{"title":"A programme written by citizens? Agenda-setters and veto players in drafting the 2018 election manifesto of the Five-star Movement","authors":"Bálint Mikola","doi":"10.1080/23248823.2022.2026666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Bottom-up policy development is integral to the concept of direct democracy and has been advertised by parties advocating this ideal as a ‘revolution’. However, as election manifestos are complex documents that embrace a wide range of policy areas, such processes typically involve external advisors or party politicians specialized in a narrow policy field. Thus, the task of writing the programme is shared among several stakeholders. This raises the question of the extent to which ‘citizens’, i.e. party activists, can serve as agenda-setters in this process, and whether they can exclude proposals they oppose from the manifesto. The article contributes to the agenda-setting literature by exploring this puzzle through analysing the case of the 2018 election manifesto of the Five-star Movement which was ‘written by citizens’ and ratified in several membership ballots. A detailed analysis of the policy development process determines the distribution of agenda-setting capacities and veto powers in the construction of the M5s’ election manifesto, which is contrasted with elite narratives gained from qualitative interviews with party representatives, and the findings of an online membership survey (n = 187). The findings suggest that although party members’ contribution to the agenda is negligible, some of the membership ballots granted them a substantial share of veto power. At the same time, the data indicates that few of them used this opportunity, which relegated membership ballots to a mere approval of top-down proposals. The findings challenge formalistic interpretations of direct democracy and highlight the importance of focusing on actual party practices instead.","PeriodicalId":37572,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Italian Politics","volume":"14 1","pages":"293 - 313"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Italian Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23248823.2022.2026666","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT Bottom-up policy development is integral to the concept of direct democracy and has been advertised by parties advocating this ideal as a ‘revolution’. However, as election manifestos are complex documents that embrace a wide range of policy areas, such processes typically involve external advisors or party politicians specialized in a narrow policy field. Thus, the task of writing the programme is shared among several stakeholders. This raises the question of the extent to which ‘citizens’, i.e. party activists, can serve as agenda-setters in this process, and whether they can exclude proposals they oppose from the manifesto. The article contributes to the agenda-setting literature by exploring this puzzle through analysing the case of the 2018 election manifesto of the Five-star Movement which was ‘written by citizens’ and ratified in several membership ballots. A detailed analysis of the policy development process determines the distribution of agenda-setting capacities and veto powers in the construction of the M5s’ election manifesto, which is contrasted with elite narratives gained from qualitative interviews with party representatives, and the findings of an online membership survey (n = 187). The findings suggest that although party members’ contribution to the agenda is negligible, some of the membership ballots granted them a substantial share of veto power. At the same time, the data indicates that few of them used this opportunity, which relegated membership ballots to a mere approval of top-down proposals. The findings challenge formalistic interpretations of direct democracy and highlight the importance of focusing on actual party practices instead.
期刊介绍:
Contemporary Italian Politics, formerly Bulletin of Italian Politics, is a political science journal aimed at academics and policy makers as well as others with a professional or intellectual interest in the politics of Italy. The journal has two main aims: Firstly, to provide rigorous analysis, in the English language, about the politics of what is one of the European Union’s four largest states in terms of population and Gross Domestic Product. We seek to do this aware that too often those in the English-speaking world looking for incisive analysis and insight into the latest trends and developments in Italian politics are likely to be stymied by two contrasting difficulties. On the one hand, they can turn to the daily and weekly print media. Here they will find information on the latest developments, sure enough; but much of it is likely to lack the incisiveness of academic writing and may even be straightforwardly inaccurate. On the other hand, readers can turn either to general political science journals – but here they will have to face the issue of fragmented information – or to specific journals on Italy – in which case they will find that politics is considered only insofar as it is part of the broader field of modern Italian studies[...] The second aim follows from the first insofar as, in seeking to achieve it, we hope thereby to provide analysis that readers will find genuinely useful. With research funding bodies of all kinds giving increasing emphasis to knowledge transfer and increasingly demanding of applicants that they demonstrate the relevance of what they are doing to non-academic ‘end users’, political scientists have a self-interested motive for attempting a closer engagement with outside practitioners.