Shades of Resistance: Factors Influencing Populist Mobilization Against the EU Budgetary Conditionality Regime

IF 2.5 3区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
R. Csehi
{"title":"Shades of Resistance: Factors Influencing Populist Mobilization Against the EU Budgetary Conditionality Regime","authors":"R. Csehi","doi":"10.17645/pag.8171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although the past decade has shown how populist governments may challenge the EU’s budgetary framework, we still lack an understanding of the circumstances under which populists are more likely to mobilize against EU-level decision-making in this field, and what this mobilization may look like. Combining the literature on populism as an ideology and EU decision-making, the article zooms in on the negotiations regarding the general regime of conditionality in EU budgetary politics and argues that economic and political factors have influenced populist mobilization. A qualitative comparison of the nine cases where populist parties feature in the government highlights that only two countries, Poland and Hungary, have actively opposed the introduction of the so-called rule-of-law conditionality. A closer look indicates that a combination of Euroscepticism, European Parliamentary affiliation, membership in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the political power that populist parties possess at home, along with key macroeconomic indicators, have influenced populists in government to mobilize against the conditionality mechanism. In the second part of the analysis, the article showcases the actions of the Hungarian government, highlighting it as a specific example of populist mobilization. Viktor Orbán’s government has built a populist narrative around the issue, questioned the norm of the decision-making process, exerted a veto to block the agreement temporarily, and later challenged the regulation in court—in short, it engaged in unpolitics.","PeriodicalId":51598,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Governance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.8171","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although the past decade has shown how populist governments may challenge the EU’s budgetary framework, we still lack an understanding of the circumstances under which populists are more likely to mobilize against EU-level decision-making in this field, and what this mobilization may look like. Combining the literature on populism as an ideology and EU decision-making, the article zooms in on the negotiations regarding the general regime of conditionality in EU budgetary politics and argues that economic and political factors have influenced populist mobilization. A qualitative comparison of the nine cases where populist parties feature in the government highlights that only two countries, Poland and Hungary, have actively opposed the introduction of the so-called rule-of-law conditionality. A closer look indicates that a combination of Euroscepticism, European Parliamentary affiliation, membership in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the political power that populist parties possess at home, along with key macroeconomic indicators, have influenced populists in government to mobilize against the conditionality mechanism. In the second part of the analysis, the article showcases the actions of the Hungarian government, highlighting it as a specific example of populist mobilization. Viktor Orbán’s government has built a populist narrative around the issue, questioned the norm of the decision-making process, exerted a veto to block the agreement temporarily, and later challenged the regulation in court—in short, it engaged in unpolitics.
抵抗的阴影:影响动员民众反对欧盟预算条件制度的因素
尽管过去十年已经显示了民粹主义政府如何挑战欧盟的预算框架,但我们仍然缺乏对民粹主义者在什么情况下更有可能动员起来反对欧盟在这一领域的决策以及这种动员可能是什么样子的了解。文章结合有关作为意识形态的民粹主义和欧盟决策的文献,放大了有关欧盟预算政治中一般条件性制度的谈判,并认为经济和政治因素影响了民粹主义的动员。对民粹主义政党在政府中发挥作用的九个案例进行定性比较后发现,只有波兰和匈牙利这两个国家积极反对引入所谓的法治条件。仔细观察可以发现,欧洲怀疑论、欧洲议会成员身份、欧洲检察官办公室成员身份、民粹主义政党在国内拥有的政治权力以及主要宏观经济指标等因素,都影响了政府中的民粹主义者动员起来反对法治条件机制。在分析的第二部分,文章展示了匈牙利政府的行动,并将其作为民粹主义动员的一个具体例子加以强调。维克托-欧尔班政府围绕这一问题展开民粹主义论述,质疑决策过程的规范性,行使否决权以暂时阻止协议的达成,随后又在法庭上对这一规定提出质疑--总之,它参与了非政治活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Politics and Governance
Politics and Governance POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
99
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Politics and Governance is an innovative offering to the world of online publishing in the Political Sciences. An internationally peer-reviewed open access journal, Politics and Governance publishes significant, cutting-edge and multidisciplinary research drawn from all areas of Political Science. Its central aim is thereby to enhance the broad scholarly understanding of the range of contemporary political and governing processes, and impact upon of states, political entities, international organizations, communities, societies and individuals, at international, regional, national and local levels. Submissions that focus upon the political or governance-based dynamics of any of these levels or units of analysis in way that interestingly and effectively brings together conceptual analysis and empirical findings are welcome. Politics and Governance is committed to publishing rigorous and high-quality research. To that end, it undertakes a meticulous editorial process, providing both the academic and policy-making community with the most advanced research on contemporary politics and governance. The journal is an entirely open-access online resource, and its in-house publication process enables it to swiftly disseminate its research findings worldwide, and on a regular basis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信