Search results

This article discusses the recent debate between Jürgen Habermas and Wolfgang Streeck on the relationship between capitalism and democracy in Europe. The article recounts Streeck's analysis of the financial crisis, the transformation of the tax state into the debt state, and the development of the EU towards an international consolidation state, which informs Streeck's call for a retreat from Europe to the nation-state as the last line of defense against neoliberal capitalism. The article proceeds to sketch Habermas's criticism of Streeck's argument, and it illustrates how Habermas' proposal for a reconstitution of the EU as a supranational democracy is motivated by foundational concerns in his critical theory of society. Finally, the article argues that the debate results in an unresolved dilemma: while only a democratized EU can reestablish the supremacy of politics over globalized markets, the EU is more likely to become further entrenched as an international consolidation state.

Russisk påvirkning av presidentvalget i 2016 har skapt frykt for manipulasjon av valg i Vesten. Både EU og USA forventer at trusselen vedvarer, og at nye metoder og kapasiteter utvikles. Artikkelen beskriver hva valgpåvirkning er, og hvordan slik påvirkning gjennomføres. Den gjør en systematisk gjennomgang av litteratur om beskyttelse av valg, og funnene sammenfattes i seks temaer med til sammen 38 mulige tiltak for å hindre valgpåvirkning: 1) bevisstgjøring; 2) forebygging; 3) samarbeide og koordinering; 4) beskyttende tiltak; 5) aktive mottiltak og avskrekking; 6) forskning, læring og kompetansebygging. Alle tiltak krever nøye vurdering av økonomiske, politiske, juridiske, praktiske og andre implikasjoner, samt særlig forholdet til demokrati og ytringsfrihet. Avslutningsvis påpekes fire problemstillinger som særlig aktuelle for videre vurdering: 1) bevisstgjøring via medier, samt målrettet mot partier og valgorganisasjon; 2) en helhetlig gjennomgang av trusler, sårbarhet og beskyttelsestiltak, særlig datasikkerhet; 3) forskning og utvikling; 4) avskrekking og eksponering av påvirkning. Mange tiltak er inngripende, særlig i forhold til demokrati, ytringsfrihet, sensur og selvsensur, og de viktigste utfordringer, begrensninger og kritikk mot restriktive tiltak gjennomgås. Vi må unngå at tiltak for å beskytte demokratiet i seg selv undergraver demokratiet.
Abstract in English:How Can Elections Be Protected Against Foreign Interference?Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election have caused fear for manipulation of elections in the West. Both the EU and the US see this as a persistent threat and expect new methods and capabilities to emerge. This article describes election interference and how it has been conducted. It reviews literature about protection of elections, and summarises the findings in six themes with a total of 38 possible measures: 1) awareness, 2) prevention, 3) cooperation and coordination, 4) protective measures, 5) active countermeasures and deterrence, 6) research and competence building. All measures require careful consideration of economic, political, legal, practical and other implications, and especially consequences for democracy and freedom of speech. Finally, four issues are proposed as particularly relevant for further consideration: 1) awareness through media, and also especially targeted at political parties and the election organisation, 2) a comprehensive assessment of threats, vulnerabilities and protective measures, especially in terms of data protection, 3) research and development, 4) deterrence and exposure of interference. Many of the measures are far-reaching when it comes to democracy, freedom of speech, censorship and self-censorship, and the article reviews challenges, limitations and critique of such restrictive measures. It is essential that measures to protect democracy in themselves do not undermine democracy.

In this chapter we outline the Danish and Scandinavian experiences with coalition governments and coalition governance. We do so by first briefly describing the historical path that has led to the political system we see working today in these countries. Then we tell about the political culture and institutional factors that lead to coalition governments. In the third section, we look at the nature of political agreements. We discuss the preconditions for coalition governments or coalition governance and its pros and cons. We focus on the trade-offs between including different interests into legislative coalitions and the possible lack of clarity of responsibility or of party identity that this inclusion entails. ; In this chapter we outline the Danish and Scandinavian experiences with coalition governments and coalition governance. We do so by first briefly describing the historical path that has led to the political system we see working today in these countries. Then we tell about the political culture and institutional factors that lead to coalition governments. In the third section, we look at the nature of political agreements. We discuss the preconditions for coalition governments or coalition governance and its pros and cons. We focus on the trade-offs between including different interests into legislative coalitions and the possible lack of clarity of responsibility or of party identity that this inclusion entails.

Igennem de sidste to år (2018–2019) er den førte danske politik i forhold til Kina blevet mere ambivalent. Særligt når det gælder kinesiske investeringer, er Danmark blevet mere forsigtig. Denne artikel undersøger hvilke faktorer, der har haft betydning for Danmarks skiftende politik i forhold til kinesiske investeringer, gennem to større case-studier: Kinesiske investeringer i Grønland og Huawei i Danmark. Kort fortalt udpeges her tre faktorer, der er afgørende for Danmarks politik i forhold til kinesiske investeringer: for det første landets langvarige økonomiske ideologi som en lille, åben økonomi, svarende til øvrige nordiske lande og som medlem af EU, med et pragmatisk behov for udenlandske markeder; for det andet en stærk, national tro på demokrati og statens forsvarsalliance med USA, herunder dets dedikerede medlemskab af NATO; og for det tredje opkomsten af fremmedfjendske og nationalistiske politiske partier, der udfordrer den tidligere mere afbalancerede og pragmatiske tilgang kendetegnende for større partier samt går ind for et mere anti-kinesisk standpunkt.
Abstract in English:Denmark's Policy on Chinese Investments: Pragmatism Balancing with Increasing Threat PerspectivesDuring the past two years (2018–2019), Denmark's policy towards China has become more ambivalent. In particular, Denmark has become more cautious about inward Chinese investments. This article examines the factors that have affected Denmark's changing policy on Chinese investment, with two major case studies: Chinese investments in Greenland, and Huawei in Denmark. In a nutshell, it points out three decisive factors: first, the country's long-term ideology as a small, open economy, similar to other Nordic countries and as a member of the EU, with a pragmatic need for foreign markets; second, a strong national belief in democracy and the state's defense alliance with the United States, including its dedicated NATO membership; and third, the rise of xenophobic and nationalist political parties, challenging the earlier more balanced and pragmatic approach characteristic of larger parties as well as advocating a more anti-Chinese stance.

Denne artikkelen undersøker diskursens rolle i konsolidering av autoritære regimer. Gjennom å etablere en dialog mellom Jacques Rancières arbeider om politikk og avpolitisering og poststrukturalistisk diskursanalyse argumenterer artikkelen for at diskursiv avpolitisering bidrar til at autokratier befester seg, og viser at autoritær konsolidering ofte finner sted i skjæringsfeltet mellom nasjonal og internasjonal politikk. Artikkelen retter et særskilt søkelys på Rancières begrep om kløfter som politikkens scene, og teoretiserer hvordan slike kløfter nøytraliseres i avpolitisering. Artikkelen fremsetter så en metode for å analysere diskursiv avpolitisering empirisk ved å konseptualisere Rancières logikker som idealtypiske avpolitiseringsdiskurser, og illustrerer denne analytiske strategien ved å anvende den på russisk offisiell diskurs i senere år (2015–2020). Slik forklarer artikkelen hvordan diskursive konstruksjoner har befestet Russland som autokrati: Den viser at autoritær konsolidering i Russland under Putin muliggjøres av rotfestede avpolitiserende diskurser som (re)produseres og forsterkes i et sammenvevet innenriks- og utenrikspolitisk felt. Artikkelen fremmer begrepet diskursiv avpolitisering som et nytt perspektiv på fagdebatter om den liberale verdensordens utfordringer og såkalte hybridregimer.
Abstract in English:Depoliticizing Democracy Through Discourse: Understanding Authoritarian Consolidation in Russia through Jacques Rancière's Political TheoryThis article investigates the role of discourses in processes of authoritarian consolidation. By bringing Jacques Rancière's works on politics and depoliticization into dialogue with poststructuralist discourse analysis, the article argues that discursive depoliticization contributes towards authoritarian consolidation, and displays how authoritarianism deepens in a co-dependent nexus of domestic and international politics. Focusing in particular on Rancière's concept of gaps as the stage for politics, the article theorizes how gaps are neutralized in depoliticization. The article offers a method for unpacking discursive depoliticization empirically by conceptualizing Rancière's logics as ideal-typical depoliticizing discourses, and illustrates this analytical strategy through analysis of Russian official discourse in recent years (2015–2020). The article thereby explains how discursive constructions have strengthened Russian autocracy: Entrenched depoliticizing discourses, produced and reinforced in a co-constitutive internal/external sphere, makes possible authoritarian consolidation in Russia under Putin. The article puts forward the concept of discursive depoliticization as a novel perspective on challenges to the liberal international order, and on "hybrid" regimes.

La oss være optimister og tenke oss frem til en verden i 2040 der klimamålene er nådd. Her må vi som Hornburg og Sending peker på i sin artikkel i forrige nummer av Internasjonal politikk tenke internasjonalt, også om perspektivet er Norge. Hva slags scenarier kan ligge til grunn for en slik utvikling? Artikkelen trekker opp tre slike. Det ene er at USA og Kina slår seg sammen i et klimanøytralt energikartell. Gjennom bruk av både handelsmakt og militær makt presser de frem et belte av kjernekraftverk og fornybare kraftkilder støttet opp av amerikansk teknologi og kinesisk industri. Det andre er at tingene går sin skjeve gang og at klimaets «vippepunkt» passeres. Ekstremvær, tørke og havstigning skaper større ødeleggelser enn finansmarkedet kan bære, produksjon og handel stopper opp og utslippene synker. Det tredje er en utvikling hvor marked og stater går sammen om forskning, utvikling og gjennomføring av nødvendige tiltak. Dette krever internasjonalt samarbeid om offentlige regulering og innovative bedrifter som sammen med statene kan satse på teknologisk og sosial utvikling. Bare i det siste scenariet vil vi kunne redde både klodens klima og demokratiet som styringsform.
Abstract in English:
Inspired by Hornburg and Sending in the previous issue, this comment draws up three different scenarios where the climate goals have been reached by 2040. Two are dystopian, one is optimistic but the only way to save both democracy and earth's present climate. Solutions must involve the big emission countries like the US, China and India. What would the world look like if USA and China decide to form a Cartel backed by economic and military power to monopolise the energy sector based on nuclear power and other fossil free sources" Another alternative is "business as usual" leading to the "tipping point" of global warming, with devastating effects on the global economy. Industry and trade cease in most parts of the world, and emissions are thereby reduced. The third scenario is where business and governments cooperate in research and development. This entails innovative market leaders, but also the use of strict regulation and interventions in the markets by government. Global firms can cooperate with progressive governments to circumvent governments in countries that refuse to act.

The regional powerhouse, South Africa, has since the introduction of the nonracial democratic dispensation in 1994, played a central and important role in the formation of both the regional and continental security architecture. With the establishment of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) in 1992, one of the central areas of collaboration for the community was envisioned to be security, understood within a broadened human security framework. Security was therefore from the outset one of the cornerstones of integration in the SADC. It was believed that the formation of a security community would help dismantle the enmities that had plagued regional relations during the apartheid era. For some parties, institutionalisation of relations pointed to a means of stabilising and disseminating a particular order. Such institutions depict the power relations prevailing at the time of their establishment, which, however, can change over time (Cox 1981:136). The integration ambition surrounding security correlated with the ambitions of South Africa, the new democratic government in the regional powerhouse. South Africa and its overall foreign policy ambitions desired the pursuit of peace, democracy and stability for economic growth and development in the region and within South Africa itself. Since South Africa's acceptance into the SADC in 1994, the organisation has attempted to set up the required institutional framework to enable co-operation on security, both in terms of narrow military co-operation and regarding designated 2 softer security issues, such as migration and cross-border crime. The military cooperation moved forward in the early years after 1994 with the 1996 decision of creating an Organ for Politics, Defence and Security Co-operation (OPDSC)1 and later the signing of the Mutual Defence Pact (MDP) in 2003, and eventually the creation of the Strategic Indicative Plan for the Organ (SIPO) in 2004, which operationalised the OPDSC (SADC 2004). However, the actual military cooperation, e.g. military exercises, came close to a standstill. Several developments obstructed military co-operation of which the evolving crisis in Zimbabwe and the subsequent withdrawal of donor support to, for instance, the Regional Peacekeeping Training Centre (RPTC) in Harare are but two examples. The RPTC constituted the backbone of the co-operation, but political differences between member states illustrated during the Zimbabwean crisis and following the mandate of the interventions in especially the DR Congo and partly Lesotho in 1998 all contributed to regional tensions.2 Despite the crisis, SADC members, and in particular South Africa, declared that the organisation would be able to form a regional stand-by brigade for the use of the African Union (AU) as part of its wider security architecture. On 17 August 2007, the SADC declared its stand-by-force operational at a large parade in Lusaka, Zambia and at the same occasion signed a memorandum of understanding on the SADCBRIG (SADC 2007). According to the timeline provided by the AU, the brigade should be fully operational by June 2010. Former South African deputy foreign minister Aziz Pahad stated after the launch that this was an important step, but that now there was much to be done securing joint levels and types of training, interoperability, etc. (Pahad 2007). The question that continues to linger is to what extent this brigade is operational and for what purpose. Is this new regional military formation in its present form just a paper tiger, or is it "real progress" and an example of "successful" regional cooperation and integration? This article scrutinises the security co-operation and integration in SADC and asks whether an apparent lack of common values between SADC member states are blocking the security integration process, the creation of a security community, and thereby the establishment of an effective stand-by brigade, the so-called SADCBRIG. The article furthermore attempts to scrutinise the role played by South Africa in establishing the SADCBRIG.