Liberal democracies are under immense pressure. Apart from threatening exterior forces, it seems that interior forces are rising and increasingly threatening democracy from inside out. Public...Show moreLiberal democracies are under immense pressure. Apart from threatening exterior forces, it seems that interior forces are rising and increasingly threatening democracy from inside out. Public officials are receiving more threats than ever and even parliaments are attacked. Within public and academic debate, the question rises how to react. Scholars are referring and reacting to the theory of ‘militant democracy’, a democracy which allows for suspension of political rights, albeit under certain conditions. Specifically, this thesis focuses on the self-limiting theory of militant democracy by Kirshner (2014) as one of the most prominent recent academic accounts to the theory of militant democracy. What makes the theory notable, is that his work aims to offer a framework for liberal democracies on when and how to react to so-called ‘antidemocrats’. This thesis provides for a concrete definition of the term antidemocrat, links the three principles of Kirshner’s self-limiting theory of militant democracy with basic liberal principles, critically evaluates each of the principles and, where needed, expands or adjusts them, and expands the theory by adding a fourth principle.Show less
In a deliberative democracy, policy making is justified by the rational public deliberation of all those affected. To this end, the state provides procedural guarantees for continuous rational...Show moreIn a deliberative democracy, policy making is justified by the rational public deliberation of all those affected. To this end, the state provides procedural guarantees for continuous rational deliberation and collective opinion formation, aimed at reaching a collective decision. Apart from of these procedural features, a deliberative democracy also heavily relies on the personal rational abilities of its citizens. This requires certain common abilities, like certain standards of argumentation, the freedom of discussion and the possibility of rational deliberation. The structural inequality argument specifically focusses on this ‘difference blind’ approach to individuals’ abilities. This critique argues that deliberative democracy is unable to address underlying unequal societal structures. Consequently, the outcome of rational deliberation is no longer constructed by ‘all those affected’ but only by individuals who are able to make their voice heard in the public deliberation. This thesis focusses on this critique, examines possible solutions, and argues that structural inequality can never be completely eradicated in democratic deliberation. However, by realizing political equality as the equal opportunity for political effectiveness, the practice of democratic deliberation should not be regarded illegitimate.Show less