Lecture 10

Classifications

○

Theoretical

approaches

Party families

• Michael Gallagher, Michael Laver and Peter Mair (Representative Governments in Western Europe, 3rd ed., 2001) suggest three ways of dividing parties into families:– 1) Genetic origin. Parties formed in historical

circumstances, or with the intention to represent similar interests

– 2) Affiliation to transnational party federations, e.g. Socialist International and the Liberal International, party groups in the European Parliament

– 3) Policies

Extreme right parties in European Parliament until 2006:

• Independence and Democracy group:– UKIP, Lega Nord (Together with June Movement DK;

June List Swe; Mouvement pour la France, Dutch, Polish, Czech, Greek parties; 1 ind. from Ireland)

• Union for a Europe of Nations Group UEN– AN; Danish People's Party (Together with: Fianna

Fail, Latvian, Lithuanian and Polish parties)

• Non-attached members– FPÖ, FN, Vlaams Belang, MSI-Flame, Alternativa

Sociale (Mussolini) (Together with DUP, 2 UKIP defectors, Austrian, Italian, Czech, Slovak & 6 Polish parties

Extreme right parties in European Parliament from January 2007:

• Extreme Right parties form Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty group, with 20 members:

Front National 7 FPÖ 1 Vlaams Belang 3 Alternativa Sociale 1 (Alessandra Mussolini) MSI-Fiamma Tricolore 1 UKIP defector (Ashley Mote) 1 (Sep 07 nine months in jail for benefit fraud) Partidul Romania Mare (Romania) 5 (plus one indep. from Romania, who joins

in March) Attack Coalition (Bulgaria) 1 (plus two following EU election in May)

• In November 2007 five Romanian members resigned in protest against derogatory statements by Alessandra Mussolini. This meant that the group fell below the minimum membership level of 20, and was dissolved

Extreme right parties in European Parliament from November 2007:

• AN, Lega Nord, Danish People's Party:– Union for a Europe of Nations Group (UEN)

• FPÖ, FN, Vlaams Belang, MSI-Fiamma Tricolore, Alternativa Sociale (Mussolini), Attack Coalition (Bulgaria), Partidul Romania Mare: – Non-attached members

So…• …as you can see, some extreme right parties are not

members of any international grouping; others are members of different groups, indeed some have shifted back and forth

• Historical circumstances and the representation of social groups may be useful when classifying old parties, but newer parties do not have a very easily identifiable social base…

• …and the historical circumstances that led to the formation of extreme right parties were similar to those that led to the formation of green parties

• Policies are also difficult, because it is very problematic to compare policies in different countries

• Mudde (2000) argues that ideologies are better suited to comparison. More general, and more stable over time, than policies

Thus…

• …ideology is the best criterion when classifying parties

• Following Mudde (1995/2000), an extreme right party is nationalist, xenophobic, welfare chauvinist and in favour of law and order

• The exact content of the core ideology may not be unanimously agreed, and there may be different ways of “weighting” the ideological ingredients, but Mudde’s work has moved the discussion forward

But what to call them…?

• Mudde (2000) argues that, despite many diffculties, the label “extreme right” is the preferred option

• In 2007, however, Mudde retracts this statement, preferring “Populist Radical Right” (although he also changes the ideological core, hence the definition)

• There are many other suggested labels:– Far right– Populist right– Radical right– etc., often in various combinations, e.g. Rydgren:

Radical Right(-wing) Populist (RRP)

Sub-groups• Mudde (2000):• Extreme right

– Ethnic nationalist– State (civic) nationalist

• Ignazi (1992):• Extreme right

– Old– New

• Betz (1994):• Radical Right-Wing Populism

– Neo-liberal/libertarian– Authoritarian/national

• Kitschelt (1995):• Extreme Right

– Fascist– Welfare chauvinist– Populist anti-statist– Right-authoritarian = New

Radical Right

• Taggart (1995):• Right-Wing Extremism

– New populist– Neo-fascist

Ten Theories (Eatwell 2002)

Demand-side 1:Single issue (immigration)

Extreme right parties’ success depends one single factor – reactions against immigration

Ten Theories (Eatwell 2002)

Demand-side 2:

Protest

Extreme right parties’ success is not dependent on any issue or attitudes – just resentment against the political establishment

Ten Theories (Eatwell 2002)

Demand-side 3:Social breakdown

Traditional social structures, especially class and religion, are breaking down. As a result, individuals lose a sense of belonging and turn to ethnic nationalism, which gives a renewed sense of self-esteem.

Ten Theories (Eatwell 2002)

Demand-side 4:Reverse post-materialism

Post-materialism (Inglehart). New values in post-war affluent generationExtreme right parties’ success is caused by a backlash against post-materialism – environmentalism, cosmopolitanism, new left politics, feminism et c.

Ten Theories (Eatwell 2002)

Demand-side 5:Economic self-interest

Extreme right support comes from the “losers” in a competition over scarce resources, or those who fear they may lose out

Ten Theories (Eatwell 2002)

Supply-side 1:Opportunity structures (Kitschelt)

Extreme right parties’ success depends on:Electoral systemsConvergence between mainstream left and right

Ten Theories (Eatwell 2002)

Supply-side 2:Medialisation

The media promote certain national stereotypes, which fit the extreme right agenda. Highlight “bogus” asylum seekers, et c.

Ten Theories (Eatwell 2002)

Supply-side 3:National traditions

Extreme right is successful when it can portray itself as part of a national tradition. Fascist or extremist links will limit their support

Ten Theories (Eatwell 2002)

Supply-side 4:Party programmes

a. Politics is becoming more issue-based, which suits the extreme right

b. Extreme right has adopted a “Winning formula” of anti-immigration and pro-capitalism (Kitschelt)

Ten Theories (Eatwell 2002)

Supply-side 5:Charismatic leadership

Many extreme right parties have charismatic leaders, who are believed to be key factors behind their success

To sum up:

• Demand-side: Single issue Protest Social breakdown Reverse post-

materialism Economic self-

interest

• Supply-side: Opportunity structures Medialisation National traditions Party programmes Charismatic

leadership

Herbert Kitschelt (1995)New conflict structures:• Economic:

libertarian/free market v socialist/redistributive

• Societal/political:authoritarian v libertarian/permissive

• Conceptions of citizenship:particularistvcosmopolitan

Kitschelt (cont.)

Contemporary postindustrial democracies have created a limited but distinctive demand for a combination of

• ethnocentric

• authoritarian

and

• free market politics

Kitschelt (cont.)

• Orientation to citizenship (universalistic/cosmopolitan v. particularistic/parochial)

and

• modes of collective decision-making (egalitarian/democratic v. hierarchical/authoritarian)

are shaped by communicative experiences and capabilities

Kitschelt (cont.)

• Symbol- and client-processing experiences lead to values conducive to New Left attitudes

• Experiences of manipulations of objects, documents or spreadsheets lead to values conducive to New Radical Right attitudes

Kitschelt (cont.)

Extreme right success depends on two main sets of factors:• Opportunity structures (electoral

system, convergence between mainstream left and right)

• ‘Winning formula’ (authoritarianism/anti-immigration and market liberalism/pro-capitalism)

Hans-Georg Betz (1994)

• The transformation from industrial to post-industrial capitalism has brought profound economic, social and societal changes

• Established subcultures, milieus and institutions, which traditionally provided and sustained collective identities, are getting eroded and/or destroyed

• This has given way to a “flux of contextualised identities”

Betz (cont.)

The breakdown of established subcultures, milieus and institutions has led to

• A break-up of traditional political loyaltiesand

• A sense of being left behind

Eatwell’s “LET” approach

• Legitimacy • Efficacy• Trust

Increasing L(egitimacy) of extreme right parties and E(fficacy) of voters, combined with declining T(rust) in the political system promotes extreme right support