The impact of the past on contemporary responses to political extremism: the cases of Poland and Spain

ABSTRACT

Scholars have argued that historical context shapes national choices about responses to extremism. The influence of Nazism on Germany’s ‘militant democracy’ is the paradigmatic example. However, authoritarian experiences have also mobilized in rejection of militant measures. The relevance of historical experiences may thus depend on how the past is ‘remembered’ and ‘mobilized’ for political ends. We approach this puzzle by examining how states appeal (if at all) to experiences of authoritarianism when debating responses to extremism, and whether this reflects shared ways of ‘remembering’ the past or ideological divisions. We compare Spanish and Polish strategies, discourses justifying choices and the role of historical memory therein. We argue that mobilization of historical experiences draws on shared ways of ‘remembering’ their own past, Europe’s shared authoritarian legacy, the ideological positions and interests of speakers. This finding undermines arguments that a state’s own historical experiences necessarily shape policies of democratic defence and supports the arguments that a so-called ‘European community of memory’ exists and influences decisions regarding responses to extremism. It strengthens arguments about the importance of ideology and political interests in decisions about democratic defence.

KEYWORDS:

• Responses to political extremism
• historical memory
• democratic defense
• Poland
• Spain

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank participant of the ECPR Joint Session, Workshop: on Rethinking ‘Militant Democracy’: Democratic Dilemmas in the Age of Populism, Nicosia 2018, for their useful comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. We use the term authoritarian throughout, except when citing texts that use other terminology. More specifically we purposely avoid using the term ‘totalitarianism’ due to its more contested meaning.

2. Both had earlier authoritarian experiences, in Spain, in the 1920 s, Miguel Primo de Rivera established a dictatorship. In Poland, the April Constitution of 1935 moved a parliamentary system into an authoritarian one.

3. The second part of Article 13 permits bans of ‘[…] those whose programs or activities sanction racial or national hatred, the application of violence for the purpose of obtaining power or to influence the State policy, or provide for the secrecy of their own structure or membership, shall be prohibited’.

4. Article 256 of the Criminal Code provides: ‘Whoever publicly promotes a fascist or other totalitarian system of state or incites hatred based on national, ethnic, racial or religious differences or for reason of lack of any religious denomination shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 2 years’. It is part of the section on ‘Offenses against public order’ define the object of protection as the functioning of a state based on democratic values and principles, ensuring for citizens and other people within its borders the protection of their rights.

5. Art. 256 § 2. Paragraph 2 adds that: ‘The same penalty shall be imposed on whoever, for the purposes of distribution, produces, records, or brings, acquires, stores, possesses, presents, carries or forwards prints, recordings or any other object bearing the content set forth in § 1 or is a carrier of fascist, communist or other totalitarian symbols. § 3. Performance of the forbidden act set forth in § 2 shall not constitute an offence if it is done in the context of artistic, educational, collectable or scientific activity. § 4. In the event of a conviction of the offence set forth in § 2, the court shall order the forfeiture of the objects referred to in § 2, even if they are not the property of the offender’. § 2 was repealed on 03.08.2011, with respect to the words: ’or being a carrier of fascist, communist or other totalitarian symbols’, basing on the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 19.07.2011, case file no. K 11/10 (Dz. U. poz. 964).

6. Article 6 reads: ‘Political parties are the expression of political pluralism, they contribute to the formation and expression of the will of the people and are an essential instrument for political participation. Their creation and the exercise of their activities are free insofar as they respect the Constitution and the law. Their internal structure and their functioning must be democratic’.

7. Law 54/1978 on Political Parties permitted proscription of political parties proven to be ‘illicit associations’ or parties which were not democratic in their internal structure and functioning. Law 6/2002 overhauled Party Law and provided an additional justification for proscription; namely, conduct threatening to undermine the liberal democratic system. This provision permitted the courts to dissolve parties which ‘violated democratic principles in a repeated and grave form, or aimed to undermine or destroy the regime of liberties, or injure or eliminate the democratic system’ (article 9.2).

8. See also PSOE’s Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar, DSCD, CACLP, 4 June 2002, no. 168, 9095.

9. Social Democracy of the Republic of Poland (member of Democratic Left Alliance).

10. In contrast to Nazism and Communism, systems experienced by many European states, Franco authoritarianism was specific and limited to only one country.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by research grant number UMO-2014/15/D/HS5/03272 awarded by the National Science Centre, Poland to Aleksandra Moroska-Bonkiewicz; Narodowe Centrum Nauki [UMO-2014/15/D/HS5/03272];