SAMPOL236 - lecture 3 green parties

Why have green parties emerged in certain countries and not in others?

• 'new politics' theories

  • New social movements (NSM) emerging in 60s/70s - feminism second wave, pro peace/anti war, nuclear

    • Very interconnected

    • Informal, decentralised and participatory

    • Green parties then formed from these groups

  • But also not all countries with green party emergence had these issues e.g. nuclear e.g. UK - more environmental

• Middle class elitism

  • After WW2 change in econ structure - more affluence and education (new middle class)- middle class often make up membership of NSM

  • But - all classes suffer from environmental issues - esp poorest

  • Also other classes involved e.g. outside of the labour market - students, retired etc

• Postmaterialism

  • Shift in values from materialism - econ and physical security to more emphasis on belonging, self-expression and QoL

    • Not just about having food to eat, but about having a nice life

  • Scarcity hypothesis

    • This explains popularity of green parties/NSMs because ppl are more focussed on these wider issues

    • But some also say the idea of 'basic need's is always broadening and materialism will never stop

    • Not conclusive evidence for this

  • Socialisation hypothesis

    • Individuals do not change values, but more generational shift through socialisation

  • But is the environment really a postmaterial issue?

    • Theory criticised for reducing the environment to just a material issue

    • Many environmental impacts on health, housing, food etc - all material

What explains the difference in success of green parties?

• Political opportunity structure (POS) Kitschelt - useful for seeing why green parties do better in some countries than others

  • New social movement activity

  • Form of electoral system

    • Campaign costs and deposits- challenging for green parties

    • State funding for parties

    • Thresholds - e.g. in Germany need 5% of votes to get into parliament - challenging in a big country

    • Proportional vs majoritarian systems - e.g. in UK hard for greens to gain majority over labour etc

  • Existence of precipitating issues - single sudden event that sparks protest, shift in voting patterns etc

  • Nature of party competition

  • Climate change doesn't win you an election e.g. 2014 CC was a big issue but greens didn't win

• green parties do better in a proportional representation system (if they get 30% of votes they get 30% seats) unlike the UK with first past the post - so only the top party gets any influence

• Also federal systems can help (central gov + states, countries etc) e.g. Germany - but can cause siloing and lack of coordination to form a national green party e.g. aus also US not successful

• Political comp also important

• Age and education

  • Green voters tend to be younger, with middle/higher income, highly educated, less likely to belong to christian churches and more likely to be female

    • Environmental edu -> increased understanding of issues + more recently on curriculum

  • Both those younger voters continue to vote and some don't

  • Green voting often seen as a protest vote against established parties e.g. green surge in UK 2014-15

• Does environmental concern from extreme weather events increase green vote?

  • Yes but small and short-lived

  • Not everyone links these events with CC - objective vs subjective exposure

  • Norway and Sweden - CC is often a topic ppl are concerned about but no strong green party

  • German green success 2002 linked to flooding in the summer

  • Opposition to nuclear power has been a consistent focus e.g. in Germany - performing better in areas close to nuclear power stations

    • Similar to immigration being a catalyst for the right

• Actions by the party themselves

  • Charismatic leader

  • Infighting

  • Scandals

  • Strategy

• National factors

  • Wealthier, more employed, nuclear power, decentralisation etc all lead to more green party success

  • Post-materialism - new generations of voters raised in post-scarcity and thus post-material societies

  • Economic crises draw voters away

  • Radical left vote share e.g. SV means less votes for greens

Case study - Germany

• Electoral rules have been helpful - electoral law refunds campaign costs for any party with >0.5% in federal election - reduced need for rich sponsors

• Also 5% threshold means they need 5% of votes for seats - low enough for small parties to get in

• Federal structure (many states with own elections) provided multiple access points - could win seats in state parliaments giving them publicity and credibility

• European elections provided further opportunities and a political platform

• 2 of the most popular politicians came from the green party - Joschka Fischer was the de facto leader for many years and had campaigns centred on him

• SPD was main left wing party but then moved towards the centre so greens filled this space and gained votes but when east and west germany reunited SPD came along from the East (strongly left) - tried to form a coalition and attracted second votes of SPD voters as they liked both parties - keeping them above 5% (borrowed votes)

  • But then SPD became more left again but green party has stayed strong by identifying with certain issues - around 8% electorare

Case study - UK

• Hard for small oarties to break through - people unwilling to 'waste' vote on parties unlikely to win a seat

• Small parties pay £500 deposit per canditate - returnable only if they get 5% in each constituency + no state funding for parties

  • So selective about seats

  • Rely on memership fees and individual donations

• Labour and conservative contain many different opinions so attract big followings

  • So trying to change these parties from the inside rather than supporting greens

• Competition from lib dems and scottish nationalists

• So not much empty space unlike germany

• But late 1990s saw labour go more centre so greens came in as to the left

  • But in 2017 Corbyn came in and people leffor labour

• March 2026 second party in the UK but now lower around 12%

How far have mainstream parties embraced the environmental agenda? What factors influence the greening of established parties (does it require the presence of a successful green party)?

• Dismissive: ignore the Green party/environmental issue.

• Accommodative: adopt some Green policies to attract their voters.

• Adversarial: directly attack or oppose Green positions.

  • this happens sometimes e.g. in the UK with conservatives reducing CC strategies when greens become stronger to seem more appealing for those strongly against greens

• Mainstream parties have increasingly adopted environmental issues, particularly when:

  • public concern about CC is high

  • environmental issues become politically important

  • Green parties pose a credible electoral threat

  • mainstream parties compete to appear “greener” than their opponents

• But environmental commitment is often shallow/strategic:

  • Parties may adopt green policies to win Green voters rather than because of genuine ideological change.

  • Environmental issues can fall down the agenda when voters prioritise economic or other immediate issues.

  • Mainstream parties therefore tend to respond to environmental pressure rather than lead it.

• presence of a successful green party is not required e.g. in the UK

  • 2005-6 it rose as more of an issue - more science, worse emission trends, stern review etc so david cameron made it headline of conservative strategy

    • 3 parties competing to be greener than each other - many new commitments came - zero-carbon homes, Department of energy and CC creation etc

  • But then this environmental focus got overtaken by other issues e.g. Brexit

  • So green have had almost zero influence over policy and politics - unlike Germany

  • Germany - successful green party since 1980s has helped CC become a core subject

Impact in gov/parliament:

• Study of EU15 member states found that presence of green party in gov has positive effect on that country's progress to Kyoto GHG reductions

• More ambitious climate targets

• GHGs reduced

• Less pollution

• More women represented

  • Average 43% female membership

• Coalitions can help prove that greens can be trusted in government - competent, responsible, co-operative etc - winning wider public support e.g. Swedish greens would adopt migration policy they hated just to seem respectful, rather than walking away from coalition

• Overall impact quite small but still there - but trust and experience in gov is important for long term success

Do party responses to the environment follow partisan lines?