-defence in a Rawlsian key
<p>This review explores two recent contributions to the theory of democratic self-defence: Benjamin Schupmann's Democracy Despite Itself and Gabriele Badano and Alasia Nuti's Politicizing Political Liberalism. It situates both works within the broader field of democratic self-defence and critically assesses their central arguments in terms of normative coherence and practical applicability. The review also compares the two: Schupmann's maximalist, institution-focused model of militant democracy offers a sharp, normative framework for early and decisive constitutional intervention against autocrats, while Badano and Nuti shift attention toward the ethical and civic dimensions of democratic resistance beyond the state. Both contributions deepen our understanding of the challenges involved in resisting autocratization today – whether through legal entrenchment or grassroots engagement – while also revealing the persistent tensions between liberal constitutionalism and popular sovereignty.</p>