![A Brief Agenda ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Similar to Populism 2007 For Pozorblog
Similar to Populism 2007 For Pozorblog (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Populism 2007 For Pozorblog
- 1. The Dynamics of Populism in Slovakia and the Czech Republic Kevin Deegan-Krause Wayne State University Detroit, Michigan, USA
- 3. Populism in General: Definitions My Ally + Voters = Popul ar My Opponent + Voters = Popul ist
- 7. Populism in General: Definitions Programmatic Weak Institutions Strong Leader Organizational Moralistic Idiosyncratic Stylistic Against All Elites On Behalf of All people
- 14. Populism in General: Issue Divides Programmatic Weak Institutions Strong Leader Organizational Moralistic Idiosyncratic Stylistic Against All Elites On Behalf of All people Anti-elite program hard to sustain while in power
- 15. Populism in General: Issue Divides Programmatic Weak Institutions Strong Leader Organizational Moralistic Idiosyncratic Stylistic Against All Elites On Behalf of All people Anti-elite program hard to sustain while in power
- 29. Populism in Slovakia and the Czech Republic
- 30. Populism in SK and CZ: Assessment
- 31. Populism in SK and CZ: Assessment Programmatic Weak Institutions Strong Leader Organizational Moralistic Idiosyncratic Stylistic Against All Elites On Behalf of All people Framework
- 32. Populism in SK and CZ: Assessment Moralistic Against All Elites On Behalf of All people Idiosyncratic Stylistic Weak Institutions Strong Leader Organizational Programmatic Framework
- 33. Populism in SK and CZ: Assessment Moralistic Against All Elites On Behalf of All people Idiosyncratic Stylistic Weak Institutions Strong Leader Organizational Programmatic ZRS 1994 Score=18 or 100% SDL 1994 Score=12 or 50% Example
- 34. Populism in SK and CZ: (Tentative) Assessment
- 35. Populism in SK and CZ: (Tentative) Assessment Year Characteristic HZDS KDH DU SDK SDKU ANO SNS SDL ZRS SOP Smer KSS SMK 1992 strong leader 3 2 2 2 1 avoids constraining organization 2 2 2 1 2 places morality over pragmatism 3 3 2 2 3 offers idiosyncratic program 2 1 2 1 1 claims to represent "whole people" 3 1 3 3 2 attacks all elites 2 1 2 2 2 Sum 15 10 13 11 11 1994 strong leader 3 2 2 3 2 3 1 avoids constraining organization 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 places morality over pragmatism 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 offers idiosyncratic program 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 claims to represent "whole people" 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 attacks all elites 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 Sum 14 9 12 15 11 18 10 1998 strong leader 3 2 3 1 2 1 avoids constraining organization 1 2 2 3 3 1 places morality over pragmatism 2 2 3 2 2 3 offers idiosyncratic program 2 2 2 1 3 1 claims to represent "whole people" 3 2 3 2 3 2 attacks all elites 2 1 2 1 2 2 Sum 13 11 15 10 15 10 2002 strong leader 3 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 avoids constraining organization 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 places morality over pragmatism 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 offers idiosyncratic program 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 claims to represent "whole people" 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 2 attacks all elites 3 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 Sum 14 8 10 16 18 17 12 10 2006 strong leader 3 1 2 3 3 1 avoids constraining organization 2 1 2 2 2 1 places morality over pragmatism 1 3 2 3 2 3 offers idiosyncratic program 3 1 1 3 2 1 claims to represent "whole people" 2 1 2 3 3 2 attacks all elites 3 1 1 3 3 2 Sum 14 8 10 17 15 10
- 36. Populism in SK and CZ: (Tentative) Assessment
- 37. Populism in SK and CZ: (Tentative) Assessment Year Characteristic ODS ODA US SZ KDU- CSL CSSD KSCM LSU HSD- SMS SPR- RSC Dek. Od. 1992 strong leader 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 avoids constraining organization 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 places morality over pragmatism 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 offers idiosyncratic program 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 claims to represent "whole people" 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 attacks all elites 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 Sum 10 10 8 13 11 11 11 18 1996 strong leader 2 2 1 3 1 3 avoids constraining organization 1 2 1 1 1 3 places morality over pragmatism 2 2 3 2 3 3 offers idiosyncratic program 1 1 1 1 1 3 claims to represent "whole people" 2 2 1 3 2 3 attacks all elites 1 1 1 3 3 3 Sum 9 10 8 13 11 18 1998 strong leader 3 2 1 3 1 avoids constraining organization 2 2 1 1 1 places morality over pragmatism 2 2 3 2 3 offers idiosyncratic program 1 1 1 1 1 claims to represent "whole people" 2 2 1 2 2 attacks all elites 1 1 1 3 3 Sum 11 10 8 12 11 2002 strong leader 3 1 1 2 1 2 avoids constraining organization 2 2 1 1 1 3 places morality over pragmatism 2 2 3 2 3 3 offers idiosyncratic program 1 1 1 1 1 3 claims to represent "whole people" 2 2 1 2 2 3 attacks all elites 2 1 1 1 3 3 Sum 12 9 8 9 11 17 2006 strong leader 2 3 1 2 1 avoids constraining organization 2 2 1 1 1 places morality over pragmatism 2 3 3 2 3 offers idiosyncratic program 1 2 1 1 1 claims to represent "whole people" 2 2 1 3 2 attacks all elites 2 3 1 1 3 Sum 11 15 8 10 11
- 38. Populism in SK and CZ: Assessment
- 39. Populism in SK and CZ: Issue Divides
- 45. Departing members of Smer not more likely than continuing members to believe the same propositions Populism in SK and CZ: Issue Divides
- 49. Has Smer Routinized Populism? ZRS ANO Smer Time Non-Routinized Populism Populism in SK and CZ: The Future
- 50. ZRS ANO Smer New Party or Parties Time Non-Routinized Populism Has Smer Routinized Populism? Populism in SK and CZ: The Future
- 51. ZRS ANO Smer Routinized Populism Time SOP Has Smer Routinized Populism? Populism in SK and CZ: The Future
- 52. All material used here availalable at www.pozorblog.com Kevin Deegan-Krause Wayne State University Detroit, Michigan, USA [email_address]