Tomás y Valiente research fellow at the Madrid Institute for Advanced Study (MIAS) / Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Until April 2021, InterTalentum - Marie Curie Fellow in the Department of Political Science and International Relations (UAM). Adjunct Professor (Docent) in Political Thought and Conceptual History at the Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy of the University of Jyväskylä. Previously has held visiting fellowships at Center for European Studies, Harvard University, the Department of History and Civilization of the European University Institute in Florence and the Centre for the Study of the History of Political Thought at Queen Mary, University of London. Working Group Leader in the COST Action Reappraising Intellectual Debates on Civic Rights and Democracy (RECAST) and a Scientific Committee Member of the Jean Monnet Network OpenEUdebate. Address: calle Marie Curie 1, 1a planta, 28049 Madrid, Spain
Politicising the Pandemic Recovery? Opposition Strategies against the Spanish Government’s COVID-19 Measures, 2024
This article examines Spain’s COVID-19 pandemic recovery from the
perspective of politicisation a... more This article examines Spain’s COVID-19 pandemic recovery from the perspective of politicisation as a form of political activity. The main argument is that politicisation must be considered more broadly as a part of democratic politics, as distinct from the too narrow theoretical framework of European Union (EU) politicisation. The analysis builds on recent conceptual research into politicisation and asks: Has Spain’s pandemic recovery become politicised and, if so, in what way did this politicisation occur and to what extent have politicising strategies been used? In Spain, political parties have not openly engaged in conflict about the country’s membership of the EU, but they do have a clear tendency towards a deeply partisan and highly polarised approach to domestic politics, aggravated since the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis focuses on opposition strategies during the period from the beginning of March 2020 to the end of December 2023. The main conclusion of the analysis is that politicising strategies were used by the opposition parties in contexts that gave them opportunities to exploit the situation in a novel way. On those occasions, it is possible to identify four different dimensions of politicisation. This illustrates that by attempting to utilise novel ways of acting politically, politicisation effectively becomes an intervention in the current state of affairs for political purposes. This conclusion can provide a useful conceptual framework for future research into pandemic recovery in a comparative sense and also into the concept of politicisation within democratic politics in general.
Cambridgen ja Oxfordin yliopistojen opiskelijoiden 1800-luvun alku-puolella perustamat unioniyhdi... more Cambridgen ja Oxfordin yliopistojen opiskelijoiden 1800-luvun alku-puolella perustamat unioniyhdistykset (Union Societies) ovat kuuluisia brittiläisiä instituutioita. Niitä on alettu sittemmin kutsua myös” parlamentaarikkokouluiksi”, jolloin ne yhdistettiin puhetaitojen ...
Parlamentaarinen kansalaistoiminta on suomalaisessa poliittisessa kulttuurissa tuntematon, jopa p... more Parlamentaarinen kansalaistoiminta on suomalaisessa poliittisessa kulttuurissa tuntematon, jopa paradoksaaliselta kuulostava kasite. Englannissa sen sijaan vastaava ilmio muodostui 1860-luvulla, jolloin laajaa kiinnostusta herattaneita parlamentaarisia debattiyhdistyksia (parliamentary debating societies) alettiin aktiivisesti perustaa. Jasenia yhdella parlamentaarisella debattiyhdistyksella saattoi olla jopa tuhansia. Parlamentaarisuus voidaan maaritella kaytannollisesti katsottuna siten, etta siihen sisaltyy aina menettelytapoihin perustuvaa debatointia puolesta ja vastaan. Toisaalta historiallisesti katsottuna hallintomuotona parlamentarismi oli Napoleonin vastaisen sodan jalkeisessa Euroopassa absolutismin kilpailija. Venajan valloittamassa Suomessa parlamentarismiin suhtauduttiin epaluuloisesti:
Here the Oxford and Cambridge Unions are placed in the British tradition of debating societies. H... more Here the Oxford and Cambridge Unions are placed in the British tradition of debating societies. Haapala shows that the Unions were forerunners in the adoption of parliamentary debate and that they became models for other similar associations, thus taking a prominent role in the formation of a parliamentary culture of debate in Britain. The foundation of the Union Societies is discussed with comparisons to other contemporary and previously established debating societies, paying particular attention to membership requirements and rhetorical training. Finally, some first-hand accounts of the benefits of Union training for political careers will be provided.
The “Politics of Dissensus” inverts the traditional perspective on the study of parliamentary pol... more The “Politics of Dissensus” inverts the traditional perspective on the study of parliamentary politics by focusing on its less obvious and less well-known aspects. Dissensus instead of consensus becomes the condition for the intelligibility of parliamentary politics. Such politics is indebted to the rhetorical culture of addressing issues from opposite perspectives and debating the alternatives pro et contra: no motion is approved without a thorough examination of, and confrontation among, imaginable alternatives. Establishing the openness of political debating, parliamentarism has become a distinctive historical contribution to the rise of parliamentary democracy. ”Parliament in Debate” refers to the paradigmatic institution for political deliberation, the debates surrounding its legislative activity, as well as the supervision of government and administration. Parliament has become a fascinating object of scrutiny as a political institution adopted and developed by different political traditions. In a nutshell, the book retrieves the study of parliamentary politics to present political theory and action in the parliamentary mode. It is a book on the relevance of parliamentarism to the study of politics and a book on the comparative conceptual and institutional history of parliamentary politics.
Politicising the Pandemic Recovery? Opposition Strategies against the Spanish Government’s COVID-19 Measures, 2024
This article examines Spain’s COVID-19 pandemic recovery from the
perspective of politicisation a... more This article examines Spain’s COVID-19 pandemic recovery from the perspective of politicisation as a form of political activity. The main argument is that politicisation must be considered more broadly as a part of democratic politics, as distinct from the too narrow theoretical framework of European Union (EU) politicisation. The analysis builds on recent conceptual research into politicisation and asks: Has Spain’s pandemic recovery become politicised and, if so, in what way did this politicisation occur and to what extent have politicising strategies been used? In Spain, political parties have not openly engaged in conflict about the country’s membership of the EU, but they do have a clear tendency towards a deeply partisan and highly polarised approach to domestic politics, aggravated since the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis focuses on opposition strategies during the period from the beginning of March 2020 to the end of December 2023. The main conclusion of the analysis is that politicising strategies were used by the opposition parties in contexts that gave them opportunities to exploit the situation in a novel way. On those occasions, it is possible to identify four different dimensions of politicisation. This illustrates that by attempting to utilise novel ways of acting politically, politicisation effectively becomes an intervention in the current state of affairs for political purposes. This conclusion can provide a useful conceptual framework for future research into pandemic recovery in a comparative sense and also into the concept of politicisation within democratic politics in general.
Cambridgen ja Oxfordin yliopistojen opiskelijoiden 1800-luvun alku-puolella perustamat unioniyhdi... more Cambridgen ja Oxfordin yliopistojen opiskelijoiden 1800-luvun alku-puolella perustamat unioniyhdistykset (Union Societies) ovat kuuluisia brittiläisiä instituutioita. Niitä on alettu sittemmin kutsua myös” parlamentaarikkokouluiksi”, jolloin ne yhdistettiin puhetaitojen ...
Parlamentaarinen kansalaistoiminta on suomalaisessa poliittisessa kulttuurissa tuntematon, jopa p... more Parlamentaarinen kansalaistoiminta on suomalaisessa poliittisessa kulttuurissa tuntematon, jopa paradoksaaliselta kuulostava kasite. Englannissa sen sijaan vastaava ilmio muodostui 1860-luvulla, jolloin laajaa kiinnostusta herattaneita parlamentaarisia debattiyhdistyksia (parliamentary debating societies) alettiin aktiivisesti perustaa. Jasenia yhdella parlamentaarisella debattiyhdistyksella saattoi olla jopa tuhansia. Parlamentaarisuus voidaan maaritella kaytannollisesti katsottuna siten, etta siihen sisaltyy aina menettelytapoihin perustuvaa debatointia puolesta ja vastaan. Toisaalta historiallisesti katsottuna hallintomuotona parlamentarismi oli Napoleonin vastaisen sodan jalkeisessa Euroopassa absolutismin kilpailija. Venajan valloittamassa Suomessa parlamentarismiin suhtauduttiin epaluuloisesti:
Here the Oxford and Cambridge Unions are placed in the British tradition of debating societies. H... more Here the Oxford and Cambridge Unions are placed in the British tradition of debating societies. Haapala shows that the Unions were forerunners in the adoption of parliamentary debate and that they became models for other similar associations, thus taking a prominent role in the formation of a parliamentary culture of debate in Britain. The foundation of the Union Societies is discussed with comparisons to other contemporary and previously established debating societies, paying particular attention to membership requirements and rhetorical training. Finally, some first-hand accounts of the benefits of Union training for political careers will be provided.
The “Politics of Dissensus” inverts the traditional perspective on the study of parliamentary pol... more The “Politics of Dissensus” inverts the traditional perspective on the study of parliamentary politics by focusing on its less obvious and less well-known aspects. Dissensus instead of consensus becomes the condition for the intelligibility of parliamentary politics. Such politics is indebted to the rhetorical culture of addressing issues from opposite perspectives and debating the alternatives pro et contra: no motion is approved without a thorough examination of, and confrontation among, imaginable alternatives. Establishing the openness of political debating, parliamentarism has become a distinctive historical contribution to the rise of parliamentary democracy. ”Parliament in Debate” refers to the paradigmatic institution for political deliberation, the debates surrounding its legislative activity, as well as the supervision of government and administration. Parliament has become a fascinating object of scrutiny as a political institution adopted and developed by different political traditions. In a nutshell, the book retrieves the study of parliamentary politics to present political theory and action in the parliamentary mode. It is a book on the relevance of parliamentarism to the study of politics and a book on the comparative conceptual and institutional history of parliamentary politics.
It is undeniable that the Oxford and Cambridge Unions had an important role to play in the ninete... more It is undeniable that the Oxford and Cambridge Unions had an important role to play in the nineteenth-century British political culture. Despite that, or perhaps for that very reason, they have received very little scholarly attention as to their political activities. This study offers much-needed insight into the Union debating practices through which their members became knowledgeable of the parliamentary way of doing politics. More significantly, it uses the original Union records as primary research material to show that they also had unique political practices of their own. Presenting a detailed analysis of their debates, the book argues that the Unions should be appreciated as independent political arenas, not mere extensions of Westminster politics.
Now in its fourth and final year, COST Action Reappraising Intellectual Debates on Civic Rights a... more Now in its fourth and final year, COST Action Reappraising Intellectual Debates on Civic Rights and Democracy in Europe (RECAST) has as its task to show the plural argumentative uses of the relations between civic rights and democracy in European public debates, and to study the dissensual features of their conceptual and institutional relationship as well as their national legal and political traditions. This will be done by bringing together policy-makers, journalists and NGOs with scholars to provide new insights into the links (theoretical, political and institutional) between civic rights and democracy in Europe, illustrating the controversies, often underlying and diverse, behind them. The aim of RECAST Working Group Debates is twofold: To study, firstly, the argumentative links connecting practices with concepts and arguments in debates on civic rights and democracy in Europe and, secondly, the practices and procedures of historical, moral, political and legal debates on civic rights and democracy.
COST Action RECAST Working Group Debates organises its second workshop "Visions of Democratic Eur... more COST Action RECAST Working Group Debates organises its second workshop "Visions of Democratic Europe under Debate" at University of Bucharest, 29-30 May 2019.
Call for Papers
Deadline to submit paper proposals (title and up to 200-word abstract): 15 May 2... more Call for Papers
Deadline to submit paper proposals (title and up to 200-word abstract): 15 May 2017
Organised by: 1. Research project: Transformations of Concepts and Institutions in the European Polity (TRACE), University of Jyväskylä http://www.jyu.fi/trace 2. Civic Constellation II: Debating Democracy and Rights (Spain’s National Research Fund, FFI2014-52703-P) http://www.uma.es/civicconstellation 3. Research project 'Demilitarisation in an increasingly militarised world', The Åland Islands Peace Institute http://www.peace.ax/en/research/research-projects
Uploads
Papers by Taru Haapala
perspective of politicisation as a form of political activity. The main
argument is that politicisation must be considered more broadly
as a part of democratic politics, as distinct from the too narrow
theoretical framework of European Union (EU) politicisation. The
analysis builds on recent conceptual research into politicisation and
asks: Has Spain’s pandemic recovery become politicised and, if so,
in what way did this politicisation occur and to what extent have
politicising strategies been used? In Spain, political parties have not
openly engaged in conflict about the country’s membership of the
EU, but they do have a clear tendency towards a deeply partisan
and highly polarised approach to domestic politics, aggravated
since the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis focuses on opposition
strategies during the period from the beginning of March 2020 to the
end of December 2023. The main conclusion of the analysis is that
politicising strategies were used by the opposition parties in contexts
that gave them opportunities to exploit the situation in a novel way.
On those occasions, it is possible to identify four different dimensions
of politicisation. This illustrates that by attempting to utilise novel
ways of acting politically, politicisation effectively becomes an
intervention in the current state of affairs for political purposes. This
conclusion can provide a useful conceptual framework for future
research into pandemic recovery in a comparative sense and also
into the concept of politicisation within democratic politics in general.
perspective of politicisation as a form of political activity. The main
argument is that politicisation must be considered more broadly
as a part of democratic politics, as distinct from the too narrow
theoretical framework of European Union (EU) politicisation. The
analysis builds on recent conceptual research into politicisation and
asks: Has Spain’s pandemic recovery become politicised and, if so,
in what way did this politicisation occur and to what extent have
politicising strategies been used? In Spain, political parties have not
openly engaged in conflict about the country’s membership of the
EU, but they do have a clear tendency towards a deeply partisan
and highly polarised approach to domestic politics, aggravated
since the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis focuses on opposition
strategies during the period from the beginning of March 2020 to the
end of December 2023. The main conclusion of the analysis is that
politicising strategies were used by the opposition parties in contexts
that gave them opportunities to exploit the situation in a novel way.
On those occasions, it is possible to identify four different dimensions
of politicisation. This illustrates that by attempting to utilise novel
ways of acting politically, politicisation effectively becomes an
intervention in the current state of affairs for political purposes. This
conclusion can provide a useful conceptual framework for future
research into pandemic recovery in a comparative sense and also
into the concept of politicisation within democratic politics in general.
Deadline to submit paper proposals (title and up to 200-word abstract): 15 May 2017
Organised by:
1. Research project: Transformations of Concepts and Institutions in the
European Polity (TRACE), University of Jyväskylä http://www.jyu.fi/trace
2. Civic Constellation II: Debating Democracy and Rights (Spain’s National Research Fund, FFI2014-52703-P) http://www.uma.es/civicconstellation
3. Research project 'Demilitarisation in an increasingly militarised world', The Åland Islands Peace Institute http://www.peace.ax/en/research/research-projects