Can partisans be pluralist? A comparative study of party member discourse in France and Hungary

Abstract

Pluralist norms, which prescribe certain attitudes of openness and mutual respect for diverging views, have long been considered a central pillar of liberal democracy. While democratic theorists have championed these values, they have been conflicted as to the capacity of political parties to carry them. Partisanship is widely recognized as an essential institution of democratic regimes but it has also been traditionally associated with intransigence rather than tolerance. This paper investigates this theoretical debate from an empirical standpoint, asking whether partisans can be carriers of pluralist values. It relies on focus-group methodology and software-assisted textual analysis to evaluate the extent to which the discourse of 117 party members in two different national contexts, France and Hungary, resonates with the pluralist worldview. The results of this study provide key empirical insights into the nature of partisanship, demonstrating wide variations in the extent to which partisans uphold pluralist principles, but also their capacity to do so at a stringent level.