How generational replacement undermined the electoral resilience of Fianna Fáil

This chapter focuses on party switching. The civil-war cleavage that differentiated the two main Irish parties, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, has been gradually diminishing in importance in recent decades. This trend reached a crescendo in 2011, when the incumbent Fianna Fáil party saw a dramatic decline in voter support, with swathes of its core voters switching to the main opposition party, Fine Gael. This volatility must be seen from the perspective of a generational replacement. To understand the potential for electoral switching, as opposed to change after the fact, the chapter investigates the configuration of voters’ preferences expressed through propensity to vote questions in the INES. The general framework provides theoretical tools better to understand the scale of Fianna Fáil’s defeat, as unique commitment to that party had declined markedly from the position a generation previously and it was thus more vulnerable to punishment following the crisis

What countries select more experienced Leaders? The PolEx measure of political experience

How can we assess which countries select more experienced leaders for the highest oce? There is a wide variation in prior career paths of national leaders within, and even more so between, regime types. Obtaining a truly comparative measure of political experience is therefore a challenge and empirical studies have to rely on proxies instead. We propose PolEx, a measure of political experience that abstracts away from the details of the career paths and generalises based on duration of experience in politics, its quality, and its breadth. We draw on a novel data set of around 2,000 leaders from 1950 to 2017 and use a Bayesian latent variable model to estimate PolEx. We illustrate how the new measure can be used comparatively by addressing the question whether democracies select more experienced leaders. We find that while on average they do, this century the dierence with non-democracies has declined dramatically. Future research may leverage PolEx to investigate the role of prior political experience in, for example, policy-making and crisis management

Does non-violent repression have stronger dampening effects than state violence? Insight from an emotion-based model of non-violent dissent

The effects of repression on dissent are debated widely. We contribute to the debate by developing an agent-based model grounded in ethnographic interviews with dissidents. Building on new psychology research, the model integrates emotions as a dynamic context of dissent. The model moreover differentiates between four repression types: violence, street blockages, curfews and Facebook cuts. The simulations identify short-term dampening effects of each repression type, with a maximum effect related to non-violent forms of repression. The simulations also show long-term spurring effects, which are most strongly associated with state violence. In addition, the simulations identify nonlinear short-term spurring effects of state violence on early stage dissent. Such effects are not observed for the remaining repressive measures. Contrasting with arguments that violence deters dissent, this suggests that violence may fuel dissent, while non-violent repression might suppress it

Abortion referendums in Ireland

Ireland was a conservative outpost on the European periphery for much of the twentieth century. From independence in 1922, the state pursued social policies heavily influenced by religious values, and indeed the 1937 constitution embedded many of these positions in the framework of the state. The constitution included a prohibition on divorce and a statement which strongly favored women remaining in the domestic sphere. These policies were supported by the majority Catholic population, but social values began to evolve by the 1960s. This can be seen in the shifting narratives in the debates on many social and political issues. This chapter will focus on a single issue – abortion. It will undertake an evaluation of the debates on the six abortion referendum question wordings, campaign narratives, and voting patterns. The analysis will provide compelling evidence of remarkable value change in just four decades

Agenda control in EU referendum campaigns : the power of the anti-EU side

European Union (EU) referendums provide unique opportunities to study voters’ attitudes toward a distant level of governance. Scholars have long tried to understand whether EU referendum results reflect domestic (dis-)satisfaction with the incumbent governments or actual attitudes toward the Union. Finding evidence supporting both domestic and European factors, the recent focus has thus turned to referendum campaigns. Recent studies emphasise the importance of the information provided to voters during these campaigns in order to analyse how domestic or European issues become salient in the minds of voters. These studies nonetheless overlook the asymmetrical political advantage in such campaigns. The broader literature on referendums and public opinion suggest that in a referendum, the ‘No’ side typically has the advantage since it can boost the public's fears by linking the proposal to unpopular issues. This article explores whether this dynamic applies to EU treaty ratification referendums. Does the anti-EU treaty campaign have more advantage than the pro-EU treaty campaign in these referendums? Campaign strategies in 11 EU treaty ratification referendums are analysed, providing a clear juxtaposition between pro-treaty (‘Yes’) and anti-treaty (‘No’) campaigns. Based on 140 interviews with campaigners in 11 referendums, a series of indicators on political setting and campaign characteristics, as well as an in-depth case study of the 2012 Irish Fiscal Compact referendum, it is found that the anti-treaty side indeed holds the advantage if it engages the debate. Nonetheless, the findings also show that this advantage is not unconditional. The underlying mechanism rests on the multidimensionality of the issue. The extent to which the referendum debate includes a large variety of ‘No’ campaign arguments correlates strongly with the campaigners’ perceived advantage/disadvantage, and the referendum results. When the ‘No’ side's arguments are limited (either through a single-issue treaty or guarantees from the EU), this provides the ‘Yes’ side with a ‘cleaner’ agenda with which to work. Importantly, the detailed data demonstrate that the availability of arguments is important for the ‘Yes’ side as well. They tend to have the most advantage when they can tap into the economic costs of an anti-EU vote. This analysis has implications for other kinds of EU referendums such as Brexit, non-EU referendums such as independence referendums, and the future of European integration