Search

The rapid decline of global biodiversity has engendered renewed debate about the social, economic, and political factors contributing to it. Specifically, there is little understanding of the role that political ideology within a country (e.g., nationalism, conservatism, socialism) plays in determining biodiversity outcomes. We used negative binomial generalized linear models to investigate the importance of national regime ideology in predicting threatened animal species and protected area establishment compared with other factors that affect biodiversity outcomes, such as gross domestic product, inequality, and democracy. For threatened animals, the model with the highest Akaike weight suggested adverse biodiversity outcomes arose from larger gross domestic product (β = 0.120, p < 0.001). However, nationalism (β = 0.371, p < 0.01) and socialism (β = 0.293, p < 0.05) were also significantly associated with increased proportions of threatened species. For protected areas, the model with the highest Akaike weight suggested increases in democracy (β = 0.880, p < 0.001) led to a rise in relative protected area estate. Conservative regime ideology was also associated with greater protected area estate, although this did not increase the weight of evidence in support of the best models. These findings highlight the relevance of political ideology for predicting biodiversity outcomes at a national scale and illustrate opportunities to tailor policies and advocacy to promote biodiversity conservation more effectively. By targeting appropriate messaging and political advocacy, conservationists can improve the likelihood that politicians and their nations will participate in positive biodiversity actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This first article in the 2024 World Affairs special issue examines the Narendra Modi regime in India. Often acerbic political rhetoric is attached to official policies of the regime, creating fear and hopelessness within sections of the population. In this study, five sets of political activities of the government are evaluated. First, cultural authoritarianism became apparent with complicity toward "cow vigilantism," slapping sedition charges against those showing political dissent, banning the history books of selected progressives, and stereotyping sections of the left and liberals as antinationals. Second, the demonetization policy was implemented without adequately following the economic protocols of the state. Third, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Bill indicates the thwarting of democratic and federalist ideas. Fourth, the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens exercise in Assam demonstrate the communal‐fascist worldview of the regime in profiling population groups. Finally, the sloppy handling of the COVID‐19 pandemic and the new Information Technology rules show the government's callous approach toward science and privacy. By analyzing such political activities, the article points out that majoritarian religious nationalism, coupled with authoritarianism, has been the ideological expression of the Modi regime, coexisting with both state surveillance and electoral democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Religious sentiments have become a potent tool for political elites, altering national identities and citizenship criteria. This manipulation, driven by majoritarian ideologies, has marginalized religious minorities, leading to discrimination, violence, and legal persecution against them. Hindu, Islamic, and Buddhist nationalisms seem to collectively erode secular democracy in South Asia. Moreover, right‐wing populist leaders, notably Modi in India and the Rajapaksas in Sri Lanka, have merged religious nationalism with authoritarian political orientations posing a challenge to democratic foundations and impacting significantly on the dynamics of state and societal relations. This is the context in which this World Affairs 2024 special issue delves into the relationship(s) between religion, politics, and authoritarianism in the South Asian region. It examines the evolving "religion‐politics" nexus or "complex" to explicate the relationship between religion and authoritarianism, particularly with respect to authoritarian governments mobilizing religion as a readily available resource for popular political mobilization, legitimization, and power consolidation. India's BJP employs Hindutva ideology to marginalize minorities, Bangladesh's regime uses Islam for political legitimacy, and Sri Lanka's Sinhala‐Buddhist nationalism fosters exclusionary policies. By fostering social and cultural polarization, this fusion of authoritarianism with religious nationalism poses a serious challenge to the secular state. The articles in this special issue explore these themes comprehensively, delving into the ideological foundations of political decisions and their consequences for marginalized communities. By shedding light on this multifaceted interplay, the collection offers valuable insights into South Asia's sociopolitical landscape, serving as a vital resource for scholars, policy makers, and global observers seeking to understand the region's complex dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States is enduring an identity crisis characterized by a polarized political climate precipitating an American culture war. In this battle the Republican Party has been overtaken by "Anti‐wokeism" allied with antidemocratic "states' rights" beliefs claiming an exclusive, antipluralist definition of republic. The extremist right in America insists that America is not a democracy, but a "republic" built to respect the status of a minority characterized as white, nationalist and Christian. "Anti‐wokeism" is an extension of Trumpism and MAGA (Make America Great Again), gathering together antidemocratic forces, fueled by resentment and theories of racial displacement known as the Great Replacement Theory. These forces are overwhelming the modern Republican Party, inspiring homophobia, misogyny, racism, book bans, and violence. This essay addresses the following four elements of this crisis with an eye to a renewed vision of America: (1) the difference between an 18th Century and 21st Century definition of a republic; (2) the antidemocratic states' rights movement; (3) the nature of strongman populism in American politics; and (4) a vision of diversity as the core principle of the American Republic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the victory of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey's 2023 presidential election, the role of fear‐oriented populist nationalism in Turkish politics, and the implications of the results for society. It argues that Turkey faces a deep moral and social crisis rather than a mere political problem. The article explores the sociocultural origins of polarization, as competing communities with few shared values contribute to divisions. It also analyzes the formation and ideologies of the People's Alliance and the Nation Alliance, the two major blocs involved in the 2023 elections, providing insights into their visions for Turkey. Last, the article scrutinizes the cult of the strongman, the widespread use of nationalism and religion, the utilization of state resources by Erdoğan's administration, and the influence of media—largely controlled by Erdoğan—on public opinion. This includes investigating the impact of alternative truths and narratives on the electoral process. The analysis highlights the deep‐rooted moral bankruptcy Turkey faces in the third decade of Erdoğan's rule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ruling dynasty of Morocco is one of very few that tracks its royal bloodline back to the Prophet Muhammad himself. Did this lineage contribute to the fact that the North African monarchy was barely touched by the tumultuous Arab Spring of 2011–12? This article challenges such assertions. Despite its divine inception, Moroccan royal power survived the era of modernity solely thanks to the French, who invested in their colony during the protectorate (1912–56). It was France that elevated the royals and allowed for the throne to become the pillar of Moroccan nationalism. This venerable lineage would have been futile had the royal family not learned the sophisticated methods of political struggle against its competitors. The dynasty established a unique system of holding the opposition back in such a way that it simultaneously becomes a bulwark of the state's stability. In addition, the bureaucratization of Islam became a key tool in the Moroccan state‐building arsenal: Religious practice can be conducted only in accordance with the government rulebook. In other words, Morocco's present‐day stability has nothing to do with religion itself, but rather with politics—and the last North African monarchy might still see an Arab Spring awakening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individual rights to healthcare (RTHCs) are increasingly common in law. Yet even plausible theoretical defences thereof raise a classic problem in the philosophy of rights: How do individual rights relate to 'collective' rights within the same domain? Collective rights are common in international law and in the domestic laws of states that recognize RTHCs. These collective rights often include health‐related components. There are at least prima facie plausible reasons to think that such collective 'health rights' should exist. A complete account of health rights should thus explain how individual and collective health rights claims relate to one another and what one should do in cases where the claims conflict. This work contributes to our understanding of health rights by analysing the relationship between individual RTHCs and a plausible candidate collective health right, namely a sub‐state national right to control healthcare law and policy. It argues that concerns about rights conflicts in this context make sense, but genuine conflicts between individual health rights and national control over healthcare are rare. The strongest cases for sub‐state national 'self‐determination' rights do not implicate healthcare, or tend not to provide reasons to override any individual RTHCs. Conflicts are possible in rare cases and may even favour fulfilling the collective rights claims. Yet individual RTHCs remain important even in those cases. Individual rights remain useful measures for evaluating the exercise of collective rights: exercises that violate (or even fail to fulfil) individual health rights are worse for so doing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using cross‐country data, we find little evidence that economic openness has an impact on the level of nationalism in countries. We use three waves of the World Values Survey from 1999 through 2014 combined with data on economic openness from the Penn World Tables. Across all three waves, we find no statistically significant relationship between economic openness and nationalism. However, there is evidence for a negative association between economic openness and nationalism from 2001 to 2007 and a positive association between 2007 and 2014. This corresponds to the rising nationalistic and anti‐trade sentiment evident throughout the world despite the general trend of increasing economic openness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regime change in Iraq provided a new opportunity for Shiis and Kurds to create a new power‐sharing system. These two persecuted communities embraced a democratic‐federal system based on a combined civic and ethnocultural model. Analyzing this new alliance, this article argues that there were prominent forces within both communities that did not uphold an essentialist sense of identity, thus providing a basis for mutual recognition, as reflected in the new constitution. However, while in theory there was room for mitigating sectarian and ethnic boundaries, in practice, the differences assumed a much larger place, as reflected in the power struggle between Baghdad and Erbil. The process of unifying Iraq lacked an in‐depth debate over the place of diverse national narratives, together with an effort toward people‐to‐people contact. Concurrently, the struggle against the jihadists enhanced Shii‐Kurdish interdependency, while the battle of Kirkuk led to greater pragmatism. Post‐2003 Iraq provides a challenging case of democratization and regime change, due to the need for a delicate balancing act between power and multiple visions of religion and ethnic identity while contemplating multiple visions of nationalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individual rights to healthcare (RTHCs) are increasingly common in law. Yet even plausible theoretical defences thereof raise a classic problem in the philosophy of rights: How do individual rights relate to 'collective' rights within the same domain? Collective rights are common in international law and in the domestic laws of states that recognize RTHCs. These collective rights often include health-related components. There are at least prima facie plausible reasons to think that such collective 'health rights' should exist. A complete account of health rights should thus explain how individual and collective health rights claims relate to one another and what one should do in cases where the claims conflict. This work contributes to our understanding of health rights by analysing the relationship between individual RTHCs and a plausible candidate collective health right, namely a sub-state national right to control healthcare law and policy. It argues that concerns about rights conflicts in this context make sense, but genuine conflicts between individual health rights and national control over healthcare are rare. The strongest cases for sub-state national 'self-determination' rights do not implicate healthcare, or tend not to provide reasons to override any individual RTHCs. Conflicts are possible in rare cases and may even favour fulfilling the collective rights claims. Yet individual RTHCs remain important even in those cases. Individual rights remain useful measures for evaluating the exercise of collective rights: exercises that violate (or even fail to fulfil) individual health rights are worse for so doing., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)