Read Spring 2012 Issue

83 Pages·2012·2.03 MB·English

c l o u g h j o u r n a l
The
of constitutional democrac y
issue 3 * 2012 *****************************************************************************
Anti-blasphmey laws Jackson’s assertion of Radical right-wing
in Pakistan Presidential power movements in Europe

c l o u g h j o ur na l
The
of constitutional democracy
The mission of the Clough Journal of Constitutional
Democracy is to provide a forum for interdisciplinary
reflection on the promise and problems of constitutional
democracy both domestically and internationally.
mission statement
clough journal staff
editor-in-chief images
Daniel Martinez Front Cover: The East Façade of the U.S.
Capitol in the early morning sun. ©Dwight
managing editor Nadig / iStockPhoto
Erica Taschler Left Image: A gavel under the scale of jus-
tice, with the national flag of Pakistan in the
comparative democracy background. © ericsphotography / iStockPhoto
Editor—Chris Fitzpatrick Middle Image: Clark Mills’ Andrew Jackson
Asst. Editor—Boris Shkuta statute in the President’s Park, Lafayette Square.
A snowy White House is in the background.
developing democracy © William Perry / iStockPhoto
Editor—Jovalin Dedaj Right Image: Vilnius, Lithuania -
Asst. Editor—Lynn Massengill March 11, 2012: Around one thousand peo-
ple gathered in a controversial nationalist
domestic democracy rally on Gedimino Avenue in central Vilnius
Editor—John Blakeslee on Re-Establishment of Independence Day.
Asst. Editor—John Martorella © Birute Vijeikiene / iStockPhoto
web designer
Lee Hill
special thanks
historical democracy
Editor—Chris Terris The editors of the Clough Journal of Constitutional
Democracy would like to thank the following indi-
faculty advisor viduals for their support:
Kenneth Kersch
Chuck and Gloria Clough—Founders of the
Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional
Democracy
Kenneth Kersch, Keith Ake, Mary Crane, Susan
Dunn, Monetta Edwards, Marc Landy, Matt
Swaim, Brooke Braswell, Yasmin Nunez, Dan
Bairos, and the authors of the articles in the
current issue.
letter from the editor
I am delighted to present the third issue of wider diversity of submissions. If you are interest-
The Clough Journal of Constitutional Democ- ed in submitting to the Clough Journal, you can
racy. In these pages, you will find scholarly works find our Call for Submissions on pg. 79. In ad-
that highlight important issues in democracies, dition, you can find more information, as well as
and the effect they have on particular groups of our previous issues, on our website, www.bc.edu/
people. clubs/clough.
As we have seen this year, the functions As my time at the Clough Journal and at
of constitutional democracies have taken center Boston College finishes, I would like to use this
stage. The U.S. Supreme Court’s deliberation opportunity to thank Professor Ken Kersch. In
over whether the President’s healthcare law is 2008, Professor Kersch became the inaugu-
constitutional is just one of many examples. This ral director of the Clough Center, and used the
issue’s “Pakistan’s Anti-Blasphemy Laws and position to engage undergraduates in thought-
U.S. Foreign Policy” delves into the role of the ful discussion about constitutional democracy.
laws in Pakistani society and their legal standing, He created the Clough Junior Fellows, a group
including the question of international law. The which attends lectures, dinners, conferences, and
issue presents an article concerning the relation- discussions regarding the most important consti-
ship between President Calvin Coolidge and the tutional issues of our age. Many editorial board
New York Times, demonstrating that even before members, including myself, became involved with
Twitter and Facebook, the media played an in- the Journal through the Junior Fellows program.
tegral role in democracy. Another work retraces Professor Kersch’s effort to involve students is
the history of Russia, analyzing why a constitu- one that should be recognized and lauded as he
tional democracy did not come to fruition after steps down as director of the Clough Center this
the Time of Troubles. All the submissions offer year. I know I am not alone in thanking Profes-
passionate critical analysis in discussing the most sor Kersch for his outstanding leadership and
pressing issues of constitutional democracy. mentorship.
This year, the Clough Journal features three I hope you enjoy our third issue. Read the
pieces from Georgetown University. Georgetown articles, and learn the fascinating ways in which
hosted the annual Tocqueville Forum, which constitutional democracies affect the individual,
a group of Clough Journal members attended. society, and the world.
We look forward to widening our scope to other
universities next year, and hope to gather an even
Daniel H. Martinez
Editor-in-Chief
table of contents
comparative democracy developing democracy
6 The Absence of a Western- 24 Pakistan’s Anti-Blasphemy
Style Constitution after the Laws and U.S. Foreign Policy
Times of Troubles Lindsay Kolowich
A Historical perspective at
the prospect of democracy in
38 Rising Radical Nationalism &
russia
Xenophobia among Russian
James Marshall
Youth
The Problems, the causes, and
14 Radical Right-Wing
potential solutions
Movements in Contemporary
Thomas Killeen
Europe
Revealing the Electorate and
unraveling their motives
Thomas Killeen
domestic democracy historical democracy
50 Born for a Storm 66 Is Justice Relative?
andrew jackson and the alasdair macintyre’s writings
shaping of the presidency and political relativism
Matthew Vigliotta Daniel Healy
58 Washington’s Proclamation of 72 The Man Who Said “No”
Neutrality and the First Party the new york times’ treatment
of the coolidge presidency
System
Alexander Hoffarth
Christopher Terris
78 author biographies
79 call for submissions
The Failure of Liberal
Democracy in 17th Century
Russia
The Absence of A WesTern-sTyle
consTiTuTion AfTer The Time of
Troubles
By James Marshall
6 clough journal • spring 2012
constitution did not appear in Russia after the
Time of Troubles, one must consider a multi-
tude of factors: including the strength of existing
institutions, the relationship between landown-
ers and the autocrat, and even the personalities
of key figures at the time. Although terms such
as autocracy, absolutism and despotism may be
used loosely when comparing Russia with the
West, clear definitions are necessary. In defining
these terms and determining which ones apply
to 17th century Russia, it is possible to develop a
clearer picture of the political environment fol-
lowing the Time of Troubles.
As David Goldfrank’s “Aristotle, Bodin,
and Montesquieu to the Rescue” indicates, it is
helpful to view the Russian political system in
F
or Russia, the 17th century began the context of Aristotle’s second type of royal
with a vacuum of power. The death monarchy. In his Politics, Aristotle outlines a
of Boris Godunov was followed by the brief form of monarchy similar to tyranny which is
reigns of several other rulers as the nation de- also “lawful/constitutional and hereditary and
scended into chaos wrought by pretenders and hence stable.”2 The characteristics which Aristo-
foreign invaders. The resulting national move- tle puts forward help explain the negative traits
ment to drive out the Poles and Swedes, as well of the Russian monarchy, such as “the sowing
as the election of a native tsar in 1613, would of mutual distrust” in addition to “impoverish-
suggest a subsequent diffusion of power. Why ment by demands of services,” while also taking
did the Russian elite not develop a Western- into account positive characteristics such as the
styled constitution after the Time of Troubles? “general image of a steward” as well as the “cul-
It is not unreasonable to expect that there tivation of military qualities.”3 This dual nature
would have been such a development. With the of Aristotle’s second definition helps explain the
monarchy deriving its power from the public, it despotic qualities of Russia’s political system
seems odd that a constitution failed to develop while also taking into account its legality and
which would have secured the rights of the elec- sense of legitimacy.
tors against the power of the elected. This con- Furthermore, it is critical to define 17th cen-
clusion would seem all the more obvious when tury Russia as an autocratic rather than absolutist
we consider that a sizeable faction of boyars state. According to Robert Crummey’s “Seven-
even supported Michael Romanov’s Swedish teenth-Century Russia: Theories and Models,”
opponent.1 autocracy is distinct from absolutism in that the
When determining why a Western-styled latter is secularly defined. In an absolutist state,
the failure of liberal democracy in 17th century russia 7
the ruler’s power, although from God, is ulti- nobility and merchants who lived in Moscow or
mately justified in essentially secular terms. In happened to be there on business.”11 Therefore,
absolutism, the power of state is, in theory an since the membership of the Sobor was deter-
end in itself. It is the duty of the monarch to mined on an ad hoc basis, it is hard to imagine
guard law and order and the security and well- the institution being stable and maintaining any
being of subjects. No moral strictures or insti- long-term influence. The result was that after
tutions, religious or secular, should deflect the 1613 the Zemsky Sobor degenerated into little
monarch from pursuing these objectives.4 more than an “administrative commission”.12
Autocracy, although similar to absolutism The Zemsky Sobor also continued to func-
in that it is an unlimited monarchy, is primar- tion as an advisory body, but under Filaret it
ily justified by “medieval Christian notions of functioned “through informal consultations”
imperial power.” The Byzantine Christian tra- rather than as an institution.13 It is safe to con-
dition, as well as the collapse of the Byzantine clude that there was a lack of resistance to auto-
and Mongol empires, gave the Russian tsars the cratic rule from the Sobor based on how often it
claim to having “no superiors on earth.”5 The fi- “gave its assent to policies that had already been
nal crucial distinction that Crummey provides adopted by the tsar and his advisers.”14 Clearly,
is that the Russian autocracy was not restrained the Zemsky Sobor was not a fixed institution
by any estates or constituencies,which brings us which could have created clear constitutional
to the question of why such constitutional limits restraints on the monarch, since it lacked any
did not develop after the tsar’s power was eroded strong institutional elements.
during the Time of Troubles. 6, 7 In addition to the Zemsky Sobor, the
The two primary institutions from which Boyarskaya Duma can also be viewed as a po-
one would expect the development of restraints tential source of opposition to the autocrat. As
against the autocrat are the Zemsky Sobor and Robert Crummey thoroughly explains in “The
the Boiarskaia Duma. In fact, it was from the Reconstitution of the Boiar Aristocracy, 1613-
Zemsky Sobor that Michael Romanov received 1645,” aristocratic families were predominant
his legitimacy to rule in 1613. However, the So- in the Duma.15 Unlike the Zemsky Sobor, the
bor at this time has been dubbed a “child of cha- Boyarskaya Duma originally functioned as “a
os,”8 a formless assembly that lacked both “fixed central part in the legislative process of the Mus-
procedural rules” as well as “rights vis-à-vis the covite state.”16 Hence in the years immediately
monarch.”9 Furthermore, membership in the So- following the Time of Troubles, the Duma was
bor was far from static. Instead it was composed able to function as the “core” of the government
of the “provincial gentry as chanced to be in the under Tsar Michael.17 Considering the aristo-
capital at the time” in addition to the “ecclesias- cratic nature of the Duma, Russia immediately
tical and secular hierarchy.”10 When discussing after the Time of Troubles functioned more as
the practical importance of the Sobor, Crum- an aristocracy than as an autocracy. Had this ar-
mey also notes that on many occasions meetings rangement with the Duma lasted, it is conceiv-
were composed “entirely of representatives of the able that political power in Russia could have
8 clough journal • spring 2012