How Government Coalition Affects Demonstration Composition
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Acta Polit DOI 10.1057/s41269-017-0071-z ORIGINAL ARTICLE How government coalition affects demonstration composition. Comparing twin austerity demonstrations in Belgium 1 2 Ruud Wouters • Pauline Ketelaars • 2 3 Stefaan Walgrave • Nina Eggert Ó Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2017 Abstract Does the composition of a government affect the beliefs, motivations, and mobilization trajectories of protest participants addressing the government? We make use of a straightforward research design to test how the loss of a left-wing ally in power affected the individual-level characteristics of participants in two ‘twin’ demonstrations. Both demonstrations were staged by the same organizers (trade unions) who launched identical campaigns on the same issue (austerities) in the same country (Belgium) forwarding the same demands (fair taxation). The first demonstration was staged in 2011 against a newly formed center-left government. The second demonstration was staged in 2014 against a newly formed center-right government. Relying on protest survey evidence, campaign material and insights of political opportunity structure theory (POS), we mount evidence that the loss of a left-wing ally produced a threat that resulted in (1) bleaker perceptions of partici- pants (effectiveness, personal situation, trust), (2) the activation of informal mobi- lizing networks, and (3) different motivational dynamics (less instrumental). As such, this study contributes to a better understanding of macro–micro dynamics in contentious politics. Conclusion and discussion center on ways of studying the macro–micro link in protest participation research. Keywords Protest Á Political opportunity structure Á Austerity Á Economic crisis Á Elite allies & Ruud Wouters [email protected] 1 Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2 University of Antwerp, Antwerp (Media, Movement & Politics, M2P), Antwerp, Belgium 3 University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland R. Wouters Introduction Does the political context in which a demonstration takes place affects its composition? Or, in more operational terms, does the presence of specific parties in a government coalition influence who demonstrates, what motivates these demonstrators, and how they were mobilized? In the study of social movements, contextual accounts of protest have reached canonical stature (Koopmans 1999; Meyer 2004). Political process theories and theories of political opportunity structures (POSs) have successfully increased the understanding of protest emergence, development, and impact (Andrews 2001; Kriesi et al. 1995; McAdam 1982; McAdam et al. 1996). Most of these studies link the macro-level of the political context with the meso-level of movement processes. Hardly any studies in this tradition, however, scrutinize whether and how the political context influences micro-level characteristics of individual participants in specific demonstrations (Walgrave and Verhulst 2009). In this article, we make use of a unique data opportunity to explore such a macro–micro relationship. Much as is the case with twin studies in psychology, we compare two demonstrations that share the same ‘genetic’ material. Our two demonstrations were organized in the same country (Belgium), by the same organizers (trade unions), who set in motion identical mobilization campaigns on exactly the same issue (austerity). The main difference between the twin demonstrations, we argue, and hence the reason why people with different perceptions, motivations, and mobilization trajectories showed up, is the political context in which they were staged. The first demonstration, in 2011, targeted a center-left government coalition with a left-wing, socialist prime minister. The second demonstration, in 2014, targeted a center-right government with a right-wing prime minister leading a cabinet without left-wing parties. We argue that this change in government coalition, and more specifically, the loss of a left-wing ally in power, is the main cause of the differences between the demonstrators at both events. To tackle this puzzle, we use campaign material of the organizers to give a detailed picture of the similarities between the cases at hand. And, we use protest survey data gathered at both events to draw a profile of the participants. We find significant differences between participants in these two largely similar demon- strations: perceptions of participants were bleaker, mobilization was broader, and motivations were less instrumental in the 2014 demonstration. Building on contextual theories in social movement studies, we find confirmation for the argument that the loss of a left-wing ally in power, compared to when protestors could still count on a left-wing ally in government in 2011, increased the threat for the organizing social movements and their constituents. Being confronted with a right-wing government, they were unsure how far the government would be willing to go in its austerity policy and there was no way to stop the government from within. We argue that this increased threat affected potential demonstrators’ propensity to participate and their underlying beliefs. As a consequence, also the How government coalition affects demonstration composition… demonstrations were composed differently in terms of demonstrators’ interpretation and mobilization processes. First, we describe both mobilization campaigns, stressing the many similarities and few differences between both episodes of contention. Next, we present the theoretical framework. We engage both with studies that tackle macro–micro links in protest studies and with work that deals with participation in times of austerity. After the presentation of our data and methods, we put forward a series of comparisons, mounting evidence that fits our theoretical expectations. The conclusion and discussion center on how future research might tackle the complex macro–micro puzzle. Twin anti-austerity protests in Belgium In 2008, the economic crisis hit Europe. The more than 7 years of economic downturn that followed became known as ‘‘The Great Recession.’’ European governments enacted austerity policies leading to severe budget cuts which propelled waves of anti-austerity protests across Europe (Giugni and Grasso 2015). Simultaneously, Belgium dealt with a severe political crisis related to issues of state reformation (Devos and Bouteca 2010). Against this background of political and economic crisis, the two demonstrations—the main events of two protest waves— took place. Both events were organized by the Belgian trade unions as a reaction to newly formed governments and their proposed austerity policies. In the next paragraphs, we give a detailed account of both demonstrations and of the context in which they took place. Table 1 summarizes the most important elements. We have alternatives The first demonstration, labeled ‘‘We have Alternatives,’’ was announced on November 15, 2011. The unions aimed to put pressure on the government formation process. Although an agreement about state reform was reached, the political crisis was still fresh and the negotiating coalition partners failed to find an agreement on the budget. In light of the economic crisis, budget cuts and austerity measures were urgently demanded by the European Commission. Aiming to prevent severe budget cuts, the unions announced a wave of protest, consisting of multiple events spread over a 2-month period. They demanded no blind austerity measures, no adaptation of the consumer price index mechanism and no dismantling of unemployment benefits. The unions proposed alternative measures: investment in new, sustainable jobs and pursuing fiscal justice by means of a capital gains tax and more actively tracing and sanctioning of fiscal fraud. On November 26, 2011, the Socialist, Liberal, and Christian Democratic parties reached an agreement on the budget and after 541 days the Di Rupo government was founded: a classic tripartite with strong socialist presence and a socialist prime minister. The unions claimed that the new government distributed austerity measures unequally across society. On December 2, 50,000 demonstrators walked the streets of Brussels, 80,000 if we follow the count of the organizers. The high R. Wouters Table 1 Overview of the campaign and context of the two ‘twin’ demonstrations We have alternatives National manifestation Date December 2, 2011 November 6, 2014 Organizers ACV-ABVV-ACLVB ACV-ABVV-ACLVB Campaign 15 November: announcement of event 15 October: announcement of event 2 December: National demo 6 November: National demo 22 December: strike public services 24 Nov–8 Dec: provincial strikes 30 January: National strike 15 December: National strike Demands ‘‘Hands off the index’’ ‘‘Hands off the index’’ ‘‘Fiscal justice’’ ‘‘Fiscal justice’’ ‘‘Fair taxation’’ ‘‘Fair taxation’’ Government Di Rupo Michel Composition PS-Cdh-MR ? MR ? Sp.a-CD & V-Open Vld N-VA-CD & V-Open Vld Inauguration December 6, 2011 October 11, 2014 Negotiations 541 days 139 days Political crisis High Low Economic crisis High Moderate Negotiations before No No Turnout 50,000 (police); 80,000 (organizers) 120,000 (consensus) Disruption No Yes Negotiations after Yes Yes turnout was considered a success by organizers and news media. The same day, trade union leaders met with Di Rupo and announced a national strike. The new government was given time to adapt the budget agreement in favor of trade union demands. If the government would not compromise, the unions would