Comparative research on how gaps in socio-economic rights contribute to democratic dissatisfaction and the rise of national-populist parties. Focusing on France, Switzerland and Hungary, it examines how socio-economic grievances are transformed into political mobilisation.
Problems and Purpose
The research examines whether the deterioration, insufficient implementation or uneven enjoyment of European socio-economic rights contributes to the rise and rooting of national-populist parties in Europe.
The central research question is whether gaps between European socio-economic rights standards and their effective implementation can contribute to political disaffection, declining trust in representative institutions and increased support for national-populist political movements.
The research specifically investigates the relationship between socio-economic inequalities, citizens’ expectations concerning social and economic rights, and the political mobilisation of national-populist parties.
Background History and Context
The research was conducted in the context of the profound transformation of European political systems during the 2000s and 2010s, marked by economic and financial crises, increasing socio-economic inequalities, transformations of welfare states, declining trust in representative institutions and the electoral consolidation of national-populist parties.
The comparative research focuses on France, Switzerland and Hungary, three countries presenting significantly different institutional, political and socio-economic configurations.
In France, the research examines the development of the Front National (later Rassemblement National). In Switzerland, it focuses on the Swiss People's Party (SVP/UDC), in the specific context of a country outside the European Union and which had not ratified the European Social Charter. In Hungary, the research examines Jobbik, founded in 2003, in the context of Hungary's accession to the European Union in 2004 and the subsequent transformation of its political system.
The comparison therefore makes it possible to examine whether similar political dynamics can emerge despite different levels of European integration, different welfare-state models and different institutional frameworks.
The research is grounded in European human-rights and socio-economic standards, including the European Social Charter, the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as relevant European Union and Council of Europe standards.
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
The research was conducted as part of a PhD in Political Science at the University of Luxembourg.
The research was academically supervised within the University of Luxembourg and developed through an interdisciplinary approach combining political science, European governance, human rights and socio-economic policy.
The research also benefited from the author's subsequent professional engagement with the Council of Europe, particularly through work related to democracy, populism and socio-economic rights.
No specific external funding organisation is identified as having financed the research project itself.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
The empirical research did not primarily rely on the recruitment of participants for a deliberative process. It combined documentary and comparative political analysis with quantitative survey data.
Citizen expectations were examined through Eurobarometer face-to-face surveys, with approximately 1,000 respondents per survey wave. The analysis particularly considered citizens' expectations regarding socio-economic conditions and rights and compared these expectations with political programmes and European standards.
The selection of France, Switzerland and Hungary was purposive and comparative: the three cases provide contrasting political, institutional and socio-economic contexts in which national-populist parties achieved significant electoral rooting.
Methods and Tools Used
The research employed a comparative case-study methodology combining qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Key methods included:
- analysis of European and national legal and policy documents concerning socio-economic rights;
- examination of the implementation of European socio-economic standards;
- comparative analysis of national-populist party programmes during the 2000s and early 2010s;
- analysis of citizens' socio-economic expectations;
- use of Eurobarometer face-to-face survey data, including repeated survey waves;
- comparison between citizens' expectations, the effective protection of socio-economic rights and political party responses;
- comparative analysis of France, Switzerland and Hungary.
The research sought to connect three dimensions that are often studied separately: human-rights standards, socio-economic realities and political mobilisation.
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
The research proceeded through a comparative examination of the three national cases.
First, the European normative framework concerning socio-economic rights was identified and analysed. The research then examined the degree to which these standards were implemented in the three national contexts.
The programmes and political discourse of national-populist parties were subsequently analysed in order to identify how socio-economic grievances and expectations were incorporated into political narratives.
Finally, these findings were compared with available evidence concerning citizens' expectations and socio-economic concerns.
The process was therefore primarily one of comparative political and policy analysis, rather than a participatory intervention. Citizen perspectives nevertheless constituted an important empirical dimension through the analysis of survey evidence.
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
The research suggests that the weak or uneven implementation of socio-economic rights can create political opportunities for national-populist parties.
Where citizens perceive a significant gap between formally recognised rights and their actual socio-economic situation, this gap may contribute to dissatisfaction with representative institutions and established political parties.
National-populist parties can then frame these grievances through narratives opposing established elites, European institutions and perceived beneficiaries of social policies.
One important finding concerns the relationship between socio-economic rights and the principle of universality. Where social and economic rights are insufficiently protected or perceived as scarce, political actors can promote forms of “national preference” or welfare chauvinism, presenting access to social rights as something that should primarily benefit members of the national community.
The research therefore highlights a potential link between failures in the effective implementation of socio-economic rights and challenges to the universalist foundations of European human-rights systems.
The findings subsequently informed policy-oriented work on populism and democracy, including work undertaken with the Council of Europe in preparation for the 6th World Forum for Democracy, “Is Populism Really a Problem?”
Analysis and Lessons Learned
The research indicates that national-populism cannot be adequately understood solely through cultural, identity-based or institutional explanations.
Socio-economic rights and their effective implementation constitute an important dimension of the political environment in which national-populist parties can become electorally established.
A central lesson is that the recognition of socio-economic rights is not sufficient. Their effective implementation and citizens' perception of their accessibility are equally important.
The comparative analysis also suggests that national-populist parties can transform socio-economic grievances into political narratives opposing universalism, European integration and established political institutions.
The research consequently points towards the importance of strengthening the effective implementation of socio-economic rights as part of a broader strategy for protecting democratic resilience and preventing political polarisation.
See Also
Populism and representative democracy
National-populist parties in Europe
Socio-economic rights
European Social Charter
European Convention on Human Rights
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Welfare chauvinism
National preference
Political participation
European integration
Democratic resilience
Council of Europe
World Forum for Democracy
References
Albert, Frédéric. Socio-economic Rights and the Rooting of National-Populist Parties in Europe: The Cases of France, Switzerland and Hungary, in the 2000s and 2010s. PhD thesis, University of Luxembourg, 2021.
Council of Europe. European Social Charter (revised).
Council of Europe. European Convention on Human Rights.
European Union. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
European Commission. Eurobarometer surveys and related datasets.
Relevant programmes and policy documents of the Front National/Rassemblement National, SVP/UDC and Jobbik, covering the 2000s and early 2010s.
External Links
University of Luxembourg – PhD research and institutional repository
Council of Europe – European Social Charter
Council of Europe – World Forum for Democracy
European Commission – Eurobarometer
European Union – Charter of Fundamental Rights
Notes
The project is primarily a comparative political-science research project, rather than a conventional participatory-democracy process. Its relevance to participatory democracy lies in its analysis of citizens' expectations, political participation, democratic legitimacy and the conditions under which socio-economic grievances can be transformed into political mobilisation.
The three cases were deliberately selected because they represent contrasting relationships with European integration and different socio-economic and political configurations.
The research subsequently informed policy-oriented analysis concerning populism, democracy and socio-economic rights within the Council of Europe context.
Contributor Positionality Statements
The researcher's positionality is informed by an interdisciplinary academic and professional background combining political science, European governance, history, human rights and civic education.
As a researcher and educator working on democratic participation and the crisis of representative democracy, the contributor approaches national-populism not only as an electoral phenomenon but also as a potential indicator of weaknesses in democratic representation and the effective enjoyment of rights.
The analysis is therefore attentive to the distinction between legitimate socio-economic grievances and their political instrumentalisation.
The comparative approach was designed to avoid treating any single national experience as representative of Europe as a whole and to examine national-populist mobilisation within different institutional and socio-economic contexts.
The researcher's subsequent involvement with the Council of Europe and work on democracy and populism provided an additional policy-oriented perspective, while maintaining the distinction between academic analysis and institutional policy work.
