towards eu breakup ? three ideological dimensions and a case study

Accademia Lincei, Rome, ITALY AUGUR

AUGUR workshop, 14-16 March 2012

Towards EU breakup?three ideological dimensions

and a case study

William Brett, presentation toAUGUR Rome meeting, 16-03-12



1. Starting points

2. Theories of political realignment

3. Populist extremism

4. Three dimensions of ideology

5. Case study: Greece

6. Questions for the future



• 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?

Starting points



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?



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

Narrowing the focus: populism and economic crisis



Theories of political realignment• “Political realignment”: the fundamental restructuring of political

representation, through…a) the emergence of new parties or the disappearance of established partiesb) a significant and long-lasting shift in support from one party (or parties) to

another, and/or…c) the development of new social coalitions in support of particular parties

Explanatory frameworks• “Society-first” theoriesa) social cleavages (Lipset and Rokkan)b) modernisation/ postmaterialism and the “silent counter-revolution”

(Inglehart, Ignazi)• “Politics-first” theories: party competition, political articulation (eg. BJP in

India)



“… 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)



Populist extremism: a core definitionAnti-establishment, anti-system, but not 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”



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



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)

Three dimensions of ideology

1. Economy

2. Values

3. International relations



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)

Appeals to identity



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

Codes for “socially liberal”• Eg. “anti-morality”

Codes for “socially conservative”• Eg. “pro-morality”

Codes for “big government”• Eg. “pro-welfare state”

Codes for “small government”• Eg. “anti-welfare state”

Codes for “sovereignty”• Eg. “anti-EU”

Codes for “interdependence”• Eg. “pro-EU”



Interdependence Sovereignty

Big Government

Small Government

PS (France)

FN (France)

FPO (Austria)Many E. European parties in the 1990s



Socially Liberal

Socially Conservative

Big Government

Small Government

DF (Denmark)

SVP (Swiss)

LPF (Dutch)

Greens (eg. Germany)

???



Socially Liberal

Socially Conservative

Big Government

Small Government

Obama

RomneySantorum




Big Government

Small Government

MAP COUNTRIES? REGIONS? SCENARIOS?



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



Party Ideology SupportAusterity measures

Coalition of the Radical Left Left 12.5% ANTIEcologists-Greens Left 4% ANTI

Communists Left 12.5% ANTI

Democratic Left Centre-left 10.5% ambivalent

Pasok Centre-left 13.5% PRO

New Democracy Centre-right 23% PROIndependent Greeks Centre-right 4% ANTI

Laos Right 4% ANTI

Golden Dawn Far Right 3.5% ANTI




Big Government

Small Government

Coalition of the Radical Left

Communists

Democratic LeftPASOK

New DemocracyIndependent Greeks

LAOS



Sovereignty

Socially Liberal Socially Conservative

Interdependence

Coalition of the Radical Left

CommunistsLAOS

Democratic Left

PASOKNew Democracy

Independent Greeks



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



Stability factors

• Electoral system (“reinforced” proportional representation)

• Representation threshold (3%)

• Potential correction in PASOK support

• Disagreement among far left parties



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”?

towards eu breakup ? three ideological dimensions and a case study

Documents

italy augur augur workshop

augur scenarios

political realignments

political articulation

complex nature of political

major political changes

pointsaccademia lincei

indiaaccademia lincei