Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
3.1
1.7
Journals
Social Sciences
Special Issues
Contemporary Challenges to Democracy, Citizenship and Political Participation
share announcement

Contemporary Challenges to Democracy, Citizenship and Political Participation

A special issue of Social Sciences (ISSN 2076-0760). This special issue belongs to the section "Contemporary Politics and Society".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 30 September 2026 | Viewed by 4159

Special Issue Editor

Dr. Paul W. Posner

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Political Science, Clark University, Worcester, MA 01601-1477, USA
Interests: party-society linkages; labor politics; the politics of social welfare resource distribution; populism; social movements; leftism; Latin America; Europe

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

This Special Issue of Social Sciences will focus on contemporary challenges to democracy, citizenship and participation in democratic regimes across the globe. The objective is to elucidate the nature of these challenges by identifying both their etiology and their consequences for democratic regimes. A broad range of challenges confront democratic regimes across the globe. Increasing wealth disparities and growing economic insecurity often fuel the perception that the political system privileges the wealthy. Economic inequity and insecurity erode trust in democratic institutions, established political parties, and elites. Distrust in government discourages participation, particularly among marginalized groups, eroding civic engagement and voter turnout and exacerbating political polarization. Political polarization can originate from partisan and ideological extremism and the unwillingness of partisan competitors to compromise. It can also originate from identity politics, in which competing groups increasingly view one another as adversaries with little to nothing in common.

In this context, politics can become a zero-sum game. Politicians and political parties intensify this identity-based conflict by offering policies that appeal to their narrow constituencies rather than developing broadly encompassing policies that help to build social cohesion and promote good public services. Populist leaders attempt to capitalize on these divisions, stoking ethno-nationalism and attacking minority groups and marginalized segments of the population—immigrants, religious minorities, members of the LGTBQ+ community. Populist leaders attempt to impede the political incorporation and participation of these marginalized groups and anyone who opposes their policies, leading to illiberal democracies at best and authoritarian regimes at worst. They often employ disinformation or misinformation to distort the public’s perception of their governance and to manipulate voters. Foreign governments have increasingly employed the digital manipulation of social media and online algorithms to influence elections and to intervene in the politics of their adversaries. These forces have led to democratic erosion and backsliding.  

Dr. Paul W. Posner
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 250 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for assessment.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Social Sciences is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1800 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • inequality
  • political polarization
  • extremism
  • identity politics
  • ethno-nationalism
  • voter turnout
  • erosion of trust
  • decline of political participation
  • populism
  • marginalization of minority groups

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (4 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

21 pages, 296 KB  
Article
Migration as Democratic Boundary-Making: Far-Right Normalization in Europe
by Damjan Mandelc
Soc. Sci. 2026, 15(4), 243; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15040243 - 9 Apr 2026
Viewed by 410
Abstract
Over the past decade, far-right parties have moved from the political margins into the mainstream of several European democracies. This article examines how migration functions not primarily as a demographic driver of electoral change, but as a discursive resource through which democratic boundaries [...] Read more.
Over the past decade, far-right parties have moved from the political margins into the mainstream of several European democracies. This article examines how migration functions not primarily as a demographic driver of electoral change, but as a discursive resource through which democratic boundaries are redefined. Drawing on a qualitative comparative analysis of political speeches, party manifestos, and public debates in selected European countries between 2014 and 2022, the study investigates how migration is constructed as a threat to welfare systems, national cohesion, and liberal-democratic order. The analysis integrates three complementary frameworks of ethno-pluralism, welfare chauvinism, and civic nationalism to demonstrate how exclusion is legitimized through moralized appeals to culture, fairness, and liberal values. Rather than rejecting democracy outright, far-right actors reinterpret concepts such as citizenship, solidarity, and equality in conditional and culturally bounded terms. Migration thus operates as a symbolic condensation of broader anxieties related to globalization, economic insecurity, and political distrust. The findings show how democratic language itself can normalize exclusionary interpretations of membership, contributing to gradual forms of democratic erosion across Europe. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Contemporary Challenges to Democracy, Citizenship and Political Participation)
27 pages, 354 KB  
Article
Online Repertoires of Discursive Delegitimation Through Critical Online Comments—The Case of the Pandemic Crisis in Romania
by Cosmin Toth
Soc. Sci. 2026, 15(4), 227; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15040227 - 1 Apr 2026
Viewed by 346
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic represented a critical stress test for institutional trust and legitimacy, particularly in societies characterized by pre-existing deficits of confidence in public authorities. In Romania, the health crisis unfolded against a background of low institutional credibility and widespread skepticism toward political [...] Read more.
The COVID-19 pandemic represented a critical stress test for institutional trust and legitimacy, particularly in societies characterized by pre-existing deficits of confidence in public authorities. In Romania, the health crisis unfolded against a background of low institutional credibility and widespread skepticism toward political and administrative actors. This study examines how institutional authority was discursively evaluated, contested, and delegitimized through public online comments during the most severe phase of the pandemic. The analysis is based on a corpus of 457 comments collected from major Romanian news websites and YouTube channels between 20 and 26 October 2021, corresponding to the peak week in terms of infections and mortality. Drawing on Discourse Analysis and Discursive Psychology, the study combines quantitative coding with qualitative analysis to identify recurrent forms of moral and epistemic criticism, inflammatory discourse, and sarcasm, organized into interpretative repertoires. The findings show that online criticism is structured primarily around accusations of hypocrisy, incompetence, corruption, insensitivity, and authoritarianism. These discourses function not merely as expressions of dissatisfaction but as practices through which commenters articulate moral order, contest institutional legitimacy, and position themselves as morally vigilant and epistemically competent actors entitled to judge public decision-making. Online comment spaces thus emerge as arenas of discursive delegitimation in times of crisis, with important implications for democratic resilience and crisis governance. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Contemporary Challenges to Democracy, Citizenship and Political Participation)
27 pages, 911 KB  
Article
“The Clash of Civilizations” in Cyprus: Religion, Nationalism, and Populism in the Discourses of ELAM and YDP
by Şevki Kıralp
Soc. Sci. 2026, 15(3), 172; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15030172 - 7 Mar 2026
Viewed by 552
Abstract
This study examines the political discourse and practices of the Greek Cypriot political party ELAM and the Turkish Cypriot political party YDP within the framework of populism. The findings of the study demonstrate that ELAM frames the Greek Cypriot community as part of [...] Read more.
This study examines the political discourse and practices of the Greek Cypriot political party ELAM and the Turkish Cypriot political party YDP within the framework of populism. The findings of the study demonstrate that ELAM frames the Greek Cypriot community as part of “Judeo-Christian civilization” and portrays this civilization as being under threat from “Islamic civilization,” including Türkiye, Turkish Cypriots, and “illegal immigrants.” YDP, in turn, conceptualizes the Turkish Cypriot community as part of “Islamic civilization” and claims that “the West”—comprising actors such as Greek Cypriots, Greece, Israel, the EU, and the USA—is waging a comprehensive campaign against “Islamic civilization.” ELAM accuses the Greek Cypriot left of acting against the interests of “Western civilization” and Hellenic Orthodox values, while YDP similarly charges the Turkish Cypriot left with acting contrary to the interests and values of the Turkish-Islamic world. Moreover, while ELAM opposes Turkish Cypriots and “illegal immigrants” benefiting from the resources of the Republic of Cyprus, the right-wing government in which YDP is a coalition partner is frequently criticized for having contributed to the deterioration of the living standards of foreign workers. ELAM adopts a sharply oppositional stance toward the expansion of LGBTIQ+ rights, whereas YDP prefers not to foreground this issue. The study concludes that the discourses of both parties largely correspond to the concept of “civilizational populism.” Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Contemporary Challenges to Democracy, Citizenship and Political Participation)
18 pages, 391 KB  
Article
Scrolling Forward, Sliding Backward: How Social Media Threatens the Functionality of Democracy
by Hiroki Takeuchi and Kitty Eid
Soc. Sci. 2026, 15(2), 143; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci15020143 - 23 Feb 2026
Viewed by 673
Abstract
Political theorists have suggested that democracy is at odds with liberalism. Moreover, with fears about the recent rise in populism, there is growing skepticism about whether liberalism and democracy can continue to survive. In her recent work, Democracy Tamed: French Liberalism and the [...] Read more.
Political theorists have suggested that democracy is at odds with liberalism. Moreover, with fears about the recent rise in populism, there is growing skepticism about whether liberalism and democracy can continue to survive. In her recent work, Democracy Tamed: French Liberalism and the Politics of Suffrage, political theorist Gianna Englert argues that voters’ political capacity—rather than democratic political rights—kept nineteenth-century French liberalism open to democracy while fostering citizens’ capacity for democracy. The theorists she discusses anticipated the problems we face today, including citizens being manipulated by unscrupulous and unqualified influencers. Thus, the concern over an uninformed public in democracy is not new. In the meantime, students of comparative politics have found that people can rely on elite cues to make reasoned choices “as if” they had sufficient information, even when they are uninformed and inattentive. However, with social media overtaking traditional media as the primary source of information for many people, this democratic safeguard no longer functions as it should. In this article, to tackle the age-old challenge of ensuring that citizens in democracies are well informed enough to make reasoned choices, we first summarize the problems identified by the nineteenth-century French liberal theorists with the capacity of non-elites to make sound political judgments. We then explore how the comparative politics literature has responded to concerns about an uninformed public in democracy, suggesting that the same mechanism would not work if people get information from social media. We examine the impact of social media on the rise of anti-democratic leaders by manipulating public opinion, which has allowed illiberal, populist politicians to come to power. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Contemporary Challenges to Democracy, Citizenship and Political Participation)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-4
Back to TopTop