Anthoula Malkopoulou

Visiting Fellow, Spring 2019

Hellenic Open University
Research Project
Combatting Right-Wing Extremism: Should the Golden Dawn be Banned?

Anthoula (Anthee) Malkopoulou is a Docent and Researcher in Political Science at the Department of Government, Uppsala University, funded by the Swedish Research Council and the Wallenberg Foundation (2019-23). She is also course teacher at the Hellenic Open University. Her previous positions in Uppsala were Research Fellow at the Program ‘Engaging Vulnerability’, Senior Lecturer in Politics (pro term) and Marie Curie Intra-European Fellow. She has also held an Erik Allardt Fellowship at the Swedish Collegium of Advanced Study and a postdoctoral position at the University of Jyväskylä, from where she received her PhD in 2011. She has an MA in Human Rights (EIUC Venice) and a BA in History and Archaeology (AU Thessaloniki). Her main fields of research are contemporary democratic theory, history of political thought, parliamentary discourse, voting rights, populism and far-right parties. Malkopoulou is the author of The History of Compulsory Voting in Europe (2015), and co-editor of Militant Democracy and its Critics (2019), Equal Representation (2018) and Rhetoric, Politics and Conceptual Change (2011). She has also published numerous articles, among them “Three Models of Democratic Self-defense” (2018) and “Ostracism and Democratic Self-defense in Athens” (2017). She is co-editor of Redescriptions, a Helsinki University Press journal.

About the Research Project
Combatting Right-Wing Extremism: Should the Golden Dawn be Banned?

The project examines state responses to extremist political parties in Greece- especially after the rise of the far-right party Golden Dawn. It specifically analyses parliamentary discourse, in particular how the various political parties chose and justify anti-extremist initiatives, which ones they support or oppose. Its aim is to evaluate the Greek model of democratic self-defense from a normative standpoint. It asks to what extent, in the absence of a militant democratic constitution that allows party bans, the Greek case exemplifies a liberal paradigm of democratic self-defense that relies on the use of criminal law and parliamentary procedure to control the effect of extremist actors on political life. In this context, two crucial problems emerge: the reluctance of judicial authorities to intervene in politics; and the role of partisan interests in triggering such intervention. By critically studying the Greek state’s management of far-right extremism, the project offers new ground for valuating non-militant, in particular liberal, responses to extremism.