DOCSLIB.ORG

The Rise of Insurgent Europeanism | Mapping Civil Society Visions of Europe 2018-2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Rise of Insurgent Europeanism | Mapping Civil Society Visions of Europe 2018-2020 The Rise of Insurgent VISIONS OF EUROPE MAPPING CIVIL SOCIETY 2018-2020 Europeanism Mapping Civil Society Visions of Europe 2018-2020 Luke Cooper, Roch Dunin-Wąsowicz, Mary Kaldor, Niccolò Milanese and Iavor Rangelov The Rise of Insurgent Europeanism | Mapping Civil Society Visions of Europe 2018-2020 About the Report This report presents findings of Visions of Europe, a project of research and engagement at the London School of Economics and Political Science based at LSE IDEAS. For more information about Visions of Europe events and publications visit www.europeforthemany.com. About the Authors Luke Cooper is a Consultant and Associate Researcher at LSE IDEAS. Roch Dunin-Wąsowicz is a Research Officer at LSE IDEAS and lectures sociology at the UCL Social Research Institute. Mary Kaldor is the Principal Investigator of the Conflict Research Programme and Professor Emeritus of Global Governance at LSE. Niccolò Milanese is Director of European Alternatives. Iavor Rangelov is Assistant Professorial Research Fellow at LSE IDEAS and Co-Founder of the Civic Ecosystems Initiative. Acknowledgments We thank our partners in carrying out Visions of Europe – European Alternatives, the Europe’s Futures project at the Institute for Human Sciences (IWM) in Vienna, and Another Europe – for their contributions to the project, and the Open Society Initiative for Europe (OSIFE) for financial support. We are grateful to our team of dedicated research assistants for their invaluable contributions to the data analysis component of the research: Joseph Insirello, Johanna Kappenberg, and Rebecca Vestager-Jensen from the 89 Initiative. We are hugely indebted to our respondents across Europe who took part in interviews and surveys, and to all participants in our conferences and events. Table of Contents Executive summary 4 Introduction 5 1. Mapping European civil society 2018-2020: The scope of the study 7 Methodology 7 Exploring civic space: The types of movements and organisations we studied 8 2. Findings: Civil society and the European crises 11 The politicisation of European civic space 11 Civil society and the European crises 12 The Eurozone crisis: A new and transformed civic space 12 The migration crisis: A threat from the right and an impetus for civil society 13 The shock of Coronavirus: Civil society at a historic moment for Europe 14 Civic space as a forum for political contestation 15 3. New visions: Normative, Popular, and Responsive Europe 18 Normative Europe 18 Popular Europe 20 Responsive Europe 22 4. The third dimension: A theory of change for European civil society? 24 From 45-degree change to the ‘third dimension’ 24 A theory of change for the third dimension 25 5. Conference on the Future of Europe 28 6. Implications and Takeaways 30 Civil society navigates Europe’s ambiguities with a holistic approach 31 Implications for the European institutions 32 Crisis management and the centrality of the Council 33 The Conference on the Future of Europe 34 European Institutions in search of a role 34 The Committee of the Regions 35 Recommendations for the Future of Europe 36 © Luke Cooper, Roch Dunin-Wąsowicz, Mary Kaldor, Niccolò Milanese and Iavor Rangelov 2021. This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Executive summary Civil society in Europe and its attitudes towards the European project have changed dramatically in the past decade of multiple crises. This study mapped, tracked and monitored developments in European civil society over a two-year period, revealing the nature and implications of these changes. Firstly, we can observe an emerging European public sphere with competing visions of Europe. Instead of pro- and anti-Europe, the debate is about the kind of Europe that should be constructed and it includes both traditional Europeanists and insurgent Europeanists composed of grassroots activists. While right-wing movements now tend to favour a Europe of the nations, the organisations and movements we studied favour what we describe as Normative, Popular, and Responsive visions of Europe. Secondly, we observe a politicisation of civil society in Europe. The term 45 degrees has been used to describe the breakdown of the traditional distinction between vertical civil society focused on influencing policy and governance, and horizontal civil society active at a grassroots level on a range of issues. Traditionally the grassroots have often been suspicious of the political class. What has changed is the European focus of grassroots civil society and the readiness to engage with formal politics. We call this shift to the European level 45-degree politics at the third dimension. Thirdly, while issues of climate change, social justice and countering inequality, as well as racial justice and migrant rights are all hugely salient for the actors that are the subject of this study, the foremost demand that emerges from the study is for increased citizen inclusion and participation in the governance of the European Union. These changes have come about primarily because of the crises of the last decade – the financial/Euro-crisis, the migration crisis, Brexit and the pandemic. They have been facilitated by social, cultural and technological developments giving rise to trans-European networks and making a physical presence in Brussels much less important for engagement in European issues. The forthcoming Conference on the Future of Europe offers an opportunity for bringing the European Union closer to the visions of civil society. While there are likely to be widespread civil society consultations, there needs to be political pressure to translate the outcomes of these consultations into meaningful reform of the European Union. The visions of Europe put forward by civil society could be described as a set of proposals for a twenty-first century version of democracy. Twentieth century democracy was focussed on the national level and based on traditional vertical forms of representation. If democracy means the design of procedures, rules and institutions that enable individual citizens to influence and participate in the decisions that affect their lives and to hold decision-makers to account, then these procedures, rules and institutions need to reflect the complex, transnational character of contemporary European and global society. Twenty-first century democracy has to involve citizens participation alongside formal representation, it has to be multi-level (European, national, local and regional), it has to encompass the diversity, cosmopolitanism and localism of European citizens, and it has to be able to overcome social fractures. That is why we end by proposing a permanent European Citizens Assembly, the empowerment of regions and cities, a secure and inclusive European citizenship, and an extension and deepening of the social pillar. 4 Introduction Ten years ago, some members of this research team undertook a study of newly emerging social movements and movement-parties and how they perceived the European project.1 The main conclusion was that trans- European civil society was bifurcated. There was a group of what might be called elite or institutionalised civil society, composed of NGOs, think tanks or trades unions, who were Brussels focussed and engaged in debate and advocacy about European reform. But the European Union and its future was simply not an issue for grassroots civil society activists, concerned with economic and social justice, climate change, or migrant and minority rights; they were preoccupied with the national or local level. Right-wing nationalist movements tended to be Euro- sceptic, while progressive activists tended either to take Europe for granted, seeing themselves as the Erasmus, EasyJet, Euro generation, or were highly critical of the neo-liberalism of the European Union. All this has changed. That is the conclusion of this study, which mapped, tracked and monitored developments in European civil society over a two-year period. The main findings are three-fold. Firstly, we can observe an emerging European public sphere peopled by competing visions of Europe. Instead of debates about for or against Europe, the debate is about the kind of Europe that should be in the process of construction and it is a debate that includes both the traditional Europeanists – the Brussels-focussed policy community – and insurgent Europeanists composed of grassroots activists. While right-wing movements now tend to favour a Europe of the nations, the organisations and movements that are the subject of this study favour what we describe as normative, popular, and responsive visions of Europe. Secondly, we observe a politicisation of civil society in Europe. We note how the term 45 degrees has been used to describe the breakdown of the traditional distinction between vertical civil society preoccupied with policy advocacy and influence on political parties and governance, and horizontal civil society active at a grassroots level on a range of social, green or economic issues. Traditionally the grassroots have often been suspicious of the political class. What has changed is the European focus of grassroots civil society and the readiness to engage with formal politics. We call this shift to the European level 45-degree politics at the third (international/regional) dimension. Thirdly, while issues of climate change, social justice and countering inequality, as well as racial justice
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EYE2018 Programme 3 FOREWORDS
    European youthevent Programme 1-2 June 2018 Strasbourg #EYE2018 European youthevent Table of content Forewords .................................................................................................................. p. 5 The EYE follow-up ................................................................................................... p. 8 Programme overview ............................................................................................ p. 9 Activity formats ...................................................................................................... p. 10 Extra activities Collective events ............................................................................................................. p. 15 Activities without booking ............................................................................................... p. 18 Drop-in activities ............................................................................................................. p. 30 Artistic performances ...................................................................................................... p. 42 Bookable activities YOUNG AND OLD: Keeping up with the digital revolution ................................................. p. 50 RICH AND POOR: Calling for a fair share .......................................................................... p. 68 APART AND TOGETHER: Working out for a stronger Europe .............................................. p. 92 SAFE AND DANGEROUS: Staying alive in turbulent times ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Our European Future OUR EUROPEAN
    Our European Future European Our OUR EUROPEAN ChartingFUTURE a Progressive Course in the World Ideas contributed by László Andor, Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, François Balate, Peter Bofinger, Tanja A. Börzel, Mercedes Bresso, Stefan Collignon, Olivier Costa, Emma Dowling, Saïd El Khadraoui, Gerda Falkner, Georg Fischer, Diego Lopez Garrido, Hedwig Giusto, Giovanni Grevi, Ulrike Guérot, Paolo Guerrieri, Lukas Hochscheidt, Robin Huguenot-Noël, Guillaume Klossa, Halliki Kreinin, Michael A. Landesmann, Jean-François Lebrun, Jo Leinen, Lora Lyubenova, Justin Nogarede, Vassilis Ntousas, Alvaro Oleart, Carlota Perez, David Rinaldi, Barbara Roggeveen, Vivien A. Schmidt, Ania Skrzypek, Mario Telò and Britta Thomsen edited by Maria João Rodrigues OUR EUROPEAN FUTURE The Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS) is the think tank of the progressive political family at EU level. Our mission is to develop innovative research, policy advice, training and debates to inspire and inform progressive politics and policies across Europe. We operate as hub for thinking to facilitate the emergence of progressive answers to the chal- lenges that Europe faces today. FEPS works in close partnership with its members and partners, forging connections and boosting coherence among stakeholders from the world of politics, academia and civil society at local, regional, national, European and global levels. Today FEPS benefits from a solid network of 68 member organisations. Among these, 43 are full members, 20 have observer status and 5 are ex-of- ficio members. In addition to this network of organisations that are active in the promotion of progressive values, FEPS also has an extensive network of partners, including renowned universities, scholars, policymakers and activists. Our ambition is to undertake intellectual reflection for the benefit of the progressive movement, and to promote the founding principles of the EU – freedom, equality, solidarity, democracy, respect of human rights, funda- mental freedoms and human dignity, and respect of the rule of law.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-84007-1 — the Veil of Participation Alexander Hudson Index More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-84007-1 — The Veil of Participation Alexander Hudson Index More Information Index Ackerman, Bruce, 15, 29 Brandão Monteiro, José Carlos, 102 advertising, 1, 2, 56, 57, 80 Brasília, 98 Afghanistan, 1 Brazil, 2, 9, 25, 39, 46, 78, 120, 138, 176, 179 African Christian Democratic Party, 52, 71 Bright Future party (Iceland), 136 African National Congress, 3, 13, 22, 39, 44–48, 77, Bucaram, Abdalá, 153 181 Constitution Committee, 43 Camerer, Sheila, 74 internal discipline, 53, 55, 66 Canada, 18, 33 view of public participation, 72 capital punishment, 74 Afrikaners, 46, 64 Carey, John, 25, 178 Al-Noor Party (Egypt), 158 case selection, 8, 80, 113 Alþingi, 115, 116, 120, 133 Catholic Church, 100, 101 Alarcón, Fabián, 153 Centrão, 3, 23, 86 Albania, 162–164 Central Única dos Trabalhadores, 101 Albert, Richard, 183 Chabane, Ohm Collins, 36 Aliança Renovadora Nacional, 85 Chambers, Simone, 29 Alianza País, 154, 155 Charlottetown Accord, 18 Almond, Gabriel, 26 Choudhry, Sujit, 5 amendments, constitutional, 42, 46, 80, 81, 180 citizens’ assemblies, 185 apartheid, 41–45, 76 civil society organizations, 87, 96–98, 101, 115, 129 Arinos Commission, 108–111 Colón-Ríos, Joel, 28 Arinos, Afonso, 108 Colombia, 170–172 Assembleia Nacional Constituinte, 23, 27, 85, Committee of Experts (Kenya), 157 84–86, 87, 91, 102, 107, 109, 112 Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, 32 rules of procedure, 99 Confederação Nacional dos Trabalhadores na Systematization Commission, 84, 100 Agricultura, 99, 101 Confederación de Nacionalidades
    [Show full text]
  • CONSTITUTIONAL and INSTITUTIONAL TOOLKIT for ESTABLISHING the FEDERAL UNITED STATES of EUROPE Striving for Federal Statehood Of
    CONSTITUTIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL TOOLKIT FOR ESTABLISHING THE FEDERAL UNITED STATES OF EUROPE Striving for federal statehood of Europe is not political ideology but deriving consequences from science FEDERAL ALLIANCE OF EUROPEAN FEDERALISTS (FAEF) Copyright © Federal Alliance of European Federalists ISBN: 978-90-831425-0-0 Publisher: Sterk Leren Academy, March 2021 Printing on demand: JouwBoek.nl - U2pi BV The copyright on this digital Constitutional and Institutional Toolkit for establishing the federal United States of Europe belongs to the Federal Alliance of European Federalists (FAEF). It may be distributed free of charge, but not used for commercial purposes. If the Toolkit is to be used for educational purposes it would be appreciated if you informed us ([email protected]). If you would like to have a hard copy you can order it by clicking this link: https://www.faef.eu/request-for-toolkit/ The price is €34,75, excluding shipping costs. The FAEF is happy to work with individuals and organisations that are striving to create the United States of Europe. For that reason, the FAEF as a federation is an open house for any organisation that wants to help increase the degree of organisation of federal movements. See our website www.faef.eu. Supporting us is highly appreciated. With this Toolkit, a definitive start can be made to create a federal Europe. Finally. It will not be easy. What has gone wrong in Europe in two hundred years since the creation of the first federal state, the US in 1787-1789, cannot be undone in a short time. But the time is ripe.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenger Party List
    Appendix List of Challenger Parties Operationalization of Challenger Parties A party is considered a challenger party if in any given year it has not been a member of a central government after 1930. A party is considered a dominant party if in any given year it has been part of a central government after 1930. Only parties with ministers in cabinet are considered to be members of a central government. A party ceases to be a challenger party once it enters central government (in the election immediately preceding entry into office, it is classified as a challenger party). Participation in a national war/crisis cabinets and national unity governments (e.g., Communists in France’s provisional government) does not in itself qualify a party as a dominant party. A dominant party will continue to be considered a dominant party after merging with a challenger party, but a party will be considered a challenger party if it splits from a dominant party. Using this definition, the following parties were challenger parties in Western Europe in the period under investigation (1950–2017). The parties that became dominant parties during the period are indicated with an asterisk. Last election in dataset Country Party Party name (as abbreviation challenger party) Austria ALÖ Alternative List Austria 1983 DU The Independents—Lugner’s List 1999 FPÖ Freedom Party of Austria 1983 * Fritz The Citizens’ Forum Austria 2008 Grüne The Greens—The Green Alternative 2017 LiF Liberal Forum 2008 Martin Hans-Peter Martin’s List 2006 Nein No—Citizens’ Initiative against
    [Show full text]
  • Codebook: Government Composition, 1960-2019
    Codebook: Government Composition, 1960-2019 Codebook: SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPARATIVE POLITICAL DATA SET – GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION 1960-2019 Klaus Armingeon, Sarah Engler and Lucas Leemann The Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set provides detailed information on party composition, reshuffles, duration, reason for termination and on the type of government for 36 democratic OECD and/or EU-member countries. The data begins in 1959 for the 23 countries formerly included in the CPDS I, respectively, in 1966 for Malta, in 1976 for Cyprus, in 1990 for Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, in 1991 for Poland, in 1992 for Estonia and Lithuania, in 1993 for Latvia and Slovenia and in 2000 for Croatia. In order to obtain information on both the change of ideological composition and the following gap between the new an old cabinet, the supplement contains alternative data for the year 1959. The government variables in the main Comparative Political Data Set are based upon the data presented in this supplement. When using data from this data set, please quote both the data set and, where appropriate, the original source. Please quote this data set as: Klaus Armingeon, Sarah Engler and Lucas Leemann. 2021. Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set – Government Composition 1960-2019. Zurich: Institute of Political Science, University of Zurich. These (former) assistants have made major contributions to the dataset, without which CPDS would not exist. In chronological and descending order: Angela Odermatt, Virginia Wenger, Fiona Wiedemeier, Christian Isler, Laura Knöpfel, Sarah Engler, David Weisstanner, Panajotis Potolidis, Marlène Gerber, Philipp Leimgruber, Michelle Beyeler, and Sarah Menegal.
    [Show full text]
  • Event European
    European youthevent Programme 1-2 June 2018 Strasbourg #EYE2018 European youthevent Themes SPECIAL EYE EVENTS .............................................................................................p. 10 1. YOUNG AND OLD: keeping up with the digital revolution ..........................................p. 14 2. RICH AND POOR: calling for a fair share ...........................................................................................p. 32 3. APART AND TOGETHER: working out for a stronger Europe......................................................p. 56 4. SAFE AND DANGEROUS: staying alive in turbulent times ...............................................................p. 86 5. LOCAL AND GLOBAL: protecting our planet .......................................................................................p. 104 SKILLS, NETWORKING, CREATIVE WORKSHOPS AND GAMES ........................................p. 120 ARTISTIC PERFORMANCES ........................................................................p. 132 2 EYE2018 programme 3 PROGRAMME OVERVIEW « Friday, 1 June 2018 10:00 - 10:30 Opening Ceremony 10:00 - 12:00 Opening Plenary Session in the hemicycle of the European Parliament 11:00 - 20:00 Panels, idea labs, artistic performances and workshops organised by the European Parliament in cooperation with EYE partners and youth groups 11:00 - 18:00 Yo!Fest Village: political debates, interactive workshops, live music, artistic performances and educational activities, organised by the European Youth Forum 18:00 - 00:00 Yo!Fest open-air
    [Show full text]
  • Representations of Europe and the Nation in Current and Prospective Member-States: Media, Elites and Civil Society — Euronat Ec Ki-Na-22009-En-S
    EU RESEARCH ON SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES Representations of Europe and the nation of Europe Representations member-states: and prospective in current media, elites and civil society EURONAT 22009 EUR FINAL REPORT FINAL EC REPRESENTATIONS OF EUROPE AND THE NATION IN CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE MEMBER-STATES: MEDIA, ELITES AND CIVIL SOCIETY — EURONAT EUR 22009 KI-NA-22009-EN-S Interested in European research? RTD info is our quarterly magazine keeping you in touch with main developments (results, SALES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS programmes, events, etc.). It is available in English, French and German. A free sample copy or free subscription can be obtained from: Publications for sale produced by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities are available from our sales agents throughout the world. European Commission You can find the list of sales agents on the Publications Office website Directorate-General for Research (http://publications.europa.eu) or you can apply for it by fax (352) 29 29-42758. Information and Communication Unit Contact the sales agent of your choice and place your order. B-1049 Brussels Fax (32-2) 29-58220 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/rtdinfo/index_en.html EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research Directorate K — Social sciences and humanities. Foresight E-mail: [email protected] http://www.cordis.lu/citizens/ http://europa.eu.iknt/comm/research/social-sciences/index_en.html EUROPEAN COMMISSION EU RESEARCH ON SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
    [Show full text]
  • Icelandic National Election Study - ICENES 2013 Questionnaire
    Icelandic National Election Study - ICENES 2013 Questionnaire Ólafur Þ. Harðarson Hulda Þórisdóttir Eva H. Önnudóttir Table of contents Notes .............................................................................................................................. 9 Information about interviewers and respondents – registered ....................................... 9 Interest in politics ......................................................................................................... 11 1. Do you consider your interest in politics very great, great, some, little, or are you not interested in politics at all? .......................................................................... 11 Political trust ................................................................................................................ 11 2. Do you think that politicians are in general trustworthy, that many of them are trustworthy, some are trustworthy, few, or perhaps none? ....................................... 11 Political problems / party competence ......................................................................... 12 3. What do you think is the most important political problem facing Iceland today?........................................................................................................................ 12 4. Thinking of the most important political problem facing Iceland which party do you think is best in dealing with it? .......................................................................... 13 5. And which party do
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Iceland Country Report | SGI Sustainable Governance Indicators
    Iceland Report Gretar Þór EyÞórsson, Thorvaldur Gylfason, Detlef Jahn (Coordinator) Sustainable Governance Indicators 2020 © vege - stock.adobe.com Sustainable Governance SGI Indicators SGI 2020 | 2 Iceland Report Executive Summary The cabinet coalition formed after the October 2017 elections between the Left-Green Movement, the Independence Party and the Progressive Party is still in office. The prime minister is Katrín Jakobsdóttir, leader of the Left- Green Movement. Following a period of considerable political turbulence, which included three parliamentary elections in four years (2013, 2016 and 2017), things have stabilized. After limited strikes in early spring 2019, Efling, the Store and Office Workers’ Union (VR), and the Federation of General and Special Workers (SGS) signed a collective agreement with the Confederation of Icelandic Enterprise (SA) in April 2019. The agreement will expire on 1 November 2022. Members of the Efling and VR trade unions, and members of trade unions belonging to SGS approved the collective agreements. The contract applies to more than 100,000 members of 30 different unions. At the time of writing, excluding another agreement signed in mid-October 2019 between five unions and the Icelandic Confederation of University Graduates (BHM), no other unions have signed contracts. In March 2019, one of the two largest Icelandic airlines, WOW air, declared bankruptcy and ceased operations. This led to 1,500 people immediately losing their jobs. Six months later, 300 to 400 of them are still without jobs. Though the overall impact of this bankruptcy has not been as large as initially feared. In response, the other Icelandic airline, Icelandair, has increased its passenger capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • Iceland's Long Road to Its EU Application
    An evolving EU engaging a changing Mediterranean region Jean Monnet Occasional Paper 03/2013 Taking its place in Europe – Iceland’s long road to its EU application by Magnús Árni Magnússon Copyright © 2013, Magnús Árni Magnússon, University of Malta ISSN 2307-3950 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without any prior written permission from the Institute for European Studies, University of Malta. Publisher: Institute for European Studies, Msida, Malta. The Institute for European Studies The Institute for European Studies is a multi-disciplinary teaching and research Institute at the University of Malta, offering courses in European Studies which fully conform to the Bologna guidelines, including an evening diploma, a bachelor’s degree, a masters and a Ph.D. The Institute also operates a number of Erasmus agreements for staff and student exchanges. Founded in 1992 as the European Documentation and Research Centre (EDRC), the Institute was granted the status of a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence in 2004. The Institute is engaged in various research and publication activities in European Integration Studies and is a member of the Trans-European Policy Studies Association (TEPSA), the LISBOAN network, EPERN, EADI, and the two Euro-Mediterranean networks, EuroMeSCo and FEMISE. The Institute is also a member of the Council for European Studies (hosted at Columbia University). The research interests of its staff include comparative politics and history of the European Union (EU); EU institutions; EU external relations and enlargement; small states in the EU; Malta in the EU; Euro-Mediterranean relations; Stability and Growth Pact; economic governance of the euro area; Europe 2020; EU development policies, climate change, international economics, economic causes and consequences of globalisation and EU trade and cohesion policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Iceland Report Gretar Þór Eyþórsson, Thorvaldur Gylfason, Detlef Jahn (Coordinator)
    Iceland Report Gretar Þór EyÞórsson, Thorvaldur Gylfason, Detlef Jahn (Coordinator) Sustainable Governance Indicators 2019 © vege - stock.adobe.com Sustainable Governance SGI Indicators SGI 2019 | 2 Iceland Report Executive Summary After only eight months in power, the previous coalition government (formed after the 2016 elections) collapsed when Bright Future announced its departure from the coalition due to a perceived collapse in trust within the government. In October 2017, a second parliamentary election within a year took place, with the previous government losing its parliamentary majority. The Center Party (Miðflokkurinn) – the new party led by Sigmundur D. Gunnlaugsson, the former prime minister and chairman of the Progressive Party – won 11% of the vote and seven parliamentary seats. The People’s Party won 7% of the vote and four seats. For the first time, eight parties won seats in parliament. The Left-Green Movement (11 seats), the Independence Party (16 seats) and the Progressive Party (eight seats) formed a new coalition government, with Katrín Jakobsdóttir, leader of the Left-Green Movement, as prime minister. Consequently, the current coalition government spans the left-right political spectrum. Two of the 11 elected Left-Green Movement members of parliament declared that they would not support a coalition that included the Independence Party. However, they have so far not caused any problems for the coalition, which holds 35 out of 63 parliamentary seats (or 33 out of 63 seats if the two dissenting Left-Green Movement parliamentarians are excluded). The coalition parties received a cumulative 53% of the vote in the 2017 election. Though, according to Gallup polling, their support fell from 74% in December 2017 to 45% a year later.
    [Show full text]