and to minimise diasporic acts of dissent against the ruling regime of the sending-state. In contrast, Egypt's diaspora policy has evolved more inclusively: while acts of repression are not unheard of, the main tenets of Egyptian policy have revolved around the desire to engage their citizen diaspora groups into the country's development ambitions since the 1970s. The chapter discusses these policies in detail and employs the tenets of the illiberal paradox , as described in Chapter 1 , in order to shed light on the rationale behind this divergence
essays. I will try to do so wherever possible in the discussion that follows. However, the bulk of my response will be devoted to three core issues that I believe are important to address. For the sake of analytical clarity and succinctness, I will label these as: 1) shapeshifting migration control and illiberal leeway; 2) legal institutions, social change, and constraints on governmental power; and 3) the emancipatory power of ideas and political agency.
Shapeshifting migration control and illiberal leeway
The essays by Steffen Mau and Noora Lori bring to the fore
One recurring motif in recent claims about the illiberal cultures of universities has been the deployment of the figure of Socrates, the fifth-century BCE Athenian philosopher. ‘From Socrates to Salman Rushdie, heretical figures have been persecuted by powerful authorities, whether by the church or the state’, proclaimed the blurb for a discussion of ‘The Dangerous Rise of Academic Mobbing’, featuring Professor Nigel Biggar, as part of a UK Battle of Ideas Festival in October 2019. In his account of ‘academic mobbing’, including his own experience, the
Over more than thirty years of reform and opening, the Chinese Communist Party has pursued the gradual marketization of China’s economy alongside the preservation of a resiliently authoritarian political system, defying long-standing predictions that ‘transition’ to a market economy would catalyse deeper political transformation. In an era of deepening synergy between authoritarian politics and finance capitalism, Communists constructing capitalism offers a novel and important perspective on this central dilemma of contemporary Chinese development. This book challenges existing state–market paradigms of political economy and reveals the Eurocentric assumptions of liberal scepticism towards Chinese authoritarian resilience. It works with an alternative conceptual vocabulary for analysing the political economy of financial development as both the management and exploitation of socio-economic uncertainty. Drawing upon extensive fieldwork and over sixty interviews with policymakers, bankers, and former party and state officials, the book delves into the role of China’s state-owned banking system since 1989. It shows how political control over capital has been central to China’s experience of capitalist development, enabling both rapid economic growth whilst preserving macroeconomic and political stability. Communists constructing capitalism will be of academic interest to scholars and graduate students in the fields of Chinese studies, social studies of finance, and international and comparative political economy. Beyond academia, it will be essential reading for anyone interested in the evolution of Chinese capitalism and its implications for an increasingly central issue in contemporary global politics: the financial foundations of illiberal capitalism.
illiberal directions. Today, many countries on both sides of the Atlantic are facing decisions about what kind of democracy they want. Is it liberal democracy, based on the North Atlantic Treaty’s value statement and the values articulated by the European Union? Or is it what has been called “electoral democracy,” and which one European leader proudly calls “illiberal democracy”? This seems to mean that elections are held, but the rule of law and individual liberties, like freedom of speech and the press, are limited. Decisions by NATO member states, including the United
once and for all from the grip of anti-democratic and illiberal themes and concepts – unless such a Marxism can come to animate the Marxist political left, Marxism as a political force might just as well be dead and buried. A movement so slow to learn would have earned this fate.
have little choice. In addition, this move toward accommodation with Russia strengthens illiberal pro-Moscow parties throughout Europe and produces several national administrations that lean more toward fascist forms of governance than liberal democracy.
There are, of course, endless variants on the three scenarios. The continuity option could produce no forward movement and leave the alliance essentially where it was in 2020. Or, it could move more rapidly toward more radical positive change. The radical positive change scenario could, despite this
provides us with the conceptual language to identify and critique the contemporary migration-enforcement practices of liberal states, while developing a framework for practicably countering the illiberal effects of these policies. She pushes the contemporary scholarship on migration by proposing a shift in the dominant perspective, “from the more familiar locus of studying the movement of people across borders to critically investigating the movement of borders to regulate the mobility of people ” ( p. 7 ). Others have pointed out that states deploy de
democracy and its Western moorings, the illiberal tendencies in many NATO/EU states, the decision by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union (Brexit), and the persistent burden-sharing problem. All these issues persisted and were joined by a major crisis of confidence for the transatlantic alliance with the election in November 2016 of Donald J. Trump as the president of the United States.
Turkey’s drift away from the West
As one of the countries that have long-struggled with NATO’s value-driven preconditions, Turkey today is most in danger of violating them
Constructions of self and other in parliamentary debate
Lee Jarvis and Tim Legrand
constituents (especially Parliament and politicians). Taking these themes together, we contend that these debates help to (re)produce a relatively straightforward antagonistic relationship between, on the one hand, a liberal, open and responsible UK self which is mindful of cultural and religious difference, and both cautious and moderate in its actions. And, on the other, a series of illiberal, irrational and extremist terrorist others steadfast in their determination to wage immoral violences. Importantly, although there are examples of genuine dissent in these debates