1.1 Introduction
With millions I do inaugurations, and with inauguration I won elections.1 After 44 years of regional democracy in Madeira, a statement by the former regional premier for almost all of its history Alberto JoĆ£o Jardim is still to be the ruling party winning formula.
The Social-Democratic Party (PSD, Partido Social-Democrata) come into office on Portuguese regionsāAzores and Madeiraāwith the first regional elections of June 1976 and remained in power in Madeira since and ruled in Azores for 20 years until the PS took over the executive in 1996 and which remained in power since them.
In the Spanish Comunidad AutonĆ³ma de CanĆ”rias , state-wide parties (PSOE, Partido Socialista Obrero EspaƱol; CDS, Centro Democratico y Social and AP/PP, Alianza Popular/Partido Popular) became dominant during the two decades of democracy (1983ā1995) until the CoaliciĆ³n Canaria (regionalist party) come into office in 1995 (in a coalition with PP), which lasted until 2015. These cases raise the question: Why does political alternation occurs in some political systems and not in others?
This reveals that party dominance can also occur in fully-fledged democracies which bring us understanding of the mechanisms that parties and politicians employ to secure dominance over time in a given political system postponing political alternation rule. Political alternation phenomenon has a valuable importance to representative democracies. Political alternation is the prima facie of political contestation (Pasquino, 2011; Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub, & Limongi, 2000) where the opposition has the opportunity to win and defeat the rulers (Przeworski, 2009; 2010; Przeworski et al., 2000) through the competition for popular vote (Schumpeter, 1942/2003).
Departing from these three Southern Europe paradigmatic casesāAzores, Madeira and the Canary Islandsāthis book explores the phenomenon of political alternation through in-depth contextual understanding of the path of regional historical legacies at democratization and decentralization processes started in the 1970s; the institutional architectures and the scope of regional authority endowed in those regions; the specific dynamics of regional politics; and the constellation of political parties and actors and the regional elections results, as well as, contextual factors that might explain why some political parties have better performances than other at regional elections.
Throughout comparative lessons I seek to highlight the range of factors that affect regional electoral dynamics and outcomes and to develop a comprehensive understanding of the drivers of long-standing incumbency or the absence of political alternation within regional democracies.
Understanding change or survival in power is one of the central challenges in political science inquiry. Politicians value office as an intrinsic value and might keep those authority over time (Bueno de Mesquita, Smith, Siverson, & Morrow, 2005; Downs, 1957). Thus, a party that wins elections over time, while the opposition constantly fails to achieve alternation rule is considered an āuncommonā phenomenon in liberal democracies (Pempel, 1990). This phenomenon might constitute a paradox within democracies, to the extent that, governments act with the aim of being re-elected. Scholars attribute re-election prospects to factors such as, controlling political apparatus and economic performance (Downs, 1957); controlling agenda-setting and legislative initiatives (Cox & McCubbins, 2005; Tsebelis, 2002), or distributive and clientelistic politics (Stokes, Dunning, Nazareno, & Brusco, 2013). Thus, understanding of the āpolitics behind the survival in office is the essence of politics. (ā¦) The desire to survive motivates the selection of policies and the allocation of benefits; it shapes the selection of political institutions and the objectives of foreign policy; it influences the very evolution of political lifeā (Bueno de Mesquita et al., 2005, p. 9).
1.2 Decentralization of the State: The Emergence of the Regions
Territory is an essential reference of political and social life (Keating, 1998). The decentralization processes evolved in recent last decades in Europe have answered territorial demands for the accommodation and recognition of some political communities (Keating, 2013).
In the last five decades, regions have enhanced their authority scope (Hooghe et al., 2016; Keating, 1998) and created a meso-level of government with a range of political powers over a diversity of policy areas (Hough & Jeffery, 2006; Keating, 1998; Marks, Hooghe, & Schakel, 2008; Swenden, 2006). Some countries have federalized their structures (Germany), developed asymmetric forms of federalism (Spain) or advanced into forms of regionalization/decentralization (Italy, UK and Portugal), while others have engaged a delegation of competences to specific regions (France). These processes have been among the most remarkable arrangements of institutional change of the post-war period. These changes underlined that the nation-state have no longer the exclusivity of political authority and policy making (Keating, 1998; Loughlin, 2001; Swenden, 2006; Dandoy & Schakel, 2013; Schakel & Jeffery, 2013).
The rescaling of state authority has strongly strengthened the power of regions and prompted the rise of the regional tier of government within the states. Regions2 developed systems of political representation, delegation and accountability, endowed with directly elected assemblies and executive powers, with their own civil services, that are responsible for decision-making over a range of policy areas (Dandoy & Schakel, 2013; Keating, 1998; Loughlin, 2001; Marks et al., 2008; Ruel, 2019; Swenden, 2006).
The creation of regional political institutions since the 1970s empowered both regional actors who accessed political power and, voters who could express their opinion about policies and governments across electoral arenas (Dandoy & Schakel, 2013; Keating, 1998; Loughlin, 2001; Swenden, 2006). As a result, new dynamics in partisan competition arise and distinctive party systems (regionalist parties and or regional branches of the state-wide parties) distinct from national level ones have been established (Hough & Jeffery, 2006; PallarƩs & Keating, 2003; Ruel, 2015, 2019).
The territorial scope of authority has also increased over the past 40 years. These trends have been captured by the regional authority index (RAI)3 developed by Hooghe, Marks, and Schakel (2010). The RAI measures the authority a regional government exercises over those who live in the region (self-rule) and the authority exercised by a regional government or its representatives in a country as a whole (shared-rule) over time (Hooghe et al., 2010, 2016). Regional authority varies across countries, within countries and between regions. In 2010, the Azores and Madeira both have a RAI-score of 19.5 (Ruel, 2019) and in regionalized Spain Canariasā comunidade autonĆ³ma scored 23.5 (Hooghe et al., 2010, 2016).
Decentralization of authority has created a new regional arena of competitionāregionalāwhere political parties and voters have the incentive and opportunity to mobilize and respond to regional issues (Hough & Jeffery, 2006; Maddens & Libbrecht, 2009; Thorlakson, 2009), through exercising the authority endowed to regional governments. Additionally, regional authority has promoted a new space of politics which also encouraged the development of political careers at sub-national levels (Maddens & Put, 2013; Stolz, 2003; Teruel, 2011). Hence, regions matter much more directly to voters, parties and interest groups. Winning control of regional government and securing it has a significant and growing prize (Jeffery, 2014).
1.3 Setting the Scene: The Framework of Analysis
Political alternation corresponds to the āreplacement of a government with a completely different composition, in terms of political parties and members, from the government that has been replacedā (Pasquino, 2011, p. 21). Alternation is d...
