This article discusses how an illiberal regime within the EU can hinder the mobilization of citizens and civil actors by creating an atmosphere of "ambiguity". In our analysis, we first discuss the Constitution of 2011, which provides the driving force of the regime, and next using the example of the migration crisis show how this atmosphere of ambiguity is created. We argue that although there is no physical violence present, opponents of the regime are disheartened to act because of the general atmosphere relying on the logic of constitutional othering, dividing the world into its enemies and friends and shifting from the rule of law to ruling by law. While the regime's gaudy campaigns against immigrants, NGOs, Central European University, the EU or George Soros are omnipresent, we aim to go deeper and highlight the mechanism through which the regime manages to discourage citizens from voicing their discontent.
In the last decade, there has been a tendency for governments to impose tighter restrictions on civil society organizations, especially those promoting democracy and human rights. In this study, we examine how human rights organizations are responding to the increasingly hostile political environment in Hungary. The expanding limits on civil society organizations is usually discussed within a framework labelled as the closing space for civil society, which emphasizes the legislation and governmental actions directly attacking civil society organizations. Despite the impression that the restrictions threaten the existence of these organizations, a closer examination reveals that well-established organizations are capable of developing coping strategies to survive. To fully understand how these strategies are developed, we need to supplement this framework with the theory of political opportunity structures. This broader theoretical perspective examines the openness of decision-making processes for non-ruling actors and includes the role of perceptions in the examination of reactions to changes in the opportunity structure. As our study shows, perceptions about the social environment have a crucial role in understanding the strategies of human rights organizations. Examining the reactions of ten organizations, primarily using the method of organizational interviews, we show that rather than direct restrictions attacking civil society organizations, the major factor shaping their strategies is the closing of political opportunities. As a consequence of an almost total closure of decision-making mechanisms, they have been changing their activities from focusing on their roles as experts and working with state institutions to emphasizing social embeddedness, community building and raising awareness.
This article analyzes the use of historical analogies to interpret and explain foreign policy behavior, focusing on the South China Sea conflict. In reviewing coverage in the international English-language press, we find a range of historical analogies, from the conflict between Athens and Sparta to the 1938 Munich agreement, to interpret China’s strategy and motivations in the region. While analogies are powerful tools for interpreting international events, their use has dangers as they are often deployed to justify decisions rather than analyze options. This article has two goals. First, we argue that relying excessively on Western analogies for understanding China can be misleading; instead, we suggest visiting examples from China’s past that offer alternative readings of its current ambitions. Second, we suggest a way to overcome the deterministic application of historical analogies by not taking them individually, but rather taking them as sets of alternative scenarios. This way, they can provide important insights for generating critical debate and informing tactful diplomacy.
Today diplomacy increasingly relies on tweets. Yet, as tweets only allow for 280 characters, statements must be brief and impactful, which encourages the use of humour in conveying one’s message. This article scrutinizes irony and ridicule in diplomatic interactions. Even though these forms of humour may antagonize parties and even turn issues into a security concern, this article points out that they also have an affiliative aspect and could play a conflict-mediating role. Because humour, especially irony, is easy to misunderstand (especially in cross-cultural settings), many warn against using them in diplomatic exchanges. Nevertheless, I will argue that they are ideal for expressing multi-layered messages, enabling the speaker to rely on what is often called ‘constructive ambiguity’, which is often useful in diplomatic conduct. Two case studies illustrate the argument. The first focuses on cartoons ridiculing President Wilson in the early 20th century for his reluctance to commit the US to join WWI (suggesting that cartoons of the time might be predecessors of today’s tweets), and the second on tweets published by the British Embassy in London apropos of the Skripal case (offering an example how humorous tweets can convey multi-layered, complex messages).
Metaphoric descriptions of the world offer simple cognitive schemes to put things in their place, thereby offering keys to make reality easily interpretable. For centuries, the prevailing understanding of the political relied on an imaginary where borders were conceived like the lines of a coloring book, cutting political space into distinct state boxes, where citizens were defined congruously with the box of their state. The spatial knowledge inherent in this metaphor defined the dispositif of modernity—how to “map the world”—both in the socio‐political and artistic domains. In the late nineteenth century, however, painting took a different understanding of spatiality and its representation. This article suggests that today—when the coloring book's imaginary is increasingly ill‐fitted to describe socio‐political realities—we could turn to art for a metaphor that would better capture late‐modernity's understanding of borders and socio‐political spaces. In sum, the article suggests turning to the paintings of Cézanne for inspiration.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.