IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v13y2025a9609.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opposition to Government and Back: How Illiberal Parties Shape Immigration Discourse and Party Competition

Author

Listed:
  • Franziska Wagner

    (Department of Political Science, Central European University, Austria)

  • Dean Schafer

    (Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Mississippi State University, USA / CEU Democracy Institute, Hungary)

  • Mehmet Yavuz

    (Department of Political Science, Central European University, Austria / Department of Political Science, University of Salzburg, Austria)

Abstract

In recent decades, illiberal far-right parties have seen electoral success, reshaped European politics, challenged established norms, and accelerated shifts in political discourse. Thought to be isolated by a cordon sanitaire , these parties are increasingly normalized, gaining footholds in parliament and government—from coalition participation in Austria to majority rule in Hungary. As illiberal far-right parties gain access to power, a pressing question arises: How does their parliamentary and governmental participation influence both their discourse and that of mainstream parties? While we know that far-right parliamentary entry influences mainstream parties’ policy adaptations and strategic positioning, less is known about their systematic effects across countries or how governing responsibilities affect their discourse. Theories of issue competition suggest that parties adjust their stances to maintain voter support, but case studies have suggested diverging results. Leveraging a novel liberal–illiberal scale based on word embeddings and dictionaries, this study examines how far-right parties’ participation in parliaments and governments affects their own immigration discourse and that of mainstream parties by analyzing the interaction between 67 parties in eight European countries (Austria, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, and Poland) over the last 15 years. Our findings show that mainstream parties, especially conservative ones, follow the shifts in the immigration discourse of far-right parties. Furthermore, we find that far-right parties minimally moderate their anti-immigration discourse when entering government and then radicalize again when they leave. The illiberal far-right therefore appears to have the net effect of pulling their country’s party system to the right on immigration. These findings clarify the consequences of illiberal party normalization for party competition, coalition strategies, and democratic stability in European politics.

Suggested Citation

  • Franziska Wagner & Dean Schafer & Mehmet Yavuz, 2025. "Opposition to Government and Back: How Illiberal Parties Shape Immigration Discourse and Party Competition," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 13.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v13:y:2025:a:9609
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.9609
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/9609
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.9609?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rheault, Ludovic & Cochrane, Christopher, 2020. "Word Embeddings for the Analysis of Ideological Placement in Parliamentary Corpora," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 112-133, January.
    2. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    3. Gessler, Theresa & Hunger, Sophia, 2022. "How the refugee crisis and radical right parties shape party competition on immigration," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10(3), pages 524-544.
    4. Gessler, Theresa & Hunger, Sophia, 2022. "How the refugee crisis and radical right parties shape party competition on immigration," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 524-544, July.
    5. Tjitske Akkerman & Matthijs Rooduijn, 2015. "Pariahs or Partners? Inclusion and Exclusion of Radical Right Parties and the Effects on Their Policy Positions," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63(5), pages 1140-1157, December.
    6. Krause, Werner & Giebler, Heiko, 2020. "Shifting Welfare Policy Positions: The Impact of Radical Right Populist Party Success Beyond Migration Politics," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 56(3), pages 331-348.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bayerlein, Michael, 2021. "Chasing the Other 'Populist Zeitgeist'? Mainstream Parties and the Rise of Right-Wing Populism," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 240403, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Stephan, Meret & Schürmann, Lennart, 2025. "How anti-racist protests influence pro- and anti-migration voting behavior: Evidence from national and European elections," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Center for Civil Society Research ZZ 2025-601, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    3. Christophe Crombez, 2004. "Introduction," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(3), pages 227-231, July.
    4. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    5. Kaivan Munshi & Mark Rosenzweig, 2008. "The Efficacy of Parochial Politics: Caste, Commitment, and Competence in Indian Local Governments," NBER Working Papers 14335, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Navin Kartik & Francesco Squintani & Katrin Tinn, 2024. "Information Revelation and Pandering in Elections," Papers 2406.17084, arXiv.org.
    7. Burkhard Schipper & Hee Yeul Woo, 2012. "Political Awareness and Microtargeting of Voters in Electoral Competition," Working Papers 124, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    8. Marco Faravelli & Randall Walsh, 2011. "Smooth Politicians And Paternalistic Voters: A Theory Of Large Elections," Levine's Working Paper Archive 786969000000000250, David K. Levine.
    9. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith & Neil J. Mitchell & Kerry G. Herron, 2004. "Foreign and Domestic Policy Belief Structures in the U.S. and British Publics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(3), pages 287-309, June.
    10. Eric Kaufmann & Henry Patterson, 2006. "Intra‐Party Support for the Good Friday Agreement in the Ulster Unionist Party," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(3), pages 509-532, October.
    11. Micael Castanheira, 2003. "Why Vote For Losers?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(5), pages 1207-1238, September.
    12. Peter J. Coughlin, 2015. "Probabilistic voting in models of electoral competition," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 13, pages 218-234, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Mihir Bhattacharya, 2019. "Constitutionally consistent voting rules over single-peaked domains," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(2), pages 225-246, February.
    14. Marc Henry & Ismael Mourifié, 2013. "Euclidean Revealed Preferences: Testing The Spatial Voting Model," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 650-666, June.
    15. , & ,, 2006. "Group formation and voter participation," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 1(4), pages 461-487, December.
    16. Dendi Ramdani & Arjen Witteloostuijn, 2012. "The Shareholder–Manager Relationship and Its Impact on the Likelihood of Firm Bribery," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 495-507, July.
    17. Alan E. Wiseman, 2006. "A Theory of Partisan Support and Entry Deterrence in Electoral Competition," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 18(2), pages 123-158, April.
    18. Alessandro Olper & Johan Swinnen, 2013. "Mass Media and Public Policy: Global Evidence from Agricultural Policies," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 27(3), pages 413-436.
    19. Armèn Hakhverdian, 2009. "Capturing Government Policy on the Left–Right Scale: Evidence from the United Kingdom, 1956–2006," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(4), pages 720-745, December.
    20. Sven Banisch & Eckehard Olbrich, 2021. "An Argument Communication Model of Polarization and Ideological Alignment," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 24(1), pages 1-1.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v13:y:2025:a:9609. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.