This paper discusses the meaning, justifications, and status of the concept of Militant Democracy (MD), the idea that democratic states can legitimately impose pre-emptive rights restrictions to defend themselves from internal subversion. First, it argues against attempts to stretch the concept so that it covers not only restrictive measures but any type of action that aims to defend democracy. Second, it identifies MD with the principle and practice of exclusion; this broadening of the concept allows tracking its presence not only in the legal domain –as a practice of rights restrictions– but also in the political and societal domains –as a practice of cordon sanitaire and media censoring respectively. Third, it distinguishes justifications for MD as grounded respectively on three principles: (1) reason, (2) sovereignty, and (3) harm. It concludes by suggesting that, despite their differences as to what justifies pre-emptive exclusion, all MD theories share a similar conception of democracy: as instrumentally justified, substantive and value driven.
