Transcript

The Democracy Dilemma: Should We Ban Anti-Democratic Parties? | Angela Bourne | TEDxVienna Salon

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG8Bkp_LmHI
Video ID: zG8Bkp_LmHI
============================================================

imagine that your best friend is a politician you don't always agree with their politics but you know she works hard and she believes in what she does one day she tells you that she's receiving threatening letters that loud impromptu political demonstrations have been taking place outside her house two three times a month somebody blew up her letter box and somebody else vandalized her car her family are worried they're scared they need a police escort she tells you that other politicians are subject to similar kinds of treatment one was subject to a physical attack when they were out alone at night as well as another and another most like your politician friend of these people were from an ethnic minority in your country imagine that the case comes onto the news politicians from all the political parties condemn the harassment roundly except for one political party this is not an unimportant political party it is a party that has won 10 20% of the vote in recent elections once the journalists have got wind of the story they investigate further and what they discover is and they provide evidence for this that some low-ranking members of that political party that refused to condemn the harassment were actually involved in some of the attacks the journalists find more evidence videos evidence of the leaders of one of the main factions of the party at home laughing and joking joking about the incident and the message from this video was that somehow it's kind of okay to attack representatives from political parties because yeah democracy is corrupt it ignores the will of the people and it's on its way out anyway but also that it's somehow kind of okay to attack ethnic minorities imagine then that your friend sits you down and tells you that unless something is done they are going to leave politics what you ask yourself should be done this is a hypothetical example it involves a mix of circumstances that have in the past LED for people calling for party bans as well as actual court cases in democracies to ban political parties so this question of what should be done in such a situation is in fact a real question because of course something must be done it's not acceptable in a state of law for anybody to be attacked and harassed in the way that your friend has experienced in a democratic Community it's not acceptable for anybody to oppose a politician with intimidation or violence no matter how seriously you disagree with their political ideas now in such a case the police would investigate they would conduct investigations into who was responsible for such an act but what we can ask ourselves here is how high up does responsibility go if a political party refuses to condemn such attacks and harassment if we know that some of their members have actually undertaken some of these attacks and we know that some leaders of the party are really not willing to outright disagree with these kinds of Acts should that political party participate in the Democratic process should it in other words be banned my argument despite these terrible events is that such a party should not be banned and that's because Banning parties is bad for democracy but also because there are many other good Alternatives I became interested in this topic when as a young person I did what many young people did I took a break from study bought a backpack and traveled to the other side of the world during my travels I spoke to people from lots of different countries and one of the things that really struck me as I spoke to different people was how divided people can be on what I had assumed naively were some of the basic fixtures of political life I realized that people were really divided on things like where the boundaries of states were drawn they were divided on who deserved equal citizenship they were divided about the legitimacy of violence to pursue political projects and even in some cases about the role of elections in politics this was the beginning of a lifelong interest in politics in polarized soci Societies or societies that are damaged by low levels of trust between citizens but also in cases where sectarian and political violence are part of daily life it was also the beginning of an academic and a research interest into how people who disagree with anti- system and anti-democratic parties go about opposing such parties with party banss being the most extreme and re and repressive option available in a democracy and so when I started researching this question I spoke to people people like your politician friends in the imaginary example I related a moment ago but I also spoke to people who supported the radical ideas of parties subject to party bans many of these people were deeply disillusioned with politics in their country they felt that their hopes and aspirations for a good life were being completely ignored for these people Banning a political party standing up for their ideas added insult to injury I soon realized that the situation I wanted to understand was a profound Democratic dilemma a dilemma that is truly difficult to solve because on the one hand we need to demand high standards from our politicians because they could be involved in government for democracy to work we need politicians but all of us need to abide by Norms of Civility respect and nonviolent airing of political differences no matter how big those differences are and so we can't be indifferent in the face of political parties that undermine the conditions for Democratic politics at the same time politics relies on political pluralism accepting that people want different things out of politics they have different interests in politics Democratic politics also requires tolerance putting up with political ideas and projects that you might really dislike or perhaps even hate because in the rights conditions pluralistic Democratic elections are an important barometer of what people want from their governments that is the problem with party banss it not only undermines principles of political PL pluralism and political tolerance it closes down important sources of information about what people want from politics once I understood the depth of this dilemma I realized I didn't know how to solve it so what I did is I began to research how Democratic communities deal with the dilemmas involved of uh anti-democratic parties so my research interest took me to the archives of countries that were debating party banss in the early post-war period including some of the parties that UL had previously mentioned my research led me to read legal rules and indeed many party ban court cases from countries across the continent I read hundreds of pages of sometimes heated and sometimes very measured debates for and against party bands and what I learned after about 15 years of work on this topic involving collaborations with colleagues from several different countries was that in fact Democratic communities responded to the dilemas involved in hosting or dilemas involved in having anti-democratic parties in the political system in quite a wide variety of different ways and that there were in fact many alternatives to Banning parties Alternatives that fell short of party bans and so I'd like to give you some examples of these Alternatives and these include Alternatives by public authorities such as courts and governments it includes alter Alternatives by other political parties as well as Alternatives by Civil Society actors engos the media journalists but also ordinary citizens when there is clear evidence that a political party or its members break the law there are a wide variety of opportunities to prosecute using ordinary criminal legislation and regular Court proceedings it's not easy it's not difficult to find examples of political parties that have found themselves in courts or their leaders that have found themselves in the court for inciting racism for hate speech or for Holocaust denial along with a wide variety of other criminal uh law infring infringments if a political party organizes criminal activities perhaps systematically targeting and attacking foreigners or political opponents these parties can be classified as a criminal organization and their leaders dealt with accordingly even counterterrorism policy can be undertaken without Banning political parties Even parties which pretty openly justify the use of terrorist violence these kinds of legal measures are less damaging for a democracy because they apply rules that all of us have to obey in contrast to party bands which suspend general rules in exceptional circumstances case study research also shows that legal proceedings or the threat of legal legal proceedings can change the behavior of anti-democratic parties encouraging them or providing incentives for them to play by the rules of the democratic game at least in public or front of stage and this is because leg legal proceedings have consequences for political parties it's expensive to defend yourself in court it takes time away from ordinary politics it can be immensely dividing for your party it can damage your reputation and make individuals unwilling to associate themselves with such a party it is true that the use of the coercive authority of the state in this manner can strengthen feelings of alienation and distrust by people who support such parties but I would argue that this is no worse than Banning political parties other political parties can also act and what they do in matters matters immensely other political parties can decide whether they're going to cooperate or not cooperate with an anti-democratic Party by refusing to cooperate Democratic parties can prevent anti-democratic parties from influencing the content of legislation and government policy and it is not too difficult to find examples where anti-democratic parties are are systematically excluded from coalition government and legislative majorities even in cases where such exclusion is not comprehensive or systematic when the real danger arises Democratic parties can use a majority use their votes to prevent oh to block anti-democratic uh legislation or policies that will undermine Liberal Liberal Democratic institutions and values this kind of political ostracism is less damaging to a democracy than party bands because it means that parties that people have voted for voted for in quantities sufficient to give them seats in Parliament are able to communicate the preferences and wishes of their voters in the Parliamentary Arena case study research also suggests that if an anti-democratic party has governing aspirations this kind of political ostracism gives them strong incentives to moderate their policy to clean up and soften their public in Public Image in order to make themselves attractive potential Coalition partners Civil Society actors also have many options for responding to anti-democratic parties for example owners of hotels meeting venues can just refuse to host events by anti-democratic parties people organizing public events such as festivals such as public debates can refuse to invite representatives of anti-democratic parties the media can investigate and publicize claims of wrongdoing they can fact check claims by anti-democratic parties they can shine a light on differences between what anti-democratic policy Pol parties Say and What anti-democratic part parties actually do you and I ordinary citizens can organize or participate in public demonstrations against anti-democratic parties and if there are enough of us this can demonstrate the degree of disagreement with anti-democratic politics anti-democratic parties in a society and perhaps Force governments and others to act against them these kinds of social confrontations are polarizing they do pitch people against anti-democratic parties in a very confrontational way however these kinds of social exclusionary measures are less damaging for a democracy than Banning political parties because what they do is Showcase political pluralism rather than suppressing it case study evidence also shows that this kind of social exclusion can be quite damaging for the organizational abilities of anti-democratic parties because it makes it very unattractive for resourceful people for skillful and competent people to be involved in the activities of a party that might damage their social standing that might lose them friends or perhaps even a job and so to conclude my research has shown that democracies do ban parties probably more often than many people think but it still remains an exceptional case it Still Remains very rare this is because Banning a party is damaging for a democracy and because there are in fact many good Alternatives short of a party ban and so I ask you could things really be different than this in a democracy so thank you woo