Does intra-party dissent affect parties’ salience strategies? And if so, do leadership-dominated parties de-emphasize a divisive issue dimension more than activist-dominated ones? Scholars have long highlighted the role of intra-party dissent in informing parties’ salience strategies. However, the literature has overwhelmingly focused on EU issues while devoting less attention to the economic and socio-cultural dimensions of party competition. I argue that, driven by the imperative of projecting unity and ensuring survival, parties facing internal dissent over an issue dimension reduce the emphasis attributed to it. Importantly, the effectiveness of this strategy hinges on the control party leaders wield over their parties’ platforms. Focusing on 15 Western European countries and 130 political parties, the findings confirm that higher levels of intra-party dissent are associated with lower emphasis awarded to the divisive issue dimension. The pooled results also suggest that markedly leadership-dominated parties are more effective in de-emphasizing a divisive dimension than activist-dominated ones. However, I find less robust evidence for the latter finding when testing the model separately for the two dimensions.
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.
2.
AllernEHBaleT (eds) (2017) Left-of-Centre Parties and Trade Unions in the Twenty-First Century. 1st edition. Oxford New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3.
AnsolabehereSIyengarS (1994) Riding the wave and claiming ownership over issues: the joint effects of advertising and news coverage in campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly58(3): 335.
4.
BrigevichASmithWBBakkerR (2017) Unpacking the social (GAL/TAN) dimension of party politics: euroscepticism and party positioning on europe's ‘other’. In: Paper Presented at the 15th Biennial EUSA Conference, Miami. Boston, MA, USA: Boston University.
5.
BudgeIFarlieD (1983) Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies. London: Boston: Allen & Unwin.
6.
BudgeIEzrowLMcDonaldMD (2010) Ideology, party factionalism and policy change: an integrated dynamic theory. British Journal of Political Science40(4): 781–804.
7.
CeronA (2012) Bounded oligarchy: how and when factions constrain leaders in party position-taking. Electoral Studies31(4): 689–701.
De SioLDWeberT (2014) Issue yield: a model of party strategy in multidimensional space. American Political Science Review108(4): 870–885.
10.
de VriesCEvan de WardtM (2010) EU issue salience and domestic party competition. In: OppermanKViehringH (eds) Issue Salience in International Politics. London: Routledge.
11.
DolezalMEnnser‐JedenastikLMüllerWC, et al. (2014) How parties compete for votes: a test of saliency theory. European Journal of Political Research53(1): 57–76.
12.
DownsA (1957) An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy65(2): 135–150.
13.
EzrowLDe VriesCSteenbergenM, et al. (2011) Mean voter representation and partisan constituency representation: do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters?Party Politics17(3): 275–301.
14.
GabelMScheveK (2007) Estimating the effect of elite communications on public opinion using instrumental variables. American Journal of Political Science51(4): 1013–1028.
15.
Green-PedersenCMortensenPB (2015) Avoidance and engagement: issue competition in multiparty systems. Political Studies63(4): 747–764.
16.
GreeneZDHaberM (2015) The consequences of appearing divided: an analysis of party evaluations and vote choice. Electoral Studies37: 15–27.
17.
GreeneZHaberM (2016) Leadership competition and disagreement at party national congresses. British Journal of Political Science46(3): 611–632.
18.
Green-PedersenC (2019) The Reshaping of West European Party Politics: Agenda-Setting and Party Competition in Comparative Perspective. Oxford University Press.
19.
Green‐PedersenCMortensenPB (2010) Who sets the agenda and who responds to it in the Danish parliament? A new model of issue competition and agenda‐setting. European Journal of Political Research49(2): 257–281.
20.
HarmelRJandaK (1994) An integrated theory of party goals and party change. Journal of Theoretical Politics6(3): 259–287.
21.
HoogheLMarksG (2018) Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. Journal of European Public Policy25(1): 109–135.
22.
HoogheLMarksGWilsonCJ (2002) Does left/right structure party positions on European integration?Comparative Political Studies35(8): 965–989.
23.
HoogheLBakkerRBrigevichA, et al. (2010) Reliability and validity of the 2002 and 2006 Chapel Hill expert surveys on party positioning. European Journal of Political Research49(5): 687–703.
24.
JacksonDJollyS (2021) A new divide? Assessing the transnational-nationalist dimension among political parties and the public across the EU. European Union Politics22(2): 316–339.
25.
JohnsRKöllnA (2020) Moderation and competence: how a party’s ideological position shapes its valence reputation. American Journal of Political Science64(3): 649–663.
26.
JollySBakkerRHoogheL, et al. (2022) Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999–2019. Electoral Studies75: 102420.
27.
JonesBDBaumgartnerFR (2005) The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
KaplanNParkDKRidoutTN (2006) Dialogue in American political campaigns? An examination of issue convergence in candidate television advertising. American Journal of Political Science50(3): 724–736.
30.
KitscheltH (1989) The internal politics of parties: the law of curvilinear disparity revisited. Political Studies37(3): 400–421.
31.
KoedamJ (2021) Avoidance, ambiguity, alternation: position blurring strategies in multidimensional party competition. European Union Politics22(4): 655–675.
32.
KoedamJ (2022a) A change of heart? Analysing stability and change in European party positions. West European Politics45(4): 693–715.
33.
KoedamJ (2022b) Who’s at the helm? When party organization matters for party strategy. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties32(2): 251–274.
34.
KöllnA-KPolkJ (2024) Structuring intra-party politics: a mixed-method study of ideological and hierarchical factions in parties. Comparative Political Studies57(9): 1552–1585.
35.
KönigPD (2017) Intra-party dissent as a constraint in policy competition: mapping and analysing the positioning of political parties in the German refugee debate from august to november 2015. German Politics26(3): 337–359.
36.
LehmannF (2024) Why accommodate? How niche pressure and intra-party divisions shape mainstream party strategies. Journal of European Public Policy1–26.
37.
LynchPWhitakerR (2013) Where there is discord, can they bring harmony? Managing intra-party dissent on European integration in the conservative party. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations15(3): 317–339.
38.
MarksGHoogheLSteenbergenMR, et al. (2007) Crossvalidating data on party positioning on European integration. Electoral Studies26(1): 23–38.
39.
MayJD (1973) Opinion structure of political parties: the special law of curvilinear disparity. Political Studies21(2): 135–151.
40.
NarudHMSkareA (1999) Are party activists the party extremists? The structure of opinion in political parties. Scandinavian Political Studies22(1): 45–65.
41.
NetjesCEBinnemaHA (2007) The salience of the European integration issue: three data sources compared. Electoral Studies26(1): 39–49.
42.
OrhanSA (2023) The social democratic party of Germany (SPD) and immigration policies: an intra-party perspective. German Politics6: 1–29.
43.
PetrocikJR (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science40(3): 825.
44.
RayL (2003) When parties matter: the conditional influence of party positions on voter opinions about European integration. The Journal of Politics65(4): 978–994.
45.
RovnyJ (2012) Who emphasizes and who blurs? Party strategies in multidimensional competition. European Union Politics13(2): 269–292.
46.
RovnyJ (2013) Where do radical right parties stand? Position blurring in multidimensional competition. European Political Science Review5(1): 1–26.
47.
RovnyJEdwardsEE (2012) Struggle over dimensionality: party competition in western and eastern Europe. East European Politics & Societies: And Cultures26(1): 56–74.
48.
SchumacherG (2012) Marx’ or the market? Intra-Party power and social democratic welfare state retrenchment. West European Politics35(5): 1024–1043.
49.
SchumacherGGigerN (2017) Who leads the party? On membership size, selectorates and party oligarchy. Political Studies65(1_suppl): 162–181.
50.
SchumacherGGigerN (2018) Do leadership-dominated parties change more?Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties28(3): 349–360.
51.
SchumacherGde VriesCEVisB (2013) Why do parties change position? Party organization and environmental incentives. The Journal of Politics75(2): 464–477.
52.
SeebergHB (2022) First avoidance, then engagement: political parties’ issue competition in the electoral cycle. Party Politics28(2): 284–293.
53.
SeebergHB (2023) Avoidance and engagement: do societal problems fuel political parties’ issue attention?Party Politics29(2): 270–280.
54.
SidesJ (2006) The origins of campaign agendas. British Journal of Political Science36(3): 407–436.
55.
SpoonJ-J (2012) How salient is Europe? An analysis of European election manifestos, 1979–2004. European Union Politics13(4): 558–579.
SteinerNDMaderM (2017) Intra-party Heterogeneity in Policy Preferences and its Effect on Issue Salience: Developing and Applying a Measure Based on Elite Survey Data. Party Politics. London, England: Sage PublicationsSage UK. DOI: 10.1177/1354068817715553.
58.
StromK (1990) A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science34(2): 565.
59.
ThesenGGreen-PedersenCMortensenPB (2017) Priming, issue ownership, and party support: the electoral gains of an issue-friendly media agenda. Political Communication34(2): 282–301.
60.
TsebelisG (2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Nachdr. New York: Sage.
61.
TsebelisG (2022) Constitutional rigidity matters: a veto players approach. British Journal of Political Science52(1): 280–299.
62.
Van De WardtM (2014) Putting the damper on: do parties de-emphasize issues in response to internal divisions among their supporters?Party Politics20(3): 330–340.
63.
Van De WardtMVan WitteloostuijnA (2021) Adapt or perish? How parties respond to party system saturation in 21 western democracies, 1945–2011. British Journal of Political Science51(1): 16–38.
64.
WagnerMMeyerTM (2014) Which issues do parties emphasise? Salience strategies and party organisation in multiparty systems. West European Politics37(5): 1019–1045.
65.
WagnerMVivyanNGlinitzerK (2020) Costly signals: voter responses to parliamentary dissent in Austria, britain, and Germany. Legislative Studies Quarterly45(4): 645–678.
66.
WalgraveSDe SwertK (2007) Where does issue ownership come from? From the party or from the media? Issue-Party identifications in Belgium, 1991-2005. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics12(1): 37–67.
67.
WhitefieldSVachudovaMASteenbergenMR, et al. (2007) Do expert surveys produce consistent estimates of party stances on European integration? Comparing expert surveys in the difficult case of Central and Eastern Europe. Electoral Studies26(1): 50–61.
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.
