Crisis, Authoritarian Neoliberalism, and the Return of “New Democracy” to power in Greece
This article focuses on New Democracy (ND), Greece’s main
conservative party, and its return to power in 2019. The study
enquires into ND’s hegemonic strategy and governing practice.
ND’s hegemonic strategy is grounded in both neoliberal and Far-
Right premises. This enabled ND to create a hegemonic block that
ranges from centrist liberals to far-rightists, while advancing an
anti-leftist ideological project, connected to progressing upper-
class interests. The ND administration unfolds an autocratic form
of executive governance that is based on legislating class-related
reforms, propaganda and effective control of the mainstream
media, and coercive force. These features reflect the development
of neoliberal authoritarianism in Greece. They represent “the new
form of bourgeois republic in the current phase of capitalism,”
bearing the traits of autocracy, illiberalism, and Far-Right
mainstreaming. The study deploys examples from ND’s political
discourse and from policies that the ND administration has
Emancipation of the Greeks became for Catherine an important, although not the only, aspect of her southern policy, along with questions about the Turkish threat, conquest of the Crimea, and Turkish penetration of the Mediterranean «concert of powers». During the first two decades of her reign, the Greek idea underwent a serious transformation in the Mediterranean policy of Catherine II. Between 1762 and the early 1770s Russia offered help to Greek co-religionists so that they could create their own independent state. The change in relations with the Greeks was not only the product of frustrated possibilities of cooperation. From 1771 the image of the «unenlightened» Greeks, in contrast to the image of the «Spartans,» became more significant, it became difficult to trust the Greeks to choose independently their «liberty,» their manner of rule or their ruler. By the early 1780s the Russian Empress decided to grant Greeks (with Austrian help) their emancipation from the Turks, almost without taking into account the Greeks themselves.
Between 1770 and 1774 Russia built something unique to its history An Archipelagoprincipality in Aegean sea. On the one hand, the Archipelago principality included subjects of the Russian Empress. On the other hand, though, those subjects of the Empress preserved their self-government and their ‘freedoms’; yet their existence never corresponded to Russian imperial realities and Russian laws were not yet written for them. These Catherine II’s subjects were reassured that they had their own ‘deputy general’, that they would live in future in their ‘republic’ or ‘archduchy’, although ‘now’ they had to be completely obedient to their ‘sovereign’ Alexey Orlov.
The relatively arbitrary use and interchangeability of the understanding of “subjecthood,” “protection,” “possessions,” “being in power” and some other terms indicate that no conclusive understanding of the character of relations between the Russian Empire and the Archipelagic principality took shape, not among the rulers and not among those who carried out their orders. Thus no set meaning of these concepts could ever develop. However, Russia did not forget about her Greek possessions and the Empress turned her eyes again towards South-Eastern Europe. Thus her ‘Greek Project’ (described in her letter to Joseph II in Vienna in 1782), her plans to send a new expedition to the Levant and her newly created network of Russian consulates in the Mediterranean helped to develop both new lines of Russian political thought and political vocabulary.
The collective works consists of 27 articles of historians and philologists on different aspects of philhellenism and its influence in European culture and thought from eighteenth till twentieth centuries.
The British socioemotional economy is marked by a tension between cosmopolitan humanitarian sentiments and the denial of sympathy for geographically close, but socially distant, strangers in need. The essence of this tension can be captured by the Dickensian notion of 'telescopic philanthropy'. A proper understanding of this tension would benefit from examining both short-term and secular trends - proximate and distal causal mechanisms. The paper is not explanatory in nature, but aims to generate sensitizing concepts, while at the same time seeking to steer the altruism, morality, and social solidarity literature towards a more active engagement with history, power, and ideology.
Drawing on the case of Russia’s post-Soviet education reform, the paper explores the interaction between borrowed reformatory solutions and culture codes in the process of neoliberal educational modernisation. Through the examination of the concept of ‘commercial service’ the article shows how bottom-up societal resistance is maintained and normalised in the real-life language of the reform debate among policy-makers, teachers, parents and the general public. Building on policy-as-discourse studies, the analysis unpacks specific conceptual frames behind societal interpretation of educational commercialisation. The article finds that the public debate is stalled by an extreme polarisation and a seeming intractability of such conceptual categories as ‘money’, ‘commerce’, ‘moral upbringing’, and ‘the soul.’ It further argues that instead of mediating borrowed and domestic social meanings, the official reform narrative serves to strengthen the polarisation of opinions, while leaving under-conceptualised a number of important links between market values of competitive individualism, material profit and entrepreneurship and domestic values of egalitarianism, collegiality, moral education and non-materialist values. The article concludes with a discussion of the role of the state in transmitting borrowed policy ideas to the public and the interplay between grassroots resistance and national education policies.
This book is the essential guide for understanding how state power and politics are contested and exercised on social media. It brings together contributions by social media scholars who explore the connection of social media with revolutions, uprising, protests, power and counter-power, hacktivism, the state, policing and surveillance. It shows how collective action and state power are related and conflict as two dialectical sides of social media power, and how power and counter-power are distributed in this dialectic. Theoretically focused and empirically rigorous research considers the two-sided contradictory nature of power in relation to social media and politics. Chapters cover social media in the context of phenomena such as contemporary revolutions in Egypt and other countries, populism 2.0, anti-austerity protests, the fascist movement in Greece's crisis, Anonymous and police surveillance.