冠状病毒与自由主义的未来

IF 0.4 Q3 Social Sciences
Aliaksei Kazharski, A. Makarychev
{"title":"冠状病毒与自由主义的未来","authors":"Aliaksei Kazharski, A. Makarychev","doi":"10.32422/mv-cjir.1742","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The outbreak of COVID-19 has significantly reshaped debates on the global order, democratic politics and the liberal mode of governing societies. Some have compared the virus to the “ultimate empty signifier”, which allowed difficult ideological groups to fill it with their own securitizations, creating in an instant a plethora of political otherings. For IR realists, the sudden collapse of cross-border movement and other privileges of the globalized liberal elite came as a vindication of their long-cherished argument: the nation state remains the key actor in international politics, and the post-national world had largely been a utopian liberal illusion. Right-wing nationalist populists have been saying the same thing but in a different language and were apt to make COVID-19 instrumental to their purposes. Thus, Viktor Orbán quickly linked it to the agenda of migration and used the state of exception as a pretext to further limit the democratic process in Hungary. However, as students of populism have also stressed, the populist response to the pandemic has been far from uniform.  In a yet broader perspective, while some democratic governments enacted draconian measures in response to the pandemic, suspending basic individual freedoms, some dictatorships like Belarus experienced a sudden “flow of liberalism“, refusing to cut down on both economic activity and cross-border movement. This special issue focuses on comparing the liberal and illiberal reactions (both domestic and international) to the pandemic, looking into how it has affected the democratic and non-democratic forms of governance; examining where the responses have been similar or overlapping, i.e. where COVID-19 has practically blurred or erased the border between liberal and illiberal politics; looking into how different types of regimes and political groupings have borrowed new elements and styles of politics, e.g. in which circumstances populist or autocratic politicians suddenly seemed more liberal than their liberal and democratic counterparts; and investigating the ramifications of these changes for the liberal components of the globalized international order.","PeriodicalId":39183,"journal":{"name":"Mezinarodni Vztahy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Coronavirus and the Future of Liberalism\",\"authors\":\"Aliaksei Kazharski, A. Makarychev\",\"doi\":\"10.32422/mv-cjir.1742\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The outbreak of COVID-19 has significantly reshaped debates on the global order, democratic politics and the liberal mode of governing societies. Some have compared the virus to the “ultimate empty signifier”, which allowed difficult ideological groups to fill it with their own securitizations, creating in an instant a plethora of political otherings. For IR realists, the sudden collapse of cross-border movement and other privileges of the globalized liberal elite came as a vindication of their long-cherished argument: the nation state remains the key actor in international politics, and the post-national world had largely been a utopian liberal illusion. Right-wing nationalist populists have been saying the same thing but in a different language and were apt to make COVID-19 instrumental to their purposes. Thus, Viktor Orbán quickly linked it to the agenda of migration and used the state of exception as a pretext to further limit the democratic process in Hungary. However, as students of populism have also stressed, the populist response to the pandemic has been far from uniform.  In a yet broader perspective, while some democratic governments enacted draconian measures in response to the pandemic, suspending basic individual freedoms, some dictatorships like Belarus experienced a sudden “flow of liberalism“, refusing to cut down on both economic activity and cross-border movement. This special issue focuses on comparing the liberal and illiberal reactions (both domestic and international) to the pandemic, looking into how it has affected the democratic and non-democratic forms of governance; examining where the responses have been similar or overlapping, i.e. where COVID-19 has practically blurred or erased the border between liberal and illiberal politics; looking into how different types of regimes and political groupings have borrowed new elements and styles of politics, e.g. in which circumstances populist or autocratic politicians suddenly seemed more liberal than their liberal and democratic counterparts; and investigating the ramifications of these changes for the liberal components of the globalized international order.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39183,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mezinarodni Vztahy\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mezinarodni Vztahy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32422/mv-cjir.1742\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mezinarodni Vztahy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32422/mv-cjir.1742","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

新冠肺炎的爆发极大地重塑了关于全球秩序、民主政治和治理社会的自由模式的辩论。一些人将病毒比作“终极的空能指”,这让困难的意识形态团体能够用自己的安全化来填补它,在瞬间创造了大量的政治另类。对于IR现实主义者来说,全球化自由主义精英的跨境运动和其他特权的突然崩溃证明了他们长期以来的论点:民族国家仍然是国际政治的关键参与者,后民族世界在很大程度上是一种乌托邦式的自由主义幻想。右翼民族主义民粹主义者一直在用不同的语言说同样的话,并倾向于使新冠肺炎有助于实现他们的目的。因此,维克托·奥尔班很快将其与移民议程联系起来,并以例外状态为借口进一步限制匈牙利的民主进程。然而,正如民粹主义学生也强调的那样,民粹主义对疫情的反应远非一致。从更广泛的角度来看,尽管一些民主政府为应对疫情制定了严厉措施,暂停了基本的个人自由,像白俄罗斯这样的一些独裁政权经历了突然的“自由主义浪潮”,拒绝削减经济活动和跨境流动。本期特刊重点比较自由主义和非自由主义的反应(国内和国际)针对新冠疫情,研究它如何影响民主和非民主形式的治理;研究在哪些情况下反应相似或重叠,即新冠肺炎实际上模糊或抹去了自由政治与非自由政治之间的边界;研究不同类型的政权和政治集团是如何借鉴新的政治元素和风格的,例如,在这种情况下,民粹主义或专制政客突然看起来比自由派和民主派更自由;以及调查这些变化对全球化国际秩序中自由主义部分的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Coronavirus and the Future of Liberalism
The outbreak of COVID-19 has significantly reshaped debates on the global order, democratic politics and the liberal mode of governing societies. Some have compared the virus to the “ultimate empty signifier”, which allowed difficult ideological groups to fill it with their own securitizations, creating in an instant a plethora of political otherings. For IR realists, the sudden collapse of cross-border movement and other privileges of the globalized liberal elite came as a vindication of their long-cherished argument: the nation state remains the key actor in international politics, and the post-national world had largely been a utopian liberal illusion. Right-wing nationalist populists have been saying the same thing but in a different language and were apt to make COVID-19 instrumental to their purposes. Thus, Viktor Orbán quickly linked it to the agenda of migration and used the state of exception as a pretext to further limit the democratic process in Hungary. However, as students of populism have also stressed, the populist response to the pandemic has been far from uniform.  In a yet broader perspective, while some democratic governments enacted draconian measures in response to the pandemic, suspending basic individual freedoms, some dictatorships like Belarus experienced a sudden “flow of liberalism“, refusing to cut down on both economic activity and cross-border movement. This special issue focuses on comparing the liberal and illiberal reactions (both domestic and international) to the pandemic, looking into how it has affected the democratic and non-democratic forms of governance; examining where the responses have been similar or overlapping, i.e. where COVID-19 has practically blurred or erased the border between liberal and illiberal politics; looking into how different types of regimes and political groupings have borrowed new elements and styles of politics, e.g. in which circumstances populist or autocratic politicians suddenly seemed more liberal than their liberal and democratic counterparts; and investigating the ramifications of these changes for the liberal components of the globalized international order.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Mezinarodni Vztahy
Mezinarodni Vztahy Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信