Periodic Reporting for period 1 - LE (Legitimate Emergencies: Reconciling Liberal Rights and Democratic Authority in Times of Crisis)
Reporting period: 2023-09-01 to 2025-08-31
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 and, more recently, the COVID-19 pandemic presented liberal democracies with a profound challenge. In both cases, citizens readily accepted restrictions on fundamental rights – such as freedom of movement and association – in the name of national security or public health. For liberal theorists, these rights are core to a just political order, and their suspension raises difficult questions about the resilience of liberal democracy in moments of crisis.
Realist political philosophers have argued that such emergencies reveal a deeper truth: the values that liberals take to be foundational may not be as central in practice as they appear in theory. Liberals, by contrast, respond that restrictions are temporary and instrumental. Radical measures are necessary to protect core values in the long run. Yet with ongoing or “smouldering” crises, such as climate change, the question becomes more urgent: how long and to what extent can a community renege on fundamental rights before its democratic commitments are hollowed out? And how can citizens evaluate whether a government is legitimately curtailing rights, especially when ordinary democratic processes, such as parliamentary oversight or elections, are suspended?
Resolving these questions was the central objective of this MSCA project. My aim was to develop a realist theory of political emergencies: one that clarifies what crises reveal about our political values, and how citizens can assess the legitimacy of government authority under exceptional conditions. A secondary objective was to apply this framework to concrete cases – above all the COVID-19 pandemic, but also longer-term crises such as climate change. By integrating insights from political theory, philosophy, and jurisprudence, the project contributes both to academic debates on legitimacy and to the urgent societal need to understand how democracies can remain resilient in times of crisis.
Realist political philosophers have argued that such emergencies reveal a deeper truth: the values that liberals take to be foundational may not be as central in practice as they appear in theory. Liberals, by contrast, respond that restrictions are temporary and instrumental. Radical measures are necessary to protect core values in the long run. Yet with ongoing or “smouldering” crises, such as climate change, the question becomes more urgent: how long and to what extent can a community renege on fundamental rights before its democratic commitments are hollowed out? And how can citizens evaluate whether a government is legitimately curtailing rights, especially when ordinary democratic processes, such as parliamentary oversight or elections, are suspended?
Resolving these questions was the central objective of this MSCA project. My aim was to develop a realist theory of political emergencies: one that clarifies what crises reveal about our political values, and how citizens can assess the legitimacy of government authority under exceptional conditions. A secondary objective was to apply this framework to concrete cases – above all the COVID-19 pandemic, but also longer-term crises such as climate change. By integrating insights from political theory, philosophy, and jurisprudence, the project contributes both to academic debates on legitimacy and to the urgent societal need to understand how democracies can remain resilient in times of crisis.
The activities and outcomes of Legitimate Emergencies can be divided into three broad phases.
In the first phase, I carried out a detailed review of realist and liberal literatures on political emergencies, with particular attention to the role of fear-inducing rhetoric – what is commonly termed “alarmism” – in democratic states. This research resulted in the article “Democratic Alarmism: Coherent Notion or Contradiction in Terms” (Constellations, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12808(opens in new window)). During this period, I also began to analyse concrete crises, including democratic backsliding. As part of this work, I published “Defining Digital Authoritarianism” (Philosophy and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00754-8(opens in new window)) and presented this research at an international conference at the University of Bari (2023).
In the second phase, I turned to problems in realist accounts of legitimate political authority, using crises to highlight their limitations. This research was published as “Ideology Critique in Times of Crisis” (Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2025.2478727(opens in new window)) where I argue that realists must give greater weight to the role of social trust. At the same time, I undertook a three-month research visit to Stanford University, during which I developed a paper on alarmism and the climate crisis (currently under review). I also published “Subjectivity and the Politics of Self-Cultivation: A Comparative Study of Fichte and Nietzsche” (Nietzsche-Studien, https://doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2024-0011(opens in new window)). Further work on Nietzsche’s theory of genealogical critique – examining how misapplied genealogy can itself trigger political emergencies – was presented in invited talks at Yale University, Maastricht University, the University of Amsterdam, the University of Tartu, and Manchester University. I also discussed these ideas with leading scholars at the University of Chicago and New York University; the resulting manuscript is now under peer review.
In the final phase, I investigated the risks posed by generative AI as a potential political emergency, focusing on its impact on the creative sector. This research was presented at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and will be presented again at a major conference at the University of Amsterdam.
In the first phase, I carried out a detailed review of realist and liberal literatures on political emergencies, with particular attention to the role of fear-inducing rhetoric – what is commonly termed “alarmism” – in democratic states. This research resulted in the article “Democratic Alarmism: Coherent Notion or Contradiction in Terms” (Constellations, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12808(opens in new window)). During this period, I also began to analyse concrete crises, including democratic backsliding. As part of this work, I published “Defining Digital Authoritarianism” (Philosophy and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00754-8(opens in new window)) and presented this research at an international conference at the University of Bari (2023).
In the second phase, I turned to problems in realist accounts of legitimate political authority, using crises to highlight their limitations. This research was published as “Ideology Critique in Times of Crisis” (Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2025.2478727(opens in new window)) where I argue that realists must give greater weight to the role of social trust. At the same time, I undertook a three-month research visit to Stanford University, during which I developed a paper on alarmism and the climate crisis (currently under review). I also published “Subjectivity and the Politics of Self-Cultivation: A Comparative Study of Fichte and Nietzsche” (Nietzsche-Studien, https://doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2024-0011(opens in new window)). Further work on Nietzsche’s theory of genealogical critique – examining how misapplied genealogy can itself trigger political emergencies – was presented in invited talks at Yale University, Maastricht University, the University of Amsterdam, the University of Tartu, and Manchester University. I also discussed these ideas with leading scholars at the University of Chicago and New York University; the resulting manuscript is now under peer review.
In the final phase, I investigated the risks posed by generative AI as a potential political emergency, focusing on its impact on the creative sector. This research was presented at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development and will be presented again at a major conference at the University of Amsterdam.
In each phase of the project, the research advanced the state of the art in significant ways. These contributions are captured most clearly in three core publications.
First, in “Democratic Alarmism” (Constellations), I compared liberal and realist attitudes toward the use of alarmism in times of crisis. The existing literature largely treats alarmism—even during genuine emergencies—as incompatible with democracy, on the grounds that it manipulates citizens’ emotions and deceives them by exaggerating threats. My article demonstrates instead that alarmism can, under certain conditions, be democratically legitimate. I outline specific safeguards for ensuring that alarmist rhetoric remains compatible with democratic values.
Second, in “Defining Digital Authoritarianism” (Philosophy and Technology), I challenged the dominant assumption that digital authoritarianism arises solely from “bad actors” such as authoritarian leaders or technology executives. I show that digital technologies can foster authoritarian dynamics automatically—for example, by heightening fears of surveillance or by contributing to social isolation, which in turn discourages democratic participation. This finding reframes digital authoritarianism as a structural problem rather than merely one of political misuse.
Third, in “Ideology Critique in Times of Crisis” (Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy), I addressed the realist claim that legitimate authority requires robust epistemic justification for policies. I argue that in emergencies the epistemic basis for policy decisions is unavoidably limited, since facts are uncertain and rapidly evolving. Insisting on strong justification under such conditions can undermine trust, as seen with COVID-19 denial and vaccine hesitancy. I therefore show that demands for justification must sometimes yield to the need for sustaining social trust.
Together, these results extend the theoretical landscape of political legitimacy, offering new tools for understanding democratic resilience in conditions of emergency.
First, in “Democratic Alarmism” (Constellations), I compared liberal and realist attitudes toward the use of alarmism in times of crisis. The existing literature largely treats alarmism—even during genuine emergencies—as incompatible with democracy, on the grounds that it manipulates citizens’ emotions and deceives them by exaggerating threats. My article demonstrates instead that alarmism can, under certain conditions, be democratically legitimate. I outline specific safeguards for ensuring that alarmist rhetoric remains compatible with democratic values.
Second, in “Defining Digital Authoritarianism” (Philosophy and Technology), I challenged the dominant assumption that digital authoritarianism arises solely from “bad actors” such as authoritarian leaders or technology executives. I show that digital technologies can foster authoritarian dynamics automatically—for example, by heightening fears of surveillance or by contributing to social isolation, which in turn discourages democratic participation. This finding reframes digital authoritarianism as a structural problem rather than merely one of political misuse.
Third, in “Ideology Critique in Times of Crisis” (Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy), I addressed the realist claim that legitimate authority requires robust epistemic justification for policies. I argue that in emergencies the epistemic basis for policy decisions is unavoidably limited, since facts are uncertain and rapidly evolving. Insisting on strong justification under such conditions can undermine trust, as seen with COVID-19 denial and vaccine hesitancy. I therefore show that demands for justification must sometimes yield to the need for sustaining social trust.
Together, these results extend the theoretical landscape of political legitimacy, offering new tools for understanding democratic resilience in conditions of emergency.