This program aims to bring together 5-8 scholars (both Israelis and those from abroad) for a joint residence of 5 months (February 1 - June 30) who will undertake work, either individually, in pairs, or collectively on the topic of Challenges to Democracy.  It is anticipated that each group will be organized around a theme or set of themes that will vary from year to year.

Steering Committee Members

Malcolm Feeley (University of California Berkeley) 

Tom Ginsburg (University of Chicago) 

Amal Jamal (Tel Aviv University) 

Mordechai Kremnitzer (The Hebrew University) 

Matthias Mahlmann (University of Zurich) 

Renata Uitz (University of London) 

 

Rationale

Democracies around the world are under pressure by external and internal political forces. Supporters of “illiberal democracy” have become serious actors on the global stage. These social, political and geo-strategic developments are accompanied by the increasing influence of anti- and post-democratic theories. Moreover, the cultural and social preconditions of democracy are in danger of eroding.

This situation calls for a thorough reappraisal of the democratic project and its multifaceted foundations on a global scale.

In many discussions, the alternative to “illiberal democracy” is identified as a “liberal democracy”. For brevities sake, the project uses the latter term, too, but without adhering to any narrow understanding of “liberalism”. Its aim is to provide a wide space of reflection about different, innovative conceptualizations of democracy that create a framework for an open-ended process of political self-determination. These  are anchored in equal, free and effective participation in political decision making, the rule of law, the separation of powers and a basic commitment to social justice and human rights..

First Year Theme

The first part of the five-year project “Challenges to Democracy” focuses on the analysis and critique of “illiberal democracies” which have become the main contender for establishing an alternative to liberal democracies as the leading form of political organization. They maintain a majoritarian democratic façade (regarding the majoritarian principle as the sole principle of democracy) and refrain from establishing open authoritarianism. Instead, they abandon, falsify and abuse core political values of constitutional democracies.

The analysis of the constitutive features of “illiberal democracies” are at the same time a first step to identify the essential elements of a democracy that deserves its name.

What are the essential elements of “illiberal democracies”? What is their political structure and legal architecture? What does this say about the essential elements of constitutional democracy?

What are the socio-economic, technological, cultural, ideological and epistemic preconditions of illiberal democracy? Are these any different from the preconditions of constitutional democracy? What are the preconditions of turning illiberal democracy into even more repressive regimes?

What are the strengths of “illiberal democracies”? Does constitutional democracy have similar (or alternative) strengths?

What are the effects of “illiberal democracies” in political, legal, economic, social and cultural terms?

What are the reasons for their political appeal? What are the causes of public frustration and alienation towards existing liberal, constitutional democracies? (lack of efficiency and performance; problems of representation; unfulfilled promises like equality, economic stability and prosperity, social welfare and security; fear of social status, faults in the design of democracy)

Are there any intrinsic weaknesses in the systems of “illiberal democracies” which may open a door to re-establish constitutional democracy truly committed to freedom, equality, justice and human rights?

Is it possible to prevent the establishment of “illiberal democracies” with democratic means? What are the examples of democratic resilience? In what social and political conditions can democratic resilience be mobilized? Can or did such attempts backfire?

Future Themes

The project will run over five years. Future calls will include themes such as:

1. Elements and preconditions of liberal democracy (Institutions, rule of law, separation of power, pluralism, human rights, courts and their powers, instruments of social justice, rotation in government, international linkages, democratic participation in regional and international organizations, international tax systems and state finance, constitutionalism, media and public discourse, meaningful decision making by elections, civil society, public participation in politics, popular sovereignty, unwritten norms (civility, good will, self-restraint, tolerance), civic culture of democracy, democratic theory).

2. Liberal democracy meets new circumstances and challenges (Globalization, erosion of a rule-based international order, immigration, economy (finance and capital, commodities, trade, new economic balances in the global economy), inequality, digital society and technologies (AI), media, social media and their radical impact, polarization, revival of patriarchy, chauvinism, xenophobia, ethnic nationalism and racism, homophobia, exclusion and persecution of minorities, individualization, politized religion (desecularization and religious nationalism), identity politics, personalization of politics, weakening of political parties, increasing role of emotions, climate crisis, sustainability and intergenerational justice, political violence, terror, war and militarization, threats by autocracies, demise of national, regional and international human rights regimes, lack of commitment to democracy, freedom and equality).

3. How to overcome illiberal democracy? How to prevent the shift towards authoritarianism? How to return to liberal, constitutional democracy?

(Rule of law and the re-establishment of democratic institutions, the ambivalent role of the administrative state and its challenge, mechanisms of self-protection of democracy: does militant or defensive democracy work? How to protect constitutions from turning into weapons against freedom? Is civil disobedience an effective tool to protect against authoritarianism? What is the difference between illiberal democracy and authoritarianism? Does the difference matter? The right to protest and demonstrate and its limits; epistemic and ethical foundations of liberal, constitutional democracy (public education, higher education and universities, arts), communication strategies to counter domestic and external undermining of democracy, democratic resilience of civil society).

4. Formulating a new promise of democracy (New forms of participation (direct, deliberative, participatory, democratic use of digital media and technologies), democratic control of the economy, increasing effectiveness of government, renewing a culture of democratic participation and accountability, improving the public discourse, democratic ethos, epistemic culture, political eudaimonia and (popular) culture, shaping alliances of democracies and democratic forces of civil society, implications for Israel)