1 Paper prepared for the 7th ECPR General Conference, Bordeaux, 4-7 September 2013 “Europe” in Campaign (Spanish General Election 2011) Cristina Ares Castro-Conde ([email protected]) Santiago de Compostela University, Spain Abstract The 2011 Spanish elections were held in the context of the Euro crisis and following two changes of government in the Eurozone, i.e. Greece and Italy, without popular voting. This paper links the debate on the democratic deficit of the EU with the Europeanization or adjustment to "Europe" of party politics in member states. The argument is as follows: in spite of the notable democratization of supranational institutions throughout the European integration process, the legitimacy of the EU continues to be weak, among other factors, because of the way in which national parties have adjusted to "Europe". This research has two fundamental aims. The first is to analyze the introduction of European issues in the 2011 Spanish election campaign. The second is to draw up a classification system of the political proposals concerning EU affairs for obtaining comparable information about the Europeanization of electoral competition. The following material was used: a) data from the Manifesto Project for this election; b) the programs of the parties that obtained representation in the Congreso de los Diputados on 20-N; and c) political information (positioning, proposals, messages) published by the two main Spanish parties [Partido Popular (PP) and Partido Socialista (PSOE)] through the following communication channels: the Política Exterior magazine, the El País newspaper, the accounts in twitter of their candidates for the Presidency of the Government (M. Rajoy and A. P. Rubalcaba respectively), and the only televised debate. The methodology used is content analysis. Proposals are coded by means of “quasi- sentences” on the European integration process, the political system and the public policies of the EU contained in the election programs of 12 parties, plus other political texts from the PP and PSOE election campaigns. Empirical evidence shows how the parties assessed the introduction of European issues into the electoral competition, undermining citizens of the possibility of structuring their vote in a relevant manner in order to influence and control decisions adopted at supranational level.
48
Embed
Europe in Campaign (Spain Election 2011) · main Spanish parties [Partido Popular (PP) and Partido Socialista (PSOE)] through the following communication channels: the Política Exterior
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Paper prepared for the 7th ECPR General Conference, Bordeaux, 4-7 September 2013
“Europe” in Campaign (Spanish General Election 2011)
The technique used is that of content analysis, defined by Krippendorff as “[A]
research technique for formulating valid and reproducible inferences2 from certain texts (or
other significant material) in the contexts of their use” (2004:18; op. cit. Alonso et al.,
2012b: 14), and that differs from the interpretation of texts in everyday life due to its
reliability and validity (Alonso et al., 2012b: 14).
The structure of the text is as follows: the second part briefly locates this research in
the literature on Europeanization of the parties and the electoral competition; the argument
that relates this subject to the EU democratic deficit is developed in section three; the next
part is dedicated to presenting the results; the discussion occupies section five; part six
gives the conclusions; and the paper closes with the bibliography.
2. THE EUROPEANIZATION OF PARTY POLITICS
Since the 90s, Europeanization is one of the main research agendas of the
subdiscipline of European Studies. Its aim consists of analyzing both direct and indirect
changes in the European governance caused by adjustment to the European integration
process.
The notion of Europeanization is somewhat complex. In the first place, because
accommodation of belonging to the EU has a clear vertical dimension, but also the second
horizontal dimension is less evident.3 Furthermore, “nothing is necessarily top-down in the
domestic adjustment to regional European integration” (Graziano and Vink, 2007:8).
When only bearing in mind the vertical dimension of the concept of
Europeanization, two different approaches can be used: a) the top-down approach that
follows the sequence: 1. "Pressure" from "Europe" on the member states – 2. Variable
interveners – 3. Reactions and changes at domestic level; and b) the bottom-up approach,
that considers Europeanization as the dependent variable and places “actors, problems,
resources, style and speeches at domestic level” at the beginning of the causal chain
(Radaelli, 2006: 60).4
2 Added emphasis.
3 In reference, Radaelli, one of the authors who has contributed most to consolidating this agenda, points out
that: "The European Union can provide the context, the cognitive and normative ‘framework’, the terms of
reference, or the opportunities for the socialization of domestic actors, that then produce `exchanges´ of ideas,
power, policies, etc.” (Radaelli, 2006: 62). 4 Please note that not even the top-down approach to Europeanization uses this as a synonym of convergence
5
In short, Europeanization “only involves the inclusion of the internal policy in our
comprehension of European integration” (Radaelli, 2006:58).
The adjustment to "Europe" of the parties and the party politics was late in joining
the Europeanization research agenda (Carter et al., 2007; Ladrech, 2002; Mair, 2007).
Ladrech (2002) put forward five areas of research for adapting national parties to
the EU: 1) organizational change (including not only formal reforms but also informal
adjustments in the practices and power relations inside the parties), 2) program and policy
content, 3) patterns of party competition, 4) party/government relations and 5) relations
beyond the national party system.
In general, the first papers on this subject concentrated on the vertical and ascending
dimension (bottom-up) of the adjustment on "Europe", and on only direct changes. Later
on, direct effects began to be analyzed in the descending direction (top-down).
Seminal studies of the effect of belonging to the EU in the parties and national party
systems concluded that this was limited (Aylott et al., 2007; Ladrech, 2002 and 2007;
Ramiro and Morales, 2007; Raunio, 2007); and basically analysed: 1) specialists presence
and influence on European affairs in party organizations, and 2) the format and mechanisms
of party systems (Mair, 2000: 36).
It is obvious that the trend was to centralize party organizations since the sixties of
the last century (Katz and Mair, 1995; Kirchheimer, 1996; Raunio, 2002; Farrell and Webb,
2000) and, in general, to presidentialize politics, favoured by the increasing role that the
mass media play in the political scenario. This was reinforced because of the European
integration process (Aylott et al., 2007; Ladrech, 2007; Raunio, 2002).
As the majority of the large European parties are, from an organizational point of
view, cartel-type parties and develop their functions in a context in which relations with the
mass media are perceived as crucial in order to win and preserve power, leaders’ autonomy
is very extensive, and allows them to control not only their party organizations but also the
adjustment to "Europe" of party politics.
or harmonization. In fact, the empirical evidence often corroborates the "differential" impact of the European
integration on member states (Héritier et al., 2001; Graziano and Vink, 2007; Radaelli, 2006); the proximity
or compatibility between the institutional configuration of the EU and those of different countries (this is
what Hix and Goetz call closeness of fit) tends to be one of the most significant factors when explaining the
differences in the accommodation processes to "Europe", or “ patterns of Europeanization” (Hix and Goetz,
2000: 19).
6
Raunio's article in 2002 especially presents one of the first attempts of examining
the effects of the EU in decision-making within national parties. This author upholds that
the institutional configuration of the Union exogenously reinforces the concentration of
power in the centre of the party organizations, which, as just stated, is an underlying trend.
Raunio realizes how the impact of the EU on national party organizations has been
formally limited. “The parties have established EU commissions and named European
secretaries; nominated candidates in European elections and appointed delegates in
executive organs of the Euro parties. However, these changes are quite modest in their
extent and do not alter the basic structure of party organization” (Raunio, 2002: 406).
Although, informally, the adjustment of party organizations to "Europe" could be far more
significant (Raunio, 2002: 414).
In general, the first papers on the adjustment to "Europe" of party organizations
demonstrate that experts in European affairs do not gain centrality, but the power
concentration process in the party elite is accelerated, at least in the case of government
parties (Aylott et al., 2007: 208).
Mair (2000, 2007) identified two significant indirect effects of the EU on national
parties. Firstly, as a result of the delegation of competences in Union institutions, the
reduction of the range of political instruments, the political argument and political space,
that is to say, the area of competition between political forces with aspirations of
government in national party systems. Secondly, in the area of the EU, the increase of
“immateriality of conventional policy”. This second indirect effect, the depoliticising in the
space of the Union, was confirmed by Ladrech (2007).
Without a doubt the European integration process reduces the number of issues
decided domestically, and necessarily with it the matters upon which national parties
contrast their proposals and the alternatives offered to voters in internal competition.5
This papers tries to provide a small contribution to the studies on the
Europeanization of parties and party politics of member states, continuing with the
examination of the indirect effects; but inverting the causal relation. If Mair (2000 and
2007) considered the increase of the European integration process was the independent
5 On the effect of monetary integration in Europe in the electoral competition Menéndez (2012) and Urquizu
(2012) need to be consulted.
7
variable and the reduction of the area of party competition domestically or the
depoliticising in the EU in general, the dependent variables, for us, political national
parties are placed at the beginning of the causal chain.
We analyze in particular the introduction of European issues by political parties in
the 2011 Spanish election campaign as a determining factor of the democratic legitimacy
of the EU. The expected relation is direct.
3. THE ARGUMENT
During most of the European integration process, the good results of EU policies
were sufficient to legitimise public decisions adopted at supra-state level.6 However, the
Euro crisis has put the fragility of the sources of legitimacy of origin (identity and
democracy) of the EU on the table, and initiated the debate on its democratic deficit in the
political agenda of some member states.
Historically, the democratic deficit of the EU had an institutional dimension and
another sociological one. The first was related to a form of investiture and the lack of
accountability of the European Commission, the opaqueness of the meetings of the Council
of Ministers, the weakness of the European Parliament and also of the Political Parties at
European Level and the hollowing out of responsibilities of State Parliaments (central and
regional ones of member states decentralized politically or with regions with legislative
competence). The second dimension was related to the absence of a European demos (a
political community at European level with collective identity), and also of a common
public sphere.
However, delving deeper into the integration from Maastricht to the coming into
force of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009 and later developments have very
significantly improved the democratic credentials of the EU. The European Parliament is
today an undoubtedly strong institution: under the ordinary legislative procedure, which
6 The legitimacy of the EU, as that of any other political democratic system, rests on three pillars: the results
when satisfying the needs and values of citizens (efficiency); public control from a position of political
equality (democracy); and a certain feeling of belonging to the political community (identity) (Lord and
Beetham, 2001: 444). Legitimacy, according to the efficiency in answering social demands is known as
“legitimacy of result”, and the axiological requirements and democratic procedures together with the
identification of the political community are considered to be sources of “legitimacy of origin” (Scharpf,
1999).
8
apply to most matters, it co-legislates on an equal footing with the Council of Ministers; it
has also gained power as a budgetary authority (shared equally with the Council); the
appointment of the Commission President is determined by the result of elections to the
European Parliament. Likewise, transparency of the meetings of the Council of Ministers
has been guaranteed when acting as a legislative chamber. The European citizen’s initiative
has also been constitutionalized and developed legislatively. The Lisbon Treaty has in
addition given power to the National Parliaments, fundamentally through the new early
warning system for controlling the principle of subsidiarity. Even from the sociological
point of view, the actual Euro crisis has caused the appearance of a public European
embryonic sphere.
However, if we consult Eurobarometer results, we can see how citizens from many
member states (to different degrees and sometimes due to different reasons) support the
project of European construction with less intensity.7
In order to try to explain this paradox, we relate to the democratic legitimacy of the
EU (effect) to the Europeanization of party politics (cause).
If we understand democracy as political equality and civil capacity to influence and
control public decisions, it is true that even today the EU, in spite of introducing
institutional improvements and the emergence of a public space at European level, has a
problem of democratic legitimacy. We mainly blame the persistence of this situation on the
deficient treatment of European affairs by national parties; specifically, the shortage of
political information (positioning, proposals, messages) on European integration,
institutions and actors, and the public policies of the EU, which reduce citizens’ aptitude to
influence supranational decisions, among others, through voting at national elections.
4. RESULTS
The order of appearance of the research results is as follows: 1) presentation of the
new classification scheme for party proposals in the European integration process, the
7 The difference, in November 2012, between the respondents who say they are rather in favour and who
declare to be quite in opposition to the Union (in order of decreasing size of the changing trend from May
2007 to November 2012): 52 percentage points in Spain in November 2012 (as opposed to 42 in May 2007), -
22 in Italy (as opposed to 30), -29 in Germany (as opposed to 20), 6 in Poland (as opposed to 50), -49 in the
United Kingdom (as opposed to-13) or -22 in France (as opposed to 10). [Information published in issue
9
political system and the public policies of the EU; 2) enlightenment of the evolution of the
positions of Spanish parties regarding European issues using data from the Manifesto
Project; 3) coding of proposals on EU affairs contained in the programs of the political
party that obtained representation in the Spanish Parliament on 20-N; 4) coding of the
proposals on these matters that were introduced in the election campaign by the Partido
Popular (PP) and the Partido Socialista (PSOE) through the following communication
channels: the Política Exterior magazine, the only televised debate between their
candidates for the Presidency of the Government (M. Rajoy and Alfredo P. Rubalcaba), the
accounts in twitter of both leaders and the El País newspaper.
4.1 The new classification scheme of party proposals on the European integration process,
the political system and public policies of the EU
We put forward a classification system for party proposals on EU affairs, which is
complementary to the classification scheme of the Manifesto Project.
The Manifesto Project scheme was created at the beginning of the decade of the
eighties in the 20th
century to code the political preferences of parties through the analysis
of content of their election programs at state level. It has been widely used for classifying
units of analysis of heterogeneous political texts, including speeches or governmental
statements dating back from the Second World War.8
The method used for the Manifesto Project is not discussed. Undoubtedly, it “has
been, and continues to be, a success story” (Alonso et al., 2012b: 8). Although, this paper
does not exclusively examine the election programs but also other 20-N political texts, it
even shares the theoretical assumption of the Manifesto Project in that the program is the
only representative document of the position of a party in specific elections. If we study
other texts, it is because not only are we interested in the positioning but also in the
political messages and especially in the content of the proposals.
We recognize the colossal contribution to the social sciences of the only database
that allows rigorously comparing the ideological positions and political party preferences as
number 4 (“Shock of democracies”) of the Europa booklet, edited in conjunction with the main newspaper
headers of the six largest countries of the EU. This was published in the El País newspaper on 25 April 2013]. 8 Regarding the Manifesto Project method, besides the compulsory consultation of Budge et al. (2001),
Klingemann et al. (2006) and Volkens et al. (2012), are indispensable: Alonso et al. (2012a and 2012b).
10
well as the electoral competition, including confronting countries of different world
regions. In addition, the versatility of this information is valued very positively, which can
be used to address complex research questions. In fact, we used data from the Manifesto
Project in this piece of research.
However, for the purpose of our study, i.e. the EU, the standard scheme of the
Manifesto Project only provides measures of party positioning in favour and against; but no
substantial data on the measures they put forward.
Specifically, the Manifesto Project scheme for systematizing programmatic
preferences concerning the political system, policy and politics highlight 56 categories,
which classify governmental performance under 7 areas, i.e.: "External Relations”,
“Freedom and Democracy”, “Political System”, "Economy", “Welfare and Quality of
Life”, “Fabric of Society”, and “Social Groups”. Two of the 56 categories, classified under
area 1 “External Relations”, are linked with the EU; there are called: "European
Community/European Union: positive” and "European Community/European Union:
negative”.9
It is possible to calculate, when using both categories together, not only the combined
with salience position as the pure position with regard to the EU expressed in the
programs.10
The combined with salience position is calculated by reducing the percentage
of category 110 to the percentage of category 108. The pure position is achieved by
dividing the result of the above subtraction from the sum of the percentages of categories
108 and 110.
The new classification scheme for coding party proposals concerning the EU that we
create increases the number of categories for the systematical collection of data about these
affairs at an intermediate level of abstraction. The data generated by using this tool serves
9 These categories are defined in the following way. Category 108, “EC/EU: positive”: "references favourable
towards the European Union/Community in general”. This can include: convenience of the adhesion of the
country of the election program (or permanency as a member); convenience of an extension of the European
Community/European Union; convenience of an increase in the competence of the Union and of the European
Community; convenience of an extension of the competence of the European Parliament. Category 110:
"EC/EU: negative”: "negative references towards the European Community/European Union”. This can
include: opposition to certain European policies preferred by European authorities; opposition to the net
contribution of the country of the election program to the EU budget. 10
The combined with salience position theoretically moves between the values of -100 [when the reference/s
opposing a matter (in our case, the EU) occupy the whole program being examined] and +100 (when the
reference/s in their favour complete the program). Meanwhile, the scale of pure position ranges, also
hypothetically, between the values of -1 y +1.
11
for the comparative research of electoral competition in the EU, not only at supranational
but also at national level; and can be analyzed using both quantitative (raising the level of
abstraction) and qualitative research techniques, depending on the research questions that
are considered to be relevant for formulating every piece of research.
Elaborating the new classification process was especially inductive, the fruit of the
exercise of coding party proposals for the 2011 Spanish elections, initiated with a
preliminary deductive classification scheme, which sustained notable variations in view of
the data contained in the 12 programs we examined.
Three dimensions of the concept “European Union” are distinguished, which are:
European integration process, political system and public policies of the EU. Consequently,
the classification scheme is structured upon three areas.
29 categories are differentiated as indicated in the following table.
12
TABLE 4.1: CLASSIFICATION OF PARTY PROPOSALS ON EU AFFAIRS
Areas Categories
Area 1:
INTEGRATION
PROCESS
101 Widening
102 Deepening
103 Democratization
Area 2:
INSTITUTIONS
AND ACTORS
201 Multilevel Government
202 EU Institutions and Organs
203 Political Parties at European Level
204 Groups of Interest
205 Legitimacy
Area 4:
PUBLIC
POLICIES
301 Financial Programming and Budget
302 Internal Market and Competition
303 Trade
304 Economic and Monetary Affairs and Euro
305 Tax System
306 Social Affairs and Inclusion
307 Agriculture and Rural Development
308 Maritime Affairs and Fishing
309 Environment
310 Regional Policy
311 Space of Freedom, Security and Justice
312 Foreign Policy and Neighbourhood Policy
313 Security and Defence Policy
314 International Cooperation, Humanitarian
Aid and Response to Crises
315 Education and Youth
316 Research and Innovation
317 Digital Agenda
318 Energy
319 Transport
320 Industry
321 Other Policies or Cross-Cutting Issues of
Public Policies
Source: prepared by the author.
As in the Manifesto Project, the “quasi-sentence” (that is to say, a series of words
that contain a sole argument) is the unit of analysis that is coded11
; and not only in the
11
A “quasi-sentence” is a phrase or part of a phrase (quasi-phrase) that expresses a sole general argument. It
has to be used as a unit of code to the detriment of the isolated word (or symbol) when the research is not only
interested in the frequency of appearance of certain terms in the texts, but especially in the positions
maintained by an agent with regard to a matter and its justification.
13
decomposition procedure of the texts in quasi-phrases but also in the coding, the Manifesto
Project rules are respected. These can be consulted at: http://manifestoproject.wzb.eu.12
Therefore, in order to assign the proposals to one or other of the 29 categories of the
new classification, the rules of the Volkens coding manual (2002) apply, of which we
emphasize the two following ones due to the particular usefulness shown in coding the
programmatic proposals of 20-N: 1) categories of the area entitled “Public policies”
(objectives) have preference over the categories of “Institutions and actors” (means); 2) the
most specific categories have priority over the most general ones (for example, in
“Integration process”, category 103 "Democratization" has preference over category 102
"Deepening").
4.2 Evolution of the position of Spanish parties on European affairs
We give below a series of graphs showing the evolution of the position of Spanish
parties concerning the EU from the adhesion of this country to the then European
Community, in 1986.
Data from the Manifesto Project has been used, specifically, the combined with
salience position ("position", and not “pure position”) stated in the programs of the parties
that obtained parliamentary representation in at least two of the eight general elections held
since then: in 1986, 1989, 1993, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2011.
In order to draw up the first graph, we calculated the average "position" (combined
with salience position) in the EU of the parties that obtained representation at each election.
12
The criteria for dividing the text into units of analysis is as follows: if there is a complete argument in a
phrase, it is not divided; otherwise, it is divided into several quasi-phrases (every quasi-phrase must contain a