A Typology of Parties in Contemporary Europe, 1990-2020

This infographic presents an original typology of political parties in contemporary Europe during the last three decades. It differentiates between seven clearly defined types of parties that are exclusive to each other while collectively including all currently significant parties. The seven party types are: Liberal, populist, nativist, nationalist, regionalist, secessionist, and antidemocratic. The infographic is interactive. If downloaded, you may click on the party acronyms and visit their respective official web pages for more information. Enjoy your exploration to Europe’s ever-changing party and party system landscapes; get your concepts and definitions right; learn how to differentiate populist from non-populist parties (in a per genus et differentiam way); puzzle out how governments are formed; and get a hands-on understanding of your own about the dynamics currently developing, as well as the directions European liberal politics is likely to take in the future.


To download the full infographic, interact with it, and even print it in high-quality and professional form, click on the button below.

Continue reading “A Typology of Parties in Contemporary Europe, 1990-2020”

Τρία πολιτικά οικοσυστήματα στην Ευρώπη

Δημοσιεύτηκε στην Καθημερινή της Κυριακής, 27 Σεπτεμβρίου 2020

Μνήμη Μ.Π.

Υπήρχε μια εποχή, όχι πολλές δεκαετίες πριν, που η Ευρώπη διέθετε ένα και μοναδικό μοντέλο διακυβέρνησης, αυτό δηλαδή που ονομάζουμε φιλελεύθερη δημοκρατία και το οποίο λειτουργεί σε δύο επίπεδα. Πρώτα σαν ένα συγκροτημένο πολιτικό σύστημα που προϋποθέτει ελεύθερες και δίκαιες εκλογές, διάκριση των εξουσιών, ισχυρό κράτος δικαίου, κ.ά. και, επίσης, ως συγκεκριμένο αξιακό σύστημα που προστατεύει τις ατομικές και κοινωνικές ελευθερίες, τον πλουραλισμό των ιδεών και τον ανοιχτό δημόσιο διάλογο, ανάμεσα σε πολλά άλλα. Μετά την πτώση του κομμουνισμού, πολλοί θεώρησαν ότι η επικράτηση του φιλελευθερισμού θα οδηγούσε την Ευρώπη στην δημιουργία ενός ευρέος πολιτικού οικοσυστήματος χωρών, κάθε μια από τις οποίες θα χρησιμοποιούσε τα εργαλεία και θα εφάρμοζε τις αξίες της φιλελεύθερης δημοκρατίας. Όπως όμως προείπα, αυτή η αντίληψη ανήκει περισσότερο στον προηγούμενο αιώνα.

Continue reading “Τρία πολιτικά οικοσυστήματα στην Ευρώπη”

Η βαριά σκιά του 2016 στην Ευρώπη

Δημοσιεύτηκε στην Καθημερινή της Κυριακής 26 Ιουλίου 2020

Το 2016 ήταν μοιραία χρονιά, ειδικά για την Ευρώπη. Στο ξεκίνημά της, η Μεγάλη Βρετανία ήταν πλήρες μέλος μιας Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης (ΕΕ) που ακόμη διατηρούσε παραδοσιακά ισχυρούς δεσμούς με την Αμερική του Ομπάμα και συνέχιζε διαπραγματεύσεις με την Τουρκία για μελλοντική ένταξη της τελευταίας στους κόλπους της. Εντούτοις, στην διάρκεια εκείνης της χρονιάς, οι Βρετανοί αποφάσισαν να αποχωρήσουν από την Ένωση, ο Ομπάμα αποχώρησε από την αμερικανική προεδρία, ενώ η Τουρκία αποχώρησε από το κλαμπ των δημοκρατικών χωρών. Σήμερα, τέσσερα μόλις χρόνια αργότερα, η Ευρώπη βρίσκεται κάτω από τη βαριά σκιά των γεγονότων που προκάλεσε το δραματικό 2016: Η Βρετανία βρίσκεται επίσημα πλέον εκτός ΕΕ, η κυβέρνηση Τραμπ διέκοψε τη στενή στρατηγική συνεργασία με την Ευρώπη, την οποία ρητά θεωρεί ως «εχθρικό αντίπαλο» της Αμερικής, οι δε σχέσεις ανάμεσα στην ΕΕ και την Τουρκία φαίνεται ότι έχουν διαρραγεί. Continue reading “Η βαριά σκιά του 2016 στην Ευρώπη”

Populism vs. nativism

Populism and nativism are often confused. But they are distinct phenomena. They develop in different places, have different causes, use different rhetoric and symbolic discourse, present different leaderships, and have different kinds of influence on the democratic societies in which they develop. Therefore, they call for different political and policy responses from politicians, policy-makers, and other relevant stakeholders in society. This infographic points out those differences. If you want to know more, please check my previous work on this topic herehere, and here. More is to come.

Populism vs. nativism: 10 indicators to tell the two apart

These two terms (or, better, concepts) are often confused. They are often lumped together under the generic, and generally abused, “populism” label. But nativism and populism are quite distinct phenomena. They have different causes, different ways of developing in contemporary Europe, and different kinds of influence on the democratic societies in which they grow. Clearly, then, they call for different political and policy responses from politicians, policy-makers, and other relevant stakeholders in society. This post is a simple endeavor to point out those differences. If you want to read more about them, please check my previous work on this topic here, here, and here. I am currently continuing my work on nativism within the H2020 PaCE research program. And, in a not so remote future as I hope, there will be more to say and write in book form about Europe’s strongly nativist nations.

Continue reading “Populism vs. nativism: 10 indicators to tell the two apart”

Greece 2010-2020: From one big crisis to another, from utter failure to unexpected success

When in crisis, countries may undergo dramatic changes. Look at today’s Greece!

In 2014, while Greece was entangled in her previous major crisis since 2010, I wrote a book that was published under the title Populism and Crisis Politics in Greece (also translated into Greek). Throughout the ultimate pages, the obvious question was naturally posed:

How can Greece exit from its present quandary, reinvigorate the state, and re-enter a virtuous cycle of political activity and economic growth? (p. 134)

My reply at the time consisted of four possible solutions: (1) “the ‘big bang’ solution; (2) the emergence of a new reformist political class; (3) charismatic leadership; and (4) sticking to Europe as a geographical and political determinant [of national politics].”

Continue reading “Greece 2010-2020: From one big crisis to another, from utter failure to unexpected success”

The politics of pandemic prevention in Spain and Greece

All countries will suffer. But countries with inefficient governments will suffer more than others

This blog post has featured in Libertad Digital (Spain), LIFO (Greece), European Pravda (Ukraine), Bloomberg Views (USA), The TOC (Greece), Nius Diario (Spain), iefimerida (Greece), Ta Nea (Greece), The Globe and Mail (Canada), South EU Summit (Italy), Information (Denmark), Capital (Bulgaria)

When the covid-19 pandemic broke out in Europe, no government had any experience of how to face it and each tried to weather the storm in its own ways. Some governments fared better, some less so. By and large, there are three major factors that have determined, and still do, how governments cope with the virus. These are, first, the resoluteness and efficiency of their leadership; second, the capacity of states and public health systems in particular to deal with such an extraordinary health crisis situation; and, third, the cooperation of national publics in following emergency rules. At a more specific level, as shown by an even cursory comparison of the Spanish and Greek experiences with the pandemic, it seems that a well-integrated and liberal government performs significantly better than one which is disunited and, moreover, diluted with populists. Let’s have a closer look at the two cases.

At the time of this writing (5 April 2020), Spain has close to 130,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus victims and about 12,000 deaths. At the same time, Greece has about 1,700 confirmed cases and 68 deaths. So, the question is: Why these two Mediterranean countries, whose people are equally sun-loving, bar-hopping, and intensely social, and which should have drawn the same lessons from Italy’s preceding experience, have had such different fates during the early phase of the coronavirus crisis? The answer is simple, almost mundane: Different governments!

Continue reading “The politics of pandemic prevention in Spain and Greece”

The case about Hungary

As of today, 31 March 2020, Hungary is no longer a democratic country. This raises at least four major questions in search for answers. Let’s give it a try based on previous research I have produced on this topic (you may follow the links provided).

What did happen in Hungary yesterday?

On Monday, 30 March 2020, the Hungarian parliament voted by a two-thirds supermajority to hand over its legislative powers to prime minister Viktor Orbán allowing him to rule by decree without a set time limit. The pretext was taking emergency measures to address the coronavirus crisis; but the real aim, and final result, was the death of democracy in an EU country. For, at bottom, Hungary’s parliamentary democracy is now officially dead. Continue reading “The case about Hungary”

Seven takeaways from the first phase of covid-19 pandemic. *Updated continuously*

Thursday, March 19, 2020. TODAY IN THE NEWS:

The death toll in Italy soared to 3,405 surpassing China’s total as Europe and the rest of the world braced for a surge of new cases.

Panic grows as the number of U.S. cases exceeds 10,000.

The State Department is expected to advise Americans to refrain from travel abroad.

The U.S. tested its pandemic response last year and found significant problems.

As China reports zero local infections, a new study finds the death rate in Wuhan was lower than previously thought.

Takeaway #1 [19/3]: Evidently, there can be no coordinated response against pandemics at global level.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is tasked to do so but it cannot force countries to play by international rules. And, indeed, what we saw in the case of Covid-19 is that everywhere countries, large as well as small ones, took the decision to close their borders and try to isolate themselves from the outside world.

Continue reading “Seven takeaways from the first phase of covid-19 pandemic. *Updated continuously*”

Follow by Email
Twitter
Visit Us
Follow Me
LinkedIn
Share
Instagram