Using Europe: territorial party strategies in a multi-level system

Eve Hepburn

• Publisher: Manchester University Press
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780719081385
• eBook ISBN: 9781847797643
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book examines how regional political parties have used Europe to advance their territorial projects in a period of rapid state restructuring. It offers a new and theoretically innovative account of the dynamics of multi-level governance based on a comparative study of territorial party strategies in the UK, Germany and Italy.

1
Introduction: regional party strategies in Europe

The last two decades have witnessed tremendous changes to the structure, competences, legislative framework, economy and political systems of EU member states. The twin processes of European integration and decentralisation have resulted in a far-reaching process of spatial rescaling, the full effects of which social scientists are only just beginning to understand. Some scholars have likened the new political structures to a system of ‘multi-level governance’ (Marks and Hooghe 2001) whereby non-state actors influence decision-making across several interacting layers of political authority. This brings us some way towards understanding the complexity of the new structures of governance, whereby states are no longer the only actors involved in policy-making. Yet theories of multi-level governance (MLG) tend to underestimate, or perhaps neglect, the role of agency in the new Europe. Substate regions are often perceived as the passive recipients of policy concessions and access to decision-making, whilst studies of the effects of Europeanisation on political actors are in their infancy and still lack a regional dimension (Mair 2006).

This book aims to address some of these gaps in research on territorial politics by examining regional party responses to European integration, decentralisation and multi-level governance in three West European states. In particular, it explores how parties have used Europe to advance their territorial projects during a period of rapid spatial rescaling. Regional actors have been presented with new challenges and opportunities in multi-level political systems. Such systems are characterised by clusters of political institutions that exist at multiple levels, each with its own policy domain and representational focus. In this analysis, the main foci of the multi-level political system lie at the regional, state and European levels, which each enjoy significant degrees of autonomy but are at the same time interconnected through governmental, policy and party machinery. Whilst party approaches to multi-level systems have so far concentrated on state–EU relations (Hix and Lord 1997; Mair 2006; Pennings 2006), and regional–state relations (Hough and Jeffery 2006; Detterbeck and Hepburn 2010), this book aims to complete the circle by exploring the dynamics of regional–EU party politics. It is argued that changing state and European structures have led regional political parties to alter their demands to include the European dimension, and correlatively, to decrease their focus on the state. But what types of strategies are being pursued in which places? How has European integration altered the nature of territorial politics and party competition at the regional level? And what are the limitations of Europe for regional party projects? These questions have become all the more pertinent in light of the de-centring of the nation-state, the rise of territorially based nationalist parties, and the growth and consolidation of regional political institutions in Western Europe (Marks et al. 2008).

For a number of decades political scientists have been primarily interested in only one territorial unit: the modern nation-state (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2002). Most party and electoral research since the 1950s has been based on the assumption that the state is a historically and geographically determined entity, and that state-building has entailed the diffusion and standardisation of politics across the territory and the ironing-out of any regional variations. As a reflection of this, party scholars focused primarily on the behaviour, organisation, ideology and electoral strategies of statewide parties (Sartori 1976; Panebianco 1988; Mair 1997). Yet a number of studies have emerged in the field of regional and federal studies that have sought to nuance these approaches. Scholars have argued that we must look at the emergence of regions as important arenas for electoral competition (Hough and Jeffery 2006), and substate mobilisation based on claims of nationhood (Keating 1996a; De Winter and Türsan 1998) to see how political authority is dispersed. These are important contributions to our understanding of the way in which territory mediates politics at levels beneath, across and beyond the state. But there is still a lot of ground to cover.

In particular, there have been few analyses that have pulled together the regional, state and European dimensions of party politics to examine how parties compete in multi-level political systems, and how they articulate their territorial projects at different levels. Whilst there is a steadily growing literature on minority nationalist party responses to European integration, there is a dearth of analyses examining the implications of European integration for the regional political context as a whole. This book aims to fill this gap by developing a comparative analysis of how political parties in three diverse regions have used Europe to advance their political projects during a period of deepening integration over the last 30 years. This actor-based approach fills an important gap in the literature on multi-level governance, which tends to emphasise institutions at the expense of political agency. It will explore the diverse motivations for substate mobilisation and the various types of territorial strategies pursued by regional parties in multi-level political systems. Instead of looking at just one actor in each case – for instance the dominant nationalist party in a given region – this approach moreover takes a broader view of how Europe has influenced territorial party politics in general. Autonomist claims have never been the exclusive domain of self-styled nationalist parties. Statewide parties have also incorporated territorial demands and have pursued strategies to rival the dominant nationalist vision.

The main focus of this book is on the variety of ways in which regional parties have responded to and used European integration in their pursuit of territorial interests. There are a number of issues that are considered in this analysis, such as regional party ‘adaptation’ to European integration and identification with the EU; the salience of the European dimension in party programmes, discourse and strategies; and party utilisation of Europe-wide networks to strengthen their interests. The book also examines the extent to which integration has altered the nature of territorial politics and party competition, and whether Europeanisation has contributed to a more pronounced emphasis on territorial identities and interests. Finally, the book will explore the limitations of Europe for territorial projects. Why have some parties used opportunities to advance their interests in Europe, whilst others have not? A key question here is whether regional actors can bypass the state in the pursuit of their territorial projects in multi-level systems (Keating and Hooghe 2001), or if they must continue to rely on state support, representation and resources to meet their needs in an intergovernmental Europe with power lying in the Council of Ministers.

Decentralising the state

When the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was created in 1951, it was comprised of only six members. Since then, there have been several institutional transformations leading to the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1958, the European Community (EC) in 1993, and the present-day European Union (EU). This has been accompanied by a significant expansion of competences and five member state enlargements, increasing the EU to 27 members as of 2004. Member states receive a range of benefits from joining the EU, but in return they must also accept that European integration will affect their domestic structures, laws and policies. One of the domestic ‘impacts’ of integration has resulted from the common endorsement of the principle of subsidiarity, a concept that implies taking decisions at the lowest appropriate level. For many states, this has entailed the decentralisation of authority and political functions to lower territorial levels, including administrative and legislative responsibilities for health, education, housing, infrastructure, planning, crime, the environment and economic development.

The process of regionalisation in European member states has created new plurinational, devolved and non-symmetrical federal-type states, in which regions have gained a new political role. Within the 27 member states of the EU, there are now over two hundred regions, each of which constitutes a ‘small world’ as a container of social attitudes, policy preferences and political behaviour (Elkins and Simeon 1980; Assembly of European Regions 1996; Henderson 2010). The characteristics of EU regions range from those with significant legislative powers, a robust economy and a population bigger than some member states (like Bavaria) to smaller regions that have only an administrative capacity (like the English regions). Although there has been no uniform pattern of decentralisation, this process has led to the creation of new regional executives and parliaments with legislative competences over a wide range of areas, the emergence of regional policy communities, and the creation of distinct electoral arenas at the regional level, whose voting systems and party competitive dynamics are distinct from those of the state. Parties, too, have begun to decentralise in order to compete more effectively at the regional level (Detterbeck and Hepburn 2010). This enables regional units to develop their own policy and electoral programmes in order to reflect the values of the electorate. The concept of a ‘regional interest’ that is distinctive from the interests of the nation-state has also emerged.

In order to develop a more accurate picture of the degree of spatial rescaling in advanced democracies, scholars have conducted quantitative analyses of the institutionalisation of regions in OECD countries. One ‘regional authority index’ accounts for the characteristics and growing powers of regional authorities between 1950 and 2006 (Marks et al. 2008). Using the measurements of self-rule and shared-rule, this analysis provides a full assessment of the growing regionalisation of states in the post-war period. Of the 42 countries examined, half had created regional tiers during the period and no country had become more centralised. This trend is particularly marked in Europe, where regionalisation has even become a condition for EU membership (Keating 2003; Hughes et al. 2004). For instance, Poland and other Central and Eastern European countries were required to create regional administrations to distribute structural funding as part of EU candidacy requirements prior to the 2004 enlargement round.

Regionalisation is certainly not the only or direct consequence of European integration. There are also important local, statewide and global pressures at play. In particular, the existence of a centre–periphery cleavage that has been (re)politicised by a minority nationalist party seeking self-determination has forced states to territorially manage the region by granting it degrees of autonomy (Keating 1998). To take the case of the UK, which has recently experienced the most radical constitutional change in a century, devolution has been neither a homogenous process nor a symmetrical one. The different constitutional settlements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1998 clearly reflected the desire of the central government to satisfy the minimum demand for autonomy by nationalist movements in each of the separate parts (Adams and Robinson 2002). This ‘asymmetrical’ pattern may be found in other decentralising European states such as Italy, Spain and Poland (Jeffery 1997; Le Galès 1998). In Spain, the greatest devolved powers were assigned to the autonomous communities of Catalonia and the Basque Country, each of which has a strong cultural and historical claim to nationhood and a formidable nationalist movement (Moreno 2005). In Italy, special status was granted to five regions that had either strong autonomist movements or a politicised ethno-linguistic heritage, in order to appease territorial demands (Cento Bull 1997). This fragmented approach reflects the state’s interpretation of, and response to, the specific territorial configuration, interests and demands of the regions. In many of the EU member states, there have been no attempts to impose a uniform regionalisation arrangement across the state, but rather an asymmetrical one reflecting the political demands for greater regional autonomy. This has resulted in tensions between various parts of the state over the allocation of resources and political representation within the state, and increased party competition on the constitutional question. It has also caused tensions within statewide parties themselves, as the creation of regional electoral arenas means that they must now cater to, and also sometimes defend, regional interests from those of the state.

The territorialisation of political parties

The reconfiguration of political authority across different territorial levels has necessitated an adjustment to how parties organise and compete. The trend towards decentralisation and federalism within European member states has strengthened the importance of the regional electoral arena as a focal point for territorial interests (Jeffery 1997; Loughlin 1997). At this level, statewide parties must operate in a peculiarly regional context, position themselves on regional issues, and incorporate territorial interests and identities into their programmes, rhetoric and goals. The minority nationalist party is therefore not the only one constructing the substate nation or region, claiming to protect territorial interests, or demanding concessions or autonomy from the state. In response to decentralisation, regional branches of statewide parties have become more autonomous and territorially focused. This means that regionalist parties are no longer the only actors seeking to represent territorial interests.

Minority nationalist parties – otherwise known as ethno-territorial, regionalist, substate autonomist and so on – have received a considerable amount of scholarly attention in the last decade (for an overview, see Hepburn 2009b). Though ideologically diverse, the defining characteristic of these parties is the demand for self-determination and a radical restructuring of the state. A number of studies have considered the organisation, resources, policy goals, ideological position and electoral performance of these parties (Hooghe 1995; Lynch 1996; De Winter and Türsan 1998; De Winter 2001; Muller-Rommel 1998; De Winter et al. 2006; Elias 2008b), and these have been useful for focusing attention on the substate dimension of politics. But although scholars have produced a formidable collection of single or comparative case studies on stateless nationalist parties, few have considered how these parties interact with statewide parties, or how the latter themselves have increasingly adopted a ‘territorial’ mantle at the regional level.

One would imagine that, having fought for decades to put the territorial question at the heart of political discussions in their homeland, nationalist parties would be the beneficiaries of the heightened salience of territorial issues resulting from decentralisation and supranational integration. This is not always the case. Despite reducing the barriers to self-determination by supporting less disruptive forms of autonomy in Europe, nationalist parties are not necessarily performing better in their respective party systems (Deschouwer 2009). The only way to account for this is to examine the party political context of the region. There are a number of actors which are involved in issues of autonomy, and which have pursued strategies to rival the dominant nationalist vision. In particular, regional branches of statewide parties have departed from the central organisation on a number of issues in order to pursue territorial strategies that aim to defuse the threat of secession (Detterbeck and Hepburn 2010). The pro-autonomy platforms of statewide parties, by accommodating territorial demands other than independence, may even elicit more support than those of nationalist parties.

Statewide political parties have generally been considered to be the major instruments of national integration across states, through their representative functions and coordinated policy-making (Lipset and Rokkan 1967). However, the challenges of spatial rescaling have forced statewide parties to adapt both programmatically and organisationally to the new political realities of multi-level political systems. Shifts in the territorial distribution of power to regions have led to the ‘denationalisation’ of party systems, so that parties must respond to substate challenges. This has led to intra-party conflict as different parts of parties (operating at different levels) diverge in the areas of elite recruitment, party programmes and campaigning, and their activities in public office (Deschouwer 2003; Hopkin 2003; Hough and Jeffery 2006; Fabre 2008; Thorlakson 2006; Detterbeck and Hepburn 2010). As a result of the creation of multi-layered political arenas, parties can no longer pursue one strategy for office in a single statewide political arena. Instead their priorities are split between several arenas: they must adapt and respond to several loci of decision-making at different territorial levels, which may or may not have diverse electoral and party systems. At the substate level, statewide parties must refocus their strategies for different regional contexts and address regional policies and issues.

The ‘territorialisation’ of statewide parties has a number of dimensions. These include the adoption of stronger territorial party identities and rhetoric, calls for greater organisational and programmatic differentiation from the centre, and the development of alternative constitutional goals. In territorialising party organisations, power and authority no longer rest in one single place, but rather different organisational units within parties possess different powers and autonomous functions. In this sense, parties are developing new stratarchical organisational structures, replacing the hierarchical structures of old (Carty 2004). First, regional branches of statewide parties have taken on a stronger territorial identity and rhetoric, in some cases declaring themselves to constitute the party representing the nation/region in opposition to nationalist parties. Second, the fact that regional branches often need to differentiate their policies from the centre to ‘fit’ the local setting has resulted in disparities between the regional and central parties. Regional branches have adopted differentiated party programmes, discourse and campaign strategies, and have sought greater organisational autonomy and policy independence. This transition has not always met with the blessing of the central party. In many cases, the central party’s reluctance to grant concessions to the regional branch has led to intra-party tensions, with regional units threatening to secede.

Third, regional branches of statewide parties may develop constitutional alternatives to independence to defuse support for nationalist parties. This is facilitated by the exploitation and repackaging of party traditions with regard to their positions on regional autonomy. All of the main party families have both centralising and decentralising traditions. For instance, whilst Liberal (Democratic) parties have at times supported the creation of a federal state, in which the identities and traditions of a territory are recognised, at other times they have opposed ‘particularism’ in any form. Left-wing parties have shifted back and forth between centralism and regionalism, the latter especially when they entered alliances with autonomist movements. And Christian Democrat parties have advocated bringing powers to local communities in line with the principle of subsidiarity. In competing with nationalist parties, regional branches of statewide parties must emphasise the historical commitment of the party to decentralisation, and the benefits of this over secession.

The territorialisation of statewide parties has been driven by a number of local, statewide and European factors. Within the regional party arena, the existence and electoral salience of nationalist parties forces regional branches of state parties to take territorial issues on board, and to offer alternative policies and demands to those of secession (Hepburn 2009b). The territorialisation of statewide parties also results from the decentralisation or federalisation of political structures and electoral arenas, whereby regional branches must position themselves on regional issues, compete in regional electoral arenas, and represent or channel the interests of the territory to higher-level political structures and vice versa (Chhibber and Kollmann 2004; Hough and Jeffery 2006). Finally, the territorialisation of parties is also influenced by European factors. European integration has had a direct impact on regional policy capacity, regarding for instance the environment, economy, laws and social rights, and regional parties must respond to these challenges to protect territorial interests (Hepburn 2004, 2009c). The regionalisation debates in Europe have encouraged branches of statewide parties to articulate how they want their nation or region to exercise autonomy in an integrating Europe.

Regions in an integrating Europe

European integration has upset a number of assumptions regarding the distribution of power, functions and authority across and within states. A legion of scholars have either bewailed or rejoiced in the apparent ‘emptying’ of the state – the erosion of its competences by supranational integration and decentralisation – leading to its eventual demise or, more realistically, the rescaling of functional systems and political authority (Wallace 1994; Loughlin 1997; Linklater 1998; Keating 2001, 2005). This challenge to normative ‘state-centric’ understandings of politics has been accompanied by a renewed emphasis on the role of regional territorial actors. Europe has been presented to voters in substate territories as constituting an alternative framework for developing the territorial project. Importantly, the transformation of political authority in Europe, resulting from integration and decentralisation, has opened up functional and political spaces in which substate actors may operate. Regions are seeking more repr...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Preface and acknowledgements
• List of abbreviations
• 1 Introduction: regional party strategies in Europe
• 2 Territorial strategies: autonomy and capacity
• 3 Scottish party responses to Europe and devolution
• 4 Bavarian defence of the Heimat in Europe
• 5 Sardinian autonomy in the Mediterranean
• 6 Conclusion: the cyclical nature of territorial strategies in Europe
• Bibliography
• Index