In a between-subjects experiment (n = 3270) conducted in Flanders (the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium), we examine the electoral ramifications of claims by a right-wing mainstream party on their willingness to rule or not with RWPPs (radical right populist parties). Participants were exposed to a social media post by the largest right-wing party (New Flemish Alliance, N-VA) in which it either accepts or rejects ruling with the main RWPP in Flanders (Vlaams Belang, VB). Findings reveal a main effect on propensity to vote (PTV) for the RWPP: in the inclusion condition the propensity to vote for the RWPP is significantly higher than in the exclusion condition; this holds particularly for policy-driven voters. The mainstream party, however, nor gains or loses electoral support. This suggests a legitimization effect: claims by mainstream parties on willingness to rule with RWPPs serves the former, while mainstream parties do not gain electorally.
Abou-ChadiTKrauseW (2020) The causal effect of radical right success on mainstream parties’ policy positions: a regression discontinuity approach. British Journal of Political Science50(3): 829–847. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123418000029.
2.
AbtsK (2015) Attitudes, towards a cordon sanitaire vis-à-vis extremist parties: instrumental pragmatism, affective reactions, and democratic principles. Ethical Perspectives22(4): 667–698. DOI: 10.2143/EP.22.4.3127271.
3.
AkkermanT (2012) Comparing radical right parties in government: immigration and integration policies in nine countries (1996–2010). West European Politics35(3): 511–529. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2012.665738.
4.
AkkermanTDe LangeSL (2012) Radical right parties in office: incumbency records and the electoral cost of governing. Government and Opposition47(4): 574–596. DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-7053.2012.01375.x.
5.
AskimJKarlsenRKolltveitK (2021) Populists in government: normal or exceptional?Government and Opposition57(4): 728–748. DOI: 10.1017/gov.2021.30.
6.
BaleT (2003) Cinderella and her ugly sisters: the mainstream and extreme right in Europe’s bipolarising party systems. West European Politics26(3): 67–90. DOI: 10.1080/01402380312331280598.
7.
BernhardL (2020) Revisiting the inclusion-moderation thesis on radical right P-populism: does party leadership matter?Politics and Governance8(1): 206–216. DOI: 10.17645/pag.v8i1.2515.
8.
BiardB (2021) Challenging the cordon sanitaire in Belgium. In CaluwaertsDReuchampsM, Belgian Exceptionalism. 1st editionLondon: Routledge, 78–92. DOI: 10.4324/9781003104643-8.
9.
BlinderSFordRIvarsflatenE (2013) The better angels of our nature: how the antiprejudice norm affects policy and party preferences in Great Britain and Germany. American Journal of Political Science. DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12030.
10.
BolinNDahlbergSBlombäckS (2023) The stigmatisation effect of the radical right on voters’ assessment of political proposals. West European Politics46(1): 100–121. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2021.2019977.
11.
BosLVan der BrugW (2010) Public images of leaders of anti-immigration parties: perceptions of legitimacy and effectiveness. Party Politics16(6): 777–799.
12.
BourneAKCasal BértoaF (2017) Mapping “militant democracy”: variation in party ban practices in European democracies (1945–2015). European Constitutional Law Review13(2): 221–247. DOI: 10.1017/S1574019617000098.
13.
CapocciaG (2001) Defending democracy: reactions to political extremism in inter-war Europe. European Journal of Political Research39(4): 431–460. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6765.00584.
14.
DamstraAJacobsLBoukesMVliegenthartR (2019) The impact of immigration news on antiimmigrant party support: unpacking agenda-setting and issue ownership effects over time. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties31(1): 97–118. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2019.1607863.
15.
DelwitPVan HauteE (2021) Les partis politiques en Belgique (The political parties in Belgium). Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
16.
DownIHanKJ (2020) Marginalisation or legitimation? Mainstream party positioning on immigration and support for radical right parties. West European Politics43(7): 1388–1414. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2019.1674055.
17.
DownsWM (2001) Pariahs in their midst: Belgian and Norwegian parties react to extremist threats. West European Politics24(3): 23–42. DOI: 10.1080/01402380108425451.
18.
DownsWM (2012) Political Extremism in Democracies: Combating Intolerance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
19.
DownsWMManningCLEngstromRN (2009) Revisiting the “moderating effects of incumbency”: a comparative study of government participation and political extremism. Journal of Contemporary European Studies17(2): 151–169. DOI: 10.1080/14782800903108627.
20.
DuchRMMayJArmstrongDA (2010) Coalition-directed voting in multiparty democracies. American Political Science Review104(4): 698–719.
21.
HaugsgjerdA (2019) Moderation or radicalisation? How executive power affects right-wing populists’ satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies57: 31–45. DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2018.09.008.
22.
HeinischR (2003) Success in opposition - failure in government: explaining the performamce of right-wing populist parties in public office. West European Politics26(3): 91–130. DOI: 10.1080/01402380312331280608.
23.
JacobsL. (2024) How Do Mainstream Parties Justify Their (Un)willingness to Rule with Populist Parties? Evidence from Twitter Data. Government and Opposition59(1): 47–72. DOI: 10.1017/gov.2022.45.
24.
JacobsLvan SpanjeJ (2020) Prosecuted, yet popular? Hate speech prosecution of anti-immigration politicians in the news and electoral support. Comparative European Politics18(6): 899–924. DOI: 10.1057/s41295-020-00215-4.
25.
JacobsLVan SpanjeJ (2021) Martyrs for free speech? Disentangling the effects of legal prosecution of anti-immigration politicians on their electoral support. Political Behavior43(3): 973–996. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-019-09581-6.
26.
JacobsLWalgraveS (2024) De migratiestandpunten van partijen doorgelicht: De evoluerende partijposities van de Stemtest 2014, 2019 en 2024. Universiteit Antwerpen. DOI: 10.17605/osf.io.tes4k.
27.
KrauseWCohenDAbou-ChadiT (2023) Does accommodation work? Mainstream party strategies and the success of radical right parties. Political Science Research and Methods11(1): 172–179. DOI: 10.1017/psrm.2022.8.
28.
KrupnikovYNamHHStyleH (2021) Convenience samples in political science experiments. in DruckmanJNGreenDP (eds) Advances in Experimental Political Science. Cambridge University Press.
29.
LevitskySZiblattD (2018) How Democracies Die. New York, NY: Broadway Books.
30.
MeguidBM (2005) Competition between unequals: the role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review99(3): 347–359. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055405051701.
31.
MuisJBrilsTGaidyteT (2022) Arrived in power, and yet still disgruntled? How government inclusion moderates “protest voting” for far-right populist parties in Europe. Government and Opposition57(4): 749–778. DOI: 10.1017/gov.2021.46.
32.
PauwelsT (2011) Explaining the strange decline of the populist radical right Vlaams Belang in Belgium: the impact of permanent opposition. Acta Politica46(1): 60–82. DOI: 10.1057/ap.2010.17.
33.
RieraPPastorM (2022) Cordons sanitaires or tainted coalitions? The electoral consequences of populist participation in government. Party Politics28(5): 889–902. DOI: 10.1177/13540688211026526.
34.
RooduijnMPirròAHalikiopoulouD, et al. (2023) The PopuList: a database of populist, far-left, and far-right parties using expert-informed qualitative comparative classification (EiQCC). British Journal of Political Science1–10. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123423000431.
35.
RummensSAbtsK (2010) Defending democracy: the concentric containment of political extremism. Political Studies58(4): 649–665. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00809.x.
36.
TepeS (2019) The inclusion-moderation thesis: an overview. In: ThompsonWR (ed.) Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.788.
37.
ValentimV (2021) Parliamentary representation and the normalization of radical right support. Comparative Political Studies54(14): 2475–2511. DOI: 10.1177/0010414021997159.
38.
Van HeerdenSCVan Der BrugW (2017) Demonisation and electoral support for populist radical right parties: a temporary effect. Electoral Studies47: 36–45. DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2017.04.002.
39.
Van SpanjeJ (2010) Parties beyond the pale: why some political parties are ostracized by their competitors while other are not. Comparative European Studies8(3): 354–383. DOI: 10.1057/cep.2009.2.
40.
Van SpanjeJ (2018) Controlling the Electoral Market Place: How Established Parties Ward off Competition. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
41.
Van SpanjeJAzroutR (2019) Tainted love: how stigmatization of a political party in news media reduces its electoral support. International Journal of Public Opinion Research31(2): 283–308. DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/edy009.
42.
Van SpanjeJDe GraafND (2018) How established parties reduce other parties’ electoral support: the strategy of parroting the pariah. West European Politics41(1): 1–27. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2017.1332328.
43.
WalgraveSPiletJBLefevereJEckBJacobsL (2024) Voter shifts 2019-2024 and during the 2024 campaign. Media note with an analysis of the NotLikeUs panel survey.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
