In the wake of the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis on 25 May 2020, and the international uprisings which followed, racism moved to the forefront of public discourse. Yet, racism has no fixed interpretation and is a term used by different individuals and organisations for various functional and ideological purposes. This study provides an analysis of the ways that racism is discussed in four UK newspapers using a mixed-methods framework incorporating critical race theory, corpus linguistics, and the discourse-historical approach. It is argued that, as the protests were taking place, systemic racism began to be foregrounded over individualised forms of racism in newspaper discourse. However, journalists continued to use strategies of positive self-presentation to place racism outside of themselves and within racist ‘others’, leading them to stand against racism in the abstract, while potentially diminishing possibilities for structural change.

Some forty years ago, Bobbio published The Future of Democracy, in which he did not venture into predictions about democratic regimes, but rather drew a balance in light of the comparison between promises and realizations. Bobbio’s analysis is too well known for it to be necessary to return to. Instead, it is useful to take some of its cues and analyze them in the light of the current conditions of democracy. These cues are the definition of democracy, the analysis of its state of health, and reflections on the subject of computer-cracy. On the first point, we will find a certain continuity; on the second, there is a strong discontinuity; on the third, we will find a largely new panorama, due to digital technologies and their pervasive presence, which this article aims to analyze in order to return to reflections on the future of democracy, through the different readings proposed by techno-sceptics and techno-optimists.

The declining political engagement of youth is a concern in many European democracies. However, young people are also spearheading protest movements cross-nationally. While there has been research on political inequalities between generations or inter-generational differences, research looking at differences within youth itself, or inequalities between young people from different social backgrounds, particularly from a cross-national perspective, is rare. In this article, we aim to fill this gap in the literature. Using survey data from 2018 on young people aged 18–34 years, we analyse how social class background differentiates groups of young people in their political engagement and activism across nine European countries. We look at social differentiation by social class background for both political participation in a wide variety of political activities including conventional, unconventional, community and online forms of political participation, and at attitudes linked to broader political engagement, to paint a detailed picture of extant inequalities amongst young people from a cross-national perspective. The results clearly show that major class inequalities exist in political participation and broader political engagement among young people across Europe today.

Decolonisation of the curriculum in higher education is a radical, transformative process of change that interrogates the enduring Eurocentric and racist narratives surrounding the production of academic ‘knowledge’. Our key argument is that it is essential for students of politics to understand the authorities and hierarchies exerted through quantitative data. In this article, we show that (1) quantitative methods and data literacy can be an explicit tool in the endeavour to challenge structures of oppression, and (2) there is a need to apply decolonial principles to the teaching of quantitative methods, prioritising the historical contextualisation and anti-racist critique of the ways in which statistics amplify existing micro and macro power relations. To explain how this can be done, we begin with a commentary on the ‘state of decolonisation’ in higher education, its relevance to the subdisciplines of politics, and its application to quantitative teaching in the United Kingdom. We then suggest some guiding principles for a decolonial approach to quantitative methods teaching and present substantive examples from political sociology, international political economy, and international development. These suggestions and examples show how a decolonial lens advances critical and emancipatory thinking in undergraduate students of politics when it is used with quantitative methods.

Popular sovereignty plays a central role in both the democratic and the populist ideology. While democracy’s version of qualified sovereignty is accepted as mutually constitutive with the rule of law, populism’s version of absolute sovereignty is seen as incompatible with this ideal. The article reconsiders this oversimplifying approach. By examining the interaction of these concepts with a nuanced account of the rule of law, it argues for the compatibility of both democracy and populism with different versions of this ideal. While this remains a key distinguishing factor between democracy and populism, the ambiguity of the rule of law still allows populism to claim that it complies with a thin version of this concept.

Political actors often cite public opinion to provide support for public policy decisions. This process is made more challenging with diverse demands and perspectives of the public. How then do political actors decide which opinion gets heard? In this article, we go beyond the assumption that the practice of political representation is indistinguishable across various levels of political actors and ask, why do political actors value public opinion and how does it then influence the way in which they apply this information? Developing a multi-level approach, we employ semi-structured interviews with a wide range of political actors, including politicians, pollsters, and community activists. We find that motivations for defining and applying public opinion differs according to the hierarchy of political actors, demonstrating that the relationship between public and political actors is more nuanced and complex than what is often depicted. In particular, we find that minority views play just an important view in policymaking.

Special rights (such as a right to representation) are often used to address under-representation of minority and marginalised groups in political institutions. The case of Roma community in Slovenia is no different. Using a framework of social and political marginalisation, our article outlines asymmetry and exceptionality in the existing minority protection provisions for Slovenian Roma. We argue that the existing provisions are a consequence of majority’s perception of Roma as racialised, marginalised, and undeserving group. We show that the limited access to special rights for Roma is not an oversight in the Slovenian democratic institutional design but a result of deep-rooted stereotypes and racialisation that this marginalised group is subjected to. More broadly, the case of Slovenian Roma demonstrates how principles of racialisation and marginalisation can help us understand absences of different marginalised minority groups from frameworks of special protection.

Responding to a recent call for more in-depth qualitative studies of electoral management bodies (EMBs), this article examines formally independent EMBs by using the example of the Election Commission of Thailand (ECT) and the role it played in the recent 2019 election. We argue that in non-democratic regimes with high levels of political polarisation and entrenched elites, formal EMB independence may become part of the problem why elections fail. It creates opportunities for long-term EMB capture by actors who wield power outside of formal politics and are unaccountable to public interest. In case of the ECT, this has led to the decreasing electoral standards culminating in the highly contentious 2019 election where the ECT’s administrative efficiency and effectiveness of voting came secondary to pleasing the entrenched old Thai elite. Its conduct has reduced Thailand’s prospects for a peaceful transition to democratic rule as those who oppose the country’s old elite have increasingly limited opportunities to challenge it through formal means.

This article aims to highlight the contextual impact of proportional representation (PR) rules on the intersectional representation of gender and ethnic groups. We assert that the combination of the institutional and sociodemographic context generates barriers and opportunities for the inclusion of intersectional identity groups in politics. We analyse how the sociodemographic make up of the district electorate influences parties’ and voters’ behaviour within PR systems to shape electoral outcomes in Brussels local elections. We focus on parties’ list composition strategies and candidates’ personal score to determine parties’ and voters’ leverage on representational outcomes. Our research demonstrates that ethnic minority male and female candidates experience a similar advantage on their ethnic majority counterparts in the (s)election process, and that their advantage grows as districts get more diverse. We show that ethnic minority candidates’ advantage comes mainly at the expense of ethnic majority women, while ethnic majority men’s dominant position is not affected by the sociodemographic context. This research emphasizes the importance of local context factors for intersectional groups representation. Our study overall calls for a clear definition of intersectional categories and the social cleavage(s) they represent within societies in order to understand political inequalities and opportunities.

This paper considers the dangers of the acceleration of political processes in a situation of emergency, which is characterized by panic and emotions of fear. The pandemic is seen as a kind of laboratory, that shows that a situation of fear and political acceleration leads to eventual stresses and crisis experienced by the political and juridical institutions. Political acceleration and fear are some of the preconditions of the exercise of an arbitrary power, unlimited and disruptive with regards to the rule of law. In this perspective both populism and the pandemic may potentially put democratic and liberal institutions under stress.