Why Racist Associations are Free in Some States and Banned in Others: Evidence from 10 Liberal Democracies

Abstract

Drawing on evidence from ten liberal democracies, we examine factors that explain cross-national variation in states’ willingness to repress racist associations. We find that having a history of a non-democratic regime is the primary factor that predisposes a country to repress racist groups and parties. Yet accounting for the timing of the development and application of a state’s provisions depends on three situational triggers. First, the immediate aftermath of the transition to democracy can spark new laws and bans; second, international influences in the form of ratifying the UN provisions against racist organizations can prompt state action; third, and most importantly in the contemporary era, manifestations of racist problems as demonstrated by spikes in high-profile racist events or by steady increases in the influence of racist associations can generate the passage of new laws or the enforcement of existing legislation. Focusing on the combination of the one predisposing factor and the three situational triggers provides a systematic, albeit probabilistic, explanation for cross-national variation in liberal democracies’ stances toward racist associations.

Keywords: racism, associations, law, repression, liberal democracies