Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
The article examines the role of linkage in Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, where liberal democratic institutions and practices have eroded since 2010. Levitsky and Way (2010, Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after the Cold War, New... more
The article examines the role of linkage in Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, where liberal democratic institutions and practices have eroded since 2010. Levitsky and Way (2010, Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after the Cold War, New York: Cambridge University Press) provided a definition of linkage, and theorized an important role for these links in the democratization process. However, there has been less examination of how linkages affect the quality of existing democracies. Looking at the case of Hungary, I formulate hypotheses about the role of linkage and maintaining the quality of democracy. I propose that links that may encourage democratization have proven too weak to sustain democratic quality in the face of illiberal, populist challenges. I also argue that new linkage patterns have been forming with tend to degrade democratic quality, specifically between populist parties in Hungary and those in other parts of Europe; and between Hungarian parties and various institutions, including parties and the state, in Russia. The paper hopes to use the linkage model to inform developments in the literature on democratic regression and democratic quality.
Research Interests:
Abstract: Modern radical-right populist parties are often described as illiberal, in the sense of being authoritarian, hostile to pluralism, or opposed to "libertarian" postmaterialist ideas. Yet Takis Pappas has argued in these pages... more
Abstract:

Modern radical-right populist parties are often described as illiberal, in the sense of being authoritarian, hostile to pluralism, or opposed to "libertarian" postmaterialist ideas. Yet Takis Pappas has argued in these pages that some radical-right populist parties, which he describes as "nativist," espouse "liberalism for the natives." This paper contends that Pappas's categorization is faulty. It cannot distinguish supposedly liberal "nativist" parties from other far-right parties that also claim to defend liberalism. Nor do many of these parties consistently promote liberal values even for natives. Instead, these parties are mainly concerned with nationalizing liberal values to strengthen ingroup-outgroup boundaries and provide additional grounds for excluding Muslims.
Research Interests:
Abstract: This article is an overview of recent developments in the liberal party family. It examines the fortunes of the party family in selected countries. It presents a qualitative survey of certain selected new political parties,... more
Abstract: This article is an overview of recent developments in the liberal party family. It
examines the fortunes of the party family in selected countries. It presents a qualitative survey
of certain selected new political parties, which are either too new or too obscure to have been
formally classified, and/or which have not appeared in the Comparative Manifesto Project. The
article provides arguments as to why these parties may be candidates for future inclusion in
the liberal party family. It also examines Marie Demker’s (2008) conception of the virtue party,
a scheme for examining certain
Research Interests:
Research Interests: