The article aims to formulate a theoretical category of neo-militant democracy that applies to study the nature and dynamics of democratic regimes after the 2008 economic crisis. It conducts an empirical test to verify the analytical effectiveness of the redeveloped category. The test takes a form of the case study of the Hungarian political system. Apart from a verification-objective, the research aims to identify and account for the dynamics of the Hungarian regime in terms of the neo-militant democracy principle. The qualitative method of source analysis serves to collect data on the processes of becoming neo-militant democracy. The selection of sources is deliberate and oriented on finding information about the implementation of neo-militant democracy measures in Hungary (2008-2019). The technique of qualitative content analysis applies to identify the nature of these processes. The theoretical tool is the category of neo-militant democracy, which simultaneously undergoes the empirical test. The main argument is that the process of becoming neo-militant democracy took a traditional form since the Hungarian neo-militant democracy principle drew on the traditional means introduced by Loewenstein rather than innovations advanced by the current research

Intermarium is one of the most important Polish geopolitical concepts. This article considers it within the category of militant democracy. It allows to explore the process of militant democracy, that is, introducing restrictions by legal means. Most restrictions have recently been introduced due to a coronavirus pandemic. Therefore, the article undertakes to examine the potential for implementation of the concept of the Intermarium during the pandemic and shortly after its end. The study uses a qualitative analysis of sources. Indicators relevant to the study of the process of militant democracy were distinguished based on the body of literature. Results: The traditional concept of the Intermarium erodes due to natural causes. Currently, Poland is more inclined to the concept of the Three Seas. In addition, in the face of the analysis that was carried out, it seems that in a pandemic situation we are observing the end of the paradigm of liberal democracy in this case.

For the first time, Karl Loewenstein had used the category of militant democracy concerning the Weimar Republic. Although the world’s situation has changed, the process of political systems taking over non-democratic regimes’ characteristics is still visible. Among the indicators that can testify to becoming militant democracy, the restriction of freedom of the press is distinguished. This article attempts to analyze the dynamics of this process in Lithuania based on the Freedom House reports. The research question formulated is: What restrictions on the press’s freedom in Lithuania occurred in the period? The hypothesis is: In 2008-2019 in Lithuania, there has been a regular restriction on the freedom of the press, which may indicate a progressive process of militant democracy. Results: The hypothesis has been partially verified positively. During the period considered, there were regular restrictions on the freedom of the press but were justified mainly by circumstances, or immediate counter-action was taken.

In the history of the European Union, there are three main crises: financial crisis, the so-called refugee crisis, and the recent coronavirus pandemic. Since the financial crisis, the process of modern democracies taking over the characteristics of non-democratic regimes has become noticeable, and subsequent crises are only exacerbating it. A useful theoretical category for explaining this phenomenon is the category of militant democracy, which was first used by Karl Loewenstein, who applied it to the Weimar Republic. The article aims to present in general how successive crises have contributed to accelerating the militant process by the EU Member States.

Constitutional limitation of political plurality and the concept of militant democracy. Deliberations based on the example of the East Galicia Communist Party trial (1922/1923)

The concept of political plurality limitation specified in Article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 1997 constitutes a manifestation of the militant democracy concept implementation. The purpose of the paper is to verify the hypothesis stating that the East Galicia Communist Party trial that took place in 1922/23 can be treated as historical experience that was conceptually an element of development of the militant democracy theory and thus also of the concept of political pluralism limitation. These notions have all the features of universality, because despite there being no doubt that a democratic system should have effective militant measures, the answer to the questions on the scope of these measures and their effectiveness remains open. Furthermore, the ever-changing political, legal and social reality permanently coerces such deliberations, in order to prevent, paradoxically and for its own good, democracy from unintendedly and inconspicuously transforming into an autocratic system.

Bulgaria is a partially consolidated democracy. Between the financial crisis of 2008 and the coronavirus pandemic, it began to take on characteristics of authoritarian regimes. However, its case is not a classically understood militant democracy, but quasi-militant democracy. This article aims to present main changes the Bulgarian system faced in 2008– 2019 and its transition from neo-consolidated democracy to quasi-militant democracy. The research questions are: is Bulgaria still a neo-militant democracy? If not, what factors determine and facilitate a departure from a neo-militant democracy?

In this paper the main assumption is that Portugal becomes a neo-militant democracy since the first major finance crisis in the European Union, which occurred in 2008– 2009 years. This process has also accelerated significantly at the time of the so-called refugee crisis and the coronavirus pandemic. The clue of the assumption is the introduction of restrictions on the rights and freedoms of citizens, especially visible during crises, as well as the demobilization of social movements which began in connection with the beginning of anti-democratic tendencies. Based on the analysis, it can be observed that Portugal becomes a neo-militant democracy to an increasing extent. This may be indicated by introduced and existing legal regulations limiting the rights and freedoms of citizens.

Embedded in the theories of epistemic fairness and militant democracy and based on the qualitative document analysis, the case study deals with the research question: What is the epistemic fairness of threats’ definitions included in the restrictions on the freedom of speech on the Internet in the Inner Six states? The article delivers initial evidence to support the theorygrounded assumption that epistemic fairness in legally defining threats to liberal democracy is a component of militant democracies that makes democracy last and not erode. Slight deviations from the principle of epistemic fairness in defining threats to democracy in France and Italy coincided with an incidental reduction in the quality of democracy. This is the first case study on militant democracies using the theoretical category of epistemic fairness. Preliminary conclusions incentivize more extensive comparative research, including other restrictions to democratic freedoms.