Advertisement

Indirect democracy in EUrope: The challenge of new political parties

  • Hans KemanEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Representative or indirect democracy is under pressure: citizens’ trust in politics and satisfaction with democratic performance is waning. I argue that this has led to the emergence of new parties. This complicates consent and support not only at the domestic, but also at the EU level. It appears that established political parties are less capable to play the two level game effectively. I discuss the emergence of ‘new’ parties and argue that the type and strategy of these perturb the institutions of indirect representation and delegation. A typology of new parties is examined across 15 EU member states. I explore the effects of new types of parties on party systems, voter participation, electoral volatility and government survival. This demonstrates that party governance is under pressure: indirect democracy tends to lose its persuasion. Yet, the behaviour of new parties also shows that the institutions of indirect democracy can still integrate citizens to govern through political parties.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Armingeon, Klaus, and Kai Guthmann. 2014. “Democracy in Crisis? The Declining Support for National Democracy in European Countries 2007-2011.”European Journal of Political Research 53 (3): 423-442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armingeon, Klaus, and Besir Ceka. 2014. “The Loss of Trust in the European Union during the Great Recession since 2007: The Role of Heuristics from the National Political System.” European Union Politics 15 (1): 82-107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bache, Ian, Simon Bulmer, Stephen George, and Owen Parker. 2011. Politics in the European Union (4th Ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Best, Heinrich, György Lengyel, and Luca Verzichelli, eds. 2012. The Europe of Elites: A Study into the Europeanness of Europe’s Political and Economic Elites. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bingham, Powell G. 2013. “Electoral Responsiveness, Party Government, and the Imperfect Performance of Democratic Elections.” In Party Governance and Party Democracy, edited by Wolfgang C. Müller and Hanne Marthe Narud, 81-97. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  6. Budge, Ian, Michael McDonald, Hans Keman, and Paul Pennings. 2012. Organizing Democratic Choice. Party Representation over Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Caramani, Daniele. 2014. The Formation of a European Electorate: Evidence from Electoral Volatility Measures, 1970s – 2000s, Mannheim: MZES, 2014 (Arbeitspapiere - Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung).Google Scholar
  8. Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Della Porta, Donatella. 2013. Can Democracy Be Saved? Participation, Deliberation and Social Movements, Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dunn, Kris. 2015. “Voice, Representation and Trust in Parliament.” Acta Politica 50 (2): 171-191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ezrow, Lawrence. 2008. “Research Note: On the Inverse Relationship Between Votes and Proximity for Niche Parties.” European Journal of Political Research 47 (2): 206-220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ezrow, Lawrence. 2016. “Satisfaction with Democracy and Voter Turnout.” Party Politics 22 (1): 3-14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Green-Pedersen, Christopher. 2007. “The Growing Importance of Issue Competition: The Changing Nature of Party Competition in Western Europe.” Political Studies 55 (3): 607-628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hix, Simon. 2008. What’s Wrong with the European Union and How to Fix It. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hooghe, Lisbet, and Gary Marks. 2009. “A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus.” British Journal of Political Science 39 (1): 1-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keman, Hans. 2007. “Experts and Manifestos: Different Sources – Same Results for Comparative Research?” Electoral Studies 26 (1): 1-14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keman, Hans, and Paul Pennings. 2008. “The changing landscape of Dutch politics since the 1970s: A comparative exploration.” Acta Politica 43 (2/3): 154-179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keman, Hans, and Ferdinand Müller-Rommel 2012. “Changing Patterns of Party Government.” In Party Government in the ‘New Europe’: Trends and Developments. London: Routledge (European Political Science Series): 3-24.Google Scholar
  19. Keman, Hans. 2017. “Responsible Responsiveness of Parties in and out of Government.” In Parties, Governments and Elites. The Comparative Study of Democracy, edited by Philipp Harfst, Ina Kubbe and Thomas Poguntke, 25-52. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kitschelt, Herbert. 2006. “Movement Parties”, In Handbook of Party Politics, edited by Richard S. Katz and William J. Crotty, 278-290. London: Sage Publishers:Google Scholar
  21. Kriesi, Hanspeter. 2007. “The Role of European Integration in National Election Campaigns.” European Union Politics 8 (1): 83-108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Linder, Wolf. 2010. Swiss Democracy. Possible Solutions to Conflict in Multicultural Societies. London: Palgrave and MacMillan.Google Scholar
  23. Mair, Peter. 2002. “In the Aggregate: Mass Electoral Behaviour in Western Europe, 1950-2000.” In Comparative Democratic Politics. A guide to present Theory and Research, edited by Hans Keman, 122 – 140. London: Sage Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Mair, Peter. 2006. “Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy.” New Left Review 42: 25-41Google Scholar
  25. Mair, Peter. 2007. “Party Systems and Alternation in Government, 1950-2000: Innovation and Institutionalization.” In Globalisation and Democratisation: Challenges for Political Parties, edited by Siri Gloppen and Lise Rakner, 135-154. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.Google Scholar
  26. McDonald, Michael. D., and Ian. Budge. 2005. Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mény, Yves, and Yves Surel, eds. 2002. Democracies and the Populist Challenge, New York: Palgrave. Merkel, Wolfgang. 2014. “Is there a Crisis of Democracy?” Democratic Theory 1 (2): 11-25.Google Scholar
  28. Mudde, Cas. 2012. “Three Decades of Populist Radical Right Parties in Western Europe: So What?” European Journal of Political Research 52 (1): 1-19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Müller-Rommel, Ferdinand, ed. 1989. New Politics in Western Europe. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  30. Pennings, Paul, and Hans Keman. 2003. “The Dutch Parliamentary Elections in 2002 and 2003: The Rise and Decline of the Fortuyn Movement.” Acta Politica 38 (1): 51-69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Putnam, Robert. 1989. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games.” International Organization 42 (3): 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zulianello, Mattia. 2017. “Anti-System Parties Revisited: Concept Formation and Guidelines for Empirical Research.” Government and Opposition 53 (4): 1-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations