Support for Radical Parties in Western Europe: Structural Conflicts and Political Dynamics
Why is the populist radical left and right on the rise across western Europe? Integrating theories on changing socio-political conflict with arguments about crises of political representation, we contend that electoral support for radical right and radical left parties is rooted in two distinct sets of socio-structural factors, but their translation into electoral choice is in both cases conditioned by the individual political discontent that originates in specific political dynamics. Relying on the European Social Survey (ESS) covering the period from 2002 to 2016 and Parlgov data, we show that the lack of responsiveness of mainstream parties to the changing social conflict structure provides critical opportunities for new challengers from both the radical left and the radical right, while voters’ political discontent only works to heighten their success when these parties are in opposition. Our article contributes not only by offering an integrative account of the electoral appeal of the radical right and radical left parties. In emphasising the largely similar nature of short-term, political factors that condition the translation of the different sets of long-term, structural determinants into opting for these parties, critically, this article also contributes to understanding the electoral success of radical challengers across western Europe.
This paper is concerned with patterns of mobilization of the radical left-libertarian movement (RLLM) groups in contemporary Russia and how these patterns correspond to general features of the country’s political sphere. On a theoretical level, the concept of political opportunity structures (POS) will be engaged and critically discussed in order to understand the relationship between the state’s approach to non-institutionalized, contentious politics and the contents and forms of protest action by RLLM groups. Empirically, the chapter analyses data on protest events in order to produce insights into mobilization patterns of radical left-libertarian actors in contemporary Russia.
When voters fear that politicians may be influenced or corrupted by the rich elite, signals of integrity are valuable. As a consequence, an honest politician seeking reelection chooses "populist" policies--that is, policies to the left of the median voter--as a way of signaling that he is not beholden to the interests of the right. Politicians that are influenced by right-wing special interests respond by choosing moderate or even left-of-center policies. This populist bias of policy is greater when the value of remaining in office is higher for the politician; when there is greater polarization between the policy preferences of the median voter and right-wing special interests; when politicians are perceived as more likely to be corrupt; when there is an intermediate amount of noise in the information that voters receive; when politicians are more forward-looking; and when there is greater uncertainty about the type of the incumbent. We also show that soft term limits may exacerbate, rather than reduce, the populist bias of policies.
The chapter examines Russian Jews’ participation in Russian political parties as a consequence of their integration into Russian society, and the role of the Jews in various political parties in late XIX – early XX centuries, from social-democrats to cadets.
The chapter traces the history of the sociological thought and institutionalization of the discipline of sociology in the context of the Russian Empire in the second half of the XIX the and the beginning of the XXth century. The authors' main focus is on the entanglement of paradigms of social knowledge and the problem of diversity of the imperial space. The chapter identifies several modalities of refraction and engagement of the imperial diversity in the Russian social thought and later the discipline of sociology: from the learned ignorance of the revolutionary unmaking of the imperial space, the colonialist exclusion of evolutionism and populism, and on to the redefinition of irregular developing society in early twentieth century versions of Russian sociology. The chapter also traces the global circuits of social knowledge and explores how Russian social scientists of the second half of the XIXth century partook in the invention of "traditional society" and how this concept was refracted through the contemporaneous politics of colonialism and imperialism. Finally, the chapter uncovers the origins of institutionalized sociology in the dissenting institutions of higher education: The Russian Higher School of Social Sciences in Paris and the Psycho-Neurological (Bekhterev) Institute in Petersburg; and explores how those institutions refracted the politicized differences of the Russian imperial space.
In his article V.K. Kantor considers complicated relations Russian emigres with these west-european functionaries, who have built organizations, structures, to assist survive Russian intellectuals. Author analyses this problem examining letters of F. Stepun to G. Kullmann. Author also publishes archived letters of Stepun to Kullmann.
Review of book: Musikhin G.I. Essays on the Ideology Theory. M.: Publish. House of Higher School of Economics, 2013. 288 p.