Restricting the Press and the Neo-Militant Democracy: A Comparative Analysis of Ireland and Great Britain

The freedom of the press is one of the basic guarantees of a democratic state and, at the same time, a guarantee of political rights. After 2008, when the great financial crisis occurred, the Member States of the European Union began to significantly limit the rights and freedoms of citizens, including freedom of the press. The introduced restrictions are characteristic of a neo-militant democracy. However, they sometimes become a tool in the hands of antidemocrats. The aim of the article is to check how and why over the years, between successive crises, i.e., financial crisis, the so-called refugee crisis, the coronavirus pandemic, freedom of the press was restricted in Ireland and Great Britain. These are the countries in which initially the political and social effects of the economic crisis were not felt, but later rapid regression was observed. By using content analysis based on reports from the Reporters without Borders and Freedom House organizations, the study uncovers how and why the restrictions of freedom of the press changed. It locates the political structures of Ireland and Great Britain between the ideal types of neo- and quasi-militant democracy, depending on the goal of the restrictions. The research hypothesis is as follows: The restriction of freedom of the press in Ireland and the United Kingdom after 2008 shows that states are using the media system to pursue their particular interests by introducing solutions characteristic of quasi-militant democracies.

Ograniczanie wolności prasy a nowa demokracja opancerzona: analiza porównawcza Irlandii i Wielkiej Brytanii

Wolność prasy jest jedną z podstawowych gwarancji demokratycznego państwa, a jednocześnie gwarancją praw politycznych. Po 2008 roku, kiedy nastąpił wielki kryzys finansowy, państwa członkowskie Unii Europejskiej zaczęły znacząco ograniczać prawa i wolności obywateli, w tym wolność prasy. Wprowadzone restrykcje są charakterystyczne dla nowej demokracji opancerzonej. Czasami jednak stają się narzędziem w rękach antydemokratów. Celem artykułu jest sprawdzenie, jak i dlaczego na przestrzeni lat, pomiędzy kolejnymi kryzysami, tj. kryzysem finansowym, tzw. kryzysem uchodźczym, pandemią koronawirusa, ograniczano wolność prasy w Irlandii i Wielkiej Brytanii. Są to państwa, w których początkowo nie odczuwano politycznych i społecznych skutków kryzysu gospodarczego, natomiast w późniejszym okresie zaobserwowano szybką regresję. Wykorzystując jakościową analizę treści, opartą na raportach organizacji Reporterzy bez Granic (Reporters without Borders) i Freedom House, badanie to prezentuje, jak i dlaczego zmieniały się ograniczenia wolności prasy. Lokuje struktury polityczne Irlandii i Wielkiej Brytanii pomiędzy typami idealnymi nowej i quasi-demokracji opancerzonej, w zależności od celu ograniczeń.

BIBLIOGRAFIA:

• Bäcker, R., & Rak, J. (2019). Trajektoria trwania opancerzonych demokracji. Studia nad Autorytaryzmem i Totalitaryzmem, 41(3), 63–82. DOI: 10.19195/2300-7249.41.3.5.
• Capoccia, G. (2005). Defending Democracy: Reactions to Extremism in Interwar Europe. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
• Censorship of Publications Act. (1929, July 16). No. 21/1929. Retrieved from: https://web.archive.org/web/20071120001407/http://www.acts.ie/zza21y1929.1.html.
• Constitution of Ireland. (1937).Ireland’s Constitution of 1937 with Amendments through 2012. Retrieved from: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ireland_2012.pdf.
• Defamation Act. (2013, April 25). Retrieved from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26. Freedom House. (2014IE, December 1).
• Freedom of the Press 2014 – Ireland. Retrieved from: https://www.refworld.org/docid/54a148f115.html.
• Freedom House. (2014UK). Freedom of the Press 2014 – United Kingdom. Retrieved from: https://www.refworld.org/country,COI,FREEHOU,ANNUALREPORT,GBR,,52206588b,0.html.
• Freedom House. (2015IE, October 29). Freedom of the Press 2015 – Ireland. Retrieved from: https://www.refworld.org/country,,FREEHOU,,IRL,,563738039,0.html.
• Freedom House. (2015UK, September 1). Freedom of the Press 2015 – United Kingdom. Retrieved from: https://www.refworld.org/publisher,FREEHOU,,GBR,55e9 70a624,0.html.
• Freedom House. (2016IE, October 18). Freedom of the Press 2016 – Ireland. Retrieved from: https://www.refworld.org/country,,FREEHOU,,IRL,,582ac6cb3,0.html.
• Freedom House. (2016UK, September 28). Freedom of the Press 2016 – United Kingdom. Retrieved from: https://www.refworld.org/publisher,FREEHOU,,GBR,57f361c5f,0.html.
• Freedom House. (2017UK, November 7). Freedom of the Press 2017 – United Kingdom. Retrieved from: https://www.refworld.org/publisher,FREEHOU,,GBR,5a01a20e26,0.html.
• Freedom House. (n.d.). Our Issues. Retrieved from: https://freedomhouse.org/issues.
• Hallin, C.D., & Mancini, P. (2007). Systemy medialne. Trzy modele mediów i polityki w ujęciu porównawczym. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
• Human Rights Act. (1998). Retrieved from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/introduction.
• Kaczmarczyk, M. (2009). System medialny Irlandii. Zarys problematyki. Sosnowiec: Oficyna Wydawnicza HUMANITAS.
• Loewenstein, K. (1937). Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights, I.The American Political Science Review, 31(3), 417–432. DOI: 10.2307/1948164.
• Menkes, M. (2009). System medialny Irlandii. Środkowoeuropejskie Studia Polityczne, 4, 147–200. DOI: 10.14746/ssp.2009.4.10.
• Molier, G., & Rijpkema, B.R. (2018). Germany’s New Militant Democracy Regime: National Democratic Party II and the German Federal Constitutional Court’s ‘Potentiality’ Criterion for Party Bans: Bundesverfassungsgericht, Judgment of 17 January 2017, 2 BvB 1/13, National Democratic Party II. European Constitutional Law Review, 14(2), 394–409. DOI: 10.1017/S1574019618000196.
• Osiewicz, P. (2020). Limitations to the Right to Freedom of Assembly in Poland during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Case of Women’s Strike. HAPSc Policy Briefs Series, 1(2), 195–200. DOI: 10.12681/hapscpbs.26458.
• Rak, J. (2020a). Conceptualising the Theoretical Category of Neo-Militant Democracy: The Case of Hungary. Polish Political Science Yearbook, 49(2), 61–70. DOI: 10.15804/ ppsy2020204.
• Rak, J. (2020b). Quasi-Militant Democracy as a New Form of Sacred in Poland during the Corona Crisis.Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 19(57), 111–128.
• Rak, J. (2021a). Policing Anti-Government Protests during the Coronavirus Crisis in Poland: Between Escalated Force and Negotiated Management. Teorija in Praksa, 58(SI), 598–615. DOI: 10.51936/tip.58.specialissue.598-615.
• Rak, J. (2021b). Neo-Militant Democracies in Europe: Revival of Inter-War Political Tendencies. In: A.В. Врон [A.V. Vron] (Ed.). Thirteenth Baikal Social Sciences and Humanities Studies: Conference Materials. Vol. 1 (pp. 172–178). Irkutsk: Irkutsk State University Publishing.
• Rak, J., & Bäcker, R. (Eds.). (2022). Neo-Militant Democracies in the Post-Communist Member States of the European Union. London and New York: Routledge.
• Reporters without Borders (a). (2016). Our Values. Retrieved from: https://rsf.org/en/our-values.
• Reporters without Borders (b). (n.d.).Ireland. Retrieved from: https://rsf.org/en/ireland.
• Reporters without Borders (c). (n.d.). United Kingdom. Retrieved from: https://rsf.org/en/united-kingdom.
• Rezmer-Płotka, K. (2020). The Effects of Crises in the European Union as a Manifestation of the Militant Democracy Rule Implementation. Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego, 6, 615–621. https://doi.org/10.15804/ppk.2020.06.50.
• Sonczyk, W. (2009). System medialny: zakres – struktura – definicja. Studia Medioznawcze, 3, 66–75.
• Thirty-Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. (2018).Repeal of Offence of Publication or Utterance of Blasphemous Matter. Retrieved from: https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/act/2018/C37/mul/enacted/37th-amdt-act-2018.pdf.