Abstract
Despite the scholarly emphasis on the relevance of identity politics in Europe, the political and electoral strength of minority and populist nationalist party families in the European Union remains limited to a minor space on the sides of the European party system. This chapter summarizes the main findings of the book and compares the Europeanization of these opposing nationalist party families both in their perspectives on European Integration and in their transnational inroads in the European arena. The image of minority and populist nationalist parties as polar opposites on European integration is more blurred than expected; yet perspectives on European integration add to the ideological differentiation of both nationalist party families. The weight of minority and populist nationalist party families in the European party system has improved in European elections and so is the number of MEPs elected in the European parliament. Populist nationalist parties have doubled the size of the minority nationalist party family during the 2009–2014 European elections. However, the historical trajectories of Europeanization of minority and populist nationalist party families share a structural fragmentation since translation mechanisms impinge on transnational party coordination. The choice between going on their own in political groups and integrating in other political groups and Europarties marks the fragmented evolution of Europeanized nationalisms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Notes
- 1.
As Steinmo points out: ‘Individuals, context and rules are important in choice situations; then there can be no a priori way of knowing what one should study when trying to explain political outcomes. A historical institutionalist does not believe that humans are simple rule followers or that they are simply strategic actors who use rules to maximize their interests’ (Steinmo 2008: 163).
- 2.
The analysis of political cohesion targets voting behaviour in the European parliament among the reasons why there is less cohesion in the populist radical right in the EP is that the lack of group discipline is listed, but also ideological variety, fear of stigmatization and national preferences (Morris 2013: 36). Political cohesion of the political groups is at stake. The EFD was the least cohesive group in the last European parliament (2009–2014). The lack of group discipline and political cohesion is one of the main results of this political process.
- 3.
Speaking in the Plenary, MEP Alyn Smith (SNP) stated: “I represent Scotland in this house and the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome is somewhat bittersweet from our perspective. And Scotland, colleagues, faces the prospect of being removed from our family of nations against our clearly expressed democratic will. It’s not fair, and if the EU is not a community of justice and law and democracy then what are we for?” (Plenary Session 15/3/2017).
- 4.
At the time of writing, the Scottish government led by Nicola Sturgeon seems to have put a break to the urgency of new Scottish referendum (June 2017).
References
Akkerman, T., S. de Lange, and M. Roodhuijn, eds. 2016. Radical Right-Wing Populist Parties in Western Europe: Into the Mainstream? London: Routledge.
Almeida, D. 2012. The Impact of European Integration on Political Parties. London: Routledge.
Bakker, R., S. Jolly, and J. Polck. 2012. Complexity in the European Party Space: Exploring Dimensionality with Experts. European Union Politics 13 (2): 219–245.
Bartolini, S. 2005. Restructuring Europe: Centre Formation, System Building and Political Restructuring. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brack, N. 2013. Euroscepticism at the Supranational Level: The Case of the ‘Untidy Right’ in the European Parliament. Journal of Common Market Studies 51 (1): 85–104.
Caramani, D. 2015. The Europeanization of Politics: The Formation of European Electorate and Party System in Historical Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Vries, C., and E. Edwards. 2009. Taking Europe to Its Extremes: Extremist Parties and Public Euroskepticism. Party Politics 15 (I): 5–28.
De Winter, L. 1998. Conclusion. A Comparative Analysis of the Electoral, Office and Policy Success of Ethnoregionalist Parties. In Regionalist Parties in Western Europe, ed. L. De Winter and H. Türsan. London: Routledge.
De Winter, L., M. Gómez-Reino, and J. Buelens. 2006a. The Vlaams Blok and the Heritage of Extreme-Right Flemish Nationalism. In Autonomist Parties in Europe: Identity Politics and the Revival of the Centre-Periphery Cleavage, vol. 2, 47–78. Barcelona: ICPS.
De Winter, L., M. Gómez-Reino, and P. Lynch. 2006b. Autonomist Parties in Europe. Barcelona: ICPS.
EFA. 2009. EFA’s Electoral Manifesto for the European Elections 2009. http://www.e-f-a.org/aboutus/documents/1-electoral-manifestos/2009/.
———. 2014. The EFA Manifesto for the 2014 European Elections. http://www.e-f-a.org/about-us/documents/1-electoral-manifestos/2014/.
Elias, A. 2009. From Euro-enthusiasm to Euro-scepticism? A Reevaluation of Minority Nationalist Party Attitudes Towards European Integration. Regional and Federal Studies 18 (5): 557–581.
Elias, A., and Filippo Tronconi, eds. 2011. From Protest to Power: Autonomist Parties and the Challenges of Representation. Wien: Braumüller Verlag.
Gómez-Reino, M. 2014. European Integration and An Alternative Party Family: Regionalist Parties and the European Question. In Europe’s Contending Identities: Supranationalism, Ethnoregionalism, Religion and New Nationalism, ed. Andrew C. Gould and Anthony M. Messina. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gómez-Reino, M., L. De Winter, and P. Lynch. 2006. The Future Study of Autonomist and Regionalist Parties. In Autonomist Parties in Western Europe. Identity Politics and the Revival of the Territorial Cleavage. Barcelona: ICPS.
Hall, P., and R. Taylor. 1996. Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies 44 (5): 936–957.
Hepburn, E. 2010. Using Europe. Territorial Party Strategies in a Multilevel System. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Hix, S. 2002. Parliamentary Behavior with Two Principals: Preferences, Parties, and Voting in the European Parliament. American Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 688–698.
Hix, S., and B. Hoyland. 2013. Empowerment of the European Parliament. Annual Review of Political Science 16: 171–189.
Hix, S., A. Noury, and G. Roland. 2006. Dimensions of Politics in the European Parliament. American Journal of Political Science 50: 494–520.
———. 2007. Democratic Politics in the European Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hooghe, L., and G. Marks. 2009. A Postfunctional Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus. British Journal of Political Science 39 (1): 1–23.
Hooghe, L., and Gary Marks. 2017. Cleavage Theory Meets Europe’s Crises: Lipset, Rokkan and the Transnational Cleavage. Journal of European Public Policy (published online).
Hooghe, Lisbeth, Gary Marks, and Carole Wilson. 2004. Does Left/Right Structure Party Positions on European Integration? In European Integration and Political Conflict, ed. Gary Marks and Marco R. Steenbergen. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Iversen, T. 1994. Political Leadership and Representation in West European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting. American Journal of Political Science 38: 45–74.
Johansson, K.M. 2009. The Emergence of Political Parties at European Level: Integration Unaccomplished. In How Unified Is the European Union? European Integration Between Visions and Popular Legitimacy, ed. S. Gustavsson, L. Oxelheim, and L. Pehrson. Heidelberg: Springer.
Kreppel, A. 2002. The European Parliament and the Supranational Party System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Máiz, R., ed. 2001. Construcción de Europa, Democracia y Globalización. Santiago: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.
Máiz, R., and F. Requejo, eds. 2005. Democracy, Nationalism, and Multiculturalism. London: Frank Cass.
Marks, G., et al. 2002. What Do Subnational Offices Think They Are Doing in Brussels? Regional and Federal Studies 12 (3): 1–23.
Messina, A. 2014. European Disunion? The Implications of ‘Superdiversity’ for European Identity and Political Community. In Europe’s Contending Identities: Supranationalism, Ethnoregionalism, Religion and New Nationalism, ed. A. Messina and A. Gould. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morris, M. 2013. Conflicted Politicians. The Populist Radical Right in the European Parliament. London: Counterpoint.
Mudde, C. 2010. The Populist Radical Right. A Pathological Normalcy. West European Politics 33 (6): 1167–1186.
———. 2012. Three Decades of Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. So What? European Journal of Political Research 52 (1): 1–19. The Stein Rokkan Lecture.
Skocpol, T., and P. Pierson. 2002. Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science. In Political Science: State of the Discipline, ed. I. Katznelson and H. Milner. New York: W.W. Norton.
Steinmo, S. 2008. Historical Institutionalism. In Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective, ed. D. Della Porta and M. Keating. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Urwin, D. 1983. Harbinger, Fossil or Fleabite. In West European Party Systems. Continuity and Change, ed. P. Mair. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gómez-Reino, M. (2018). Conclusions: The Fragmentation of Nationalist Party Families in the European Arena. In: Nationalisms in the European Arena . Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65951-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65951-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-65950-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-65951-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)