The recent hyper attention given to the electoral victories of conservative movements and parties, as well as the craze for comparing leaders who just came to power (Trump and Bolsonaro among others) have returned to center stage questions on how to define democracy and make it work. The organizers of this workshop propose to de-center the conceptual debate on the definition of populism by looking at one specific angle on the long term: the connection, from the end of the 19th century to present time, between conservatism and democracy at the continental scale of the Americas.
Seen from a continental or even national perspective, which highlights the variety of political regimes, ideologies and movements, conservatism appears to be plural and to resist comparative endeavors. However, the growing prevalence of the neo-liberal agenda in the last 40 years tend to suggest a greater coherence, at both the national and international levels, of the conservative movement than its progressive counterpart. To what extent is this assumption true? The goal of this workshop would be to combine the burst of political studies on populism and the extensive scholarship on the Right to devise a comparative framework of inquiry.
On the long term, conservative movements and parties tend to share certain characteristics – specific political rituals and symbols, an attachment for order as well as a fear of the enemy, patriotism or nationalism as well as a rejection of social science – that have dialectically interacted and evolved with the democratic ideal. If the political word of conservatism of the last 50 years seems to be relatively well-known now, can it be inscribed in a longer history that would stretch from the end of the 19th century to present times? How did conservatives negotiate the relationship between authority and democracy, between majority and minority, between order and liberty, between exception and due process? The contemporary blurring of the – for long well established – boundaries between democratic and authoritarian regimes opens a window to compare countries with various political traditions and historical transformations.
On the shorter term, the recent political successes of the Right at the continental scale lead us to consider how these forces have devised their electoral strategies and the circulation of political knowhow at the continental level. The goal of the workshop would be to study the dynamics that enabled political mobilizing, conquering and preserving power, as well as maintaining harmonious relations between the various groups that composed conservative coalitions. If the success of social democracy in the Western world is often linked to the capacity to provide social services to constituents through the expansion of the Welfare State, what are the types of political benefits that conservatives parties have offered to their voters?
These are the questions that we propose to examine during the IDA 2021 colloquium by attracting scholars specialized in various disciplines, areas and periods.
Friday, September 24th, 9am-11am
Centre de Colloques, Small auditorium
Organizers :
- Stéphane Boisard (FRAMESPA)
- Rodrigo Nabuco de Araujo (CIRLEP – Université de Reims)
- Yann Philippe (Mondes Américains – EHESS)
Interventions :
Marie-Laure Geoffray (IHEAL CREDA - Université Sorbonne Nouvelle) – Résurgences et circulation de l’anticommunisme continental
Agnès Trouillet (Université Paris Nanterre) – Stratégie des organisations conservatrices, militantisme grassroots et « contre-démocratie » aux États-Unis depuis 2010
Maud Chirio (Université Gustave Eiffel) – L’antipolitisme au coeur du pouvoir : l’armée brésilienne dans la République, 1920-2020
Amélie Ribieras (Université Paris 2 Panthéon Assas) – Les émotions comme stratégie politique et militante chez les conservatrices américaines, à travers l’Eagle Forum de Phyllis Schlafly
Tamara Boussac (EHESS) – « Government by gigantic bureaucracy is not free government » : Bon gouvernement et démocratie aux origines du mouvement conservateur états-unien
