Abstract

Illiberalism, much like populism, has become a buzzword. While some excellent research has been done on the matter, helping us make sense of our current political moment, much of the discourse around the term has made it blurrier and been outright counterproductive in the defence of democracy. Often, the use of illiberalism has led to a flattening and simplification of the complex nature of politics, pitting an ideal, fantasised version of liberalism against a caricatural, homogenous and exceptionalising version of illiberalism. While those defending the former are widely considered not only unable to respond to, but at the origin of the many crises our societies and planet are facing, they are justified if only through the comparison with the latter: we are bad, but they are worse. This has not only been counterproductive with regards to addressing said crises, but it has legitimised certain illiberal alternatives, found on the far right in particular, both as alternatives to the status quo, and through the false equivalence it constructs with alternatives on the left which seek to explore beyond the liberal fantasy. To address this vicious circle, it is essential to take a critical approach to illiberalism as a concept. This short piece outlines three essential starting points: 1. Liberalism should not be constructed as an innate good, as homogenous and as above critique; 2. Critical takes on liberalism should not be automatically equated with siding with the reactionary kind of illiberalism; 3. There should be an unequivocal denunciation of far right/reactionary politics with no compromise or absorption.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call