1. Lecture 10 Classifications Theoretical approaches

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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 Muddes work has moved the discussion forward

8. 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)

9. 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

10. Ten Theories (Eatwell 2002) Demand-side 1: Single issue (immigration) Extreme right parties success depends one single factor – reactions against immigration

11. 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

12. 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.

13. Ten Theories (Eatwell 2002) Demand-side 4: Reverse post-materialism Post-materialism (Inglehart). New values in post-war affluent generation Extreme right parties success is caused by a backlash against post-materialism – environmentalism, cosmopolitanism, new left politics, feminism et c.

14. 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

15. Ten Theories (Eatwell 2002) Supply-side 1: Opportunity structures (Kitschelt) Extreme right parties success depends on: Electoral systems Convergence between mainstream left and right

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 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)

19. 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

20. 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

21. Herbert Kitschelt (1995) New conflict structures: Economic: libertarian/free market v socialist/redistributive Societal/political: authoritarian v libertarian/permissive Conceptions of citizenship: particularist v cosmopolitan

22. Kitschelt (cont.) Contemporary postindustrial democracies have created a limited but distinctive demand for a combination of ethnocentric authoritarian and free market politics

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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)

26. 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

27. Betz (cont.) The breakdown of established subcultures, milieus and institutions has led to A break-up of traditional political loyalties and A sense of being left behind

28. Eatwells 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