1 / 23

Towards EU breakup ? three ideological dimensions and a case study

Towards EU breakup ? three ideological dimensions and a case study. William Brett, presentation to AUGUR Rome meeting, 16-03-12. Starting points Theories of political realignment Populist extremism Three dimensions of ideology Case study: Greece Questions for the future.

ata
Download Presentation

Towards EU breakup ? three ideological dimensions and a case study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Towards EU breakup?threeideological dimensions and a case study William Brett, presentation toAUGUR Rome meeting, 16-03-12

  2. Starting points Theories of political realignment Populist extremism Three dimensions of ideology Case study: Greece Questions for the future

  3. Starting points How might politics develop around the world? What are the pressure points where major political changes could originate? Under what circumstances could extremist parties come to power? How do these futures relate to the AUGUR scenarios?

  4. Stumbling blocks • The contingency of political processes • Different time, different place, different outcome • Causal mechanisms are always obscure owing to the open and highly complex nature of political and economic systems • The heterogeneity of political systems • - Different processes for democracies and autocracies (not applicable at EU level) • - The level of analysis problem: Individuals? Parties? Countries? Regions?

  5. Narrowing the focus: populism and economic crisis Extremist parties (partic. of the right) present a significant threat to the liberal democratic order We know from the 1930s that times of global economic crisis create opportunities for political realignments to occur But these opportunities can be seized by very different types of political actor

  6. Theories of political realignment “Political realignment”: the fundamental restructuring of political representation, through… the emergence of new parties or the disappearance of established parties a significant and long-lasting shift in support from one party (or parties) to another, and/or… the development of new social coalitions in support of particular parties Explanatory frameworks “Society-first” theories social cleavages (Lipset and Rokkan) modernisation/ postmaterialism and the “silent counter-revolution” (Inglehart, Ignazi) “Politics-first” theories: party competition, political articulation (eg. BJP in India)

  7. “… the danger of political polarization and extremism is greater in some national circumstances than others. It is greatest in countries with relatively recent histories of democracy, with existing right-wing extremist parties, and with electoral systems that create low hurdles to parliamentary representation of new parties. Above all, it is greatest where depressed economic conditions are allowed to persist.” (de Bromhead et. al. 2012)

  8. Populist extremism: a core definition Anti-establishment, anti-system, butnot anti-democracy • Populism: a discourse rather than a term describing a party • The populist appeal is made on behalf of “the people”, in opposition to a vilified “elite” • This appeal can be made from the left or the right, from a welfare state or anti-welfare state position, from a nativist or internationalist perspective etc. • In democracies, the populists that really matter claim to be democrats. Indeed, the appeal to the people is at its core (pseudo)-democratic. But different conceptions of “democracy” can be framed within the populist appeal. Existing democratic arrangements are not a given • Populist extremism: those who use the populist appeal to attack the existing mainstream – “anti-system”

  9. Populist extremism today 1. European parties and movements • Neoliberal populists (FPO, List Pim Fortuyn) • Welfare chauvinists (Front National, Dansk Folkeparti) • Left-populists (Coalition of the Radical Left, Occupy) • Extremists/fascists (Golden Dawn, English Defence League) 2. USA • Tea Party Republicans • Occupy

  10. Three dimensions of ideology Economy Values International relations BIG GOVERNMENT (welfare spending,public ownership, increased regulation) SOCIALLY LIBERAL (pluralist tolerance) INTERDEPENDENCE (pro-EU, pro regional/global decision-making structures) SMALL GOVERNMENT (spending cuts, tax cuts, privatisation, deregulation) SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE (support for traditional values) SOVEREIGNTY (Anti-EU, support for the nation state)

  11. Appeals to identity BIG GOVERNMENT (wealth redistribution, NB: potential for populist appeal, anti-1%) SOCIALLY LIBERAL (respect for others, a modern sense of pluralism) INTERDEPENDENCE (globalisation, technological progress) SMALL GOVERNMENT (“government is out to get you”, tax as an unacceptable imposition, “welfare scroungers” etc.) SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE (homophobia, chauvinism) SOVEREIGNTY (nationalism, xenophobia)

  12. Data source: the Comparative Manifesto Project Manifestos from the parties over 50 countries (not India) since 1945 Pros: large-N, longitudinal, malleable Cons: suspect reliability, missing data

  13. Big Government PS (France) FN (France) Interdependence Sovereignty FPO (Austria) Many E. European parties in the 1990s Small Government

  14. Big Government Greens (eg. Germany) DF (Denmark) Socially Liberal Socially Conservative ??? LPF (Dutch) SVP (Swiss) Small Government

  15. Big Government Obama Socially Liberal Socially Conservative Santorum Romney Small Government

  16. Big Government MAP COUNTRIES? REGIONS? SCENARIOS? Interdependence Sovereignty Small Government

  17. Case study: Greece Parliamentary elections in April The present context: 20% unemployment, 50% youth unemployment etc. The future context: a decade of austerity? Public opinion: 87% “disappointed” with Papandreou government; 52% disagree with Parliament’s recent approval of austerity measures etc.; but 67% want to stay in the euro

  18. Big Government Coalition of the Radical Left Communists PASOK Democratic Left LAOS Interdependence Sovereignty New Democracy Independent Greeks Small Government

  19. Interdependence PASOK New Democracy Socially Liberal Socially Conservative Democratic Left LAOS Independent Greeks Communists Coalition of the Radical Left Sovereignty

  20. Volatility factors Mass discontent Baseline economic problems, particularly extended austerity (cf. de Bromhead et. al. 2012) Emergence of new parties, speed at which they are gaining enough support to cross representation threshold

  21. Stability factors Electoral system (“reinforced” proportional representation) Representation threshold (3%) Potential correction in PASOK support Disagreement among far left parties

  22. Questions for the future What are the tipping points which could spark populist protest on a scale which threatens the continuation of the existing order and the power of existing elites? Which of the AUGUR scenarios, if any, accounts for this risk? Policy proposals? Or exhortations to parties (primarily of the centre-left)? What about the other scenarios? What are the political routes towards “federalism” and “multi-speed Europe”?

More Related