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.

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.