Thomas O’Brien

Populism, protest and democracy in the twenty-first century

Protest is an important measure of discontent within society and can be seen as a form of politics by other means. In periods of uncertainty and instability, protest can harm incumbent regimes by heightening and amplifying tensions, potentially leading to crisis and collapse in extreme cases. The wave of democratisation that characterised the last quarter of the twentieth century saw a number of weak democracies emerge and struggle, whereas other regime changes saw new forms of authoritarianism emerge. Crises in the early twenty-first century have shaken both democratic and non-democratic states, leading to large-scale ‘occupy’ movements and uprisings that have brought down regimes in the former Soviet Union and across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA)1 region. Common to these diverse protests is a feeling of antipolitics that draws on populist and religious motivations to challenge the state. The aim of this paper is to consider the significance of this apparent wave of protest and identify the driving factors. In order to do this, the paper examines arguments around the quality of democracy (and autocracy), state–social movement interactions and the rise of populist and religious movements.

The role of identity in the 2015 Romanian shepherd protests

ABSTRACT Shepherds have a particular place in the history and culture of Romania. For centuries they have had rights to graze their sheep in public pastures and manage their flocks using traditional methods. Changes at the national and European level have threatened this way of life and provoked protest, most recently in December 2015 over plans to limit sheepdog numbers and restrict winter grazing rights. This article draws on interviews with participating and non-participating shepherds to examine the motivations behind the protest action and its relation to their position in contemporary society. The findings suggest how marginalised groups in society are able to draw on folk histories and cultural identities in the formulation of contentious politics in defence of their interests. The post-communist setting of the protests also highlights the persistence of traditional practices during a period of social and political upheaval.

Chronicle of a death foretold: The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand and the 2017 election

The Green Party entered the 2017 election campaign from a position of relative strength. As shown in Table 1 and described in O’Brien (2013), recent elections had seen the Green Party capitalise on public dissatisfaction with the Labour Party (the main opposition party). They were able to expand their vote to breakthrough as a ‘medium’ rather than minor party, consistently polling over 10% and as high as 13% since early 2015 (see Figure 1). In the face of Labour’s ongoing difficulties and the lack of other competitors for progressive votes, they were able to present themselves as a credible third force, effectively challenging the governing National Party. This transition had been accompanied by a stable message that associated action on environmental issues with broader areas of social justice and economic performance, their 2014 manifesto being framed around three messages or strands: ‘Cleaner environment’, ‘Fairer society’ and ‘Smarter economy’. A critical turning point came at the Annual General Meeting and campaign launch in July 2017. Highlighting the need for social welfare reform, Green co-leader Metiria Turei revealed that she had committed minor social welfare fraud as a sole parent in the 1990s. Intended to highlight the difficulties associated with surviving in poverty, this initially appeared to have had little negative effect on the Green Party. Two subsequent opinion polls showed Green support increasing slightly in one and significantly in the other (from 11% to 15%), with support for Labour continuing to decline. This led one former Green MP to claim that the Party was now attracting Labour’s core supporters and was on track to grow even further (RNZ National 2017).

‘Cut Pollution, Create Jobs? Yeah, Nah’: partisan effects on environmental protest in Aotearoa New Zealand

ABSTRACT Protest is a tool that social movements can use to express discontent and present claims to those in power. In New Zealand, campaigns around native forest protection, genetic engineering, mining and offshore oil exploration have mobilised numerous participants, forcing the state to acknowledge public concerns and, in some cases, effect change of course. However, impact of the ideological orientation of the governing party on environmental protest behaviour is less well understood. The aim of this paper is to identify how political opportunities and threats in the protest arena are shaped by changes in the electoral arena. The methodology of protest event analysis is used to identify environmental protest under the left-wing Labour (1999–2008) and right-wing National (2008–2017) governments. Findings suggest that the orientation of the governing party is important in shaping opportunities, illustrated by periods of dominance of the electoral arena by the National Party leading to a corresponding intensification of mobilisation in the protest arena.

From environmental action to ecoterrorism? Towards a process theory of environmental and animal rights oriented political violence

Growing pressure on the natural environment resulting from human activity has spawned numerous environmental organisations. The overwhelming majority of these groups operate within the bounds of the law to achieve their aims and limit the threat they pose. However, the radical actions of groups such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) have seen the concept of ecoterrorism emerge in an attempt to classify such organisations. In this book Gerry Nagtzaam aims to unpack the history of such groups and their motivating beliefs. The questions that animate the project are (1):

Shifting patterns of governance in authoritarian regimes

Over the past decade, as the Third Wave of democratisation has stalled and begun to recede, attention has increasingly shifted to understanding the internal workings and governance of non-democratic regimes. Core distinctions between military, party and personalist regime types have received renewed attention (Brooker 2014; Cheibub 2007; Gandhi 2010) and new classifications of nonor semi-democratic regime types are proliferating in number and complexity. Concepts such as competitive authoritarianism indicate the evolution of traditional, rigid forms of non-democratic regime to more disguised or fluid formations (Levitsky and Way 2010). He and Warren (2011: 269) note that such hybrid ‘regimes mix authoritarian rule with political devices including elections, consultative forums, political parties and legislatures that we would normally associate with democracy’. In adopting the appearance and language of democracy non-democratic regimes have sought to legitimise their rule on terms that are deemed acceptable by the international community. Recognising the array of forms of governance in authoritarian regimes is an important task in moving away from a simple binary democratic-authoritarian classification. In turn, this has the potential to raise challenging questions for the governance of democratic regimes, due to the disillusionment with ‘politics as usual’ and the rise of populist and exclusionary regimes, which may presage processes of de-democratisation (see Tilly 2006). This essay considers variations in forms of authoritarian governance as they have emerged and consolidated in the contemporary era. The aim is to determine whether there are common themes that can be identified in the governance of authoritarian regimes. It also examines how these patterns of governance have changed and

Foreign pressure and the politics of autocratic survival

be delivered slightly later in order to ensure full consideration of the period under discussion. The second, and more substantial, criticism of this book is the lack of cohesion amongst the contributions. Although individually very strong, there is very little cross-referencing between the chapters, even where there is clear overlap in the issues discussed, such as consideration of the UK and Libya, and Syria, between the chapters on defence and foreign policy. Contributing to this lack of cohesion is the absence of a strong central narrative. Although many of the chapters draw out some of the continuities and discontinuities between the Coalition and New Labour, this was not consistently pursued throughout the book. To address this, the introduction needed to provide a clearer framework around which the following chapters could then structure and focus their discussion. In concluding the book Matt Beech provides an excellent discussion of the position of the Coalition amongst post-Second World War governments. His conclusion that the Coalition was a reformist, but not a transformative, government is difficult to disagree with. However, he wisely cautions that the full effects of the Coalition may take more time to decipher, and that this book is a first step in analysis of what was a fascinating period in British politics. The Conservative-Liberal Coalition: examining Cameron-Clegg government invites readers into an expert discussion of the Coalition government across the most important policy areas in modern British governance. Each of the chapters provides an authoritative and highly readable overview of the main issues encountered, or caused, by the Coalition government during its term. This collection will prove essential reading for those interested in understanding the government of Britain from 2010 to 2015. And we look forward to the next instalment from Beech and Lee on the Conservative government elected in 2015 – it is already clear that the chapter on the European Union will need to be slightly longer.

Human (in)security and democracy in Central America

Human security has increasingly shifted attention to the individual, while the state has become guarantor (or violator) of security given its role in governing the domestic environment. This article examines how variations in regime forms influence security, pointing to the importance of political security in the wider human security framework. To illustrate, the article examines the nature of political security in Central America, a region with weakly democratized states and histories of political violence. The findings suggest a link between democracy and human security that is mediated by state capacity and the ability to control non-state violence against individuals.