Dahl si riferiva a queste come condizioni per la ‘poliarchia’, usando il termine ‘democrazia’ per riferirsi a un ideale molto più impegnativo, che probabilmente non sarà mai raggiunto nella realtà. Vedi Robert Dahl, Polyarchy: participation and opposition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1971), p. 3.
Jason Brownlee, ‘Authoritarianism after 1989’, Harvard International Review 31: 4, 2010, p. 47.
Steven Levitsky e Lucan Way, Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after the Cold War (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 6, 5.
Cheibub et al, ‘Democrazia e dittatura’, p. 71.
Geddes et al,
In questo senso si discostano da Schumpeter, che ha esplicitamente evitato l’idea che la democrazia abbia qualcosa a che fare con il fatto che il demos abbia una voce, o che le preferenze collettive siano realizzate, e anche da Przeworski, che intende la democrazia come una procedura non violenta per regolare il conflitto sociale, niente di più. Vedi Adam Przeworksi, ‘Minimalist conception of democracy: a defense’, in Ian Shapiro and Casiano Hacker-Cordon, eds, Democracy’s value (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 23-55.
Si veda ad esempio Colin Hay, Why we hate politics (Cambridge: Polity, 2007); Pippa Norris, Democratic deficit: critical citizens revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); Russell Dalton, Citizen politics: public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies (Washington DC: CQ Press, 2013).
Francesco Cavatorta, ‘The convergence of governance: upgrading authoritarianism in the Arab world and downgrading democracy elsewhere?’, Middle East Critique 19: 3, 2010, pp. 217-32; Andrea Teti e Andrea Mura, ‘Convergent (il)liberalism in the Mediterranean? Alcune note sul (post)autoritarismo egiziano e sulla (post)democrazia italiana’, European Urban and Regional Studies 20: 1, 2013, pp. 120-27.
Schmitter e Karl, ‘What democracy is … and is not’, p. 76.
Philippe Schmitter, ‘The ambiguous virtues of accountability’, Journal of Democracy 15: 4, 2004, p. 59 n.1.
Anne Marie Choup, ‘Changing norms of accountability: opportunities for democratic change’, Politics 30: 3, 2010, pp. 160-67; Edmund Malesky e Paul Schuler, ‘Nodding or needling: analyzing delegate responsiveness in an authoritarian parliament’, American Political Science Review 104: 3, 2000, pp. 482-502; Lily Tsai, Accountability without democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Si veda per esempio Jan Aart Scholte, “Civil society and the legitimation of global governance”, Journal of Civil Society 3: 3, 2007, pp. 305-26; Marlies Glasius, “Does the involvement of global civil society make international decision-making more democratic?”, Journal of Civil Society 4: 1, 2008, pp. 43-60; Adrienne Héritier e Dirk Lehmkuhl, “New modes of governance and democratic accountability”, Government and Opposition 46: 1, 2011, pp. 126-44; Matthias Koenig-Archibugi e Kate Macdonald, “Accountability-by-proxy in transnational non-state governance”, Governance 26: 3, 2013, pp. 499-522.
Harry Eckstein e Ted Gurr, Patterns of authority: a structural basis for comparative inquiry (New York: Wiley, 1975).
Robert Dahl, Preface to a democratic theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), pp. 2, 48.
David Held, ‘The transformation of political community’, in Robert Dahl, Ian Shapiro and Jose Antonio Cheibub, eds, The democracy sourcebook (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003), p. 519.
Held, ‘The transformation of political community’, p. 521.
Si veda per esempio John Ruggie, Constructing the world polity (London: Routledge, 1998); Robert Keohane, Power and governance in a partially globalized world (London: Routledge, 2002); Liesbeth Hooghe e Gary Marks, ‘Unraveling the central state, but how?’, American Political Science Review 97: 2, 2003, pp. 233-43; John Dryzek, Deliberative global politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Emanuel Adler e Vincent Pouliot, ‘International practices’, International Theory 3: 1, 2011, p. 5.
Theodore Schatzki, ‘Introduction: practice theory’, in Theodore Schatzki, Karin Knorr Cetina and Eike von Savigny, eds, The practice turn in contemporary theory (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 15, 14.
Schatzki, ‘Introduction’, p. 14.
H.R.5949-FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act del 2012, https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/5949.
Nick Hopkins, “UK gathering secret intelligence via covert NSA operation”, Guardian, 7 giugno 2013; Philip Dorling, “Australia gets “deluge” of US secret data, prompting a new data facility”, Sydney Morning Herald, 13 giugno 2013; Philip Dorling, “Snowden reveals Australia’s links to US spy web”, Sydney Morning Herald, 8 luglio 2013.
Cfr. Marlies Glasius e Marcus Michaelsen, ‘Illiberal and authoritarian practices in the digital sphere’, International Journal of Communications, 2018 (di prossima pubblicazione), per una discussione più ampia sulla sorveglianza della Nsa come pratica digitale.
Schatzki, ‘Practice Mind-ed Orders’, in Schatzki et al, eds, The practice turn, p. 61.
Un’eccezione è Natalie Koch, ‘Sport and soft authoritarian nation-building’, Political Geography 13, 2013, pp. 42-51.
Rachel Stern e Kevin O’Brien, ‘Politics at the boundary: mixed signals and the Chinese state’, Modern China 38: 2, 2012, p. 191. Vedi anche Kevin O’Brien e Lianjiang Li, Rightful resistance in rural China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 66.
Dan Slater e Sofia Fenner, ‘State power and staying power: infrastructure mechanisms and authoritarian durability’, Journal of International Affairs 65: 1, p. 26.
Steven Heydemann e Reinoud Leenders, eds, Middle East authoritarianisms: governance, contestation, and regime resilience in Syria and Iran (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2013), p. 5.
Mark Bovens, ‘Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework’, European Law Journal 13: 4, 2007, p. 450.
Jennifer Rubenstein, ‘Accountability in an unequal world’, Journal of Politics 69: 3, 2007, pp. 620-21 (enfasi nell’originale).
Bovens, ‘Analysing and assessing accountability’, pp. 463-6.
Vorrei ringraziare uno dei revisori anonimi per aver formulato questo punto.
Si veda ad esempio Marcus Michaelsen, ‘Exit and voice in a digital age’, pp. 248-64; Dana Moss, ‘The ties that bind’, pp. 265-82; Nicole Hirt e Abdulkader Saleh Mohamed, ‘By way of patriotism, coercion, or instrumentalization’, pp. 232-47, tutti in Globalizations 15: 2; anche il database Central Asian Political Exiles, https://excas.net/exiles/.
Vedi Amy Gutmann e Dennis Thompson, Democracy and disagreement (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), pp. 95-127.
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s detention and interrogation program, pp. 5-7, 437-54, 462-99.
‘Trump: Clinton non può vincere la Pennsylvania a meno che non ci siano imbrogli”, NBC News, 12 agosto 2016; Ellen Powell, “Fact check: are illegal immigrants being let into the US to vote against Trump?”, Christian Science Monitor, 7 ottobre 2016. Sul documento di ricerca male interpretato dietro le affermazioni, si veda Maggie Koerth-Baker, ‘L’intricata storia dietro le false affermazioni di Trump sulla frode elettorale’, fivethirtyeight.com, 11 maggio 2017, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-noncitizen-voters.
Robert Farley, ‘Fact check: Trump si attacca alle affermazioni fasulle sui brogli elettorali’, USA Today, 27 nov. 2016; David Smith e Ben Jacobs, ‘Trump pianifica una “grande indagine sui brogli elettorali” tra affermazioni infondate’, Guardian, 25 gen. 2017.
‘White House defends Trump’s voter fraud claim’, BBC News, 24 gen. 2017.
‘This Week transcript 2-12-17: Stephen Miller, Bob Ferguson, e Rep. Elijah Cummings’, ABC News, 12 feb. 2017.
Julie Hirschfeld Davis, ‘Trump sceglie il sostenitore dell’ID degli elettori per la commissione sulle frodi elettorali’, New York Times, 11 maggio 2017. La commissione d’inchiesta è stata sciolta nel gennaio 2018.
Center for Media and Communication Studies, Hungarian media laws in Europe: an assessment of the consistency of Hungary’s media laws with European practices and norms (Budapest, 2012). Inizialmente, la legge si applicava a tutti i media; la stampa e gli outlet online sono stati esclusi sotto la pressione dell’UE. Si veda Gabor Polyak, “Context, rules and praxis of the new Hungarian media laws”, in Armin von Bogdandy and Pal Sonnevend, eds, Constitutional crisis in the European constitutional area (Oxford: Hart, 2015), pp. 125-50.
‘Esperti di diritti delle Nazioni Unite sollecitano l’India ad abrogare la legge che limita l’accesso delle Ong a finanziamenti esteri cruciali’, comunicato stampa, Ufficio dell’Alto Commissario delle Nazioni Unite per i diritti umani, Ginevra, 16 giugno 2016; Vidhi Doshi, ‘India accused of muzzling NGOs by blocking foreign funding’, Guardian, 26 nov. 2016.
Javier Corrales, ‘Legalismo autocratico in Venezuela’, Journal of Democracy 26: 2, 2015, pp. 37-51.
Fareed Zakaria, ‘Rise of illiberal democracy’, Foreign Affairs 76: 6, 1997, p. 26.
Si veda ad es.Mikael Wigell, ‘Mapping “hybrid regimes”: regime types and concepts in comparative politics’, Democratization 15: 2, 2008, pp. 230-50; Sheri Berman, ‘The pipe dream of undemocratic liberalism’, Journal of Democracy 28: 3, 2017, pp. 29-38.
Danilo Andres Reyes, ‘The spectacle of violence in Duterte’s “war on drugs”‘, Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 3, 2016, pp. 111-37.
Jan-Werner Müller, What is populism? (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016), pp. 3, 20. Si veda anche Ivan Krastev, “The unraveling of the post-1989 order”, Journal of Democracy 27: 4, 2016, pp. 88-98. Krastev sembra a volte equiparare l’illiberalismo al populismo.
Hannah Arendt, The origins of totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt, 1951); Karl Popper, The open society and its enemies (London: Routledge, 1945); Linz, Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes; Guillermo O’Donnell, Modernization and bureaucratic-authoritarianism: studies in South American politics (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1973).
Vedi per esempio Giorgio Agamben, State of exception (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005); Didier Bigo e Anastassia Tsoukala, eds, Terror, insecurity and liberty: illiberal practices of liberal regimes after 9/11 (Oxford: Routledge, 2008). L’approccio pratico rimane agnostico sul fatto che la securitizzazione sia la causa o solo la giustificazione di queste pratiche, o entrambe insieme.
Note dell’autore
Questa ricerca è stata sostenuta dal progetto ‘Authoritarianism in a Global Age’, (http://www.authoritarianism-global.uva.nl/), finanziato dal Consiglio Europeo della Ricerca (FP7/2007-2013), . Voglio ringraziare i miei colleghi dell’Università di Amsterdam e tre revisori anonimi per i loro commenti riflessivi e incoraggianti. Versioni precedenti di questo articolo sono state presentate alla First IDCAR Network Conference, Amburgo, 17-19 dicembre 2014, all’International Dimensions of Authoritarian Rule Workshop, giugno 2015, King’s College London, al dipartimento di ricerca Democracy and Democratization del Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin, 29 giugno 2015, e al seminario Authoritarianism from Afar, CERI-Sciences Po, 7 luglio 2017. Desidero ringraziare tutti i discussant e i partecipanti per i loro utili commenti.