Democracy in the Light of Security: British and French Political Discourses on Domestic Counter-Terrorism Policies

Tsoukala, Anastassia

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00609.x

Cited by 32 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The emergence of such a dialectic within the talk-in-interaction of interlocutors, in which 'security' is elevated and 'human rights' are downgraded, mirrors the 'security versus liberty' dialectic revealed in many areas of contemporary and critical terrorism studies (e.g. Altheide, 2006;Edwards, 2004;Jackson, 2005;Spence, 2005;Tsoukala, 2006Tsoukala, , 2008.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opening up terrorism talk: The sequential and categorical production of discursive power within the call openings of a talk radio broadcast

Kilby

Horowitz

2013

Discourse & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current research undertakes a combined CA/MCA approach to analyse the unfolding moral business of 'talk radio' discourse, and situates this analysis within a critical discourse studies framework. In a case study analysis of a talk radio broadcast on the topic of terrorism, the sequencing and membership categorization work that is accomplished during the call openings of its contributors is examined.Local manifestations of discursive power allied to the 'host' role are identified, along with the data-driven distinction of 'lay' and 'elite' callers. The empowering versus disempowering consequences of sequential turn allocation and identity categorization are explored, leading to some reflections on security versus human rights advocacy within terrorism talk. The contribution of this research to two research enterprises is then outlined. Firstly, we highlight the benefit that a combined CA/MCA approach, which foregrounds powerplay, offers to analysis of talk-in-interaction. Following which, we underline how placing such a micro-level spotlight on the seemingly mundane details of talk in context can offer valuable insights for critical terrorism studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opening up terrorism talk: The sequential and categorical production of discursive power within the call openings of a talk radio broadcast

Kilby

Horowitz

2013

Discourse & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…376 -385) identifies a shift from congressional pre-eminence to presidential pre-eminence and links this development to the growth of a 'plebiscitary and personalised party system, and recurrent periods of divided government'. So, although legislatures/parliaments in general are structurally weak and find difficulty in taking collective action, especially on complex issues and when urgent action is required, their status, power and effectiveness are contingent upon widely varying institutional, partisan and other governmental settings and strengths located in diverse political societies, each with their own history (including history of actual and foiled terrorist attacks and extant counterterrorism policies), geography, political culture, ethnography, identities, perceptions of threat, and security culture (Berger 1996, Duffield 1998, Hine 2000, Rees and Aldrich 2005, Tsoukala 2006, Zimmermann and Wenger 2006.…”

Section: International Terrorism and The 'War On Terror'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction: The Impact of the ‘War on Terror’ on Executive–Legislative Relations: A Global Perspective

Owens

Pelizzo²

2009

The Journal of Legislative Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In democratic polities, constitutional equilibria or balances of power between the executive and the legislature shift over time. Normative and empirical political theorists have long recognised that war, civil unrest, economic and political crises, terrorist attacks, and other events strengthen the power of the executive, disrupt and threaten constitutional politics, and damage democratic institutions: crises require swift action and executives are thought to be more capable than parliaments and legislatures of taking such actions. The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001 and the ensuing so-called 'war on terror' declared by President Bush clearly constituted a crisis, not only in the United States but also in other political systems, in part because of the US's hegemonic position in defining and shaping many other states' foreign and domestic policies. Dicey, Schmitt, and Rossiter suggest that critical events and political crises inevitably trigger the concentration of (emergency) powers in the hands of the executive. Aristotle and Machiavelli questioned the inevitability of this process. This article and the articles that follow in this Special Issue utilise empirical evidence, through the use of case studies of the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, Australia, Israel, Italy and Indonesia, to address this debate. Specifically, the issue explores to what extent the external shock or crisis of 9/11 (and other terrorist attacks) and the ensuing 'war on terror' significantly changed the balance of executive -legislative relations from t (before the crisis) to tþ1 (after the crisis) in these political systems, all of which were the targets of actual or foiled terrorist attacks. The most significant findings are that the shock of 9/11 and the 'war on terror' elicited varied responses by national executives and legislatures/parliaments and thus the balance of executive -legislative relations in different political systems; that, therefore, executive-legislative relations are positive rather than zero-sum; and that domestic political contexts conditioned these institutional responses.Keywords: executive-legislative relations and crisis; 'war on terror'; constitutional balances of power and conditionality; emergency powers; executives; legislatures; decline of legislatures; 'constitutional dictatorship'; legislative incapacity.Constitutions -codified or unwritten -institutionalise and actually constitute specific equilibria or balances of power between the executive and the legislature. Yet equilibria may shift over time. In particular, normative and empirical political theorists have long recognised that critical events -war, civil unrest, economic and political crises, terrorist attacks, and other external shocksstrengthen the power of the executive, disrupt and threaten constitutional politics,

show abstract

“…Comparing the US and the UK in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there were many similarities in the way that Bush and Blair talked about terrorism and the war on terror (Johnson 2002). In the UK, press coverage of emergency measures to counteract terrorism have used a discourse which re-frames freedom as a freedom from fear, rather than freedom of action (Tsoukala 2006).…”

Section: Studies Of Metaphor In Discourse Around Terrorismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responding to the risk of terrorism: the contribution of metaphor

Cameron

2010

DELTA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Democracy in the Light of Security: British and French Political Discourses on Domestic Counter-Terrorism Policies

Cited by 32 publications

References 20 publications

Opening up terrorism talk: The sequential and categorical production of discursive power within the call openings of a talk radio broadcast

Opening up terrorism talk: The sequential and categorical production of discursive power within the call openings of a talk radio broadcast

Introduction: The Impact of the ‘War on Terror’ on Executive–Legislative Relations: A Global Perspective

Responding to the risk of terrorism: the contribution of metaphor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About