Pub Date : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.1080/09644008.2022.2056595
J. Hebenstreit
ABSTRACT Recently, the concept of polarisation has experienced a considerable upturn and made its way into the public debate. As far as the German case goes, it has been argued that the electorate is becoming increasingly polarised and that a rift is running through society. The tendency is said to be particularly pronounced in the eastern part of the country, as can be deduced from the electoral successes of the Left Party and the AfD. This paper empirically tests this argument on the basis of ALLBUS data in the period since reunification. Using in particular the left-right self-placement and in addition three policy items connected with the GAL-TAN dimension as measures for ideological preferences, it appears that no conclusive evidence for this hypothesis can be found – neither in Eastern nor Western Germany. Yet, the findings are different with regard to the policy issue of immigration. Here, a clear antagonism between supporters and opponents of immigration can be identified. Based on the overall findings, it would, however, be a misconception to conclude that the German electorate is polarised. On the contrary, looking at the different developments in Western and Eastern Germany, in recent years a tendency toward a belated ideological unification has become apparent.
{"title":"Voter Polarisation in Germany: Unpolarised Western but Polarised Eastern Germany?","authors":"J. Hebenstreit","doi":"10.1080/09644008.2022.2056595","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2022.2056595","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Recently, the concept of polarisation has experienced a considerable upturn and made its way into the public debate. As far as the German case goes, it has been argued that the electorate is becoming increasingly polarised and that a rift is running through society. The tendency is said to be particularly pronounced in the eastern part of the country, as can be deduced from the electoral successes of the Left Party and the AfD. This paper empirically tests this argument on the basis of ALLBUS data in the period since reunification. Using in particular the left-right self-placement and in addition three policy items connected with the GAL-TAN dimension as measures for ideological preferences, it appears that no conclusive evidence for this hypothesis can be found – neither in Eastern nor Western Germany. Yet, the findings are different with regard to the policy issue of immigration. Here, a clear antagonism between supporters and opponents of immigration can be identified. Based on the overall findings, it would, however, be a misconception to conclude that the German electorate is polarised. On the contrary, looking at the different developments in Western and Eastern Germany, in recent years a tendency toward a belated ideological unification has become apparent.","PeriodicalId":46640,"journal":{"name":"German Politics","volume":"32 1","pages":"63 - 84"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43968339","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-29DOI: 10.1080/09644008.2022.2056596
Anne Küppers
{"title":"‘Climate-Soviets,’ ‘Alarmism,’ and ‘Eco-Dictatorship’: The Framing of Climate Change Scepticism by the Populist Radical Right Alternative for Germany","authors":"Anne Küppers","doi":"10.1080/09644008.2022.2056596","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2022.2056596","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46640,"journal":{"name":"German Politics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47657354","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-27DOI: 10.1080/09644008.2022.2056593
L. Constantin Wurthmann
{"title":"Black–Blue or Bahamas? Explaining CDU, CSU, FDP and AfD Voter Attitudes Towards a Common Governmental Coalition Before the 2017 German Federal Election","authors":"L. Constantin Wurthmann","doi":"10.1080/09644008.2022.2056593","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2022.2056593","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46640,"journal":{"name":"German Politics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44486321","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-22DOI: 10.1080/09644008.2022.2051491
Aiko Wagner
ABSTRACT This paper compares the evolution of critical characteristics of the party systems in Eastern and Western Germany since unification. While the institutionalisation hypothesis implies that the party system in Eastern Germany should adjust towards its Western German counterpart, the ongoing dealignment suggests a loosening of party-voter-linkages and, ultimately, non-institutionalisation in Eastern Germany and party system de-institutionalisation in Western Germany. However, both hypotheses predict a convergence. Against the backdrop of persisting regional differences in party strengths, a third hypothesis assumes that Eastern and Western Germany still have two distinct party systems thirty years after reunification. Using election results and survey data since the 1990s, we inspect the development of five indicators of party systems – volatility, vote-switching, electoral availability, fragmentation, and differences in vote shares – in light of the hypotheses. There are three main results: First, most of the indicators point to party system institutionalisation in Eastern Germany and convergence to Western Germany in the 1990s. Second, for the last 20 years or so, the indicators point to parallel developments of dealignment and partial party system de-institutionalisation. Third, regarding the specific parties and their vote shares, there has been no convergence between Eastern and Western Germany.
{"title":"Party System Change in Eastern and Western Germany Between Convergence and Dissimilarity","authors":"Aiko Wagner","doi":"10.1080/09644008.2022.2051491","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2022.2051491","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper compares the evolution of critical characteristics of the party systems in Eastern and Western Germany since unification. While the institutionalisation hypothesis implies that the party system in Eastern Germany should adjust towards its Western German counterpart, the ongoing dealignment suggests a loosening of party-voter-linkages and, ultimately, non-institutionalisation in Eastern Germany and party system de-institutionalisation in Western Germany. However, both hypotheses predict a convergence. Against the backdrop of persisting regional differences in party strengths, a third hypothesis assumes that Eastern and Western Germany still have two distinct party systems thirty years after reunification. Using election results and survey data since the 1990s, we inspect the development of five indicators of party systems – volatility, vote-switching, electoral availability, fragmentation, and differences in vote shares – in light of the hypotheses. There are three main results: First, most of the indicators point to party system institutionalisation in Eastern Germany and convergence to Western Germany in the 1990s. Second, for the last 20 years or so, the indicators point to parallel developments of dealignment and partial party system de-institutionalisation. Third, regarding the specific parties and their vote shares, there has been no convergence between Eastern and Western Germany.","PeriodicalId":46640,"journal":{"name":"German Politics","volume":"32 1","pages":"85 - 106"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42007695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-10DOI: 10.1080/09644008.2022.2028140
Marianne Kneuer, Stefan Wallaschek
While communication generally embodies an essential part of public leadership, this is even more true in times of crisis when uncertainty prevails, and the public expects the leader not only to take adequate measures to mitigate the crisis, but also to justify and explain these measures. In the COVID-19 pandemic, Angela Merkel’s communication differed from other Western political leaders who strongly relied on a war narrative. This paper focuses on the framing by the German Chancellor during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic (March–July 2020). We examine Merkel’s crisis communication in three different public arenas: her public speeches, her press conference appearances and her weekly podcasts. Based on a qualitative content analysis, our study provides three relevant insights. First, it proves that the claim for solidarity – national as well as European solidarity - represents the crucial element of Merkel’s meaning-making narrative. Second, the study shows that both statements on the protection of public health and of economy strongly resonate in her communication, but that the prioritisation shifted over time. Finally, our analysis manifests how Merkel’s framing differs in the three communicative arenas. Additionally, our findings indicate that Merkel followed a modified leadership style during the COVID-19 crisis. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of German Politics is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)
{"title":"Framing COVID-19: Public Leadership and Crisis Communication By Chancellor Angela Merkel During the Pandemic in 2020","authors":"Marianne Kneuer, Stefan Wallaschek","doi":"10.1080/09644008.2022.2028140","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2022.2028140","url":null,"abstract":"While communication generally embodies an essential part of public leadership, this is even more true in times of crisis when uncertainty prevails, and the public expects the leader not only to take adequate measures to mitigate the crisis, but also to justify and explain these measures. In the COVID-19 pandemic, Angela Merkel’s communication differed from other Western political leaders who strongly relied on a war narrative. This paper focuses on the framing by the German Chancellor during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic (March–July 2020). We examine Merkel’s crisis communication in three different public arenas: her public speeches, her press conference appearances and her weekly podcasts. Based on a qualitative content analysis, our study provides three relevant insights. First, it proves that the claim for solidarity – national as well as European solidarity - represents the crucial element of Merkel’s meaning-making narrative. Second, the study shows that both statements on the protection of public health and of economy strongly resonate in her communication, but that the prioritisation shifted over time. Finally, our analysis manifests how Merkel’s framing differs in the three communicative arenas. Additionally, our findings indicate that Merkel followed a modified leadership style during the COVID-19 crisis. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of German Politics is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)","PeriodicalId":46640,"journal":{"name":"German Politics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41535192","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-10DOI: 10.1080/09644008.2022.2042518
Anne Heinze, Manès Weisskircher
How do political parties respond to street protest by political outsiders widely considered to be ‘pariahs’ (i.e. radical or extremist actors)? Bridging the literature on responses to ‘populist’ radical right parties with insights from social movement studies, we propose a theoretical model that conceptualises potential party responses to pariah protest. Innovatively, our typology distinguishes between a set of formal and substantive responses to street mobilisation. Empirically, we apply this model by providing the first systematic study of how political parties have responded to the ‘anti-Corona’ protests of Querdenken, contributing to social science research on the politics of the COVID-19 pandemic. Analysing the critical case of Germany, we underline the stark difference between how the populist radical right AfD and all other Bundestag parties respond to anti-Corona mobilisation, showing how political protest may sharpen the polarisation of party politics. Moreover, we highlight the more nuanced but still important differences in responses by established German parties. Theoretically, the article provides an analytical framework valuable in times of increasing street mobilisation by radical and extremist actors. Methodologically, our analysis relies on a systematic media analysis of articles from two major German newspapers. Empirically, it contributes to our understanding of the difficult but crucial relationship between the German protest and party arena during the COVID-19 pandemic.
{"title":"How Political Parties Respond to Pariah Street Protest: The Case of Anti-Corona Mobilisation in Germany","authors":"Anne Heinze, Manès Weisskircher","doi":"10.1080/09644008.2022.2042518","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2022.2042518","url":null,"abstract":"How do political parties respond to street protest by political outsiders widely considered to be ‘pariahs’ (i.e. radical or extremist actors)? Bridging the literature on responses to ‘populist’ radical right parties with insights from social movement studies, we propose a theoretical model that conceptualises potential party responses to pariah protest. Innovatively, our typology distinguishes between a set of formal and substantive responses to street mobilisation. Empirically, we apply this model by providing the first systematic study of how political parties have responded to the ‘anti-Corona’ protests of Querdenken, contributing to social science research on the politics of the COVID-19 pandemic. Analysing the critical case of Germany, we underline the stark difference between how the populist radical right AfD and all other Bundestag parties respond to anti-Corona mobilisation, showing how political protest may sharpen the polarisation of party politics. Moreover, we highlight the more nuanced but still important differences in responses by established German parties. Theoretically, the article provides an analytical framework valuable in times of increasing street mobilisation by radical and extremist actors. Methodologically, our analysis relies on a systematic media analysis of articles from two major German newspapers. Empirically, it contributes to our understanding of the difficult but crucial relationship between the German protest and party arena during the COVID-19 pandemic.","PeriodicalId":46640,"journal":{"name":"German Politics","volume":"32 1","pages":"563 - 584"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44938535","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-06DOI: 10.1080/09644008.2022.2042517
Niels Gheyle, J. Rone
ABSTRACT As the third-largest exporting country in the world, Germany is a clear beneficiary and proponent of free trade. Few, therefore, expected the magnitude of contention that emerged within Germany during the negotiations between the EU and the United States for a transatlantic trade deal (TTIP). This paper explores the politicisation process of TTIP within the context of the broader transformations of German politics including not only the entry of new issues and new players in the electoral and protest arenas but also the increased hybridisation of forms of protest. Theoretically, we draw on the ‘Players and Arenas’ framework to put forward a sequential, strategic interactionist approach to the unfolding process of politicisation, in which various types of players face dilemmas when interacting with each other over time. Applying this analytical framework to the politicisation of TTIP in Germany, we reveal previously overlooked players, interactions and dilemmas, while opening up multiple opportunities for empirical analysis of cases beyond this area. We show how the politicisation of TTIP brought about an important intensification of relations between Germany’s protest and electoral arenas, and confronted all players involved with choices with long-lasting consequences for both mobilisation and coalition building dynamics.
{"title":"‘The Politicisation Game’: Strategic Interactions in the Contention Over TTIP in Germany","authors":"Niels Gheyle, J. Rone","doi":"10.1080/09644008.2022.2042517","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2022.2042517","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As the third-largest exporting country in the world, Germany is a clear beneficiary and proponent of free trade. Few, therefore, expected the magnitude of contention that emerged within Germany during the negotiations between the EU and the United States for a transatlantic trade deal (TTIP). This paper explores the politicisation process of TTIP within the context of the broader transformations of German politics including not only the entry of new issues and new players in the electoral and protest arenas but also the increased hybridisation of forms of protest. Theoretically, we draw on the ‘Players and Arenas’ framework to put forward a sequential, strategic interactionist approach to the unfolding process of politicisation, in which various types of players face dilemmas when interacting with each other over time. Applying this analytical framework to the politicisation of TTIP in Germany, we reveal previously overlooked players, interactions and dilemmas, while opening up multiple opportunities for empirical analysis of cases beyond this area. We show how the politicisation of TTIP brought about an important intensification of relations between Germany’s protest and electoral arenas, and confronted all players involved with choices with long-lasting consequences for both mobilisation and coalition building dynamics.","PeriodicalId":46640,"journal":{"name":"German Politics","volume":"32 1","pages":"517 - 537"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46013534","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-04DOI: 10.1080/09644008.2021.2023130
Katarina Stjepandić, Elias Steinhilper, Sabrina Zajak
ABSTRACT This article analyses the ‘Unteilbar coalition for an open and plural society’ in Germany, as an emblematic case to advance scholarship on cross-movement coalition-building and intersectionality in social movement studies. We argue that migration-related polarisation and an accentuated threat of rising far-right mobilisation has provided a context for progressive social movement organisations in Germany to converge and to engage in a particular kind of boundary spanning. The organisations involved have actively constructed an intersectional variant of ‘political solidarity’ by interlocking diverse socio-political struggles – explicitly moving beyond the topic of migration. In contrast to the common understanding of heterogeneous coalitions, being both challenging and prone to fragmentation, we argue that the boundary spanning work performed during Unteilbar has resulted in the outcome of a sustainable mobilisation capacity, and a fostering of movement solidarity rooted in an ‘intersectional consciousness’.
{"title":"Forging Plural Coalitions in Times of Polarisation: Protest for an Open Society in Germany","authors":"Katarina Stjepandić, Elias Steinhilper, Sabrina Zajak","doi":"10.1080/09644008.2021.2023130","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2021.2023130","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article analyses the ‘Unteilbar coalition for an open and plural society’ in Germany, as an emblematic case to advance scholarship on cross-movement coalition-building and intersectionality in social movement studies. We argue that migration-related polarisation and an accentuated threat of rising far-right mobilisation has provided a context for progressive social movement organisations in Germany to converge and to engage in a particular kind of boundary spanning. The organisations involved have actively constructed an intersectional variant of ‘political solidarity’ by interlocking diverse socio-political struggles – explicitly moving beyond the topic of migration. In contrast to the common understanding of heterogeneous coalitions, being both challenging and prone to fragmentation, we argue that the boundary spanning work performed during Unteilbar has resulted in the outcome of a sustainable mobilisation capacity, and a fostering of movement solidarity rooted in an ‘intersectional consciousness’.","PeriodicalId":46640,"journal":{"name":"German Politics","volume":"32 1","pages":"469 - 494"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44790819","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-28DOI: 10.1080/09644008.2022.2026928
Georgios Maris, P. Manoli
ABSTRACT This paper shares the premises that it is the power asymmetry factor that has framed Greece’s preferences and strategies in EMU governance and reform. Still, Greece’s shifting negotiation tactics during the eurozone crisis have been heavily influenced by the overriding policy-making model and political leadership in the country. As power asymmetry deepened during the crisis years and while standing on the brink of economic collapse and eurozone exit, Greece did not have a viable fall-back position in pursuing its preferences. This paper explains why Athens pursued a fence-sitting strategy in EMU reform with, however, instances of foot-dragging primarily when negotiating the bailout programmes, reflecting the absence of an alternative and viable crisis-exit strategy tabled by Athens. The persuasion-based interaction between Athens and Berlin is also discussed. The paper shows that domestic politics can be indispensable to adequately explain specific small state strategies and players’ interaction in the context of EMU governance.
{"title":"Greece, Germany and the Eurozone Crisis: Preferences, Strategies and Power Asymmetry","authors":"Georgios Maris, P. Manoli","doi":"10.1080/09644008.2022.2026928","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2022.2026928","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper shares the premises that it is the power asymmetry factor that has framed Greece’s preferences and strategies in EMU governance and reform. Still, Greece’s shifting negotiation tactics during the eurozone crisis have been heavily influenced by the overriding policy-making model and political leadership in the country. As power asymmetry deepened during the crisis years and while standing on the brink of economic collapse and eurozone exit, Greece did not have a viable fall-back position in pursuing its preferences. This paper explains why Athens pursued a fence-sitting strategy in EMU reform with, however, instances of foot-dragging primarily when negotiating the bailout programmes, reflecting the absence of an alternative and viable crisis-exit strategy tabled by Athens. The persuasion-based interaction between Athens and Berlin is also discussed. The paper shows that domestic politics can be indispensable to adequately explain specific small state strategies and players’ interaction in the context of EMU governance.","PeriodicalId":46640,"journal":{"name":"German Politics","volume":"31 1","pages":"281 - 301"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47658247","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：