Abstract
This article reflects on the inclusion-moderation thesis, which asserts that parties from the radical right become like mainstream parties once they move from the opposition to government. This mainstreaming primarily occurs through the moderation of issue positions and the decline of populism. In this article, I focus on populism and consider the role of party leadership for government parties. I distinguish between traditional and managerial leadership. While traditional leadership employs an adversarial strategy toward mainstream parties, managerial leadership adopts an accommodative strategy. This article looks at three phases: 1) the opposition period; 2) in office under traditional party leadership; 3) in office under managerial party leadership. I expect that, compared to the second phase when the party is in office under traditional party leadership, levels of populism are higher during the opposition period and lower when it is in office under managerial party leadership. The empirical part of this article conducts a quantitative content analysis on the populist communication of the Geneva Citizens’ Movement, a radical right party from Switzerland. The findings tend to support my theoretical argument.
Highlights
Over the last few decades, the radical right in Western Europe has managed to emerge, develop, and increase its electoral weight in numerous countries
When compared to the second phase when it is in office under traditional party leadership, I expect that the radical right’s level of populism will be higher during the opposition period and lower when it is in office under managerial party leadership
The hypothesis states: As compared to the phase when it is in office under traditional party leadership (Phase 2), the radical right’s level of populism is higher during its time in opposition (Phase 1) and lower when it is in office under managerial party leadership (Phase 3)
Summary
Over the last few decades, the radical right in Western Europe has managed to emerge, develop, and increase its electoral weight in numerous countries. Politics and Governance, 2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 206–216 has experienced the three phases of interest in chronological order in its short history so far It was first in the opposition (from 2005 to 2013, Phase 1), in office under traditional party leadership (from 2013 to 2016, Phase 2), and in office under managerial party leadership (since 2016, Phase 3). Based on a quantitative analysis of the MCG’s newspaper, I show that, compared to the second phase, where the party was in office under traditional leadership, the party relied more frequently on populism in the first phase when it was in the opposition and less so in the third phase where it was in office under managerial leadership These results are in line with my theoretical argument.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
