1ères lignes : Les partis verts ont réussi à faire entrer en politique la cause environnementale. Mais ce succès a un revers : ils n'ont plus le monopole de la nature, cette thématique étant devenue transpartisane.L'écologie politique est l'une des seules idéologies du 20e siècle à avoir donné naissance à une nouvelle famille de partis.Les partis verts, qui s'appuient sur une idéologie de rupture avec le productivisme, l'écologie politique, se sont développés dans la plupart des pays d'Europe, avec des succès variés mais significatifs. Leur développement s'est accompagné de la diffusion des problématiques écologistes dans le débat public, au point que les enjeux environnementaux sont désormais repris par la plupart des autres partis politiques. Le verdissement des idéologies traditionnelles est toutefois limité et fluctuant. Cela s'explique par la difficulté d'accommoder un discours fondé sur la défense de la croissance économique avec la nécessité de préserver l'environnement.
1ères lignes : Les partis verts ont réussi à faire entrer en politique la cause environnementale. Mais ce succès a un revers : ils n'ont plus le monopole de la nature, cette thématique étant devenue transpartisane.L'écologie politique est l'une des seules idéologies du 20e siècle à avoir donné naissance à une nouvelle famille de partis.Les partis verts, qui s'appuient sur une idéologie de rupture avec le productivisme, l'écologie politique, se sont développés dans la plupart des pays d'Europe, avec des succès variés mais significatifs. Leur développement s'est accompagné de la diffusion des problématiques écologistes dans le débat public, au point que les enjeux environnementaux sont désormais repris par la plupart des autres partis politiques. Le verdissement des idéologies traditionnelles est toutefois limité et fluctuant. Cela s'explique par la difficulté d'accommoder un discours fondé sur la défense de la croissance économique avec la nécessité de préserver l'environnement.
This thesis studies how mainstream parties have reacted to a new cleavage dividing Environmentalism and Productivism in advanced industrial democracies. To do so, it associates cleavage theory and issue competition theories. The central hypothesis of this research is that mainstream parties should neutralize the new cleavage, by granting little attention to the diverse environmental issues that form the new cleavage, by framing those issues in relation to the historical cleavages on which they are funded, and by taking positions that imply no direct conflict with their opponents. The research design rests on comparison and mixed methods. The study concludes that big governing parties mostly fail to follow their ideal strategy. Their attention to the environmental theme has grown considerably over the last four decades, and they have had to deal with numerous new environmental issues that have no connection to the old cleavages. The only way these parties have been able to prevent the expansion of conflict is by taking consensual positions on those issues. Yet, many factors explain variations in parties' reactions: the environmental agenda in the media and in social movements, the severity of environmental degradation, the left-Right position of parties and internal divisions. Other variables have limited effect: the macroeconomic situation, incumbency, and, more surprisingly, the threat posed by green party challengers do not seem to affect big governing parties' politicization of the environment. The fact that social and environmental factors matter more than explanations based on party competition's internal dynamics upholds a cleavage-Based approach. ; Ce travail étudie la réaction des grands partis de gouvernement face au développement d'un clivage entre Écologie et Productivisme dans les démocraties occidentales. Pour ce faire, il croise la théorie des clivages et les théories de la compétition sur enjeux. L'hypothèse centrale de ce travail voudrait que ces partis neutralisent le nouveau clivage, en ...
This thesis studies how mainstream parties have reacted to a new cleavage dividing Environmentalism and Productivism in advanced industrial democracies. To do so, it associates cleavage theory and issue competition theories. The central hypothesis of this research is that mainstream parties should neutralize the new cleavage, by granting little attention to the diverse environmental issues that form the new cleavage, by framing those issues in relation to the historical cleavages on which they are funded, and by taking positions that imply no direct conflict with their opponents. The research design rests on comparison and mixed methods. The study concludes that big governing parties mostly fail to follow their ideal strategy. Their attention to the environmental theme has grown considerably over the last four decades, and they have had to deal with numerous new environmental issues that have no connection to the old cleavages. The only way these parties have been able to prevent the expansion of conflict is by taking consensual positions on those issues. Yet, many factors explain variations in parties' reactions: the environmental agenda in the media and in social movements, the severity of environmental degradation, the left-Right position of parties and internal divisions. Other variables have limited effect: the macroeconomic situation, incumbency, and, more surprisingly, the threat posed by green party challengers do not seem to affect big governing parties' politicization of the environment. The fact that social and environmental factors matter more than explanations based on party competition's internal dynamics upholds a cleavage-Based approach. ; Ce travail étudie la réaction des grands partis de gouvernement face au développement d'un clivage entre Écologie et Productivisme dans les démocraties occidentales. Pour ce faire, il croise la théorie des clivages et les théories de la compétition sur enjeux. L'hypothèse centrale de ce travail voudrait que ces partis neutralisent le nouveau clivage, en ...
This thesis studies how mainstream parties have reacted to a new cleavage dividing Environmentalism and Productivism in advanced industrial democracies. To do so, it associates cleavage theory and issue competition theories. The central hypothesis of this research is that mainstream parties should neutralize the new cleavage, by granting little attention to the diverse environmental issues that form the new cleavage, by framing those issues in relation to the historical cleavages on which they are funded, and by taking positions that imply no direct conflict with their opponents. The research design rests on comparison and mixed methods. The study concludes that big governing parties mostly fail to follow their ideal strategy. Their attention to the environmental theme has grown considerably over the last four decades, and they have had to deal with numerous new environmental issues that have no connection to the old cleavages. The only way these parties have been able to prevent the expansion of conflict is by taking consensual positions on those issues. Yet, many factors explain variations in parties' reactions: the environmental agenda in the media and in social movements, the severity of environmental degradation, the left-Right position of parties and internal divisions. Other variables have limited effect: the macroeconomic situation, incumbency, and, more surprisingly, the threat posed by green party challengers do not seem to affect big governing parties' politicization of the environment. The fact that social and environmental factors matter more than explanations based on party competition's internal dynamics upholds a cleavage-Based approach. ; Ce travail étudie la réaction des grands partis de gouvernement face au développement d'un clivage entre Écologie et Productivisme dans les démocraties occidentales. Pour ce faire, il croise la théorie des clivages et les théories de la compétition sur enjeux. L'hypothèse centrale de ce travail voudrait que ces partis neutralisent le nouveau clivage, en ...
This thesis studies how mainstream parties have reacted to a new cleavage dividing Environmentalism and Productivism in advanced industrial democracies. To do so, it associates cleavage theory and issue competition theories. The central hypothesis of this research is that mainstream parties should neutralize the new cleavage, by granting little attention to the diverse environmental issues that form the new cleavage, by framing those issues in relation to the historical cleavages on which they are funded, and by taking positions that imply no direct conflict with their opponents. The research design rests on comparison and mixed methods. The study concludes that big governing parties mostly fail to follow their ideal strategy. Their attention to the environmental theme has grown considerably over the last four decades, and they have had to deal with numerous new environmental issues that have no connection to the old cleavages. The only way these parties have been able to prevent the expansion of conflict is by taking consensual positions on those issues. Yet, many factors explain variations in parties' reactions: the environmental agenda in the media and in social movements, the severity of environmental degradation, the left-right position of parties and internal divisions. Other variables have limited effect: the macroeconomic situation, incumbency, and, more surprisingly, the threat posed by green party challengers do not seem to affect big governing parties' politicization of the environment. The fact that social and environmental factors matter more than explanations based on party competition's internal dynamics upholds a cleavage-based approach. ; Ce travail étudie la réaction des grands partis de gouvernement face au développement d'un clivage entre Écologie et Productivisme dans les démocraties occidentales. Pour ce faire, il croise la théorie des clivages et les théories de la compétition sur enjeux. L'hypothèse centrale de ce travail voudrait que ces partis neutralisent le nouveau clivage, en ...
French coalition politics is distinctive in Western Europe. There is a strongly imbalanced power structures in favour of the party of the President (or Prime Minister in times of cohabitation). France is therefore a particular and rather extreme case of dominant Prime Minister Model. The constitution of the Fifth Republic creates strong incentives to build pre-electoral alliances, but the majoritarian electoral system and semi-presidentialism have led to an extreme predominance by the main parties, and in particular of the chief of the executive, over their junior partners. Institutional reforms have still reinforced the weight of president. Small parties can exert leverage mainly before the elections, given their capacity to negotiate their support during the campaign and mutual withdrawals for the first or the second round of elections. Once the election is passed, coalition politics are strongly structured by presidential logics (outside cohabitations) and take place to a large extent beyond parties: individual MPs from the same party may join different parliamentary groups depending on their attitude towards the president. Given the absence of formal coalition governance arrangements, junior parties' resources for influencing government policies are very much restricted to public communication, informal exchanges with the chief of the executive, and the threat to leave the coalition. Modalities of coalition governance provide the chief of the executive (i.e. the president since 2002) with strong leadership, extensive leverage in policymaking and a final say in interministerial disputes. He usually manages to get his way and only rarely consult parties in his coalition. Consequently, these parties will affect policy outcomes only with respect to very emblematic issues (usually one or two) and to the definition of "red lines" likely to be a motivation for terminating their participation to government. Political parties are aware of this and do not expect coalition agreements to be implemented – they conceive ...
French coalition politics is distinctive in Western Europe. There is a strongly imbalanced power structures in favour of the party of the President (or Prime Minister in times of cohabitation). France is therefore a particular and rather extreme case of dominant Prime Minister Model. The constitution of the Fifth Republic creates strong incentives to build pre-electoral alliances, but the majoritarian electoral system and semi-presidentialism have led to an extreme predominance by the main parties, and in particular of the chief of the executive, over their junior partners. Institutional reforms have still reinforced the weight of president. Small parties can exert leverage mainly before the elections, given their capacity to negotiate their support during the campaign and mutual withdrawals for the first or the second round of elections. Once the election is passed, coalition politics are strongly structured by presidential logics (outside cohabitations) and take place to a large extent beyond parties: individual MPs from the same party may join different parliamentary groups depending on their attitude towards the president. Given the absence of formal coalition governance arrangements, junior parties' resources for influencing government policies are very much restricted to public communication, informal exchanges with the chief of the executive, and the threat to leave the coalition. Modalities of coalition governance provide the chief of the executive (i.e. the president since 2002) with strong leadership, extensive leverage in policymaking and a final say in interministerial disputes. He usually manages to get his way and only rarely consult parties in his coalition. Consequently, these parties will affect policy outcomes only with respect to very emblematic issues (usually one or two) and to the definition of "red lines" likely to be a motivation for terminating their participation to government. Political parties are aware of this and do not expect coalition agreements to be implemented – they conceive ...
French coalition politics is distinctive in Western Europe. There is a strongly imbalanced power structures in favour of the party of the President (or Prime Minister in times of cohabitation). France is therefore a particular and rather extreme case of dominant Prime Minister Model. The constitution of the Fifth Republic creates strong incentives to build pre-electoral alliances, but the majoritarian electoral system and semi-presidentialism have led to an extreme predominance by the main parties, and in particular of the chief of the executive, over their junior partners. Institutional reforms have still reinforced the weight of president. Small parties can exert leverage mainly before the elections, given their capacity to negotiate their support during the campaign and mutual withdrawals for the first or the second round of elections. Once the election is passed, coalition politics are strongly structured by presidential logics (outside cohabitations) and take place to a large extent beyond parties: individual MPs from the same party may join different parliamentary groups depending on their attitude towards the president. Given the absence of formal coalition governance arrangements, junior parties' resources for influencing government policies are very much restricted to public communication, informal exchanges with the chief of the executive, and the threat to leave the coalition. Modalities of coalition governance provide the chief of the executive (i.e. the president since 2002) with strong leadership, extensive leverage in policymaking and a final say in interministerial disputes. He usually manages to get his way and only rarely consult parties in his coalition. Consequently, these parties will affect policy outcomes only with respect to very emblematic issues (usually one or two) and to the definition of "red lines" likely to be a motivation for terminating their participation to government. Political parties are aware of this and do not expect coalition agreements to be implemented – they conceive ...
International audience ; Alors que s'achève prochainement la convention citoyenne pour le climat, comment concrétiser les propositions des citoyens tirés au sort dans le cadre d'un processus démocratique ? Quelle place et quelle forme doit prendre le référendum dans la prise de décision politique ?
While the Citizens' Climate Convention is coming to an end, how can citizens' proposals be put into practice as part of a democratic process? What place and form should the referendum take in political decision-making? ; International audience ; While the Citizens' Climate Convention is coming to an end, how can citizens' proposals be put into practice as part of a democratic process? What place and form should the referendum take in political decision-making? ; Alors que s'achève prochainement la convention citoyenne pour le climat, comment concrétiser les propositions des citoyens tirés au sort dans le cadre d'un processus démocratique ? Quelle place et quelle forme doit prendre le référendum dans la prise de décision politique ?
International audience ; Alors que s'achève prochainement la convention citoyenne pour le climat, comment concrétiser les propositions des citoyens tirés au sort dans le cadre d'un processus démocratique ? Quelle place et quelle forme doit prendre le référendum dans la prise de décision politique ?
International audience ; Alors que s'achève prochainement la convention citoyenne pour le climat, comment concrétiser les propositions des citoyens tirés au sort dans le cadre d'un processus démocratique ? Quelle place et quelle forme doit prendre le référendum dans la prise de décision politique ?
International audience ; Quand elles ont été imaginées dans les années 1970, les élections européennes devaient permettre de mieux associer les Européens à la construction européenne. Mais ces élections n'ont cessé de tromper les attentes mises en elles et le scrutin de 2019 ne devraient pas faire exception à cette tendance : entre abstention et succès des formations d'extrême droite et eurosceptiques, il pourrait témoigner d'une défiance citoyenne inégalée à l'égard de l'Union européenne. Cette défiance est d'autant plus forte que les décisions prises – ou esquivées – par l'Union européenne pour répondre aux multiples crises auxquelles elle a dû faire face ne semblent pas convaincre les citoyens. A la veille d'élections européennes déterminantes, cet ouvrage souhaite offrir au grand public un diagnostic sur l'état de la démocratie européenne et proposer des pistes pour sortir l'Union européenne du marasme dans lequel elle semble plongée. Centrés sur des questions formulées de manière volontairement polémique, les chapitres sont rédigés par des spécialistes de ces questions dans plusieurs grandes universités européennes ; partant d'un état de lieux précis fondé sur des recherches antérieures, ils esquissent des pistes pour « sauver l'Europe », en présentant des propositions de réforme précises et opérationnelles qu'il serait possible de mettre en œuvre (plus ou moins) facilement. Avec un seul objectif : permettre à chacune et chacun de mieux saisir les enjeux démocratiques de la construction européenne et décider en connaissance de cause lors du scrutin.
International audience ; Quand elles ont été imaginées dans les années 1970, les élections européennes devaient permettre de mieux associer les Européens à la construction européenne. Mais ces élections n'ont cessé de tromper les attentes mises en elles et le scrutin de 2019 ne devraient pas faire exception à cette tendance : entre abstention et succès des formations d'extrême droite et eurosceptiques, il pourrait témoigner d'une défiance citoyenne inégalée à l'égard de l'Union européenne. Cette défiance est d'autant plus forte que les décisions prises – ou esquivées – par l'Union européenne pour répondre aux multiples crises auxquelles elle a dû faire face ne semblent pas convaincre les citoyens. A la veille d'élections européennes déterminantes, cet ouvrage souhaite offrir au grand public un diagnostic sur l'état de la démocratie européenne et proposer des pistes pour sortir l'Union européenne du marasme dans lequel elle semble plongée. Centrés sur des questions formulées de manière volontairement polémique, les chapitres sont rédigés par des spécialistes de ces questions dans plusieurs grandes universités européennes ; partant d'un état de lieux précis fondé sur des recherches antérieures, ils esquissent des pistes pour « sauver l'Europe », en présentant des propositions de réforme précises et opérationnelles qu'il serait possible de mettre en œuvre (plus ou moins) facilement. Avec un seul objectif : permettre à chacune et chacun de mieux saisir les enjeux démocratiques de la construction européenne et décider en connaissance de cause lors du scrutin.
