Class 3: Parties

radical and extreme

Opening notes

Students’ favourite cities

Presentation groups

Remember: topic to me at least by Week 4

May
June
July

Presentations line-up
Date	Presenters	Method
15 May:	Idil M., Zeynep P., Liesl W., Selin K., Chiara W.	logistic regression
22 May:	Gabriel W., Lina M., Florian S., Julian B.	discourse analysis
29 May:	NO CLASS MEETING

no more regression presentations—see syllabus for some of the other options

Presentations line-up
Date	Presenters	Method
5 June:	Rasmus B., Andre D., Josefine E., Ioanna L., Santiago C.	regression
12 June:	Omar B., Lela E., Niclas W.	TBD
19 June:	NO CLASS MEETING
26 June:	Colombe I., Konstantin S., Jakob W.	TBD
26 June:	Maksim K., Felix S., Jon L.D., Damir S., Korbinian M.	case study

Presentations line-up
Date	Presenters	Method
3 July:	Alexander V., Samuel B., Luis G., Oscar O.	TBD
10 July:	Lina S., Stephen W., Philomena B., Aarón Z.	TBD
17 July:	Corinna Z., Eva M., and Rostislav N.	TBD
24 July:	Sebastian K., Thomas R., Emilia Z., Florian P.	TBD
24 July:	Lorenz F., Daniel B., Fiona W., Medina H.	TBD

Check-in: ideological components

nationalism
exclusionism
xenophobia
strong state
welfare chauvinism
traditional ethics

→

nativism
authoritarianism
populism

questions from the recorded lecture?

Party classification

applying the ideological components to classify parties
- why do this?
- how?
- scoring cases

Pizza Pizza Day GIFfrom Pizza GIFs

Discussion point

Why classify parties into party families? Is this worthwhile?

temporal, contextual comparisons; consequences for policy positions and other party behaviour (e.g., cooperation with other parties); map party system landscapes

How can we make classifications?

Mudde’s approach (focused on ideology)

party-based:
1. Party name;
2. Membership in transnational confederations;
3. self-identification

all duds…

Mudde’s approach (focused on ideology)

researcher-based:
1. electorates/constituencies
  - problems: electorates change; electorates are heterogeneous
2. member ideology
  - problems: diverse membership; active members are most extreme (David May’s ‘special law of curvilinear disparity’ compared to leadership and voting base; your thoughts?)
3. leader ideology
  - problems: who exactly? how (interviews, speeches?)?
4. official party literature
  - conditions: ‘official’ only (no ‘aligned’ lit.), national only (no regional), and both external and internal lit. is optimal

Mudde’s approach (focused on ideology)

researcher-based:
1. electorates/constituencies
  - problems: electorates change; electorates are heterogeneous
2. member ideology
  - problems: diverse membership; active members are most extreme (David May’s ‘special law of curvilinear disparity’ compared to leadership and voting base; your thoughts?)
3. leader ideology
  - problems: who exactly? how (interviews, speeches?)?
4. official party literature
  - conditions: ‘official’ only (no ‘aligned’ lit.), national only (no regional), and both external and internal lit. is optimal

Populist radical right parties (PRRPs)

	populist	non-populist
radical
non-radical

Mudde’s list … a bit outdated. What is the scene like today?

Populist & Radical
Populist & Non-Radical (‘neo-liberal populist’)
Non-Populist & Radical
Non-Populist & Non-Radical

FPÖ (AT); Vlaams Belang (BE); Hrvatska stranka prava (HR); Dansk Folkeparti (DK); Front National (FR); Die Republikaner (DE); MIEP (HU); Liga Polskich Rodzin (PL); Partidul Romania Mare (RO); LDPR (Zhironovsky) (RU); Slovenska narodna strana (SI)

Norwegian Fremskrittspartiet (NO); Bulgarian Business Bloc (BG); Danish Fremskridtspartiet (DK); Lijst Pim Fortuyn (NL); Forza Italia (IT); Polish Unia Polityki Realnej (PL); Swedish Ny Demokrati (SE); Schweizer Autopartei (CH)

NPD (DE); National Political Union (GR); BNP (UK); Dutch Centrumpartij ’86 (NL); Prava Alternativa (CZ); Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski (PL); Movement for Romania (RO); Russian National Unity (RU); National Bolshevik Party (RU); non-extreme: Nationalist Action Party (TR)

Civic Democratic Party (CZ); Fidesz (HU) …

name: Bharatiya Janata Party
founded: 1980
in gov: yes, since 2014
leadership: Narendra Modi (Prime Minister), J.P. Nadda (Party President)
notable social organisation: Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (‘National Volunteer Corps’, RSS)

name: Republican Party
founded: 1854
in gov: yes, since 2025 (and repeatedly before)
leadership: Donald Trump
notable social organisation: (e.g.,) Turning Point USA

name: Alternative für Deutschland
founded: 2013
in gov: no, never at national or regional levels
leadership: Tino Chrupalla and Alice Weidel
notable social organisation: Desiderius-Erasmus-Stiftung

Party classification in practice

A QR code for the survey.

Take the survey at https://forms.gle/MPe6HyUSdEdkMpk6A

not based on evaluating party literature—just on your familiarity with these cases

Class poll - classification

md`## Poll results (Respondents: ${respondentCount})`

import { liveGoogleSheet } from "@jimjamslam/live-google-sheet";
import { aq, op } from "@uwdata/arquero";

// UPDATE THE LINK FOR A NEW POLL
surveyResults = liveGoogleSheet(
  "https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/" +
    "2PACX-1vTPm05azJcLoJJ-VRuMZfmZrOjwbPMFL3AeaFWJw-YOKsuspBB9H_QS8mYunO5NB8XNlcoys_INGvXQ/" +
    "pub?gid=1226040417&single=true&output=csv",
  10000, 1, 13); // adjust the last number to select all relevant columns 

respondentCount = surveyResults.length;

function PieChart(data, {
  name = ([x]) => x,  // given d in data, returns the (ordinal) label
  value = ([, y]) => y, // given d in data, returns the (quantitative) value
  title, // given d in data, returns the title text
  width = 640, // outer width, in pixels
  height = 400, // outer height, in pixels
  innerRadius = 0, // inner radius of pie, in pixels (non-zero for donut)
  outerRadius = Math.min(width, height) / 2, // outer radius of pie, in pixels
  labelRadius = (innerRadius * 0.5 + outerRadius * 0.5), // center radius of labels
  format = ",", // a format specifier for values (in the label)
  names, // array of names (the domain of the color scale)
  colors, // array of colors for names
  stroke = innerRadius > 0 ? "none" : "white", // stroke separating widths
  strokeWidth = 1, // width of stroke separating wedges
  strokeLinejoin = "round", // line join of stroke separating wedges
  padAngle = stroke === "none" ? 1 / outerRadius : 0, // angular separation between wedges, in radians
} = {}) {
  // Compute values.
  const N = d3.map(data, name);
  const V = d3.map(data, value);
  const I = d3.range(N.length).filter(i => !isNaN(V[i]));

  // Unique the names.
  if (names === undefined) names = N;
  names = new d3.InternSet(names);

  // Chose a default color scheme based on cardinality.
  if (colors === undefined) colors = d3.schemeSpectral[names.size];
  if (colors === undefined) colors = d3.quantize(t => d3.interpolateSpectral(t * 0.8 + 0.1), names.size);

  // Construct scales.
  const color = d3.scaleOrdinal(names, colors);

  // Compute titles.
  if (title === undefined) {
    const formatValue = d3.format(format);
    title = i => `${N[i]}\n${formatValue(V[i])}`;
  } else {
    const O = d3.map(data, d => d);
    const T = title;
    title = i => T(O[i], i, data);
  }

  // Construct arcs.
  const arcs = d3.pie().padAngle(padAngle).sort(null).value(i => V[i])(I);
  const arc = d3.arc().innerRadius(innerRadius).outerRadius(outerRadius);
  const arcLabel = d3.arc().innerRadius(labelRadius).outerRadius(labelRadius);
  
  const svg = d3.create("svg")
      .attr("width", width)
      .attr("height", height)
      .attr("viewBox", [-width / 2, -height / 2, width, height])
      .attr("style", "max-width: 100%; height: auto; height: intrinsic;");

  svg.append("g")
      .attr("stroke", stroke)
      .attr("stroke-width", strokeWidth)
      .attr("stroke-linejoin", strokeLinejoin)
    .selectAll("path")
    .data(arcs)
    .join("path")
      .attr("fill", d => color(N[d.data]))
      .attr("d", arc)
    .append("title")
      .text(d => title(d.data));

  svg.append("g")
      .attr("font-family", "sans-serif")
      .attr("font-size", 100)
      .attr("text-anchor", "middle")
    .selectAll("text")
    .data(arcs)
    .join("text")
      .attr("transform", d => `translate(${arcLabel.centroid(d)})`)
    .selectAll("tspan")
    .data(d => {
      const lines = `${title(d.data)}`.split(/\n/);
      return (d.endAngle - d.startAngle) > 0.25 ? lines : lines.slice(0, 1);
    })
    .join("tspan")
      .attr("x", 0)
      .attr("y", (_, i) => `${i * 1.1}em`)
      .attr("font-weight", (_, i) => i ? null : "bold")
      .text(d => d);

  return Object.assign(svg.node(), {scales: {color}});
}

BJP - nativist?

bjp_nativCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("bjp_nativ")
  .derive({ bjp_nativ: d => (d.bjp_nativ && d.bjp_nativ.trim() !== "" ? d.bjp_nativ : "NA") })
  .groupby("bjp_nativ")
  .count()
  .rename({ count: 'value', bjp_nativ: 'name' }) // Rename for D3 pie chart
  .objects() // convert to array for D3

bjp_nativChart = PieChart(bjp_nativCounts, {
  name: d => d.name,
  value: d => d.value,
  names: ["Yes", "No", "Maybe", "NA"], // ordering
  colors: ["#4CAF50", "#F44336", "grey", "#CCCCCC"], // green 'yes', red 'no'
  width,
  height: 900
})

BJP - authoritarian?

bjp_authCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("bjp_auth")
  .derive({ bjp_auth: d => (d.bjp_auth && d.bjp_auth.trim() !== "" ? d.bjp_auth : "NA") })
  .groupby("bjp_auth")
  .count()
  .rename({ count: 'value', bjp_auth: 'name' }) // Rename for D3 pie chart
  .objects() // convert to array for D3

bjp_authChart = PieChart(bjp_authCounts, {
  name: d => d.name,
  value: d => d.value,
  names: ["Yes", "No", "Maybe", "NA"], // ordering
  colors: ["#4CAF50", "#F44336", "grey", "#CCCCCC"], // green 'yes', red 'no'
  width,
  height: 900
})

BJP - populist?

bjp_popuCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("bjp_popu")
  .derive({ bjp_popu: d => (d.bjp_popu && d.bjp_popu.trim() !== "" ? d.bjp_popu : "NA") })
  .groupby("bjp_popu")
  .count()
  .rename({ count: 'value', bjp_popu: 'name' }) // Rename for D3 pie chart
  .objects() // convert to array for D3

bjp_popuChart = PieChart(bjp_popuCounts, {
  name: d => d.name,
  value: d => d.value,
  names: ["Yes", "No", "Maybe", "NA"], // ordering
  colors: ["#4CAF50", "#F44336", "grey", "#CCCCCC"], // green 'yes', red 'no'
  width,
  height: 900
})

Class poll - classification

Republican (US) - nativist?

rep_nativCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("rep_nativ")
  .derive({ rep_nativ: d => (d.rep_nativ && d.rep_nativ.trim() !== "" ? d.rep_nativ : "NA") })
  .groupby("rep_nativ")
  .count()
  .rename({ count: 'value', rep_nativ: 'name' }) // Rename for D3 pie chart
  .objects() // convert to array for D3

rep_nativChart = PieChart(rep_nativCounts, {
  name: d => d.name,
  value: d => d.value,
  names: ["Yes", "No", "Maybe", "NA"], // ordering
  colors: ["#4CAF50", "#F44336", "grey", "#CCCCCC"], // green 'yes', red 'no'
  width,
  height: 900
})

Republican (US) - authoritarian?

rep_authCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("rep_auth")
  .derive({ rep_auth: d => (d.rep_auth && d.rep_auth.trim() !== "" ? d.rep_auth : "NA") })
  .groupby("rep_auth")
  .count()
  .rename({ count: 'value', rep_auth: 'name' }) // Rename for D3 pie chart
  .objects() // convert to array for D3

rep_authChart = PieChart(rep_authCounts, {
  name: d => d.name,
  value: d => d.value,
  names: ["Yes", "No", "Maybe", "NA"], // ordering
  colors: ["#4CAF50", "#F44336", "grey", "#CCCCCC"], // green 'yes', red 'no'
  width,
  height: 900
})

Republican (US) - populist?

rep_popuCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("rep_popu")
  .derive({ rep_popu: d => (d.rep_popu && d.rep_popu.trim() !== "" ? d.rep_popu : "NA") })
  .groupby("rep_popu")
  .count()
  .rename({ count: 'value', rep_popu: 'name' }) // Rename for D3 pie chart
  .objects() // convert to array for D3

rep_popuChart = PieChart(rep_popuCounts, {
  name: d => d.name,
  value: d => d.value,
  names: ["Yes", "No", "Maybe", "NA"], // ordering
  colors: ["#4CAF50", "#F44336", "grey", "#CCCCCC"], // green 'yes', red 'no'
  width,
  height: 900
})

Class poll - classification

AfD - nativist?

afd_nativCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("afd_nativ")
  .derive({ afd_nativ: d => (d.afd_nativ && d.afd_nativ.trim() !== "" ? d.afd_nativ : "NA") })
  .groupby("afd_nativ")
  .count()
  .rename({ count: 'value', afd_nativ: 'name' }) // Rename for D3 pie chart
  .objects() // convert to array for D3

afd_nativChart = PieChart(afd_nativCounts, {
  name: d => d.name,
  value: d => d.value,
  names: ["Yes", "No", "Maybe", "NA"], // ordering
  colors: ["#4CAF50", "#F44336", "grey", "#CCCCCC"], // green 'yes', red 'no'
  width,
  height: 900
})

AfD - authoritarian?

afd_authCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("afd_auth")
  .derive({ afd_auth: d => (d.afd_auth && d.afd_auth.trim() !== "" ? d.afd_auth : "NA") })
  .groupby("afd_auth")
  .count()
  .rename({ count: 'value', afd_auth: 'name' }) // Rename for D3 pie chart
  .objects() // convert to array for D3

afd_authChart = PieChart(afd_authCounts, {
  name: d => d.name,
  value: d => d.value,
  names: ["Yes", "No", "Maybe", "NA"], // ordering
  colors: ["#4CAF50", "#F44336", "grey", "#CCCCCC"], // green 'yes', red 'no'
  width,
  height: 900
})

AfD - populist?

afd_popuCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("afd_popu")
  .derive({ afd_popu: d => (d.afd_popu && d.afd_popu.trim() !== "" ? d.afd_popu : "NA") })
  .groupby("afd_popu")
  .count()
  .rename({ count: 'value', afd_popu: 'name' }) // Rename for D3 pie chart
  .objects() // convert to array for D3

afd_popuChart = PieChart(afd_popuCounts, {
  name: d => d.name,
  value: d => d.value,
  names: ["Yes", "No", "Maybe", "NA"], // ordering
  colors: ["#4CAF50", "#F44336", "grey", "#CCCCCC"], // green 'yes', red 'no'
  width,
  height: 900
})

Class poll - classification: radical/extreme?

BJP

bjp_radextCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("bjp_radext")
  .groupby("bjp_radext")
  .count()
  .derive({ measure: d => "" })

// Calculate the maximum count from your dataset
bjp_maxCountRE = Math.max(...bjp_radextCounts.objects().map(d => d.count));

plot_bjp_radext = Plot.plot({
  marks: [
    Plot.barY(bjp_radextCounts, {
      x: "bjp_radext",
      y: "count",
      fill: "bjp_radext",
      stroke: "black",
      strokeWidth: 1
    }),
    Plot.ruleY([respondentCount], { stroke: "#ffffff99" })
  ],
  color: {
    domain: [
      "Radical",
      "Extreme",
      "Neither"
    ],
    range: [
      "#d73027",  // red
      "#4B0082",  // indigo
      "cadetblue"   // violet
    ]
  },
  marginBottom: 80,
  x: { label: "", tickSize: 2, tickRotate: -45,
    domain: ["Radical", "Extreme", "Neither"]
  },  
  y: {
    label: "",
    tickSize: 10,
    tickFormat: d => d,
    tickValues: Array.from(
      new Set(bjp_radextCounts.objects().map(d => d.count))
    ).sort((a, b) => a - b),
    domain: [0, bjp_maxCountRE]
  },
  facet: { data: bjp_radextCounts, x: "measure", label: "" },
  marginLeft: 140,
  style: {
    width: 1350,
    height: 500,
    fontSize: 30,
  }
});

Republicans

rep_radextCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("rep_radext")
  .groupby("rep_radext")
  .count()
  .derive({ measure: d => "" })

// Calculate the maximum count from your dataset
rep_maxCountRE = Math.max(...rep_radextCounts.objects().map(d => d.count));

plot_rep_radext = Plot.plot({
  marks: [
    Plot.barY(rep_radextCounts, {
      x: "rep_radext",
      y: "count",
      fill: "rep_radext",
      stroke: "black",
      strokeWidth: 1
    }),
    Plot.ruleY([respondentCount], { stroke: "#ffffff99" })
  ],
  color: {
    domain: [
      "Radical",
      "Extreme",
      "Neither"
    ],
    range: [
      "#d73027",  // red
      "#4B0082",  // indigo
      "cadetblue"   // violet
    ]
  },
  marginBottom: 80,
  x: { label: "", tickSize: 2, tickRotate: -45,
    domain: ["Radical", "Extreme", "Neither"]
  },  
  y: {
    label: "",
    tickSize: 10,
    tickFormat: d => d,
    tickValues: Array.from(
      new Set(rep_radextCounts.objects().map(d => d.count))
    ).sort((a, b) => a - b),
    domain: [0, rep_maxCountRE]
  },
  facet: { data: rep_radextCounts, x: "measure", label: "" },
  marginLeft: 140,
  style: {
    width: 1350,
    height: 500,
    fontSize: 30,
  }
});

AfD

afd_radextCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("afd_radext")
  .groupby("afd_radext")
  .count()
  .derive({ measure: d => "" })

// Calculate the maximum count from your dataset
afd_maxCountRE = Math.max(...afd_radextCounts.objects().map(d => d.count));

plot_afd_radext = Plot.plot({
  marks: [
    Plot.barY(afd_radextCounts, {
      x: "afd_radext",
      y: "count",
      fill: "afd_radext",
      stroke: "black",
      strokeWidth: 1
    }),
    Plot.ruleY([respondentCount], { stroke: "#ffffff99" })
  ],
  color: {
    domain: [
      "Radical",
      "Extreme",
      "Neither"
    ],
    range: [
      "#d73027",  // red
      "#4B0082",  // indigo
      "cadetblue"   // violet
    ]
  },
  marginBottom: 80,
  x: { label: "", tickSize: 2, tickRotate: -45,
    domain: ["Radical", "Extreme", "Neither"]
  },  
  y: {
    label: "",
    tickSize: 10,
    tickFormat: d => d,
    tickValues: Array.from(
      new Set(afd_radextCounts.objects().map(d => d.count))
    ).sort((a, b) => a - b),
    domain: [0, afd_maxCountRE]
  },
  facet: { data: afd_radextCounts, x: "measure", label: "" },
  marginLeft: 140,
  style: {
    width: 1350,
    height: 500,
    fontSize: 30,
  }
});

BJP - debatable classification

Nativist
Authoritarian
Populist

pro

Promotes India rooted in Hindutva (cultural nationalism)
non-Hindus framed as threat
Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) discriminates against Muslims

contra

Presents itself as inclusive of all Indians, promoting unity
Merely defending (religious) majority, not attacking minorities
Party has broad, diverse demographic support base

pro

power has been centralised around PM Modi
some crackdown on dissent (e.g., civil society orgs.)
civil liberties restrictions (e.g., internet shutdowns)

contra

multi-party political system endures
plurality-winning party in functioning electoral democracy
judiciary and press (perhaps harassed, but) remains independent

pro

often frames politics as people vs. elites
charismatic leadership of Modi
emphasis on direct communication (e.g., Mann Ki Baat radio)

contra

party has deep institutional roots
often technocratic (economic) policy agenda

Republicans - debatable classification

Nativist
Authoritarian
Populist

pro

emphasis on restrictive immigration policies
rhetoric distinguishing between ‘real Americans’ and foreign-born other
asserting threat of ’globalism

contra

argue immigration policy is about upholding lawful procedures
sometimes significant immigrant-background electoral support

pro

increasing willingness to undermine democratic norms
(continued) expansion of executive power
hostility towards independent institutions

contra

U.S. politics remains democratically competitive
more complex intra-party dynamics—not only Trump loyalism
libertarian elements in party likely hostile to creeping authoritarianism

pro

lots of people vs. elite rhetoric
unique charisma of Trump
direct communication of social media and rallies

contra

heavily institutionalised and reliant on (certain) elites
‘traditional conservatives’ in GOP (opposed to MAGA populism?)

AfD - debatable classification

Nativist
Authoritarian
Populist

pro

strongly anti-immigrant stance
promotion of German cultural identity
demanding assimilation or else exclusion

contra

manifesto documents are less strongly-worded than campaign rhetoric
‘cultural identity’ is accessible (unlike ethnic nationalism)

pro

advocacy for enhanced state powers (esp. on migration-related issues)
attempts to undermine some institutions
some expressed admiration of authoritarian leaders

contra

competes in free and fair elections just like other parties, adhering to many informal conventions
does not advocate the elimination of political pluralism

pro

positions itself as voice of ‘true people’ against mainstream elites
skilled direct communication through social media and collaboration with movement orgs.

contra

policy proposals do not have the same sort of anti-elitism as members’ campaign rhetoric
some elite backing

Party classification in practice - utility

Does Mudde’s classification approach enable differentiation between far-right parties or merely classification whether a party belongs to the far-right party family?

A tricky case?

Schweizerische Volkspartei - Union démocratique du centre (SVP)
- conservative? populist radical right? decentralised mess?

advert adapted by NPD, Lega Nord, VB, Democracia Nacional—among others

A (typical) tricky case?

Schweizerische Volkspartei - Union démocratique du centre (SVP)
- conservative? populist radical right? decentralised mess?

advert adapted by NPD, Lega Nord, VB, Democracia Nacional—among others

regional variation
- Berne (centrist); Zurich (populist, adversarial)

Radical right electoral performance

overview
Minkenberg (2013)
European elections 2024
German elections 2025

Election Results Loading Election2020 GIFfrom Election Results Loading GIFs

Overview electoral performance (ParlGov)

https://github.com/hdigital/parlgov-snippets/tree/main/party-family-share

Overview electoral performance (ParlGov)

https://github.com/hdigital/parlgov-snippets/tree/main/party-family-share

Resources to dive deeper

EUI list of datasets: https://www.eui.eu/Research/Library/ResearchGuides/Economics/Statistics/DataPortal/EED
Chapel Hill Expert Surveys (CHES): https://www.chesdata.eu/
Manifesto Project Database (at WZB): https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/
Parliament and government composition database (ParlGov): http://www.parlgov.org/
Parltrack: https://parltrack.org/
Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem): https://www.v-dem.net/

Minkenberg (2013) - far-right parties

extremist/autocratic-fascist (usually including racism or xenophobia): NPD/DVU (DE), BNP (UK), Jobbik (HU)
Ethnocentrist (but not fascist): FPÖ (AT), VB (BE), REP (DE), FN (FR), MIEP (HU), Lega (IT), SVP (CH)
populist/populist-authoritarian (strong and charismatic leader and with a diffuse nationalist ideology): BZÖ (AT), FIDESZ (HU), PiS (PL)
religious-fundamentalist: KDNP (HU), LPR (PL)

Visualising Minkenberg (2013) Table 2: RR-West (lineplot)

Relation of party strength to movement strength

How is Minkenberg evaluating party and movement strength? Is there a causal relationship? (if so, in what direction?)

	low party strength	high party strength
low movement strength		Austria, France, Italy
medium movement strength	Germany (West), Netherlands	Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Belgium
high movement strength	Germany (East), United Kingdom, Sweden

Relation of party strength to movement strength

Koopmans and Rucht (1995) have an (outdated?) answer:

mobilization of left-wing movements is concentrated during periods of right-wing government, whereas the Right tends to mobilize most strongly when the Left is in power. However, the highest levels of mobilization, of the Left and to some extent also of the Right, occur when mixed governments, in which power is shared by parties of the Left and of the Right, are in power.

relationship types of the right and the radical right

Minkenberg (2013): the efforts by a number of radical right parties to appear ‘respectable’ has changed their pariah status—although as will be shown, they have not become a conservative or moderate right-wing party

policy adoption (e.g., on immigration) from far-right to centre (even centre-left, e.g., Denmark 2019?)
Possible results:
- taking issue away from FR party → marginalising it
- legitimation and confirmation of issue ownership (e.g., Karácsony and Róna 2011)
- alignment and opening opportunities for formal cooperation
- others?

what was/is/will be going on in Central and Eastern Europe?

is Central and Eastern Europe special, different in degree or even in kind?

Hungary: shifting political sands - a closer look

	left		centre		right
1990	MSZP	FIDESZ	SZDSZ, MDF	FKGP, KDNP
1994		MSZP, FIDESZ	SZDSZ, MDF	KDNP, FKGP	(MIEP)
1998		MSZP	SZDSZ, FIDESZ, MDF	FKGP	MIEP
2002		MSZP	SZDSZ, FIDESZ-MDF
2006		MSZP	SZDSZ, MDF	FIDESZ
2010	LMP	MSZP		FIDESZ	Jobbik
2014	LMP	MSZP (+ coalition)		FIDESZ	Jobbik
2018	LMP	MSZP-Parbeszed, +		FIDESZ	Jobbik
2022		United (incl. Jobbik)		FIDESZ	Mi Hazánk

Minkenberg writes about MIÉP and István Csurka, and FIDESZ: the efforts by a number of radical right parties to appear ‘respectable’ has changed their pariah status—although as will be shown, they have not become a conservative or moderate right-wing party

Hungary - a closer look

Example of Jobbik and Gabor Vona (cf. ‘frontstage moderation,’ Brandmann 2022)

far-right parties in government

Minkenberg (2013, 19):

In the language of Giovanni Sartori: the radical right’s ‘blackmail potential’ may be more consequential than its ‘coalition potential’

coalition potential

ability to influence electoral competition by (potential) inclusion in a viable government

blackmail potential

represents another pole of political support and counters traditional centripetal party competition between the centrist parties

far-right parties in government - discussion questions

What are the barriers to far-right parties in government? Are they unique?

Is there anything distinctive about the effects of far-right parties in government (policy, political competition, internationally)?

What do you know about cases of far right in government (e.g., FPÖ/BZÖ, Lega [Nord], Dansk Folkepartiet, FdI)?

What has happened since Minkenberg’s article in 2013? Are we in a ‘new world’?

Any questions, concerns, feedback for this class?

Anonymous feedback here: https://forms.gle/pisUmtmWdE13zMD58

Alternatively, send me an email: m.zeller@lmu.de

References

Brandmann, Franziska. 2022. “Radical-Right Parties in Militant Democracies: How the Alternative for Germany’s Strategic Frontstage Moderation Undermines Militant Measures.” European Constitutional Law Review 18 (3): 412–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S157401962200030X.

Karácsony, Gergely, and Dániel Róna. 2011. “The Secret of Jobbik - Reasons Behind the Rise of the Hungarian Radical Right.” Journal of East European and Asian Studies 2 (1): 61–92.

Koopmans, Ruud, and Dieter Rucht. 1995. “Social Movement Mobilization Under Right and Left Governments: A Look at Four West European Countries.” Berlin: Das Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.

Minkenberg, Michael. 2013. “From Pariah to Policy-Maker? The Radical Right in Europe, West and East: Between Margin and Mainstream.” Journal of Contemporary European Studies 21 (1): 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2013.766473.

Class 3: Parties

Opening notes

Students’ favourite cities

Presentation groups

Check-in: ideological components

Party classification

Discussion point

Mudde’s approach (focused on ideology)

Mudde’s approach (focused on ideology)

Mudde’s approach (focused on ideology)

Populist radical right parties (PRRPs)

Party classification in practice

Party classification in practice

Class poll - classification

Class poll - classification

Class poll - classification

Class poll - classification: radical/extreme?

BJP - debatable classification

Republicans - debatable classification

AfD - debatable classification

Party classification in practice - utility

A tricky case?

A (typical) tricky case?

Radical right electoral performance

Overview electoral performance (ParlGov)

Overview electoral performance (ParlGov)

Overview cabinet share (ParlGov)

Resources to dive deeper

Minkenberg (2013) - far-right parties

Visualising Minkenberg (2013) Table 2: RR-West (lineplot)

Relation of party strength to movement strength

Relation of party strength to movement strength

relationship types of the right and the radical right

what was/is/will be going on in Central and Eastern Europe?

Hungary: shifting political sands - a closer look

Hungary - a closer look

far-right parties in government

far-right parties in government - discussion questions

Any questions, concerns, feedback for this class?

References