No abstract

No abstract

Walking the Tightrope: Populist Radical Right Parties' Framing of 'Good' and 'Bad' Migrants in Belgium and Switzerland

Throughout its 40-year history, the Vlaams Belang (VB, Flemish Interest) has established itself as an important player within the Belgian party system, albeit with significant electoral fluctuations. In 2019, it became the second largest party in Flanders. The party developed and maintained a mass-party organisation by investing significantly in local party branches and in a rigid vertically articulated structure. It relies heavily on social media, particularly Facebook, to communicate to supporters beyond the more limited group of party members. Using both modern and traditional tools, VB representatives aim to create communities of supporters bonded to the party, facilitating dissemination of the party’s messages. Despite this investment in a grassroots organisation, the VB’s decision-making remains highly centralised. Social media and local branches allow informal consideration of members’ views, but the party has not created significant mechanisms for internal democracy. While it is often claimed that political parties have moved away from the “mass-party” model, this article demonstrates that the VB still maintains characteristics of the mass party, albeit with a modern twist. New social media tools facilitate attempts to foster communities and disseminate party messages among a wider group of supporters, both formal members and more informal sympathisers.

In the 1980's minority nationalist parties adopted a policy of "independence in Europe." Paradoxically, the policy simultaneously advocated conceding powers to a supranational body and taking back powers from the state. EU regional development programs initially spurred these pro-European policies, but these programs have since failed. Given the EU incentives, why do minority nationalist parties remain pro-European? I test a bottom-up, party political theory and use the British case studies of the Scottish National Party and the Welsh nationalist party, Plaid Cymru. I argue that these parties have remained proEuropean because they are small oppositional parties. As small oppositional parties, minority nationalist parties have unique strategic mechanisms that incentivize policy inertia. These mechanisms are: (1) the continuity and dominance of party leadership in making EU policy, (2) underdeveloped policy positions, and (3) the importance of transnational coalitions. Implications include the possibility that as minority nationalist parties grow in size and power, they might alter their European position to suit changing strategic considerations. KeywordsNationalism, Pro-European, Scotland, WalesExplaining the Perseverance of "Independence in Europe": StrategiIntroduction "Scotland's Future-Independence in Europe" dominates the front page of a 1990 Scottish National Party pamphlet. After decades of anti-European rhetoric, the Scottish National Party voted at a party conference in 1983 to support the European Community and the new slogan placed the pro-European policy at the center of SNP ideology. Today, the SNP's pro-European position remains unchanged. Deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon pledged Scotland would be a "proud and constructive partner in the European family" upon independence (Johnson, 2013). Since the 1980's, sustained pro-Europeanism has been a pattern in minority nationalist 1 parties across Europe. At the time that pro-European policies developed, the Europe of the Regions model created a hospitable environment for minority nationalists by valuing the input of sub-state regions and local authorities. Minority nationalist parties enjoyed the "pincer effect" as they squeezed state power locally and at the EU level (Lynch, 1996, p. 14). The 1980's were also relatively hospitable for the European Union among mainstream parties. However, domestic and EU contexts have changed dramatically. Both mainstream Europhilia and the Europe of the Regions have faded over the past 30 years. Most positions in the Council of Ministers and European Commission are still dominated by parties in government and exclude regional powers (Elias, 2008). A "growing discrepancy between 'regional' priorities" hindered regional lobbying at the European Union (Rowe, 2011, p. 8). In conjunction with lack of regional unity, "national governments proved themselves to be highly adept at acting as 'gatekeepers'" (Elias, 2008, p. 486).2 Domestically, "increased Euroscepticism has been the corollary of increased integration" (Taggar...