DOCSLIB.ORG

State of Populism in Europe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State of Populism in Europe 2018 State of Populism in Europe The past few years have seen a surge in the public support of populist, Eurosceptical and radical parties throughout almost the entire European Union. In several countries, their popularity matches or even exceeds the level of public support of the centre-left. Even though the centre-left parties, think tanks and researchers are aware of this challenge, there is still more OF POPULISM IN EUROPE – 2018 STATE that could be done in this fi eld. There is occasional research on individual populist parties in some countries, but there is no regular overview – updated every year – how the popularity of populist parties changes in the EU Member States, where new parties appear and old ones disappear. That is the reason why FEPS and Policy Solutions have launched this series of yearbooks, entitled “State of Populism in Europe”. *** FEPS is the fi rst progressive political foundation established at the European level. Created in 2007 and co-fi nanced by the European Parliament, it aims at establishing an intellectual crossroad between social democracy and the European project. Policy Solutions is a progressive political research institute based in Budapest. Among the pre-eminent areas of its research are the investigation of how the quality of democracy evolves, the analysis of factors driving populism, and election research. Contributors : Tamás BOROS, Maria FREITAS, Gergely LAKI, Ernst STETTER STATE OF POPULISM Tamás BOROS IN EUROPE Maria FREITAS • This book is edited by FEPS with the fi nancial support of the European Parliament Gergely LAKI Ernst STETTER • ISBN number 978-2-930769-20-2 STATE OF POPULISM IN EUROPE Published by: FEPS – Foundation for European Progressive Studies Rue Montoyer 40, 4th floor – 1000 Brussels, Belgium T: +32 2 234 69 00 Email: [email protected] Website: www.feps-europe.eu Policy Solutions Révay utca 10 – 1065 Budapest, Hungary T: +36 1 4 748 748 Email: [email protected] Website: www.policysolutions.eu Copyright: FEPS and Policy Solutions, December 2018 ISBN: 978-2-930769-21-9 Responsible editors: Ernst STETTER, FEPS Secretary General Tamás BOROS, Co-Director of Policy Solutions Maria FREITAS, FEPS Senior Policy Advisor Authors: Tamás BOROS, Gergely LAKI Consultant and proofreading: Gábor GYŐRI Page layout and printing: Ferling Ltd. – Hungary This study does not represent the collective views of FEPS and Policy Solutions. The responsibility of FEPS and Policy Solutions is limited to approving the publication as worthy of consideration of the European progressive movement. With the financial support of the European Parliament. This report does not represent the European Parliament’s views but only of the respective authors. Table of Contents Preface ........................................................................................................................6 Trends in European populism in 2018 ..............................................................8 Austria ..................................................................................................................... 14 Belgium ................................................................................................................... 18 Bulgaria ................................................................................................................... 22 Croatia ...................................................................................................................... 28 Cyprus ...................................................................................................................... 32 Czech Republic ...................................................................................................... 36 Denmark ................................................................................................................. 40 Estonia ..................................................................................................................... 44 Finland ..................................................................................................................... 48 France ...................................................................................................................... 52 Germany .................................................................................................................. 56 Greece ...................................................................................................................... 60 Hungary ................................................................................................................... 64 Ireland ...................................................................................................................... 70 Italy ........................................................................................................................... 74 Latvia ........................................................................................................................ 80 Lithuania ................................................................................................................. 84 Luxembourg ........................................................................................................... 88 Malta ........................................................................................................................ 92 The Netherlands ................................................................................................... 94 Poland ....................................................................................................................100 Portugal .................................................................................................................106 Romania ................................................................................................................110 Slovakia .................................................................................................................112 Slovenia .................................................................................................................118 Spain .......................................................................................................................122 Sweden ..................................................................................................................128 United Kingdom ..................................................................................................132 Preface 2018 was the year of biding our time in European politics. After months of negotiations, it was still not clear what would happen with the United Kingdom, how – if at all – it would leave the European Union. Citizens still perceive that no stable solutions were proposed for the grand challenges facing the European Union, from the deepening of monetary integration over the joint management of refugee affairs all the way to the principles that will define the coming budget cycle. The intensifying struggle between progressive and populist parties appears to have come to a stalemate. While in Italy and Hungary the populists scored decisive electoral victories, in Sweden and Luxembourg pro-European forces – centre-left in the former and centre-right in the latter – prevailed. Support for the EU reached a record high in 2018 – but so is the rejection of refugees and immigrants in many of the EU’s Member States. On account of the improving European economic indicators, many thought that populist appeal would be declining among Europeans in 2018. Yet the upward economic indicators, the record low unemployment and the absence of a major crisis – the emergence of a Pax Europa of sorts – still proved insufficient in steering voters back to the centre-right and centre-left parties. The positive economic environment most likely did play a role in halting further landslide changes in terms of electoral support towards populist parties. At the same time, the nostalgia for the Europe of the 1980s and 1990s continues to predominate among the voters of European populists. They are yearning for the stability and predictability of those times, the job security, the strong role of the state as a protector and provider. Voters of populist parties want change that will turn the world back to this old “order”. Moreover, the impact of the series of terrorist acts in Europe, the refugee crisis in 2015, and the growing social disparities also continue to exert an impact, and most importantly so the populist forces’ campaigns based on these issues. What has not changed since 2015, however, is that at the end of the year FEPS and Policy Solutions once again evaluated what kind of an impact populist parties had over the past 12 months on European politics. FEPS and Policy Solutions have tracked the policies and popularity of over 80 populist parties in 2018 and we analysed the trends that have emerged. We have also evaluated the issues that these parties introduced into the public debates in each of the EU countries and assessed these parties’ activities during election campaigns. We have continuously updated a unique database called Populism Tracker on the FEPS Progressive Post website, and we have shared numerous analyses with readers who are interested in these issues. This volume presents our work over the last year, reviewing the trends and the most important activities of populist parties in the 28 EU countries, and we outline how their popularity evolved over this period – almost like an encyclopaedia. Our goal is to learn in finer detail
Load more

Recommended publications
  • General Assembly Security Council Seventy-First Session Seventy-Second Year Agenda Item 41 Question of Cyprus
    United Nations A/71/794–S/2017/135 General Assembly Distr.: General 17 February 2017 Security Council Original: English General Assembly Security Council Seventy-first session Seventy-second year Agenda item 41 Question of Cyprus Letter dated 14 February 2017 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General I have the honour to transmit herewith a letter dated 14 February 2017, addressed to you by Mehmet Dânâ, Representative of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (see annex). I would be grateful if the text of the present letter and its annex could be circulated as a document of the General Assembly, under agenda item 41, and of the Security Council. (Signed) Güven Begeç Deputy Permanent Representative Chargé d’affaires a.i. 17-02619 (E) 220217 *1702619* A/71/794 S/2017/135 Annex to the letter dated 14 February 2017 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General I have the honour to enclose herewith a copy of the letter dated 14 February 2017 addressed to you by Mustafa Akıncı, President of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (see enclosure). I should be grateful if you would have the text of the present letter and its enclosure circulated as a document of the General Assembly, under agenda item 41, and of the Security Council. (Signed) Mehmet Dânâ Representative 2/3 17-02619 A/71/794 S/2017/135 Enclosure I am writing to draw your kind attention to a recent decision of the Greek Cypriot parliament to include in the dates commemorated by the schools in the South the so-called referendum held by Greek Cypriots in 1950 for union with Greece (Enosis).
    [Show full text]
  • Media Influence Matrix Slovakia
    J A N U A R Y 2 0 2 0 MEDIA INFLUENCE MATRIX: SLOVAKIA Government, Politics and Regulation Author: Marius Dragomir 2nd updated edition Published by CEU Center for Media, Data and Society (CMDS), Budapest, 2020 About CMDS About the author The Center for Media, Data and Society Marius Dragomir is the Director of the Center (CMDS) is a research center for the study of for Media, Data and Society. He previously media, communication, and information worked for the Open Society Foundations (OSF) policy and its impact on society and for over a decade. Since 2007, he has managed practice. Founded in 2004 as the Center for the research and policy portfolio of the Program Media and Communication Studies, CMDS on Independent Journalism (PIJ), formerly the is part of Central European University’s Network Media Program (NMP), in London. He School of Public Policy and serves as a focal has also been one of the main editors for PIJ's point for an international network of flagship research and advocacy project, Mapping acclaimed scholars, research institutions Digital Media, which covered 56 countries and activists. worldwide, and he was the main writer and editor of OSF’s Television Across Europe, a comparative study of broadcast policies in 20 European countries. CMDS ADVISORY BOARD Clara-Luz Álvarez Floriana Fossato Ellen Hume Monroe Price Anya Schiffrin Stefaan G. Verhulst Hungary, 1051 Budapest, Nador u. 9. Tel: +36 1 327 3000 / 2609 Fax: +36 1 235 6168 E-mail: [email protected] ABOUT THE MEDIA INFLUENCE MATRIX The Media Influence Matrix Project is run collaboratively by the Media & Power Research Consortium, which consists of local as well as regional and international organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Agreement Between the United Kingdom of Great Britain And
    Luxembourg No. 1 (2019) Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on the Participation in Certain Elections of Nationals of Each Country Resident in the Territory of the Other Luxembourg, 18 June 2019 [The Agreement is not in force] Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty July 2019 CP 141 © Crown copyright 2019 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/official-documents. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at Treaty Section, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, King Charles Street, London, SW1A 2AH ISBN 978-1-5286-1467-2 CCS0719538732 07/19 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG ON THE PARTICIPATION IN CERTAIN ELECTIONS OF NATIONALS OF EACH COUNTRY RESIDENT IN THE TERRITORY OF THE OTHER The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, hereinafter referred to as “the Parties”;
    [Show full text]
  • The Notion of Religion in Election Manifestos of Populist and Nationalist Parties in Germany and the Netherlands
    religions Article Religion, Populism and Politics: The Notion of Religion in Election Manifestos of Populist and Nationalist Parties in Germany and The Netherlands Leon van den Broeke 1,2,* and Katharina Kunter 3,* 1 Faculty of Religion and Theology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2 Department of the Centre for Church and Mission in the West, Theological University, 8261 GS Kampen, The Netherlands 3 Faculty of Theology, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland * Correspondence: [email protected] (L.v.d.B.); katharina.kunter@helsinki.fi (K.K.) Abstract: This article is about the way that the notion of religion is understood and used in election manifestos of populist and nationalist right-wing political parties in Germany and the Netherlands between 2002 and 2021. In order to pursue such enquiry, a discourse on the nature of manifestos of political parties in general and election manifestos specifically is required. Election manifestos are important socio-scientific and historical sources. The central question that this article poses is how the notion of religion is included in the election manifestos of three Dutch (LPF, PVV, and FvD) and one German (AfD) populist and nationalist parties, and what this inclusion reveals about the connection between religion and populist parties. Religious keywords in the election manifestos of said political parties are researched and discussed. It leads to the conclusion that the notion of religion is not central to these political parties, unless it is framed as a stand against Islam. Therefore, these parties defend Citation: van den Broeke, Leon, and the Jewish-Christian-humanistic nature of the country encompassing the separation of ‘church’ or Katharina Kunter.
    [Show full text]
  • Latvia by Juris Dreifelds
    Latvia by Juris Dreifelds Capital: Riga Population: 2.1 million GNI/capita, PPP: US$19,090 Source: The data above are drawn from the World Bank’sWorld Development Indicators 2013. Nations in Transit Ratings and Averaged Scores 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Electoral Process 1.75 1.75 1.75 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 Civil Society 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 Independent Media 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 Governance* 2.25 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a National Democratic Governance n/a 2.25 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.25 2.25 2.25 Local Democratic Governance n/a 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 Judicial Framework and Independence 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 Corruption 3.50 3.50 3.25 3.00 3.00 3.25 3.25 3.50 3.25 3.00 Democracy Score 2.17 2.14 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.18 2.18 2.14 2.11 2.07 * Starting with the 2005 edition, Freedom House introduced separate analysis and ratings for national democratic governance and local democratic governance to provide readers with more detailed and nuanced analysis of these two important subjects.
    [Show full text]
  • Strengthening Social Democracy in the Visegrad Countries Limits and Challenges Faced by Smer-SD Darina Malová January 2017
    Strengthening Social Democracy in the Visegrad Countries Limits and Challenges Faced by Smer-SD Darina Malová January 2017 Smer-Sociálna Demokracia (Smer-SD) was founded in December 1999 as a result of the defection from the post-communist Party of the Democratic Left (SDĽ) by Robert Fico, the party’s most popular politician at that time. Smer-SD is the largest mainstream party in Slovakia, with stable support. Its mixed, mostly traditional left- -wing (bread-and-butter) appeals and selected social policies have proven popular with the electorate. Robert Fico has remained the key person in Smer-SD. He is the uncontested leader, exercising a large amount of control over the party organisation, including territorial party units, selection of candidates for public elections and many key party decisions. Smer-SD is, in terms of its rhetoric, a traditional socialist party, speaking to the poorer strata, advocating a welfare state, but in reality the party pursues fairly strict austerity policies with occasional ‘social packages’. Unlike Western social democratic parties the leaders of Smer-SD are prone to using national and populist appeals. In terms of ideology (like many other parties in Slovakia) Smer-SD is a typical catch-all party with centrist and partly inconsistent party programmes, appeals to ever wider audiences, and the pursuit of votes at the expense of ideology. The weakest points in the public perception of the party are Smer-SD’s murky relations with oligarchs and high levels of corruption. Strengthening Social Democracy in the Visegrad Countries Limits and Challenges Faced by Smer-SD Darina Malová January 2017 ISBN 978-80-87748-32-9 (online) Contents 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Codebook Indiveu – Party Preferences
    Codebook InDivEU – party preferences European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies December 2020 Introduction The “InDivEU – party preferences” dataset provides data on the positions of more than 400 parties from 28 countries1 on questions of (differentiated) European integration. The dataset comprises a selection of party positions taken from two existing datasets: (1) The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File contains party positions for three rounds of European Parliament elections (2009, 2014, and 2019). Party positions were determined in an iterative process of party self-placement and expert judgement. For more information: https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/65944 (2) The Chapel Hill Expert Survey The Chapel Hill Expert Survey contains party positions for the national elections most closely corresponding the European Parliament elections of 2009, 2014, 2019. Party positions were determined by expert judgement. For more information: https://www.chesdata.eu/ Three additional party positions, related to DI-specific questions, are included in the dataset. These positions were determined by experts involved in the 2019 edition of euandi after the elections took place. The inclusion of party positions in the “InDivEU – party preferences” is limited to the following issues: - General questions about the EU - Questions about EU policy - Questions about differentiated integration - Questions about party ideology 1 This includes all 27 member states of the European Union in 2020, plus the United Kingdom. How to Cite When using the ‘InDivEU – Party Preferences’ dataset, please cite all of the following three articles: 1. Reiljan, Andres, Frederico Ferreira da Silva, Lorenzo Cicchi, Diego Garzia, Alexander H.
    [Show full text]
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]
  • Relations of the Catholic Church and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania Relations During the Crisis of Covid-19: Partnership Or Dispute?
    KAUNAS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, ARTS AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH GROUP - CIVIL SOCIETY AND SUSTAINABILITY Audris Narbutas Relations of the Catholic Church and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania relations during the Crisis of Covid-19: partnership or dispute? Kaunas, 2021 Audris Narbutas received a Bachelor and Master degrees from Vilnius University (Institute of International Relations and Political Science) He is a student of PhD Programme in Political Sciences, which is carried out at Kaunas University of Technology. Among his scientific interests are comparative politics, religious liberty, natural law and electoral behavior. Introduction The religious liberty is one of the most profound and fundamental deep freedoms in the West World. The vast majority of the modern democracies recognize the people’s right to worship God according to the particular traditions and norms of the different religious communities. The state of Lithuania belongs to this family of democracies where the religious liberty plays a significant role in the legal system of the Lithuania. The rights to express and practice each one’s faith are established in the Article 26 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania1 and in the bilateral treaties with the Holy See. Moreover, Lithuania approved the Law on Religious Communities and Associations, which purpose is to establish the legal relations between the different religious communities and associations and the State of Lithuania, Besides, It is an attempt to implement the human
    [Show full text]
  • Austria (2011)
    http://www.freedomhouse.org/inc/content/pubs/fiw/inc_country_detail.cfm?year=2011&country=7988&pf Print Freedom in the World - Austria (2011) Capital: Vienna Political Rights Score: 1 * Civil Liberties Score: 1 * Population: Status: Free 8,374,000 Overview Incumbent president Heinz Fischer of the Social Democratic Party of Austria won a second term in the April 2010 presidential election, but the far-right Austrian Freedom Party’s candidate received a sizeable percentage of the vote. The Freedom Party also picked up a substantial number of legislative seats in Vienna’s state elections in October. The balance between freedom of speech and Austrian hate-speech laws drew increased attention during the year as objectionable statements, mainly against Islam, came under scrutiny. Modern Austria, which emerged from the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in World War I, was annexed to Nazi Germany in 1938 before being restored to independence after World War II. The country remained neutral during the Cold War and joined the European Union in 1995. From 1986 until 2000, the two largest political parties—the center-left Social Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ) and the center-right People’s Party of Austria (ÖVP)—governed together in a grand coalition. The 1999 elections produced the first government since 1970 that did not include the SPÖ. Instead, the ÖVP formed a coalition with the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), a far-right nationalist party that won 27 percent of the popular vote. Its support had risen steadily as voters became disaffected with the large parties’ power-sharing arrangement and its barriers to major political change.
    [Show full text]
  • Ellada Ioannou Populism and the European Elections in Cyprus
    Spring 14 The Risks of growing Populism and the European elections: Populism and the European elections in Cyprus Author: Ellada Ioannou Populism and the European elections in Cyprus Ellada Ioannou1 The aim of this paper, is to examine the rise of Populism in Europe and its association with the increase in anti-European sentiments, using Cyprus as a case study. A questionnaire in the format of a survey, was completed by 1009 Cypriot participants. The findings, were that compared to other European Union member states, show that Populism and Euroscepticism in Cyprus seem, at present, not to be extensively prevalent. However, there seems to be a slight shift towards Euroscepticism and pre-conditions for the emergence and rise of radical right-wing Populism in Cyprus, are evident. Introduction While definitions of populism have varied over the years, making “populism” a rather vague and ill-defined concept, scholars and political analysts agree that its general ideology is that society is divided into two groups: the “pure people” and the “corrupt elitist” and that politics should be, above all, an expression of the general will of the people.2 With its positive connotation, it is argued, that populism can have a positive, corrective impact on democracy, by pointing out the need to integrate people’s ideas and interests into the political system and the political agenda.3 However, “populism” in general has acquired a negative connotation, as a potential threat to democracy, due to its historical association with authoritarian rule and due to some of its characteristics such as “illiberal democracy” and its exclusive nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Guide Euroscepticism
    Information Guide Euroscepticism A guide to information sources on Euroscepticism, with hyperlinks to further sources of information within European Sources Online and on external websites Contents Introduction .................................................................................................. 2 Brief Historical Overview................................................................................. 2 Euro Crisis 2008 ............................................................................................ 3 European Elections 2014 ................................................................................ 5 Euroscepticism in Europe ................................................................................ 8 Eurosceptic organisations ......................................................................... 10 Eurosceptic thinktanks ............................................................................. 10 Transnational Eurosceptic parties and political groups .................................. 11 Eurocritical media ................................................................................... 12 EU Reaction ................................................................................................. 13 Information sources in the ESO database ........................................................ 14 Further information sources on the internet ..................................................... 14 Copyright © 2016 Cardiff EDC. All rights reserved. 1 Cardiff EDC is part of the University Library
    [Show full text]