International Conference
Lille, 2–3 April 2026
The notion of militant democracy, coined by Karl Loewenstein in the late 1930s in the context of Nazi Germany, has enjoyed significant theoretical resonance, generating substantial research at the international level (Schupmann, 2025; Malkopoulou, 2019; Dumont, 2001), often calling for transdisciplinary approaches (Ellian, 2018; Müller, 2012). This has been much less the case in France, and the purpose of this conference is to discuss the genealogy of the notion, its heuristic potential, and its limits. In a context marked by the rise of radical and extremist movements and, in response, by increasing restrictions on civil liberties—frequently justified in the name of the preservation of democracy—the notion of militant democracy appears to have acquired a renewed relevance (Mudde, 2016).
According to advocates of militant democracy, when faced with threats and attacks, democracy requires legal instruments and political action if it is to endure. The concept of militant democracy aims at studying the conditions under which, confronted with internal enemies, democratic regimes can survive. Loewenstein attributed the rise and ultimate victory of Nazism to the insufficient militancy of the Weimar Republic, which, in his view, had been too much concerned with preserving political liberalism and the rule of law—thereby empowering its very foes (Loewenstein, 1937). From this perspective, fundamental freedoms may require limitations or corrective mechanisms to ensure the survival of the regime itself. This raises a fundamental question: how far may a democracy go to protect itself without undermining its democratic nature? In the post-1945 Federal Republic of Germany, for instance, political organizations deemed to threaten the democratic order could be banned, a legal provision which significantly curbed far-right activism for decades. Another example is the February 10, 1936 French law targeting fascist leagues, which introduced administrative dissolution. More recently, the 24 August 2021 French law “reinforcing respect for the principles of the Republic,” justified as a way to defend the Republic against its enemies, fits within the same conceptual framework.
One of the aims of this conference is therefore to explore the diverse understandings of militant democracy, the circulation of the notion across contexts, and its historical as well as contemporary uses.
Paper proposals—drawing on theoretical, legal, sociological or comparative-politics approaches, and addressing different national settings or historical periods—should relate to at least one of the thematic axes below.
Thematic Axes:
1. Socio-genesis and theorization
This axis invites contributions on the emergence of the notion, in its original German context and beyond. Papers examining the political and intellectual settings in which the concept developed are welcome. This axis also aims to present and debate different understandings of militant democracy. Can democratic regimes be classified according to their degree of militancy? Since the tension between protecting democracy and preserving political liberalism lies at the core of the concept, it may be fruitful to discuss it in relation to notions such as illiberal democracy, authoritarian liberalism, or authoritarian statism.
2. Scales and instruments
While the concept of militant democracy has been primarily theorised at the national level (Thiel, 2009), to describe constitutional or legal measures restricting civil or political liberties in order to safeguard the regime, other levels of governance—supra- or infra-state—may also mobilize the concept (Klamt, 2012). The European Union and the Council of Europe illustrate this phenomenon, both in the caselaw of the ECtHR and in measures taken by the EU against some member states governments engaging in democratic backsliding. Likewise, relationships between central states and subnational authorities in federal or decentralised systems may be analyzed: restrictions imposed by central governments on federated entities can be justified in the name of regime preservation (Kirshner, 2014).
Militant democracy has historically relied on specific instruments limiting public and political freedoms: bans on political parties (Tyulkina, 2015), administrative dissolution of associations, and restrictions on freedom of expression (Hochmann, 2013), all of which may be the subject of papers. In addition, the renewed debate in the United States over the use of antitrust legislation—not only to counter monopolistic practices but also to protect democracy—may also be examined. This axis seeks to analyze such instruments in light of their political, legal or ideological justification.
3. Actors: implementing and resisting militant democracy
From a sociological perspective, this axis examines the different actors involved in militant democracy. On the institutional side, this includes administrative, judicial, and intelligence services that qualify, categorize and prove the existence of a presumed internal threat. Conversely, the axis invites analyses of how targeted actors respond to measures associated with militant democracy—bans, dissolutions, or antitrust-based dismantling efforts. How do affected groups resist? What legal or political strategies do they mobilize? To what extent are these measures effective in curbing activism? Far-right organizations—which are often targeted by such measures—will be of central interest, though the scope is not limited to them.
4. Extending the scope of militant democracy: secularism and republicanism
Although originally theorised to address the protection of democracy against internal enemies, the notion of militant democracy has since broadened to encompass institutional and political efforts to defend a regime or political order against perceived threats. Scholars have thus referred to militant secularism (Macklem, 2012; Tyulkina, 2015) or militant republicanism (Gazagne Jammes, 2024) in order to describe restrictions on liberties justified by referring to the need to preserve a secular order or a particular understanding of laïcité or the Republic. Contributions examining such uses and the circulation of the notion—and related legal instruments, such as the French “separatism” law—are welcome.
5. Uses of militant democracy in authoritarian contexts
The notion of militant democracy was forged in parliamentary and representative systems grounded in liberalism, and the tension between democracy and political liberalism is central to it. Yet the concept has travelled and has been appropriated, notably, by regimes not commonly seen as liberal democracies (such as Algeria) (Aït-Aoudia, 2021). What do such appropriations reveal? Should they be understood merely as a legitimising discourse? What concrete practices result from it? Paper proposals (maximum 2 pages), outlining the research question, methodology, as well as the sources and data used, should be sent to the organizers by December the 10th 2025.
Organizers
