Democracies face a crisis of self-preservation: how to defend against internal threats without sacrificing core values? This thesis explores militant democracy, a theory allowing limitations on...Show moreDemocracies face a crisis of self-preservation: how to defend against internal threats without sacrificing core values? This thesis explores militant democracy, a theory allowing limitations on freedoms to safeguard the system. While justifications exist that focus on democratic processes or core values, this thesis argues that the latter struggles with defining those values objectively. Can a democracy claim moral superiority without universal moral truths? Additionally, Rijpkema's (2018) concept of democracy as self-correction, another justification for militant democracy, remains unexamined. This research addresses these gaps by analyzing the limitations of defining core substantive democratic values and the challenges posed by the absence of objective morality. The Böckenförde Dictum will be used to support my argument. Furthermore, it provides a critical analysis of Rijpkema's theory. By examining these underexplored aspects, this thesis aims to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the tension between militant democracy and core democratic principles. Ultimately, it argues that there is an inherent contradiction within militant democracy, as actions against non-violent anti-democratic voices can contradict the will of the people, the very essence of democracy.Show less
Since the end of the Second World War the discussion on the defensibility of democracies has become gradually more prevalent. This thesis sought to answer the question; To what extent are parties...Show moreSince the end of the Second World War the discussion on the defensibility of democracies has become gradually more prevalent. This thesis sought to answer the question; To what extent are parties in Europe banned on basis of the concept of a militant democracy? First, the concept “militant democracy” was defined. This was done by analysing the aim, definition, measures and enemies of a militant democracy as outlined by five renowned academics in the field. Namely, Loewenstein (1937), Sajó (2004), Giovanni (2005), Thiel (2009) and Müller (2016/2018). Secondly, party ban cases in Germany, The Czech Republic, Latvia, The Netherlands and Spain were considered. First it was considered whether there were laws in place that aimed at protecting the democracy by targeting enemies of a militant democracy. Secondly, jurisprudence was analysed to see whether these laws were applied with the aim of protecting the democracy and targeting enemies of a militant democracy. If both were found to be the case; a party ban could be considered an act of a militant democracy. Thirdly, the political discourse around the party proscription was scrutinized to gather more information about the reasons for the ban. This was done by reviewing newspaper articles. The German and Czech cases were found to be examples of a militant democracy. Latvia indirectly acted as a militant democracy. The Dutch and Spanish cases were no examples of militant democracy. The political reasons for the party ban fell in line with the judicial reasons. In case of the Dutch and Spanish party ban, the government had additional motives for banning the party concerning the country’s future.Show less
