(Momentarily) drifting into ideocracy in Central Europe

Abstract

In what follows, I argue that the current nationalism-populism nexus in Central Europe assumes more and more a form of ideocracy. The concept of ideocracy has been made popular in scholarly debate by Roger Griffin in his seminal The Legitimising Role of Palingenetic Myth of Ideocracy (2012). Initially, the concept was applied to analysis of the birth and evolution of interwar totalitarianism in Europe. However, the concept seems to hold true for the recent wave of ‘democratic backsliding’ in Central Europe (Rupnik 2007, ‘From Democracy Fatigue to Populist Backlash’, 18, Journal of Democracy, 4, 17–25) in a particularly striking way. Thus, major assumption of this analysis is that Griffin’s conceptualisation of ideocracy reveals a particular relevance to the current ‘nationalistic turn’ in Central Europe. When examining this thesis, the analysis examines three major features of current Central European ideocracy, namely: ‘the real people vs. corrupted elite’, ‘the will of the sovereign vs. the rule of law’, and ‘ideocracy as a speech act: speaking on behalf of the people’. I conclude by referring to ‘re-invention of the nation-alism’ as an ideological legitimisation of getting the post-1989 transformation record straight. Empirical illustration of this research problem is the nationalism-populism nexus reflected in the Law and Justice and Fidesz narratives.