The Italian Politics Specialist
Group is hosting five panels and events at the 2022 Annual Conference of the Political
Studies Association. The details of each event are listed below (British time).
You are welcome to join the
conference in person or online by registering here: https://www.psa.ac.uk/events/psa22-annual-conference.
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
Time: Monday 11 April, 12:30-13:30 BST
Venue: SLB102 and online (https://tinyurl.com/5emepw73)
Agenda
1. FUNDING (2021
END OF YEAR REPORT)
2. LIAISON
OFFICERS’ REPORTING
• SISP/Italy
• International
• PSA/UK
• APSA/CONGRIPS
3. MEMBERSHIP
4. WEBSITE AND
TWITTER
5. FUTURE ACTIVITIES
• Organisation
of panels at PSA Annual Conference 2023
• Organisation
of one-day Conference 2022 or 2023?
• Other
future activities
6. AOB
7. DATE OF NEXT
MEETING
PANEL “PARTISAN NARRATIVES AND PARTY COMPETITION IN TIMES
OF CRISIS”
Time: Tuesday 12 April, 9:30-11:00 BST
Venue: SLB107 and online (https://tinyurl.com/582d5nfs)
The panel examines how recent crises and rising economic and
social inequalities have affected political narratives and party competition in
Italy with reference to both left and right-wing parties.
Chair: Prof. Mattia Zulianello (University of Trieste)
Discussant: Prof. Davide Vampa (Aston University)
PAPER 1 – AGAINST IMMIGRATION, IN FAVOUR OF DEMOCRACY:
NATIVISM AND DEMOCRACY IN THE ITALIAN POPULIST RADICAL RIGHT’S DISCOURSE DURING
THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Marianna Griffini (King’s College London)
At the 2 June anniversary celebration of the foundation of
the Italian Republic, Matteo Salvini and Giorgia Meloni, leaders, respectively,
of the Lega and of Fratelli d’Italia (FdI), staged a street march in Rome
sporting Italian-flag-patterned masks. They meant to protest against Giuseppe
Conte’s, the Italian Prime Minister, management of the Covid-19 pandemic. In
doing so, Lega and FdI portrayed themselves as the saviours of Italy’s people
and Italy’s democracy. The relationship between populism and democracy is
fraught with tensions. On one hand, the populist framing of democracy in an
exclusionary light, casting off certain groups such as immigrants, challenges
the deep-seated link between liberal democracy, popular sovereignty, and
minority rights (Finchelstein, Urbinati 2018). On the other hand, the populist
framing of themselves as saving the will of the people suggests the strategic
deployment of discourses around democracy to cover otherwise undemocratic
discourse (Halikiopoulou, Vasilopoulou, Mock 2013). While vast attention has
been cast on the paradoxes inherent to the relationship between populism and
democracy (see, for instance, Moffitt 2020), the Covid-19 pandemic that has
been shaking Italian politics poses a conundrum worth examining: in which ways
has a stance against immigration been linked to a stance pro-democracy? The analysis of this case study can yield
important insights regarding the combination of nativist and democratic discourse
in populist parties across Europe at a time when the continent had to face a
new Other against which to fight, i.e. the Covid-19 pandemic. This paper uses
interviews with 10 Lega and FdI representatives, and the analysis of the
parties’ Faceboook (FB) posts on immigration in the period between March 2021
and May 2021. Qualitative discourse analysis is deployed, paying special
attention to framings of immigrants and of democracy. FB is widely used by Lega
and FdI and reaches out to a wider share of potential voters than Twitter.
Interviews are used to explore more in-depth themes emerged through the FB
posts. The tentative argument is that in nativist discourse, exclusionary
traits were preserved but shrouded in democratic discourse, evident in the Lega’s
and FdI’s contrasting the government’s apparent neglect of immigration with its
apparent undemocratic management of the pandemic.
PAPER 2 – LOST IN ECONOMIC CRISIS: WELFARE MODELS AND
LEFT-WING PARTIES, BETWEEN RESILIENCE AND CRISIS.
Sorina Soare, Matteo Boldrini, Mattia Collini (University of
Florence)
Traditional left-wing parties have been facing a complex
crisis across Europe, both in terms of electoral results or capacity to
mobilise members and/or sympathisers, with traditional left-wing parties often
registering relevant losses. On the other hand, we can also observe the
presence of four main traditional welfare models across Europe (Mediterranean,
Continental, Liberal, post-communist), which responded differently to the
economic crisis and policy changes. In
this context, we aim to provide a comparative analysis of the relevance of the
different welfare models on the electoral results of left-wing and radical-left
parties in 27 EU countries, plus Norway, Switzerland and the UK. We take into
account their electoral results at the lower chamber between the first election
prior to the European economic crisis (2009) and the most recent legislative
elections. Our research aims to look at
the correlation between welfare models, changes in the welfare systems and
electoral results for parties on the left of the political spectrum. In other
words, we aim to assess if changes in welfare policies, considered with regard
to social expenditures, can be a relevant variable for explaining electoral
shifts from left-wing parties to other parties on the left (radical-left
parties) or contenders on the right that endorse forms of welfare chauvinism
(radical-right populist parties). Our analysis is based on largely quantitative
research examining electoral data and macroeconomic variables, plus data on
political orientation of parties (GALTAN positions and economic left-right)
from the CHES.
PAPER 3 – FROM THE PANDEMICS TO THE REGIONAL ELECTIONS. ONE
PARTY, TWO APPROACHES: THE LEAGUE AND THE NORTHERN LEAGUE
Marco Almagisti & Matteo Zanellato (Univesity of Padova)
In recent years, the Matteo Salvini’s League is turning into
a TAN party. However, the first signs of a division between the National League
and the traditional political culture of this party seem to be manifesting
precisely from the north-east, where the League had taken its first steps
thirty years ago. After the Covid-19 pandemic, the League regional governors
have maintained an attitude which is more similar to that of national
governments than to the positions of their leader Matteo Salvini. The research
question is: has the transformation of the League into a national party
happened in north also or are the
legacies of Northern League still decisive for the explanation of the different
attitudes of the two sides? The hypothesis of this article is that in Northern
Italy the League has not completely transformed into the national and
nationalist party as the secretary Matteo Salvini designed it, due to its
primary political culture. This approach is also promoted in the Parliament by
the Minister of Economic Development Giancarlo Giorgetti. The research
methodology will be based on historical political Science and the research
technique will be discourse analysis of the main League leaders in the last ten
years aiming to identify the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic in the increasing
divide between the two political currents. The result of our analysis is that
the transformation of the League into a national party has been hindered by the
regional leadership and by the League ministers from the North.
PAPER 4 - POPULISM 2020: ITALY (LOMBARDY), USA, BRAZIL AND
INDIA FACING COVID-19
Prof Fabrizio Tonello (University of Padova)
This paper analyzes the behavior of populist governments
surfing the first months of the pandemic. In the case of Italy, we looked at
Lombardy, where the local government is firmly controlled by the League, a
populist party. We considered four areas: hostility toward science,
authoritarian impulses and decisions, violent language, and finally
institutional chaos. Our hypothesis is that this experience will show important
common characters of the four political populist actors examined. Moreover,
this can help the theoretical research about neopopulism itself.
ROUNDTABLE “ITALY AFTER THE STORM”
Time: Tuesday 12 April, 12:30-13:30 BST
Venue: SLB107 or online (https://tinyurl.com/582d5nfs)
This round table, organised by the Italian Politics
Specialist Group, will examine Italy's political, societal and institutional
change set against the recent Covid-19 pandemic. It will focus especially on
two recent volumes which will be discussed with the authors: 'Populism in
Europe: Lessons from Umberto Bossi's Northern League' (by Daniele Albertazzi
and Davide Vampa) and 'Politics in Italy 2022' (by Giliberto Capano and Giulia
Sandri). Has the pandemic eroded populism? Have Italian parties and institutions,
at their multiple levels, come out stronger from the crisis? Ultimately, is
Italy building back better?
Chair: Prof Arianna Giovannini (De Montfort University)
Discussants: Prof Laura Polverari (University of Padova)
& Prof Mattia Zulianello (University of Trieste)
Speakers:
Prof Daniele Albertazzi, University of Surrey
Prof Giliberto Capano, University of Bologna
Prof Giulia Sandri, Université catholique de Lille
Prof Davide Vampa, Aston University
PANEL “INSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY CHANGE UNDER CRISIS
CONDITIONS. ITALY IN A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE”
Time: Tuesday 12 April, 13:30-15:00 BST
Venue: SLB107 and online (https://tinyurl.com/582d5nfs)
This panel explores the institutional, policy and political
changes linked to the recent Covid-19 pandemic, namely how the crisis has
affected Presidents’, governments’, regions’ and citizens’ strategies and
policies, as well as perceptions of the EU. All papers in this panel are
cross-country.
Chair: Prof. Laura Polverari (University of Padova)
Discussant: Prof. Sorina Soare (University of Firenze)
PAPER 1 – GOING PUBLIC STRATEGIES OF FORMALLY CONSTRAINED
PRESIDENTS IN EUROPE
Selena Grimaldi (University of Padova)
Constrained presidents considerably use going-public
strategies among their possible patterns of behaviour. This occurs both because
going public is less likely to be negotiated or controlled by other actors
-such as the PM and or the Parliament- since it is a typical informal tool, and
because during the digital revolution the possibility to go public has
increased exponentially for all public figures. In addition, external crises
tend to create a “rally round the flag” effect causing short-term boosts in
presidential popularity. During such exceptional times, including the COVID
pandemic, presidents as heads of state are more likely to utilize going public
strategies as well as become more involved in national policy-making. However,
presidential going public is under-investigated in Europe. This paper
specifically addresses this gap in literature by focusing on the going-public
tactics of Western European presidents in office since the ‘90s. This is a
comparative research involving two semi-presidential and (Austria and Finland)
two parliamentary regimes (Germany and Italy). More precisely, 101 New Year’
speeches are analysed by using qualitative content analysis. The main findings
reinforce the argument according to which going public is used in areas where
presidents are most constitutionally constrained: thus, in the policy sphere
and specifically in domestic issues. In fact, empirical evidence confirms that
policy issues prevail on polity issues and that domestic issues are the most
developed in presidential speeches.
PAPER 2 – RESILIENCE, A NEW PARADIGM OF EU’S FOREIGN POLICY?
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ROMANIAN AND ITALIAN NATIONAL RECOVERY AND
RESILIENCE PLANS
Octavia Moise (SNSPA Bucharest)
Constrained presidents considerably use going-public
strategies among their possible patterns of behaviour. This occurs both because
going public is less likely to be negotiated or controlled by other actors
-such as the PM and or the Parliament- since it is a typical informal tool, and
because during the digital revolution the possibility to go public has
increased exponentially for all public figures. In addition, external crises
tend to create a “rally round the flag” effect causing short-term boosts in
presidential popularity. During such exceptional times, including the COVID
pandemic, presidents as heads of state are more likely to utilize going public
strategies as well as become more involved in national policy-making. However,
presidential going public is under-investigated in Europe. This paper specifically
addresses this gap in literature by focusing on the going-public tactics of
Western European presidents in office since the ‘90s. This is a comparative
research involving two semi-presidential and (Austria and Finland) two
parliamentary regimes (Germany and Italy). More precisely, 101 New Year’
speeches are analysed by using qualitative content analysis. The main findings
reinforce the argument according to which going public is used in areas where
presidents are most constitutionally constrained: thus, in the policy sphere
and specifically in domestic issues. In fact, empirical evidence confirms that
policy issues prevail on polity issues and that domestic issues are the most
developed in presidential speeches.
PAPER 3 – THE rEscUer? NEW PATHS IN THE RELATIONSHIP WITH
THE EU
Antonella Seddone & Giuliano Bobba (University of
Torino)
The COVID19 emergency has had sudden and very dramatic
consequences on societies at large. Moreover, the implications of the pandemic
emergency have not been confined to the health field alone, but they also
involve - and will involve in the years to come - the economic field with
consequences at the political level too (Devine 2020). The literature agrees
that in times of crisis a round-the-flag rally effect is triggered: citizens,
in fact, appear more keen to support their own governments regardless their
political views. While numerous studies have addressed the effects of the
pandemic on vertical trust levels (e.g., Bol et al. 2020; Kritzinger et al.
2021), issues related to the European Union are so far less explored (Basile et
al 2021; Bobba & Seddone 2020). In this paper, by relying to panel survey
data on the Italian case study, we investigate the determinants of citizens’
shift in evaluations about the European Union. According to our data, nearly
one-fourth of the respondents has changed the evaluation on the EU and more
specifically about one fifth of the whole representative sample reports to have
improved the opinion about the EU membership. The paper clarifies whether and
to what extent the following factors: party cueing, economic outlook and
pandemic risk have driven the positive shift in the EU opinion.
PAPER 4 – FROM MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE TO MULTI-LEVEL CRISIS:
FRAMING THE STUDY OF SUB-NATIONAL REGIONS IN AN ERA OF POLITICAL TURMOIL
Davide Vampa (Aston University)
Multiple crises of different nature have occurred since the
late 2000s. While their effects on national democratic systems have been
thoroughly investigated, some questions about their territorial implications
remain open. By drawing on the existing literature and referring to the Italian
case and other Western European countries, this paper seeks to provide a
framework for the study of changing regional politics and public policy in a
context of growing political instability. Sub-national regional actors (parties
and movements) have had to adapt and respond to evolving national and
transnational political environments. In turn, this may have significantly
altered political equilibria and dynamics within regional party systems, with
consequent effects on regional governments and the policies they promote and
implement. However, the framework proposed here rejects unidirectional
theoretical and empirical approaches, which move vertically and rigidly from
the national to the sub-national arena. A comprehensive analysis should not
just consider regional reactions and adjustments to what happens at higher
levels of government. It should also account for the existence of feedback
effects and circularity. To be sure, national political crises may lead to
changes in regional politics, regional government and regional-central
relations, which, ultimately, produce a shift in sub-national policy making.
Yet new regional and territorial policy paradigms emerging from this process
may also have an “upward effect” and may exacerbate or stabilise national
political crises. The result could be either a spiral of instability –
threatening the territorial integrity of a country – or the emergence and
consolidation of a new territorial settlement.
PAPER 5 - SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEES, GOVERNMENT AND EMERGENCY.
SOME INSIGHTS DRAWN FROM THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COVID EMERGENCY IN ITALY
Giuseppe Ieraci (Università di Trieste)
The role of expertise in the decision making process has
been traditionally linked to the relevance of contextual knowledge for the
decision. We can observe two phenomena related to the role of experts in
politics, namely the externalization of policy advice and its politicization.
In the case of the action of the technical committees in the management of the
Covid-19 emergency in Italy, the effect of outsourcing the expertise, compared
to the traditional administrative circuit, was evident, as shown by the growing
influence of professionals from the medical environment and by the Istituto
Superiore di Sanità on the institutional decision-making bodies.
Politicization, in turn, derives from the possibility that the bearers of
technical-scientific knowledge, while carrying out their role as advisers, take
sides more or less consciously in policy-making in a partisan way. To
investigate these phenomena, the most direct tool is the analysis of
decision-making processes in the network, or policy arena, which includes the
government, ministries and technical-scientific committees (as an element of
externality of the decision). The Italian case
is pointed out to enlighten this new circuit of the decision-making in
contemporary democracy, which by-passes the traditional representative and
parliamentary circuit.
ROUNDTABLE ON THE BOOK: 'THE STRAINS OF BREXIT: UK
POLITICS AND THE RESILIENCE OF THE WESTMINSTER MODEL'' BY G. BALDINI, E.
BRESSANELLI AND E. MASSETTI
Time: Wednesday 13 April, 12:30-13:30 BST
Venue: PL001 or online (https://tinyurl.com/e5v5zh7e)
This round table, organised by the Italian Politics
Specialist Group, will discuss a forthcoming book by Gianfranco Baldini,
Edoardo Bressanelli and Emanuele Massetti 'The Strains of Brexit: UK Politics
and the Resilience of the Westminster Model'. The volume adopts the conceptual
reference of the “Westminster model”, as it was proposed by Arend Lijphart and
applied to the UK case by Matthew Flinders. The book rests on substantive
empirical research, including several types of primary sources – electoral
data, parliamentary and government documents, rulings of the Supreme Court,
newspaper articles, policy papers, party manifestos, and more than seventy
interviews with experts, politicians and policymakers conducted between
December 2018 and October 2019 in London, Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh. The
analysis focuses on three dimensions of the political system in which Brexit
has caused or exacerbated evident strains: electoral dynamics and the party
system; executive-legislative relations; and centre-periphery relations. The
findings point to the emergence of a clear and common tendency across these
three dimensions: the Brexit process has not only brought to a halt most of the
institutional reforms that had been undertaken or discussed in the previous
twenty-five years, but it has also put them under attack, in a view to weaken
or undo some of them. Therefore, during the Brexit years, the UK political
system has moved in the direction of a (partial) return towards the
“Westminster model”. This direction of change has met great resistance from
peripheral or minor political forces, as well as a more ambiguous resistance
from the main party of opposition (Labour). The round table will discuss the
nuances and contradictions of political and institutional change during the
Brexit years across the three dimensions, besides speculating on the solidity
of the emerged trend towards a return to Westminster and viability/feasibility
of alternative projects.
Chair: Prof Daniele Albertazzi (University of Surrey)
Discussants: Prof Arianna Giovannini (De Montfort University),
Prof. Matthew Flinders (University of Sheffield) & Prof Sofia Vasilopoulou
(University of York)
Speakers:
Prof Gianfranco Baldini (University of Bologna)
Prof Edoardo Bressanelli (Sant’Anna School of Advanced
Studies)
Prof Emanuele Massetti (University of Trento)
