How Parties Speak about International Organizations in Parliamentary Speeches

• In Event: Democracy vs. Autocracy

Abstract

How do political parties compete and communicate about international organizations (IOs)? We argue that partisan discourse about IOs jointly depends on whether a party is a mainstream or niche (or ‘challenger’) party, and whether it is in government or in opposition. Because niche parties usually have more incentives to mobilize on IO-related issues than mainstream parties, they are likely to talk more and more negatively about IOs, especially when they are in opposition. When parties enter government, however, they are ‘forced’ to talk about IOs in positive ways to justify the implementation of IO decisions in domestic law. As a result, niche parties tone down their criticism of IOs, and therefore have incentives to talk less about IOs than when in opposition. In contrast, mainstream parties are expected to talk more and more positively about IOs when in government. We test this argument by analyzing the salience and sentiment of political parties’ IO-related speeches in six national parliaments between 1990 and 2018. Our results support the argument that the niche/mainstream party distinction and the governing status jointly explain the tone and frequency of party communication about IOs. These findings not only advance our understanding of party contestation on issues of international cooperation, but also suggests that blame shifting toward IOs by national governments may not be as pronounced as previously thought.

Authors

• Tom Hunter, Univeristy of Zurich

• Stefanie Walter, University of Zurich