State repression of racist associations: Dilemmas of tolerance in the Nordic countries

Abstract

When faced with organised racism, liberal democracies attempt to strike a balance between combating extremism and protecting core values such as freedom of association. Earlier research has argued that states that have experienced nondemocratic regime control in the twentieth century—either through a domestic takeover or a foreign occupation—are more likely to take a repressive approach to racist associations. In this study, I show that the previously overlooked Nordic region speaks against this explanation. Finland, which managed to avert a domestic authoritarian threat, is more repressive of racist associations than are the Scandinavian countries. The latter, two of which faced Nazi occupation, take a more liberal approach, which targets illegal actions rather than associations. These findings lead me to argue that the explanatory power of historical legacies cannot be reduced to a binary indicator such as nondemocratic regime control. I conclude by proposing a direction for future research on state repression of organised racism.

Different Types, Different Reactions? How Civil Society Organizations Respond to Right-Wing Extremism

“…The revival of militant right-wing extremist groups and the rise in incidents in recent years relating to that revival have nurtured an increasing focus among both academics and policymakers on how democratic actors can confront threats from the extreme right (Backlund, 2022;Biard, 2021;Goodman, 2022;Heinze, 2018). In the literature, it has been claimed that civil society organizations (CSOs) have the capacity to defend democracy from threats from the extreme right (Foley & Edwards, 1996;Pedahzur, 2002;Kaltwasser & Taggart, 2016).…”