Why Are Racist Associations Free in Some States and Banned in Others? Evidence from 10 Liberal Democracies

This article examines factors that explain cross-national variation in states’ willingness to repress racist associations. Non-democratic regime history is the primary factor that predisposes a country toward repression. Yet three situational triggers also matter when accounting for the development and application of a state’s provisions. First, the immediate aftermath of the transition to democracy can spark new laws and bans; second, ratifying UN provisions against racist organisations can prompt state action; and, third and most importantly in the contemporary era, spikes in high-profile racist events or steady increases in the influence of racist associations can generate the passage of new laws or the enforcement of existing legislation. Focusing on the combination of the one predisposing factor and the three situational triggers provides a systematic probabilistic explanation for cross-national variation in liberal democracies’ stances toward racist associations.