Defending democracy ‘beyond the state’ Towards a Europeanization of national militant restrictions dealing with extremism? Nefeli Lefkopoulou

Defending democracy Concept of militant democracy : introduced by Karl Loewenstein Repressive stance with inclusionist strategies : Giovanni Capoccia Repressive legislation : very broad ground of measures

National state approach on defending democracy Viability & opportunity of national institutional frameworks Cross national variation in legal restrictions

An approach leaving out … possible interstate interactions dialogue between national and European defensiveness

The EU and the challenge of extremism Rise of extreme right parties Responsibility role Management of the crisis at the EU level

European community of values Values common to the MS An established basis of agreement Common and thus shared ?

Functional challenge : factors of national order Partisan loyalties Pre electoral contexts Cultural differences

Towards a Europeanization of defending democracy (1) ? Two – way process : uploading and downloading mechanisms Codification mission : convergence between national militant restrictions

Towards a Europeanization of defending democracy (2) ? Bottom – up approach : How can different ‘national defending democracies’ affect the policy of the EU in intervening for combating extremism ?

Towards a Europeanization of defending democracy (3) ? Up – down approach : How does the depth of EU integration matter for MS to commit to EU democratic values ?

Logical assumptions the stronger the adherence of a Member State to the EU democratic values, the higher the probability of adequate defending mechanisms at the national level the higher the danger of extremism at a national level (crisis moments) and the more shocking to the public the extreme right parties’ activity, the higher the probability for the EU to develop stricter defending mechanisms at the EU level

Hypotheses Principal : The level of Europeanized defensive mechanisms dealing with extremism is increasing over time and the anti-extremist institutional design is becoming more sophisticated Subsidiary : The national government’s policy plays a more influential role in the process of downloading and uploading defensive mechanisms

Possible case studies (1) Weaknesses of autonomous national responses : NPD (Germany), Golden Dawn (Greece)

Possible case studies (2) Limitations of an autonomous EU intervention : Haider affair as a precedent, Hungary (Constitution changes)

Methodology Dependent variable : the level of existing defensiveness at the national level Independent variables : the depth of the EU integration of each MS, the level of adherence to the EU community of values, the occurrence of crisis moments, the public opinion’s reaction, the EU’s degree of interference

Empirical tools Euro barometers Qualitative surveys Reports by HR Commissioners  Identifying barriers Interviews Fact-finding meetings

Transferability Successful defending mechanisms from one MS to another

Learning from the US model? US system as a tool in the attempt to verify how Europeanization could be operationalized Relegation of laws to state and federal legislatures

Limitations of exporting a US model Primordial difference in the legal nature of the two systems Cultural discrepancies on restrictions on freedom of speech