Critique of the Second Order Elections theory (EP-elections)

In political science regarding the research about EP-elections it is often assumed in principle that elections that produce national governments are the most important ones for the vast majority of voters and political parties. The part of the critique regarding the Second Order Elections theory as mentioned in the former post is that the other kinds of elections are per se proclaimed as of second-order importance, as the case is with the EP-elections. As such they are regarded to be understood and analysed as the elections subordinated for the function of the national-level politics.

The theoretical benchmark of the research regarding the European electoral processes is that one of the main characteristics is the overall use of national-level rules and political behaviour, including the use of national-level political communication. According to the research, this is based on the ways the national political parties perceive the importance of the electoral process and the relevant policy issues. The argument is that national political parties are determined to use the national political communication to ensure that voters will understand the message. However, findings and arguments regarding the Reif and Schmitt approach is the central part of criticism of SOE theory during the latest years.

Initially, it is important to understand in which kind of context the SOE theory was developed. The main inspiration was the sub-national elections process in West-Germany among the Länder which were studied by the political scientist Reinar Dinkel during the end of the 1970’s. The “nationalised political logic” in the case of the federal structure as West-Germany was evident as well as in the elections for the US Congress regarding the institutional powers among levels of the governance and their importance for the voters at the sub-national level. The German federalism during the period in which Dinkel focused on can be regarded as a highly “nationalised” variant of federalism which for example did not value or promote much of the principle of territorial diversity and autonomy and was institutionally focused on delivering that commitment through joint action by federal and Land governments. Therefore the “nationalised political logic” in the case of the federal structure as West-Germany was visible as well as in the elections for the US Congress regarding the institutional powers among levels of the governance and their importance for the voters at the sub-national level.

Scholars as Schakel and Jeffery have questioned the so-called ”nationalisation bias” of the Reif and Schmitt approach where the second-order elections are regarded as subordinated to national policies and driven by national issues. The initial arguments of Reif and Schmitt have also been questioned regarding the conceptualisation and understanding of the EP-elections by using the nationalised logic including aspects as voting behaviour and political communication. According to Schakel and Jeffery the “denationalising” elaborations of the know-ledge about EP elections have been ignored by researchers working through what they present as” intellectually frozen SOE concept from the middle of 1980’.

The critique is also based on that the research of the EP-elections is influenced by the methodological nationalism where supranational or sub-national electoral processes, despite their dependency on national rules, are being studied as a kind of second-order national elections. From the start the intent in applying SOE analytical approach was mostly not based on seeking for confirmation that national factors dominated in regional election outcomes. This was rather based on identifying where and why regional elections did not confirm the “nationalised” SOE expectations. Despite the modifications of the SOE approach through different means since its first definition by Reif and Schmitt, the issue of nationalised conceptual framework is by the scholars as Schakel and Jeffery regarded as risky for making unreflected assumption that all other forms of electoral competition are subordinate to national politics and thereby underscoring the uncritical methodological assumption that the national scale of politics is the only one of ”real importance”.

The argument of Schakel and Jeffery is that regional as well as the EP-elections should be understood and analysed on their own terms and not as national elections. The “less at stake” in second-order elections comparing to the national ones was based on voting behaviour where voters used the SOE as an opportunity to vent their short temperament about national-level politics. For example by performing protest voting for fringe parties or by not participating in the electoral process:

Reif and Schmitt’s assumption that there is more at stake in national elections than EP or regional elections are credible enough. What appears less credible is that what is at stake nationally necessarily crowds out distinct judgements about the issues that might be at stake in regional (sub-national) elections.

However, the issue of what is “at stake” in regional and European elections has changed. Schakel and Jeffery describe this by stating that there are now “more is at stake” than before. One reason is that there are far more states having elections to regional parliaments, including those parliaments which had accumulated new powers, than when the SOE theory was being developed. Second reason is that there are more EU-member states due to enlargements processes as well as the institutional capabilities of the EP have increased. This has also resulted in changed voting behaviour where EU-citizens are voting for proposals for political solutions at the EU-level. Among the main criticism of the theory is its assumption that the national rhetoric will dominate despite the status of the election, such as regional or European.

The theory of Reif and Schmitt has also been criticised for being developed only on the macro level and not on the micro-level (individual level). According to this part of the critique, the micro-level approach means that there can be several explanations why the voters are doing as they do during the elections process and that a micro approach can provide new understandings in relation with the theory. The criticism is based on that the voters in many cases do care about the arguments presented by the parties, especially if the issues themselves can be recognised as necessary for the EU-level decision-making. It also means that national rhetoric during the EP-elections is not always the most driving motive for the voters to participate. This has also been the case in Sweden where it is argued that the “EU-dimension” agenda, such as EU-integration, makes it attractive for the voters for how the parties actually are arguing regardless their support to the government or large parties. An alternative or additional explanation why for example the “large parties” perform less well during the EP-elections than during the national ones is that voters find political communication among other parties more preferable and better. 


For more information about my work, please download the paper here.