Controversial Concepts: How to Define and Delimit "Coup" and "Fascism"

Session Submission Type: In-Person Roundtable

Session Description

Political scientists often employ terms that are also used in public discourse and that carry a considerable political and normative charge, such as “coup” and “fascism.” Interestingly, as the full prototypes of these phenomena have become less common in the political world (such as full-scale military coups) or have practically disappeared (such as true fascism after 1945), concept usage has often become looser and these terms have been employed far beyond their original extension. In recent years, for instance, numerous instances of the constitutionally problematic eviction of elected chief executives have been labeled as coups, such as the politicized impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff in 2016 and the contentious mass protests against and “pushed” resignation of Bolivian President Evo Morales in 2019. Similarly, prominent cases of rightwing populism, including President Trump, have been called some version of fascism. In fact, public intellectuals and political activists like using these kinds of controversial terms in an expansive fashion in order to highlight threats to democracy and to win support for their regime-protecting efforts.

This roundtable will discuss how political scientists should treat these types of controversial concepts. Should we reject the extensive usage of terms like coup and fascism as conceptual stretching a la Sartori and insist on their strict application, which would greatly circumscribe their usage in a world in which true military coups, for instance, have become rare? Or is there significant value in the broader application of these terms, marked perhaps by the addition of qualifying adjectives (such as “aspirational fascism,” Connolly)? Moreover, should political scientists base these decisions on how to delimit controversial concepts mostly on the scholarly need for terminological precision? Or should political and normative concerns, such as the goal to mobilize opposition to new challenges to democracy, also play a major role? Thus, at a time when even apparently consolidated democracies such as the US seem to face unprecedented threats from rising populism, should scholars assume responsibilities as public intellectuals who seek to use their expertise to inform urgent political debates?

To address these relevant questions, roundtable participants will draw on their longstanding research to examine two controversial concepts that have drawn particular attention in recent years, namely “coup” and “fascism.” Specifically, Profs. Lehoucq, Pérez-Liñán, and Smith will focus on coups, while Profs. Capoccia, Urbinati, and Weyland will discuss fascism and its delimitation from authoritarianism and populism.

Sub Unit

• Division 11: Comparative Politics

Chair

• Wendy Hunter University of Texas, Austin

Presenters

• Fabrice Lehoucq University of North Carolina, Greensboro

• Amy Erica Smith Iowa State University

• Anibal Perez-Linan University of Notre Dame

• Nadia Urbinati Columbia University

• Kurt Weyland University of Texas, Austin