Non-normative political extremism: Reclaiming a concept’s analytical utility

ABSTRACT

Political extremism suffers from a definitional deficiency. This article proposes an analytical definition of the term, which avoids using extremism in a pejorative way. This definition also avoids exclusive focus on violence. This definition encourages the analyst to explicitly make the case for defining an action or an actor as extremist by comparing the action or actor to its political context. The article then explores several dimensions of an extremist political identity that can help observers understand extremist behavior and goals. It uses this conceptual framework to consider three examples of political extremism. Finally, the article concludes with some limitations and strengths of this definition of political extremism.     

Political Violence: Switzerland,A Special Case?

When we speak of political violence during the second half of the twentieth century in Western Europe, we tend to think of events that took place in Germany, involving the Red Army Faction, and in Italy, with the Red Brigades. Such political violence does not apply in the case of Switzerland, which is perceived as a haven of peace, security, democracy, and economic affluence. However, cursory analysis of the contemporary press undermines this stereotypical vision: indeed, between 1968 and 1995 there were a number of violent acts of protest. Switzerland may not have experienced the phenomenon of organized armed struggle in the same way as Germany and Italy—in fact, the intensity of the violence was far from being the same—but political acts against the government did occur, acts involving either damage to property or, more rarely, injury to people. A rough typology identifies three different political tendencies: separatists and anti-separatists pertaining to Canton Jura, the far-Left, and the far-Right. The aim of this article is to pinpoint and analyze the different features of the violent repertoire that unfolded in Switzerland between 1968 and 1995.     

Does substantive democratization create more committed democrats? Surprising evidence from Africa

A growing body of evidence holds that citizens support democracy when they believe the regime has provided individual freedoms and political rights. Put simply, citizens develop legitimacy attitudes by learning about democracy. These findings, however, are based on citizens' evaluations of the procedural elements of democracy. Democratization also entails substantive reforms that likely impact legitimacy attitudes. This article provides the first test of how the success – and failure – of substantive democratization shapes legitimacy attitudes. Using data from the second round of Afrobarometer surveys, I find surprising results. Citizens who judge the regime to be more successful in substantive democratization are actually less likely to be committed democrats. I conclude with possible explanations of these surprising findings and reflect on the challenges for both future research and for the new democracies facing this situation.