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.
For more information about my work, please download the paper here.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar