Political Parties and Party Systems in World Politics: A Comparative Analysis of Party­ Based Foreign Policy Contestation and Change Angelos­Stylianos Chryssogelos Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of Political and Social Sciences of the European University Institute Florence, December, 2012 European University Institute Department of Political and Social Sciences Political Parties and Party Systems in World Politics: A Comparative Analysis of Party­Based Foreign Policy Contestation and Change Angelos­Stylianos Chryssogelos Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of Political and Social Sciences of the European University Institute Examining Board Professor Dr. Friedrich Kratochwil, EUI (Supervisor) Professor Dr. Luciano Bardi, University of Pisa Professor Dr. Sven Steinmo, EUI Professor Dr. Bertjan Verbeek, Radboud University Nijmegen © Angelos­Stylianos Chryssogelos, 2012 No part of this thesis may be copied, reproduced or transmitted without prior permission of the author ABSTRACT The argument of this dissertation is that instances of foreign policy change can be best understood as interactions between ongoing dynamics of important aspects of domestic party systems and changes in a state’s normative and material international environment. I identify three types of dynamics of party systems: different patterns of coalition and opposition, different patterns of expression of social cleavages through parties, and redefinitions of the meaning attached to the main axis of competition. These dynamics provide partisan actors with the ideational resources to make sense of changes in the international system, contribute to the creation of new (domestic and foreign) policy preferences and bring about political incentives for the promotion of new foreign policies. The pace, content and fields of change are determined by the specific aspects of a party system undergoing change. Using insights from party systems theory and political sociology, the dissertation promotes the idea that the contestation of foreign policy, the engagement of domestic political actors with developments in the international system, and ultimately foreign policy change, all take place within a thick social and institutional structure that prescribes interests and delineates the terms of debate. In this way, this dissertation introduces in the field of International Relations (IR) and Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) a view of domestic politics that is made up of constrained but enabled political agents, and social structures that impose continuity while containing opportunities for effecting political change. This is a significant departure from existing works on political parties and foreign policy that usually focus on the partisan effect in government or see parties only as carriers of ideologies or societal preferences. This dissertation applies its theoretical framework to three deep historical case- studies (Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik, the decision of Canada to enter a Free Trade Agreement with the USA, and Greece’s decision to allow Turkey to acquire the status of an EU candidate-member) and four shorter cases in the shape of a plausibility probe. Using the method of structured-focused comparison, the research shows how, in varying historical, social, institutional and international contexts, foreign policy change was brought about by partisan actors who were constituted by domestic social and institutional structures, but who still found opportunities to engage with these structures and promote their own version of change in accordance with the systemically defined interests of their political parties. The dissertation concludes with a discussion of the theoretical and meta-theoretical implications of the comparative research, focusing especially on the importance of sociological approaches like the agency/structure debate in FPA and the need to ‘give teeth’ to the constructivist project in IR by applying its premises to real-world problems and cases, and by opening up the discipline to insights from other literatures. By taking comparative party politics literature seriously, this dissertation reveals the link between this conceptualization of domestic politics and debates in IR and FPA on the interplay of agents and structures, as well as the possibility of change within pertinent social and institutional arrangements. i ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For a process that was described to me when I first started off as solitary and lonely, I am surprised to think back at the time working on this dissertation and realize that the energy, support and time of so many people contributed to its successful completion. Revisiting the previous four years (and beyond), and recollecting events and faces in order to write this note of acknowledgments is probably the first time when writing this dissertation actually feels like fun. Better late than never… Very early in my time at the EUI I was told that ‘working with Fritz is like a state of mind’. Looking back at it, this is the best definition of what working under the supervision of Friedrich Kratochwil felt. An assortment of almost disparate literatures, a sometimes unmanageable amount of historical data, and an endless succession of vague ideas were brought together by Professor Kratochwil’s pressure on me to go beyond neat explanations and to think of the social world for what it is: a sum of processes and unexpected outcomes, of contingency and ambivalence. Professor Kratochwil always offered unconditional support and a unique kind of encouragement, a blend of fair criticism and an unequivocal trust in my own ideas. I thank him, not so much for helping me write a dissertation as for helping me find myself in the process. I was privileged to have my work evaluated by a host of other prominent academics. It was a terrible shock when, three years into my time at the EUI, I learned of the passing of Peter Mair. Starting already as a member of my interview panel in April 2008, and then as head of the SPS department and an unofficial co-supervisor, Peter Mair was always a reassuring and warm figure in my life at the EUI, and a constant source of encouragement. For what it’s worth, I take the opportunity here to thank him posthumously. Warm thanks are due to the three members of the evaluation jury, Luciano Bardi (who stepped in Peter Mair’s role at a later stage), Sven Steinmo, and Bertjan Verbeek. My work also benefited immensely from the thorough critique of Peter Katzenstein during my time in Cornell University. I thank him for taking the time and effort to impress on me the obvious but not always clear distinction between a narrative and an actual argument. In more than one ways, the roots of this project lie in the time I spent next to inspiring teachers before I came to the EUI. In Leiden University Jan Erk and Koen Vossen exposed me to foundational questions of comparative politics at a time when I thought I would be studying international institutions, humanitarian intervention or diplomacy. Before Leiden, I negotiated six years in the surreal world of Greek universities. Three Greek academics transmitted to me not just their knowledge but also a sense of responsibility and dignity that has guided my work and conduct in academia ever since. They are Konstantina Botsiou, Emmanouella Doussis and, of course, George Mavrogordatos. I thank them for honoring me with their trust. Writing a PhD is solitary enough – doing it in an insular place like the EUI can only make matters worse. I thank Julien and Jason, Ben and Helena, Urska, Marco, David, Eugenio and Sanne for being iii there and helping me, over a glass of beer or over a shoot-around on the court, to keep everything in Florence in its proper perspective. Special thanks to fellow Kratochwilian and comrade of the Vasco da Gama Room Eric Heine. I wish him all the best in his research and life. Back in Greece, some shady individuals ensured that I never completely escaped adolescence: Vassilis, Spyros, Thodoris and Michalis. I am certain there’s still many more ‘distinctions and journeys’ (διακρίσεις, ταξίδια πολλά) in store for us. In these four years I was away from the EUI on two different occasions: In 2010 I interrupted my research to work as a visiting fellow in the Centre for European Studies in Brussels. It was a welcome respite and an opportunity to see the world of policymaking from the inside. I thank Roland Freudenstein, my boss at CES. I also thank the Brussels gang (Antonis and Panos) and I promise them that our work is still not done. In 2011 I went to Cornell as a visiting graduate student. This visit became possible thanks to a tuition fee waiver granted to me by the Department of Government in Cornell, for which I am deeply grateful to Peter Katzenstein and Christopher Way. I thank Linda Gilbert at the EUI and Tina Slater at Cornell for helping me negotiate the arduous bureaucracy before my visit. At the EUI administration, thanks to Francoise Thauvin and Ken Hulley. At the SPS Department, thanks to Gabriella Unger and, especially, Maureen Lechleitner, who gracefully navigated me (and my supervisor) through rules, regulations and deadlines all these years. Gratitude is due to the Greek State Scholarship Foundation (IKY) for providing me with funding for the first three years of my research, and to the EUI for providing me with a fourth year grant. This dissertation would never have been possible without the priceless presence of two people who, for lack of a better expression, give meaning to everything. My brother Konstantinos is a trustworthy companion in our joint journey of exploration of everything from the most refined to the most outlandish. I still learn from him the myriad ways the two interact. My girlfriend Gosia on the other hand has been showing me how every day has to be a new discovery. I’m still not able to keep up with her pace, but I promise I’ll try harder from now on.