uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Malkopoulou, AnthoulaORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-7881-9329
Publications (10 of 24) Show all publications
Malkopoulou, A. & Hill, L. (Eds.). (2018). Equality and Representation: New Perspectives in Democratic Theory (1ed.). London: Routledge
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Equality and Representation: New Perspectives in Democratic Theory
2018 (English)Collection (editor) (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

This volume is primarily concerned with equality as a basic component of the democratic character of representation. In other words, of the many types of equality that have attracted the attention of theorists since democracy’s beginnings – arithmetic equality, equality before the law, equality of opportunity– we would like to draw attention to representational equality, that is, the role of equality in systems of democratic representation. In what form is equality present in traditional forms of electoral representation? How can it be secured in new forms of representation, such as claims-making, deliberative, klerotarian and epistemic representation? And to what extent are electoral or non-electoral models of representation able to accommodate increasing social inequalities? The articles in this volume discuss these issues from a normative and conceptual point of view, seeking to shed new light on the important but under-explored relationship between equality and representation. This book was originally published as a special issue of Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
London: Routledge, 2018. p. 150 Edition: 1
Keywords
Equality, representation, democratic theory
National Category
Political Science
Research subject
Political Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-372737 (URN)9781138084230 (ISBN)
Available from: 2019-01-08 Created: 2019-01-08 Last updated: 2019-01-10Bibliographically approved
Malkopoulou, A. & Hill, L. (2018). Introduction (1ed.). In: Anthoula Malkopoulou; Lisa Hill (Ed.), Equality and Representation: New Perspectives in Democratic Theory (pp. 1-8). London: Routledge
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Introduction
2018 (English)In: Equality and Representation: New Perspectives in Democratic Theory / [ed] Anthoula Malkopoulou; Lisa Hill, London: Routledge, 2018, 1, p. 1-8Chapter in book (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
London: Routledge, 2018 Edition: 1
National Category
Political Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-372740 (URN)9781138084230 (ISBN)
Available from: 2019-01-09 Created: 2019-01-09 Last updated: 2019-01-28Bibliographically approved
Malkopoulou, A. & Norman, L. (2018). Three Models of Democratic Self-Defence: Militant Democracy and Its Alternatives. Political Studies, 66(2), 442-458
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Three Models of Democratic Self-Defence: Militant Democracy and Its Alternatives
2018 (English)In: Political Studies, ISSN 0032-3217, E-ISSN 1467-9248, Vol. 66, no 2, p. 442-458Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Militant democracy relies on the idea that democracies ought to defend themselves from anti-democratic forces by constitutionalizing repressive measures. We offer a criticism of this view highlighting the exclusionary elitism on which militant democracy is built. In doing this we consider two competing models of democratic self-defence, the procedural, and the social. We suggest that the procedural model, while avoiding the exclusionary and other pitfalls of militant democracy, is detached from socio-political realities and fails to offer a comprehensive vision of democratic stability. The largely neglected social model of democratic self-defense avoids this problem; it combines proceduralism’s commitment to dissensus with a social-democratic logic in the design of democratic constitutions. We argue in favour of such a social-democratic self-defense and further develop this model around the guiding principle of political and social non-domination. 

Keywords
militant democracy, Kelsen, Heller, non-domination, social democracy
National Category
Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)
Research subject
Political Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-320938 (URN)10.1177/0032321717723504 (DOI)000429911100011 ()
Available from: 2017-04-27 Created: 2017-04-27 Last updated: 2018-05-31Bibliographically approved
Malkopoulou, A. (2017). Ostracism and Democratic Self-Defense in Athens. Constellations, 24(4), 623-636
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Ostracism and Democratic Self-Defense in Athens
2017 (English)In: Constellations, ISSN 1351-0487, E-ISSN 1467-8675, Vol. 24, no 4, p. 623-636Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Since its inception, democratic ideology and the political system it inaugurated has had both sympathizers and inter-nal enemies from which it had to be defended. Many democratic states today respond to such threats by applying the constitutional principle of “militant democracy.” Under this scheme, the role of democracy’s prime defender belongs tounaccountable institutions such as professional courts, which act by restricting participation rights, for example ban-ning political parties or even de-naturalizing citizens. Ancient democracies, however, managed antidemocratic threats by designating the greater demos as the main defender of democracy. The prime instrument of Athenian democraticself-defense in the 5thcentury BCE was ostracism, a procedure that granted citizens the possibility to temporarily expela political figure from the city-state by public vote.To be sure, Athenians could in general deprive citizens of their rights as a punishment for various offenses througha vote in the Assembly or the people’s courts. Yet, ostracism did not have a punitive character, for the intention was tosave the city from extreme polarization and internal strife rather than to charge an individual with a political crime.Moreover, the type of political exile that ostracism conferred was different from other types of exile, as it did notinvolve the loss of status and—importantly—of property. Hence, even if ostracism is best understood in the contextof the ancient politics of exile (Forsdyke, 2005), its semantic over-identification with the idea of political exile doesnot match the fact that exile by ostracism was an unusually mild type of exile. Besides, its constitutional logic reachedfar beyond the logic of political exile. For, in reality, ostracism was a participatory political procedure that distributed among citizens the responsibility of stabilizing and sustaining democracy; it was an act of democratic self-defense parexcellence.My analysis links ancient Greek and contemporary democratic theory, and is based on literary sources andcontemporary classical studies using archaeological research of the thousands of ostraka excavated in the Agora andKerameikos. In the first part of this article, I describe the institution of ostracism and distinguish three procedural qualities—temporal, participatory, and inclusive requirements. These are crucial as they illustrate the self-limitingnature of the Athenian model of democratic self-defense. In the second part, I discuss the purpose of ostracism.Was it aimed at preventing the emergence of tyranny? Or are we justified in calling it an anti-aristocratic tool? Iconclude this section by arguing that the goal of ostracism was positive; to protect and promote democratic stability,and negative only inasmuch as it excluded any person who acted against this end. In the conclusion, I draw on my findings to build a framework of democratic self-defense that challenges some of the most popular contemporary paradigms.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Wiley-Blackwell, 2017
Keywords
democracy, ancient, ostracism, anti-democrats, oligarchs, tyrants
National Category
Political Science
Research subject
Political Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-329280 (URN)10.1111/1467-8675.12285 (DOI)000418354100012 ()
Available from: 2017-09-11 Created: 2017-09-11 Last updated: 2018-02-01Bibliographically approved
Malkopoulou, A. (2016). De-presentation rights as a response to extremism. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 19(3), 301-319
Open this publication in new window or tab >>De-presentation rights as a response to extremism
2016 (English)In: Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, ISSN 1369-8230, E-ISSN 1743-8772, Vol. 19, no 3, p. 301-319Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Due to the persistent rise of extremism, democrats in recent years have been exploring old and new possibilities of democratic self-defence. This article explores an unconventional and little known alternative to militant democracy that places the demos at the centre stage of the struggle against extremism. Through a neo-procedural reinterpretation of ancient ostracism and modern-day recall, I suggest that citizens should have rights of democratic de-selection of elected parties and candidates. I argue that, if properly designed, such a mechanism of de-presentation distributes the burden of democratic self-defence among citizens and creates a bottom-up majoritarian resistance to anti-democratic threats, without compromising free parliamentary mandate or minority rights.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Routledge, 2016
Keywords
extremism, militant democracy, voting, de-selection, negative representation
National Category
Political Science
Research subject
Political Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-264569 (URN)10.1080/13698230.2016.1144856 (DOI)000377030700005 ()
Projects
Marie Curie IE Fellowship NEGARE
Available from: 2015-10-14 Created: 2015-10-14 Last updated: 2017-12-01Bibliographically approved
Malkopoulou, A. & Hill, L. (Eds.). (2016). Equal Representation: New Perspectives in Democratic Theory. Routledge
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Equal Representation: New Perspectives in Democratic Theory
2016 (English)Collection (editor) (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Representation is not only a buzz–word in contemporary political theory butalso a conceptual platform from which questions about the performance of old forms of democracy and the potential of new varieties are launched. This volume is primarily concerned with equality as a basic component of the democraticcharacter of representation. In other words, of the many types of equalitythat have attracted the attention of theorists since democracy’s beginnings –political, socio-economic, anthropological, or arithmetic equality, equality before the law, equality of opportunity – we would like to draw attention to representational equality, that is, the role of equality in systems of democratic representation. In what form is equality present in traditional forms of electoral representation? How can it be secured in new forms of representation, such as claim-making, deliberative, kleroterian, and epistemic representation? And to what extent are electoral or non-electoral models of representation able to accommodate increasing social inequalities? The articles in this volume discuss these issues from a normative and conceptual point of view, seeking to shed new light on the important but under-explored relationship between equality and representation.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Routledge, 2016. p. 243-382
Series
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, ISSN 1369-8230 (Print), 1743-8772 (Online) ; 19 (3)
National Category
Political Science
Research subject
Philosophy; Political Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-264571 (URN)
Funder
EU, FP7, Seventh Framework Programme, 625351
Available from: 2015-10-14 Created: 2015-10-14 Last updated: 2016-04-27
Malkopoulou, A. & Hill, L. (2016). Special Issue: Equal Representation: New Perspectives in Democratic Theory INTRODUCTION. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 19(3), 243-244
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Special Issue: Equal Representation: New Perspectives in Democratic Theory INTRODUCTION
2016 (English)In: Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, ISSN 1369-8230, E-ISSN 1743-8772, Vol. 19, no 3, p. 243-244Article in journal, Editorial material (Other academic) Published
National Category
Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-299786 (URN)10.1080/13698230.2016.1144852 (DOI)000377030700001 ()
Available from: 2016-07-27 Created: 2016-07-27 Last updated: 2018-01-10Bibliographically approved
Malkopoulou, A. (2016). The Conceptual Origins of Compulsory Voting: A Study of the 1893 Belgian Parliamentary Debate. History of Political Thought, 37(1), 152-175
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The Conceptual Origins of Compulsory Voting: A Study of the 1893 Belgian Parliamentary Debate
2016 (English)In: History of Political Thought, ISSN 0143-781X, E-ISSN 2051-2988, Vol. 37, no 1, p. 152-175Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In 1893, Belgian conservatives sponsored compulsory voting to counter socialist and liberal backing for universal and plural voting, respectively. They allied with progressive Liberals to circumvent opposition from their own right wing who insisted on a self-motivated 'duty' to vote that loses its value when enforced. In contrast, moderate Catholics argued that compulsion would protect the freedom or non-dependence of voters from being forced to abstain by employers. Furthermore, voting was re-described at a special right or 'mandate' that entailed responsibilities towards the disenfranchised. Hence, compulsory voting was defended immediately as a liberal anti-corruption measure and a paternalistic norm of social protection.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Imprint Academic, 2016
Keywords
compulsory voting, Belgium, parliamentary debate, constitutional reform, history, concepts, arguments
National Category
Political Science
Research subject
Political Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-264572 (URN)000370767200007 ()
Available from: 2015-10-14 Created: 2015-10-14 Last updated: 2017-12-01Bibliographically approved
Malkopoulou, A. (2016). The self-limiting theory of militant democracy: Alexander Kirshner, A Theory of Militant Democracy: The Ethics of Combatting Political Extremism. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. 2014. 208 pages. ISBN 9780300189858 [Review]. Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory, 19(1), 108-112
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The self-limiting theory of militant democracy: Alexander Kirshner, A Theory of Militant Democracy: The Ethics of Combatting Political Extremism. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. 2014. 208 pages. ISBN 9780300189858
2016 (English)In: Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory, ISSN 2308-0914, Vol. 19, no 1, p. 108-112Article, book review (Other academic) Published
Keywords
Democracy, Extremism, Party bans, Right to partcipate
National Category
Political Science
Research subject
Political Science; Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-305968 (URN)10.7227/R.19.1.9 (DOI)
Available from: 2016-10-24 Created: 2016-10-24 Last updated: 2017-01-17Bibliographically approved
Malkopoulou, A. (2015). Compulsory Voting: For and Against: Review of Jason Brennan and Lisa Hill Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014, 240pp., £18.99/£55, ISBN: 978-1107613928/978-1107041516. [Review]. Acta Politica, 50(4), 506-509
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Compulsory Voting: For and Against: Review of Jason Brennan and Lisa Hill Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014, 240pp., £18.99/£55, ISBN: 978-1107613928/978-1107041516.
2015 (English)In: Acta Politica, ISSN 0001-6810, E-ISSN 1741-1416, Vol. 50, no 4, p. 506-509Article, book review (Other academic) Published
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015
National Category
Political Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-264576 (URN)10.1057/ap.2015.13 (DOI)000361972400008 ()
Available from: 2015-10-14 Created: 2015-10-14 Last updated: 2017-12-01Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-7881-9329

Search in DiVA

Show all publications