Presentation on theme: "Banning (and not banning) Sinn Féin and Batasuna Dr. Angela Bourne Roskilde University, Denmark Political Studies Association of Ireland, Trinity College."— Presentation transcript:
Banning (and not banning) Sinn Féin and Batasuna Dr. Angela Bourne Roskilde University, Denmark Political Studies Association of Ireland, Trinity College Dublin, October
T O BAN OR NOT TO BAN ? Political wing ETA (Herri Batasuna, Batasuna, Sortu etc) Political wing IRA (Sinn Féin, Republican Clubs) Legal Illegal (in NI) Illegal Republican Clubs - Legal Sinn Féin - Legal -
R ESEARCH Q UESTION Why do parties implicated in similar strategies of violent confrontation with established authorities in the pursuit of anti system goals receive different treatment a) over time and b) in the different states?
T HEORY – VIOLENCE AND BANS Existing studies generate the hypothesis that democracies ban anti-system parties that do not unambiguously reject violence StateBanned PartyBan Year Austria National Socialist German Workers Party 1945 National Democratic Party 1988 Czech Republic Workers Party 2010 Germany Socialist Reich Party 1952 Communist Party of Germany 1956 National Democratic Party of Germany (failed) 2003 Greece Communist Party of Greece 1947 Italy National Fascist Party 1943 Israel Socialist List 1965 Kach 1988 Balad (failed) 2003 Latvia Communist Party of Latvia 1991 Lithuania Communist Party of Lithuania 1991 The Netherlands Centre Party Russia Communist Party of the Soviet Union/Russia 1991 Russian Christian Democratic Party 2004 National Bolshevik Party 2005 Republican Party of Russia 2007 Turkey Welfare Party 1998 Justice and Development party (failed) 2008 Democratic Society Party2009
T HEORY – TOLERANT AND INTOLERANT DEMOCRACY Fox and Nolte (2000) tolerant and intolerant democracies compare constitutional and legal regimes governing proscription and state practice Pedahzur (2004) immunized response deal with subversive actions in a more comprehensive and liberal manner militant response employs measures which may undermine democratic standards
E MPIRICAL RESEARCH – INSTITUTIONALIST APPROACH Elite discourse Parliamentary speeches on party bans in Spain, Northern Ireland and United Kingdom Party competititon which parties are in power and what are their views on proscription Institutional veto players which actors are involved in decisions on proscription and which have final say.
R ESPONSES TO ‘ PROSCRIPTION DILEMMA ’ FAVOUR ILLEGALIZATION Discourse of intolerance ban a response to problem of law and order party and paramilitaries one and the same banned party deemed ‘abnormal’ and not worthy of normal party rights ban will contribute to end of violence FAVOUR LEGALIZATON Discourse of tolerance emphasise role of parties for realisation of free speech and association rights opt to sanction individuals for illegal acts proscription inimical to conflict resolution
P ARTY BANS AND DISCOURSES OF TOLERANCE AND INTOLERANCE Herri Batasuna, Batasuna, Sortu etc Sinn Féin, Republican Clubs LEGAL – DISCOURSE: intolerance ILLEGAL (in NI) – DISCOURSE: intolerance ILLEGAL – DISCOURSE: intolerance 1973 Republican Clubs - LEGAL Sinn Féin - LEGAL – DISCOURSE: tolerance
P ARTY BANS, TOLERANCE AND VETO PLAYERS Herri Batasuna, Batasuna, Sortu etc Sinn Féin, Republican Clubs LEGAL - DISCOURSE: intolerance VETO PLAYERS: judiciary reject proscription ILLEGAL (in NI) - DISCOURSE: intolerance ILLEGAL – DISCOURSE: intolerance VETO PLAYERS: Judiciary accept proscription 1973 Republican Clubs - LEGAL Sinn Féin -LEGAL – DISCOURSE: tolerance