The Crisis of Contemporary U.S. and EU Party Systems:
Causes and Characteristics


Sergeyev V.M.,

Director of the Center for Global Problems, Institute of International Studies, MGIMO-University, laris-pulena@rambler.ru

Kazantzev A.A.,

Director of the Analytical Center, Institute of International Studies, MGIMO-University, andrka@mail.ru

Petrov K.E.,

researcher, Institute of International Studies, MGIMO-University, orkir@mail.ru

Medvedeva S.M.,

Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, MGIMOUniversity, vetamedvedeva@mail.ru

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2018.02.10
ID of the Article: 5382


For citation:

Sergeyev V.M., Kazantzev A.A., Petrov K.E., Medvedeva S.M. The Crisis of Contemporary U.S. and EU Party Systems: Causes and Characteristics. – Polis. Political Studies. 2018. No 2. P. 130-149 (In Russ.) . DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2018.02.10



   Buy a digital version in Polismag

Abstract

The article discusses a number of cases relating to the latest trends in the development of the party-political systems in the US and EU countries. Article presents analysis of such U.S. movements as “Occupy Wall Street”, “Tea Party” and M5S and the Alternative for Germany among the European parties. On this basis, the causes of the contemporary crisis of the party-political system are analyzed. Among the reasons of such a crisis the authors include: the presence of the losers from globalization, especially in the lower middle class; increased competition from migrants both in terms of access to jobs, and in obtaining social benefits; the psychological readiness of a number of losers of the middle class to explain the deterioration of their socio-economic situation as a consequence of the global “conspiracy of elites”; the erosion of the traditional structure of industrial society and the consequent degradation of the existing political consensus of the center-right and center-left parties that was an engine of the globalization; the separation of the globalized elite from the middle class of Western countries in the standard of living; virtualization of politics and the emergence of new types of mass communication, low controlled centrally and allowing various alternative forces to easily find contact with a mass audience; tactical errors by mainstream forces and traditional media controlled by them in counter-attempts to demonize new political movements, which intensifies protest moods among the dissatisfied part of the middle class. As a result, a broad antiglobalistic identity emerges in Western politics. Alternative movements mobilize a significant number of supporters, using the image of the enemy: either a migrant or a global capitalist. Alternative movements press on their centrist competitors as a result of а “grip from the inside” (in the U.S.) or as a result of a “challenging outside” (in the EU countries). In the EU countries, this trend has led to partial dismantling of party systems, as well as the distribution of seats in parliament in favor of representatives of new parties. In the U.S., under the influence of the Tea Party Movement and the Occupy movement, the moderate wings within the Republicans and Democrats were weakened, which was one of the important factors that led to the victory of D. Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

Keywords
globalization; party system; evolution of politico-party systems; EU; U.S.; radical movements; anti-globalization movements; Occupy Wall Street; Tea Party Movement; Five Star Movement; Alternative for Germany.


   Buy a digital version in Polismag
References

Adorno T.W. Studien zum autoritären Charakter. (Russ. ed.: Adorno T.W. Issledovanie avtoritarnoi lichnosti. Moscow: Astrel, Neoclassic. 2012. 480 p.)

Allport G. The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Basic Books. 1979. 576 p.

Amedee G.L. Movements Left and Right: Tea Party and Occupied Wall Street in the Obama Era. – Race, Gender & Class. 2013. No. 3/4. P. 33-39.

Arceneaux K., Nicholson S. Who Wants to Have a Tea Party? The Who, What, and Why of the Tea Party Movement. – PS: Political Science and Politics. 2012. Vol. 4. No. 45. P. 700-710. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096512000741

Bard A., Söderqvist J. Netocracy – The New Power Elite and Life after Capitalism. (Russ. ed.: Bard A., Söderqvist J. Netokratiya. Novaya pravyashchaya elita i zhizn’ posle kapitalizma. Saint Petersburg: Stockholm School of Economics Russia. 2004. 252 p.)

Castells M. Communication Power. (Russ. ed.: Castells M. Vlast’ kommunikatsii. Moscow: GU VShE. 2016. 568 p.).

Castells M. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. (Russ. ed.: Castells M. Informatsionnaya epokha: ekonomika, obshchestvo i kul’tura. Moscow: GU VShE. 2000. 608 p.)

DiMaggio A. The Rise of the Tea Party: Political Discontent and Corporate Media in the Age of Obama. New York: NYU Press. 2011. 272 p.

Fallin A., Grana R., Glantz S. To Quarterback behind the Scenes, Third-Party Efforts: the Tobacco Industry and the Tea Party. – Tobacco Control. February. 2013. URL: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/4/322 (accessed 06.04.2017).

Feuer L.S. Ideology and the ideologists. New York: Harper & Row. 1975. 213 p.

Foley E.P. Sovereignty, Rebalanced: The Tea Party and Constitutional Amendments. – Tennessee Law Review. 2011. Vol. 78. P. 751-765.

Fukuyama F. The Future of History: Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class? – Foreign Affairs. 2012. Vol. 91. No. 1. P. 53-61.

Giddens A. The Consequences of Modernity. (Russ. ed.: Giddens A. Posledstviya sovremennosti. Moscow: Praxis. 2011. 352 p.).

Grillo B., Fo D., Casaleggio G. Grillo canta sempre al tramonto. Dialogo sull’Italia e il Movimento 5 stelle. Milan: Chiarelettere. 2013. 200 p.

Gunther R., Diamond L. Species of Political Parties. A New Typology. – Party Politics. 2003. Vol. 9. No. 2. P. 167-199. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540688030092003

Hinkle S., Fox-Cardamone L., Haseleu J.A., Brown R., Irwin L.M. Grassroots Political Action as an Intergroup Phenomenon. – Journal of Social Issues. 1996. Vol. 52. No. 1. P. 39-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1996.tb01360.x

Inglehart R. The Silent Revolution. Princeton University Press. 1977. 482 p.

Jacobson G. Barack Obama, the Tea Party, and the 2010 Midterm Elections. – 2011. Annual Meeting. Chicago: Midwestern Political Science Association.

Kirby D., Ekins E. Libertarian Roots of the Tea Party. – Policy Analysis. 2012. No. 705. URL: https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA705.pdf (accessed 17.01.2018).

Lipset M., Rokkan S. Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Free Press. 1967. 554 p.

Lipset S.M. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. New York: Doubleday & Company. 1960. 477 p.

Lipset S.M., Marks G. It Didn’t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 2000. 379 p.

Moisés N. The End of Power: From Boardrooms to Battlefields and Churches to States, Why Being In Charge Isn’t What It Used to Be. (Russ. ed.: Moisés N. Konets vlasti. Ot zalov zasedanii do polei srazhenii, ot tserkvi do gosudarstva. Pochemu upravlyat’ segodnya nuzhno inache. Moscow: AST. 2015. 512 p.)

Norris P. Electoral Engineering. Voting Rules and Political Behavior. Cambridge: Сambridge University Press. 2004. 375 p.

Pasquino G. The Political Science of Giovanni Sartori. – European Political Science. 2005. Vol. 4. No. 1. P. 33-41.

https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210003

Rauch J. Group Think: Inside the Tea Party’s Collective Brain. – National Journal. 11.09.2010.

Sartori G. Parties and Party Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1976. 383 p.

Sergeyev V.M., Kazantzev A.A., Petrov K.E. The Policy of “Mainstream” and Its Alternatives in the Modern Western World: on the Way from the World Economic Crisis to “Impossible Politics?” – Polis. Political Studies. 2017. No. 3. P. 8-29. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.03.02

Stiglitz J. The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future. (Russ. ed.: Stiglitz J. Tsena neravenstva. Chem rassloenie obshchestva grozit nashemu budushchemu. Moscow: EKSMO. 2015. 512 p.)

Williamson V., Skocpol T., Coggin J. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. – Perspectives on Politics. 2011. Vol. 9. No. 1. P. 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S153759271000407X

Content No 2, 2018

See also:


Sergeyev V.M., Kazantzev A.A., Petrov K.E.,
The Policy of “Mainstream” and Its Alternatives in the Modern Western World: on the Way from the World Economic Crisis to “Impossible Politics?”. – Polis. Political Studies. 2017. No3

Maksimov M.A.,
The problem of subject of anti-system activity in modern philosophical thought. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No4

Levin I.B.,
Globalizations and Democracy. – Polis. Political Studies. 2003. No2

Pavlova T.V.,
Social Movements as a Factor Transforming Institutional Environment: Theoretical Issues. – Polis. Political Studies. 2008. No5

Maksimov M.A.,
Questions of Strategy and Tactics of Modern Anti-System Movement. – Polis. Political Studies. 2008. No4

 

   

Introducing an article



Polis. Political Studies
No 1 2006


Zaznayev O.I.
Typology of Forms of Government: Rectification of Mistakes

  The article text
 

Archive

   2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991