View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by LSE Theses Online The London School of Economics and Political Science Euroscepticism and the Radical Right: domestic strategies and party system dynamics Sofia Vasilopoulou A thesis submitted to the European Institute of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, November, 2010. 1 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorization does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. 2 Abstract The thesis analyses the phenomenon of party-based Euroscepticism with specific reference to radical right parties. It provides a bridge between the literatures on party behaviour, radical right parties and the study of Euroscepticism. Challenging the notion that parties belonging to the same party family display similar positions on European integration, it argues that radical right parties do not adopt a uniform EU stance. By putting forward a typology of radical right Euroscepticism, the thesis establishes that radical right European positions differ in terms of content, strength and motivation. In explaining this divergence, the thesis adopts a framework of party strategic behaviour and argues that party positions on Europe are related to the endogeneity of the party system and the dynamics of inter party competition. In particular, the thesis shows that a radical right party’s position on European integration as well as the way in which it accommodates the European issue in its discourse is a function of the party’s wider agenda in the national party system. The latter is developed with reference to (1) party type and (2) its predominant aims and objectives at the domestic level. The thesis demonstrates that the European issue is integral to the radical right’s discursive toolkit but the ways in which the party chooses to debate the issue and/or politicise it largely depend on the national context. This thesis employs a nested research design as a mixed methods strategy joining the study of the wider universe of European radical right parties with intensive case study qualitative analysis. It commences with an overview of the general patterns and dynamics of radical right Euroscepticism both across Europe and within the political arenas where the three party case studies operate. It proceeds by providing an in depth study of three radical right parties during the period 1999-2009, including the French National Front, the Greek Popular Orthodox Rally and the Italian National Alliance. 3 Acknowledgements I am deeply indebted to my supervisor Professor Kevin Featherstone who has inspired my work throughout my years at the LSE. Without his invaluable advice, commitment and support, the PhD experience would not have been as motivating and academically stimulating. I would also like to thank Dr Jonathan Hopkin for kindly accepting to co-supervise, his continuous support and useful advice on general career-related issues. This research would not have been possible without a generous grant from the Bodossakis Foundation, Greece. I would also like to acknowledge the University of London Central Research Fund for funding my fieldwork and the Hellenic Observatory for supporting my Conference attendance. I would like to thank the European Election Studies Euromanifestos Project and the Political Documents Archive for providing me access to primary source material. Sofia Tzortzi has helped me locate a number of Greek party manifestos. I am obliged to all people that agreed to be interviewed. I especially wish to thank Pam Schofield for proofreading parts of the thesis. A number of people have read and commented on the previous versions of this work. I am grateful to Michael Bruter, Willem Buiter, Simon Hix, Bob Hancké, Kostas Gemenis, Simon Glendinning, Peter Mair, Paul Mitchell, Thomas Poguntke, Waltraud Schelkle. Special thanks to Liz Carter for responding to my numerous emails and helping me overcome a ‘PhD crisis’. I owe a lot to Matthew Whiting for introducing me to the wordscores approach. Authoring a PhD is a lengthy process involving numerous ups and downs. I am ever so grateful to my PhD cohort for their understanding and for being there for me. I would like to thank Alison for being super amazing, Bryon for the sweeties, Costi for long 4 early morning (and rather stress-relieving) chats, Emelyne for her optimism, Mariana for being so understanding, Max for his juicy jokes, Raya for her aerobics classes, Steve for his presence, Thanassis for the spinach pies, Tine for her advice and Zsofi for her determination. Special thanks to Andreas, Kyriakos and Sotiris for spending long drinking sessions with me at the George and for being so much fun in every respect. The endless hours I spent in the PhD room would have been very difficult without Katjana and Valentina. Lengthy discussions over any aspect of the PhD process, politics, relationships and fashion have made my life much more pleasant. They have both been great sources of support. I sincerely hope our friendship will last outside the PhD room. I thank my very good friend and colleague, Daphne Halikiopoulou, who has been there for me since I first met her. Daphne has made the PhD editing process significantly less painful. I thank her for continuously cheering me up, for long academically stimulating discussions, and teaching me to believe in myself and my work. I thank my mother and father for believing in me and my extended family in London for their unfailing support. In particular, I would like to thank Mosha for her unconditional love. Last, but not least, I would like to thank my boyfriend, Matt, for understanding me, taking care of me and making me happy during these challenging but enjoyable years. I dedicate my thesis to him. 5 Table of contents Abstract ______________________________________________________________ 3 Acknowledgements _____________________________________________________ 4 Table of contents ______________________________________________________ 6 List of tables _________________________________________________________ 11 List of figures ________________________________________________________ 13 List of abbreviations ___________________________________________________ 14 Chapter 1 Euroscepticism and the radical Right: domestic strategies and party system dynamics ____________________________________________________________ 16 1.1 The research agenda and puzzle ______________________________________ 16 1.2 The Argument and theoretical approach _______________________________ 21 1.3 Research design ___________________________________________________ 27 1.3.1 Methodology and case selection _________________________________________ 27 1.3.2 Sources _____________________________________________________________ 30 1.3.3 Time frame _________________________________________________________ 32 1.4 Originality and contribution of the thesis _______________________________ 33 1.5 Outline of the thesis ________________________________________________ 34 Part 1 Theory, Conceptualisation and Measurement _________________________ 37 Chapter 2 Theorising Radical Right Euroscepticism _________________________ 38 Introduction _________________________________________________________ 38 2.1 The Radical right party family ________________________________________ 39 2.1.1 The Issue of Terminology ______________________________________________ 40 2.1.2 Classifying the radical right ____________________________________________ 40 2. 2 The academic debate _______________________________________________ 44 2.2.1 Dimensions of political conflict _________________________________________ 44 2.2.2 Party-based Euroscepticism ____________________________________________ 46 2. 3 Answering the research question _____________________________________ 50 2.3.1 Party types and party behaviour ________________________________________ 51 2.3.2 Radical right party behaviour __________________________________________ 52 2.3.3 The hypotheses ______________________________________________________ 55 2.3.4 The argument _______________________________________________________ 58 6 2.3.5 Falsifiability _________________________________________________________ 59 Conclusion __________________________________________________________ 60 Chapter 3 Defining and measuring radical right Euroscepticism _______________ 62 Introduction _________________________________________________________ 62 3.1 Defining negative attitudes towards European integration _________________ 63 3.1.1 A short history of Euroscepticism: the contextual use of the term _____________ 63 3.1.2 Definitions in the literature: theoretical contributions and shortcomings _______ 64 3.2 Conceptualising radical right attitudes on European integration: three patterns of opposition ___________________________________________________________ 68 3.2.1 Four aspects of European integration ____________________________________ 68 3.2.2 The three patterns of