Why Party Bans Often Don’t Work

In July 2008, in an intensely debated and enormously consequential case, Turkey’s Constitutional Court weighed whether to close the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and ban its 71 leading members, including then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Six of the eleven justices voted in favor – falling just one vote short of the super-majority required to dissolve the AKP and bar its leaders from politics for five years. More than 15 years after the AKP closure case, Turkey has experienced significant democratic backsliding, and Erdoğan has secured a third term as president, extending his tenure in office into 2028. Although the tools of “militant democracy” may be useful, the Turkish case suggests that targeted legal interventions, rather than sweeping party bans, may be more effective at safeguarding democracy.

Civil Society and its Engagement with the Constitution

The Indian Constitution is as much a culmination of the ideas of the freedom movement against colonial powers as it is of the achievement of a social revolution through law. Our Constitution, which was inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, thus, not only provided for political freedom from foreign rule and established a democratic republic, but it also provided a road map to undo the deeply entrenched hierarchies, inequalities, and social exclusions in our society and therefore for a social transformation. Much of the civil society interventions of the last seven decades have been to work for redeeming the promise of the constitution inside and outside courts.

Indian Constitutionalism in the Last Decade

Having been governed by Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for the last ten years, India will hold elections in the following weeks. We use this moment as an opportunity to reflect upon the last decade and assess how the Hindu nationalists have impacted Indian constitutionalism. To do so, we have asked legal scholars and practitioners to reflect upon the developments in particular areas of Indian constitutional law over the last decade. This blog post will provide an introduction to the symposium.

Still Alive?

Party banning was developed in Spain in 2002, with the aim of combating the terrorism of ETA (1958-2018), an extreme left-wing and separatist Basque organisation that murdered more than 800 people. This instrument proved useful in defeating the terrorist group and its network of support organisations, including several parties. Today, there are strong separatist or pro-independence movements in Catalonia, the Basque Country and, to a lesser extent, Galicia, and other regions. Faced with this, there are parties that have proposed using the mechanism of banning parties. But is this viable, and would it be useful?

Access and Benefit-Sharing Isn’t Equity

It is unsurprising that equity has featured so prominently in the Pandemic Treaty negotiations – the Treaty is a direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was characterised by gross inequality between high-income and LMICs. For all the talk at the start of the Treaty negotiation process of equity, of doing things differently in the future, it appears that very little will change. If it works, and there are very good reasons to believe that it will not work, it will at best make sure that a small proportion of vaccines end up where they need to be, and the rest will continue to go to the highest bidder, regardless of need, equity, or justice.

A Limping Militant Democracy

Images of hundreds of men gathering outside the former headquarters of the Italian post-fascist party (Movimento Sociale Italiano – MSI), giving the Roman salute in Acca Larentia (Roma) on the 8th of January 2024, have sparked numerous controversies in Italy. The Roman salute was paired with the Fascist ritual of the “roll call”, whereby a leader calls out the name of a fallen soldier and his comrades shout “presente!”. While one would expect the President of the Senate, facing an incident that stirred political controversy, to reason in more institutional terms rather than strictly legally, La Russa was partially correct in stating that the current Italian legal framework is (still) not sufficiently clear and coherent on the matter.

To Bind or Not to Bind

While the majority of the contributions to this blog symposium tackle issues of global justice, distributive justice and the impact of a decolonial perspective on global health law, our approach might seem to stand out at first sight: Our contribution is interested in the legal form the new Pandemic Agreement will take. Attention to the formal dimension of the reform process might seem remote from the substantive issues of the other contributions. However, we would like to argue in this short piece that the decision for a certain legal architecture can very well have repercussions on the question to what extent the new instrument can deliver on its promise to pursue equity and hence to arguably overcome divisions still entrenched in the international community.

Advancing Equality in the Enjoyment of the Right to Health

States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination must improve their public health systems by measurably advancing racial equality in law and in practice. As the world moves forward in understanding the structural dimension of racial discrimination in all areas of life, the General Recommendation No. 37 on racial discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to health can serve as a quasi-global instrument towards a more equitable and inclusive landscape for the realization of the right to health for all.

Dilemma Demokratieschutz

Ein Dilemma zeichnet sich durch einen Entscheidungszwang zwischen mehreren Varianten aus, ohne dass es eine unzweifelhaft richtige Lösung gibt. In ein Dilemma scheint auch die Abwehr des „Autoritären Nationalradikalismus“ der AfD zu führen. Die AfD zu verbieten, um ihre auf Destabilisierung gesellschaftlicher und staatlicher Institutionen und „Systemwechsel“ angelegte Politik zu unterbinden, wäre ebenso misslich wie die Augen vor ihrer Gefährlichkeit, ihren Erfolgen und Wahlaussichten zu verschließen und allein auf die demokratische Resilienz der Bevölkerung zu vertrauen.