Suchergebnisse

How do parties organise for success in engaging with their diaspora? This study investigates the impact Romanian diaspora has had on national political parties. It develops an argument based on diaspora recognition, engagement and policy as implemented by old and new parties. The analysis shows that recognition of diaspora in party statutes is not a guarantee for engagement. The latter increases with the use of new online communication strategies, provided there is a demand for such communication platforms. New parties with a strong anti-corruption stance mobilise diaspora online. The policy strategy emphasises diaspora support rather than diaspora return as incumbent parties take a gradual approach based on rights and identity promotion, which increases the economic utility of the engagement. The results are based on the analysis of party statutes, governmental documents, party online communication strategies and interviews with party members.

What are the main reasons behind the regulation of political parties by contemporary constitutional practices? This article presents a framework for analysis which identifies types of justifications and actors involved in the process of regulation and their further influence on the outcomes of constitutionalisation. The empirical focus is on the revelatory case of Luxembourg, which amended the constitution for the sole reason of giving parties constitutional status. The analysis suggests that the constitutional regulation of political parties depends on their current interests and power status. Additionally, the paper draws attention to the involvement of external actors and to the changing nature of contemporary constitutionalism.

This article explains variation in the quality of representation in the context of European Parliament elections. Specifically, it clarifies how voters relate to political parties on the issue of European integration and whether they are represented, misrepresented, or indifferent to this issue. The analysis shows that perceived benefits of European integration do drive a perfect voter-party match while perceived costs, when high, drive a perfect match between Eurosceptic voters and likeminded parties and make voters less indifferent. The analysis draws attention to the high number ofstatus quovoters who, in the absence of a party with similar views, could channel their vote towards a party promoting integration, but only if their knowledge about the EU and its benefits increases.

Party organization has regained a new momentum in the party literature over the past decade. In this context, we review the most important advances in the literature and critically examine issues such as: the link between party organization literature and organizational theory literature, party organization and intra-party democracy, and between party organization on paper and in reality. We ascertain the need for more conceptual clarifications in the field and raise questions for debate. We further outline the contribution of this special issue to the theme of intra-party democracy in representative democracies.

There is a theoretical and empirical need to distinguish between static support for the EU as it now is and dynamic support for further integration. Although most Europeans endorse the EU as a good thing today, the European Election Study finds no popular majority for an ever closer union, the commitment of EU institutions. Less than one-third endorses further integration and less than one-third thinks integration has gone too far. The largest group favours keeping the EU as it is. Their outlook reflects ambivalence; they see the EU as having both strengths and weaknesses. It does not reflect lack of EU knowledge or of socio-economic resources, as is the case with 'don't knows'. While eurozone institutions are committed to further integration, most EU citizens are not. Likewise, there is no majority supporting eurosceptic demands for returning powers to national governments.

AbstractThere is a theoretical and empirical need to distinguish between static support for the EU as it now is and dynamic support for further integration. Although most Europeans endorse the EU as a good thing today, the European Election Study finds no popular majority for an ever closer union, the commitment of EU institutions. Less than one‐third endorses further integration and less than one‐third thinks integration has gone too far. The largest group favours keeping the EU as it is. Their outlook reflects ambivalence; they see the EU as having both strengths and weaknesses. It does not reflect lack of EU knowledge or of socio‐economic resources, as is the case with 'don't knows'. While eurozone institutions are committed to further integration, most EU citizens are not. Likewise, there is no majority supporting eurosceptic demands for returning powers to national governments.