Would it be fair then to describe the post-invasion Ukrainian politics (or lack thereof) as illiberal, at least to a degree? Serious question and I am not trying to draw a false equivalence. Just in case: Putin is badbadnotgood.
It's a good question! In my view, if we mean illiberal as a conceptual label to describe modern reaction against liberalism (see my Substack essay and/or academic articles on this way of understanding the concept), then no not really. If we mean illiberal as kind of a colloquial way of saying '(possibly) authoritarian practice' or 'not really in keeping with declared norms of tolerance' or 'anti-pluralist' then sure. I tend to find this latter way of using the term to be fairly vague and too prone to double-standards about what counts, but it's common in the culture war stuff here in the US, so I do get it (e.g., cancel culture is 'illiberal,' shouting down speakers in universities is 'illiberal,' etc). Theorists of liberalism would also think this way, but fwiw I think they are extremely naïve about what actually-existing 'liberalism' looks like (that's an aside, however).
So I don't think it's impermissible to call Ukrainian politics illiberal in this sense, it just doesn't throw very much light on it and gets heavily confused by the other 'liberal' dimensions that Western states and NGOs have been pushing on Ukraine. It also leads us to a place where there's a Ukrainian illiberalism and a Russian illiberalism, but it's along such distinct dimensions that it is suddenly very muddled. Anyway, I'd argue that ultimately 'authoritarian' or just 'coercive and restrictive' is conceptually closer and a little less generic if you want a descriptor, even if it might be taken the wrong way.
Would it be fair then to describe the post-invasion Ukrainian politics (or lack thereof) as illiberal, at least to a degree? Serious question and I am not trying to draw a false equivalence. Just in case: Putin is badbadnotgood.
It's a good question! In my view, if we mean illiberal as a conceptual label to describe modern reaction against liberalism (see my Substack essay and/or academic articles on this way of understanding the concept), then no not really. If we mean illiberal as kind of a colloquial way of saying '(possibly) authoritarian practice' or 'not really in keeping with declared norms of tolerance' or 'anti-pluralist' then sure. I tend to find this latter way of using the term to be fairly vague and too prone to double-standards about what counts, but it's common in the culture war stuff here in the US, so I do get it (e.g., cancel culture is 'illiberal,' shouting down speakers in universities is 'illiberal,' etc). Theorists of liberalism would also think this way, but fwiw I think they are extremely naïve about what actually-existing 'liberalism' looks like (that's an aside, however).
So I don't think it's impermissible to call Ukrainian politics illiberal in this sense, it just doesn't throw very much light on it and gets heavily confused by the other 'liberal' dimensions that Western states and NGOs have been pushing on Ukraine. It also leads us to a place where there's a Ukrainian illiberalism and a Russian illiberalism, but it's along such distinct dimensions that it is suddenly very muddled. Anyway, I'd argue that ultimately 'authoritarian' or just 'coercive and restrictive' is conceptually closer and a little less generic if you want a descriptor, even if it might be taken the wrong way.