That was really, really insightful. I feel that incumbent governments will be very likely to lose at the ballot box moving on. Voter expectations have become much higher, and much more divided. I’m thinking about Trump’s MAGA base, who is even more hawkish on immigration than Trump (Trump, always the selfish pragmatist, supports skilled immigration to the US from rich countries such as Norway, while the MAGA base is sick of immigration as a whole). If Trump (or Musk) doesn’t carry this to the end, MAGA voters might jump ship to a more populist party (Reform?) and push the Overton window further and further.
Your third option is theoretically sound and it has been used in many countries, but is it a magic pill to the centrist-left? I’m more reserved on that. Take Romania as an example, where the pro-European and pro-Ukraine centre-left and centre-right parties (which are perceived as very corrupt) not only formed a grand coalition in Parliament, but even formed a joint list for the EU Parliament elections. Speaking with one voice may unify them, but it may also unify opposition against them. And that’s what happened when the right-wing populist and anti-corruption reformist candidates leapfrogged them in the presidential elections.
The greatest problem with grand coalitions imo is that they reduce the number of non-populist political actors which are amenable as an alternative. I’ll try to explain what this means. Pushing all the non-populist parties into cohabitation with each other makes them all responsible for anything bad that the government does. Consider Czechia, where the anti-establishment Pirates went into coalition with a bunch of conservatives, ChristDems and liberals. Naturally, they were discredited since they couldn’t actualize their promises (they had a very small voice in the legislature). Those disaffected with the establishment instantly regretted their votes for the Pirates and are now supporting ANO / Prisaha / Stacilo! / Auto. None of them are pro-EU and liberal democracy (Czech politics is very terrifying when you look at it closely). They’re likely to win in 2025. Are there any pragmatic opposition parties in Czechia? A few, yes - but none of them can cross the electoral threshold. That’s how grand coalitions, instead of forming a united pragmatic front, actually fan the flames of populism. (Most of the time, the “front” turns out to bicker among themselves…look at Hungary’s opposition front…)
I just feel that the only way to stem populism is to let populists rule. Too many people clamor for change, and compared to the dreary SQ, “change”, while nebulous, does seem more attractive. I really don’t see any European leader who’s even moderately popular - the closest is Meloni, and even her approval ratings are underwater. Populism is a wave that will only become stronger when it is blocked. Once populists are in power, liberals can only rely on popular resentment to fight back - and that is actually a great weapon, otherwise populists wouldn’t be in power in the first place!
I agree the third option has significant risks of their own, but it is the most direct way parties can act to save themselves and their country from far-right populist rule. But if voters like the ones in the US voted for such policies, they deserve and need to experience the consequences it brings.
That was really, really insightful. I feel that incumbent governments will be very likely to lose at the ballot box moving on. Voter expectations have become much higher, and much more divided. I’m thinking about Trump’s MAGA base, who is even more hawkish on immigration than Trump (Trump, always the selfish pragmatist, supports skilled immigration to the US from rich countries such as Norway, while the MAGA base is sick of immigration as a whole). If Trump (or Musk) doesn’t carry this to the end, MAGA voters might jump ship to a more populist party (Reform?) and push the Overton window further and further.
Your third option is theoretically sound and it has been used in many countries, but is it a magic pill to the centrist-left? I’m more reserved on that. Take Romania as an example, where the pro-European and pro-Ukraine centre-left and centre-right parties (which are perceived as very corrupt) not only formed a grand coalition in Parliament, but even formed a joint list for the EU Parliament elections. Speaking with one voice may unify them, but it may also unify opposition against them. And that’s what happened when the right-wing populist and anti-corruption reformist candidates leapfrogged them in the presidential elections.
The greatest problem with grand coalitions imo is that they reduce the number of non-populist political actors which are amenable as an alternative. I’ll try to explain what this means. Pushing all the non-populist parties into cohabitation with each other makes them all responsible for anything bad that the government does. Consider Czechia, where the anti-establishment Pirates went into coalition with a bunch of conservatives, ChristDems and liberals. Naturally, they were discredited since they couldn’t actualize their promises (they had a very small voice in the legislature). Those disaffected with the establishment instantly regretted their votes for the Pirates and are now supporting ANO / Prisaha / Stacilo! / Auto. None of them are pro-EU and liberal democracy (Czech politics is very terrifying when you look at it closely). They’re likely to win in 2025. Are there any pragmatic opposition parties in Czechia? A few, yes - but none of them can cross the electoral threshold. That’s how grand coalitions, instead of forming a united pragmatic front, actually fan the flames of populism. (Most of the time, the “front” turns out to bicker among themselves…look at Hungary’s opposition front…)
I just feel that the only way to stem populism is to let populists rule. Too many people clamor for change, and compared to the dreary SQ, “change”, while nebulous, does seem more attractive. I really don’t see any European leader who’s even moderately popular - the closest is Meloni, and even her approval ratings are underwater. Populism is a wave that will only become stronger when it is blocked. Once populists are in power, liberals can only rely on popular resentment to fight back - and that is actually a great weapon, otherwise populists wouldn’t be in power in the first place!
I agree the third option has significant risks of their own, but it is the most direct way parties can act to save themselves and their country from far-right populist rule. But if voters like the ones in the US voted for such policies, they deserve and need to experience the consequences it brings.