Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this article, building on de Wilde (2011) and Schattschneider (1960), we elaborate on the notion of principled politicization, a process of politicization by which regime principles become salient in public debate in a way that also articulates or implies structural alternatives. First, we argue that in contrast to other conceptualizations of politicization, which focus on policy issues, or “issue‐based politicization,” principled politicization concerns another type of political conflict that differs in terms of topic (regime principles) and content (alternatives). As such, this type of debate is inherently related to the concept of democracy. Second, adopting an applied political theory approach, we put the notion of principled politicization to the test by empirically studying citizen discussions about the EU. We examine whether citizens draw on EU regime principles and discuss alternatives. To do so, we conduct a qualitative secondary analysis of four datasets, consisting of interviews and focus groups with participants from different socio‐economic backgrounds and political leanings. This data was collected in Belgium, France, and the UK at four different points in time (1995–2019). We report that some citizens do engage with EU regime principles and consider alternatives to the principles they observe being implemented. This article suggests that politicization can strengthen EU democratization when debates include and, in fact, reflect the challenges to democratic principles themselves.

Palabras clave: agrupación comunitaria, feminismo, fútbol, politización ABSTRACT In a context of high politicization of Chilean society and where gender issues have become central in the public debate, spaces of community politicization of women soccer fans have been created to tackle violence and exclusion towards women both in the soccer as in society in general. Through participant observation and review of group documents, the main results were that the group allows its members to be together both in football and in various socio-political struggles, transforming the stadium and the gallery into spaces of fighting against the male chauvinism and patriarchy, but also acting in the streets in various feminist and social struggles in general. [...]we confirm the importance of the community politicization of women in soccer for the ongoing processes of contestation and social transformation. El encuentro fue realizado bajo el lema \"Los colores nos separan, la lucha nos unen\", para tratar temáticas relacionadas al machismo y la violencia machista cotidiana que, como mujeres hinchas les afectan, tal como el lenguaje masculino que genera realidad y jerarquías, los cánticos que avalan la cultura de la violación, discriminación y el trato de \"invasoras\" por parte de hombres, y sobre como el feminismo es un camino para erradicar el machismo dentro y fuera de la cancha, bajo la idea de que lo que sucede en el estadio no es más que la reproducción de todo un espacio social heteropatriarcal (Deportes, 2018).

The word, fascism, is not a term I've ever used before in thinking and writing about the politics of this country in the sixty years of a long life as a writer and editor. Since the beginning of the present Trump administration in January of this year, however, the word \"fascism\" has been sounded now and then even by people with a reputation for caution and sobriety, by scholars, newspaper columnists and moderate talking heads, occasionally by people never associated with the political left. In a recent essay in The London Review of Books, the historian Daniel Trilling suggests that \"one way of thinking about fascism is to see it as \"historically specific,\" that is, as \"a reactionary mass movement produced by the economic and social chaos that engulfed Europe after the First World War.\" Clearly \"fascism\" takes shape when there is widely felt-at least by an enflamed fraction of the population-what Trilling calls \"a sense of overwhelming crisis and victimhood, a fear of the decline of one's group,\" a \"lust\" for \"authority\" and \"a force with a logic and a life of its own.\" The proliferation of masked ICE agents in the streets, the ignoring of court orders and Congressional protocols, the strong-arming and hostile takeover of major educational institutions, the blatant moves to reshape voting districts, the wanton destruction of the Department of Health and Human Services, the appointment to positions of authority of persons committed to undermining the very agencies they are ostensibly sworn to serve-this is nothing less than the prelude to a total and disastrous transformation of the country.

The politicization of the civil service is not a new phenomenon but it is highly contested and contingent on the environmental and institutional contexts in which it operates. The global environment has changed radically and has become more turbulent witnessed by, inter alia, the rise of populism and democratic backsliding. Institutional contexts have also changed as politicians demand greater accountability from officials in implementing their (mandated) policies. What is new is the various forms that politicization takes. This review paper takes relations between politicians, political staff and bureaucracy and offers a multi-dimensional analysis of the politicization concept: politicized appointments; politicized recruitment; behavioural politicization; and, structural politicization. We analyse politicization in different regimes: the UK as liberal democracy; Georgia as electoral democracy; and Turkey as electoral autocracy.