La irrupción de Vox en la política española ha suscitado un debate en torno a la propia naturaleza ideológica de este nuevo partido. Este artículo aborda esta cuestión a través de un análisis cualitativo de contenido de sus programas electorales y discursos, basado en el método de la cadena causal. Los resultados muestran que Vox es una organización de ultraderecha, que se ajusta a las características de la familia de partidos de la derecha radical. Su ideología está basada en una combinación de nacionalismo y xenofobia (nativismo) y de una visión autoritaria de la sociedad, apegada a los valores de ley y orden. Este autoritarismo, sin embargo, no se manifiesta como voluntad de instaurar un régimen autocrático ni se hace uso de la violencia con fines políticos. Este matiz alejaría a Vox de los elementos más extremistas de la ultraderecha. Por otro lado, el nativismo es el elemento que diferencia a Vox de los partidos conservadores convencionales. Finalmente, cabe apuntar dos especificidades del representante en España de la derecha radical: primero, y a diferencia de muchos de sus homólogos en Europa, el populismo está muy poco presente en su discurso; la retórica de Vox es mucho más nacionalista que populista. En segundo lugar, mientras que muchos representantes de esta familia de partidos tratan de desdibujar sus postulados socioeconómicos para atraer a una base de votantes más amplia, Vox muestra desacomplejadamente una actitud claramente conservadora en temas como los valores tradicionales o una agenda económica de carácter neoliberal.

Why did the territorial conflict between the governments of Catalonia and Spain escalate to the point of extreme institutional disruption in October 2017? The present article explains this crisisa declaration of independence followed by the imposition of direct ruleas the outcome of an Escalation of Commitment behaviour. By examining the iterative relationship between both governments, the article shows that they were trapped in a failing course of action, unable to withdraw from their early political decisions. Despite facing increasingly negative outcomes from their choices, both sides had already invested too much political capital to quit. Expectations and selfjustification attitudes account for the escalation behaviour, together with a radicalized decision environment. The findings have broader implications for the study of nationalist politics: they show that the commitment to early decisions mediated by the existence of strong political incentives against compromise may lead to the escalation of territorial conflicts.

Under what conditions do secessionist parties advance identity, socioeconomic or political frames for constitutional change? By performing a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) of 93 party manifestos from six Western regions, the results identify a key variable that plays an important role in rhetorical strategies: the governmental status of the party. In linguistically distinctive regions, parties tend to put forward identity frames when in opposition. Instead, being in office is a condition for framing their position in socioeconomic terms. The results concerning political frames are highly complex, although patterns around office holding have also been identified. Hence, the present article shows that office-seeking strategies imply a fundamental change in how these parties frame their claims. Minority nationalist parties take the opportunity of being in office to enhance their credibility as governing parties by downplaying identity issues in favour of a more inclusive and policy-oriented appeal.

No abstract

No abstract