Scholarlink

This chapter examines the strategic deployment of democratic threat rhetoric in Greek parliamentary discourse from 2000 to 2023, highlighting its role in political polarization. Drawing on a lexicon-based analysis of 4258 plenary transcripts, it identifies three core dimensions of threat framing: systemic democratic erosion, authoritarian tendencies, and institutional manipulation. The study traces the evolution of these narratives across three phases: pre-crisis (2000–2009), characterized by anticipatory rhetoric amid political stability; the onset of economic crisis (2009–2012), marked by rhetorical restraint despite mounting fiscal and institutional pressures; and the post-2012 period, defined by party system fragmentation and escalating polarization. Findings indicate that framing opponents as existential threats to democracy functions as a discursive strategy, mobilizing in-group support, delegitimizing rivals, and intensifying affective polarization. This chapter contributes to scholarship on parliamentary polarization and democratic backsliding by demonstrating how democracy crisis narratives, when weaponized as part of partisan strategy, can transform political disagreement into moralized conflict, potentially undermining institutional trust and democratic resilience. The Greek case underscores a deeper paradox: when “defending democracy” is wielded as a partisan weapon, it may inadvertently undermine the very democracy it claims to protect.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Democracy Threat Framing and Polarization in Parliamentary Discourse (2000–2023)

  • 章节

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年

查看全文
  • Andreas Kollias

摘要

This chapter examines the strategic deployment of democratic threat rhetoric in Greek parliamentary discourse from 2000 to 2023, highlighting its role in political polarization. Drawing on a lexicon-based analysis of 4258 plenary transcripts, it identifies three core dimensions of threat framing: systemic democratic erosion, authoritarian tendencies, and institutional manipulation. The study traces the evolution of these narratives across three phases: pre-crisis (2000–2009), characterized by anticipatory rhetoric amid political stability; the onset of economic crisis (2009–2012), marked by rhetorical restraint despite mounting fiscal and institutional pressures; and the post-2012 period, defined by party system fragmentation and escalating polarization. Findings indicate that framing opponents as existential threats to democracy functions as a discursive strategy, mobilizing in-group support, delegitimizing rivals, and intensifying affective polarization. This chapter contributes to scholarship on parliamentary polarization and democratic backsliding by demonstrating how democracy crisis narratives, when weaponized as part of partisan strategy, can transform political disagreement into moralized conflict, potentially undermining institutional trust and democratic resilience. The Greek case underscores a deeper paradox: when “defending democracy” is wielded as a partisan weapon, it may inadvertently undermine the very democracy it claims to protect.