Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Religion, Populism, and Nationalism in Nine Eastern European States

Mon, August 10, 10:30am to 12:10pm PDT (10:30am to 12:10pm PDT), Hilton San Francisco Union Square, Floor: 4th Floor, Union Square 13

Abstract

This paper examines cultural variance in the appeal of the right-wing party message by investigating voter preference and affinity for nationalist parties in nine Eastern and Central states: Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia. These are the former east bloc states included in Norris and Inglehart’s (2019) study and for which data are available in the European Social Survey. Eighteen parties within these states were initially classified as “populist” by Inglehart and Norris (2016), and as “authoritarian” in their later study (Norris and Inglehart, 2019:217, 230-236) which used a more complex three-dimensional party classification. The nine eastern European states in our study include six majority Catholic states—Slovenia, Poland, Croatia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Hungary; one majority Orthodox country—Bulgaria; one religiously mixed country—Latvia; and one majority-unaffiliated country—the Czech Republic. Together the nine states reflect religious and cultural variations in historical and cultural affinity to Russia. These states also vary in the availability of religious leaders who can be drafted to increase support for nationalist candidates and agendas and to help define and target “enemies” such as homosexuals. The findings suggest that linking the country’s traditional religion to national identity and the provision of government income support programs may be important in propping up nationalist parties in eastern and central Europe. Even voters who do not feel affinity with illiberal parties may support them because of the benefits their elected leaders have put in place for citizens through programs such as “Family 500+” in Poland and for the promise of protection from the competition of immigration.

Authors