Abstract
Living in the United States during an election year is a unique experience, especially in 2024. The global spotlight on the presidential and congressional elections scheduled for November 5th are more than a periodical national event; they are a critical juncture in the global struggle for democratic governance and the fight against the tide of rising illiberalism and authoritarianism. Indeed, there has been a pervasive sense of dissatisfaction with democracy growing for many years. This significance is particularly pronounced given the political landscape of 2024, a year that many political analysts have identified as crucial for the future of global democracy. This year has already seen a series of pivotal elections across various nations, including Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Russia, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Iran. While on the surface, we may perceive a struggle between extremes on the left and right and a desire for new centrist grounds; the reality is far more profound. This is a year that strikes at the very heart and soul of democratic principles. This means that the ideological battles we see are not just political skirmishes but fundamental confrontations over the core values of democracy itself, challenging the integrity and future of democratic governance worldwide.
While we cannot predict the fate or endurance of democracy, perhaps taking a step back to analyze the illiberal underscores the timeliness and urgency of Václav Štětka and Sabina Mihelj’s ambitious book, ‘The Illiberal Public Sphere: Media in Polarized Societies’. This work specifically examines the rise of illiberalism within Eastern Europe by analyzing the political dynamics in the Czech Republic, Serbia, Hungary, and Poland.
In their opening chapter, Štětka and Mihelj (2024) outline their use of the concept of the illiberal public sphere as one that is ‘a communicative space comprising both traditional and new media that promote and amplify illiberal actors, views and attitudes’ (p. 3). Contrasting with the traditional liberal public sphere described by Jürgen Habermas, the illiberal public sphere operates within a system that is not yet fully authoritarian. It facilitates political polarization and the dissemination of illiberal attitudes while existing within a framework that continues to allow fundamental democratic rights, voting, and political competition.
The book’s second chapter conceptualizes three stages of an illiberal public sphere – incipient, ascendant, and hegemonic – with varying levels of media control, and Štětka and Mihelj illustrate the applicability of their theoretical framework by assigning one of their four case studies to each stage. While acknowledging the dynamic nature of these countries’ positions within each stage, the hegemonic stage is characterized by significant state control over media and political narratives, typically involving legislative changes and regulatory mechanisms that consolidate power and undermine democratic norms. Both Hungary and Serbia are positioned firmly within this stage. In contrast, Poland is situated within the ascendant phase of the illiberal public sphere, primarily attributed to its diverse media ecosystem characterized by substantial representation of liberal and illiberal viewpoints across conventional and digital media platforms. Finally, and unlike the previous cases, the Czech Republic is considered within a transitional phase between the incipient and ascendant stages of the illiberal public sphere, following a slower trajectory of illiberalism.
Taking this illustration of the three stages of the illiberal public sphere as a foundation, the next few chapters examine the role of the media and media audiences more precisely. Chapter 3 delves into media polarization by analyzing ideological biases and political independence across prominent news outlets using survey data. It underscores Hungary and Serbia as exhibiting more pronounced polarization than Poland and the Czech Republic. The study further suggests that exposure to conservative and pro-government news sources is linked to reduced liberal viewpoints and increased support for parties associated with illiberalism. Conversely, individuals consuming liberal, antigovernment news sources favor liberal perspectives and oppose ruling parties aligned with illiberal ideologies. This polarization deepens as media outlets undergo political capture, pivotal in shaping public attitudes asymmetrically toward illiberalism. Underlying this analysis by Štětka and Mihelj is the relationship between news consumption and political ideology and how various media environments can influence the quality of public discourse and the functioning of democratic institutions.
Furthermore, this book invites a deep curiosity that challenges established polarization and media trust models. Specifically, chapter 4 illustrates a complex relationship with news consumption, whereby within domains where the illiberal public sphere holds significant hegemonic sway, individuals adopt a pragmatic approach toward consuming media despite harboring reservations, motivated by considerations such as accessibility, habitual patterns, and the aspiration for exposure to a wide range of perspectives. These observations contest previous assumptions concerning the advantages of consuming diverse news sources and underscore the diverse standards of media reliability evident globally.
Certainly, a key strength of the book is the detailed discussion of the consequences of illiberalism within discourses of immigration and LGBTQ+ rights. The later chapters of the book chart each example in turn to understand how illiberal actors mobilize issues such as anti-immigrant hostility and homophobia through fear to strategically build support from people who are worried about changes in their society and social norms. Through a performance that encourages a narrative of defenders of traditional values or national identity, these later chapters demonstrate how illiberal actors consolidate power, exploring the nuanced ways these issues resonate across different national contexts and their implications for legislative agendas and societal cohesion.
Finally, the authors explore the COVID-19 pandemic, revealing how early successes in Eastern Europe masked deeper issues with public trust in government actions. Their analysis of survey and qualitative data shows that in countries like Hungary and Serbia, where the illiberal public sphere is strong, divisions emerged in responses to government briefings, with widespread skepticism driving many to seek alternative sources, such as YouTube, for foreign experts. In the words of one Hungarian participant, she notes: . . . if I see that there is an article about, I don’t know, the UK or someone living in the UK, [I trust it more] because I think the media is much freer there and that doctors can say what they believe and what they genuinely experience because I think. . . [here] they are intimidated. (Hun-22, female, 36)
From a Hungarian perspective, the quote suggests that the United Kingdom has a more liberated media landscape. For a British citizen who experienced the UK lockdown, this perception seems ironic but highlights how varying levels of illiberalism shape public trust in information sources. This contrast underscores the significant impact of perceived journalistic freedoms on the acceptance and reliability of information, influencing public attitudes and trust in both domestic and global contexts.
In essence, the analysis undertaken by Štětka and Mihelj traces the progression of the illiberal public sphere to argue that the health of democracy depends on fostering critical thinking and resilience against narratives that undermine liberal democratic values. A task they note can only be pursued, perhaps, in part, by our desire to actualize journalistic impartiality, accuracy, and ethical conduct, safeguarding media independence from political interference and empowering citizens to discern between reliable information and misinformation; and, most fundamentally, reimagining the neutral within our media environments. Altogether, this is a provocative and crucial text in an era increasingly defined by its tussle between liberal democratic principles and encroaching illiberal forces.
