Green Parties in National Governments:
From Protest to Acquiescence?
Keele European Parties Research Unit
Working Paper 9
© Thomas Poguntke, 2001
KEPRU Working Papers are published by:
School of Politics, International Relations and the Environment (SPIRE)
ST5 5BG, UK
tel +44 (0)1782 58 4177/3088/3452
fax +44 (0)1782 58 3592
Editor: Professor Thomas Poguntke (firstname.lastname@example.org)
KEPRU Working Papers are available via SPIRE’s website.
Launched in September 2000, the Keele European Parties Research Unit (KEPRU) was the
first research grouping of its kind in the UK. It brings together the hitherto largely independent
work of Keele researchers focusing on European political parties, and aims:
• to facilitate its members' engagement in high-quality academic research, individually,
collectively in the Unit and in collaboration with cognate research groups and individuals
in the UK and abroad;
• to hold regular conferences, workshops, seminars and guest lectures on topics related to
European political parties;
• to publish a series of parties-related research papers by scholars from Keele and
• to expand postgraduate training in the study of political parties, principally through Keele's
MA in Parties and Elections and the multinational PhD summer school, with which its
members are closely involved;
• to constitute a source of expertise on European parties and party politics for media and
The Unit shares the broader aims of the Keele European Research Centre, of which it is a
part. KERC comprises staff and postgraduates at Keele who are actively conducting research
into the politics of remaking and integrating Europe.
Convenor KEPRU: Dr Kurt Richard Luther (email@example.com)
The author is Professor of Political Science at the School of Politics, International
Relations and the Environment (SPIRE) at Keele University.
The comparative analysis of the record of Green parties in national governments shows that
they have had only limit impact on national policy. No doubt, the march through the
institutions has changed the marchers more than the institutions. Furthermore, the Green
parties are ill placed to wield much blackmailing power in coalition politics. Still, much
depends on their skill to exploit a rather limited room for manoeuvre in order to implement
reform and attract sufficient electoral support. The record is, however, very mixed. The
example of the Finnish Greens shows that Green parties can thrive in government, while the
German Greens have suffered badly at the polls.
Arguably, the degree of attention Green parties have attracted across publics and the global
academic community alike far exceeds their real political impact. About 20 years after the
first Green party deputies were elected to national parliaments in Western Europe (Rootes,
1997; Richardson & Rootes, 1995; Müller-Rommel, 1990, Müller-Rommel, 1993), some
finally reached the highest echelons of power, that is, national governments. An important
reason why it took them much longer than many other new parties (Mair, 2001: 106) may be
that many green activists did not really think that national governments were the real loci of
power. Governments and parliaments were believed to lack the power to address the most
urgent issues relevant for the survival of mankind like pollution, the nuclear arms race, and
the expansion of nuclear energy production. Then, why try to get into government? While
parliamentary representation would provide a suitable forum for making green ideas and
demands known to a wider public, participation in government would at best change very
little and, at worst, merely serve to legitimise the continuation of the Old Politics of growth,
militarism, exploitation of the Third World and pollution (Doherty & de Geus, 1996;
* chapter draft for: Green Parties in National Governments, Special Issue of Environmental Politics,
ed. by Ferdinand Müller-Rommel and Thomas Poguntke
Obviously, this concluding chapter draws heavily on the evidence provided by the country chapters.
This will normally not be annotated.
While it is not the purpose of this concluding chapter to analyse these debates again, it is
nevertheless useful to recall their intensity – and some may say far-sightedness – when trying
to assess what the Greens have achieved in government. In other words, how much have
Greens in government been able to change the course of national politics and how much has
governmental incumbency changed the Greens? Conclusive answers are premature, of course,
not least since we are dealing with a very recent phenomenon and the Greens may well
improve their performance. Or they may come to the conclusion that their more radical
supporters were, after all, right and that there is a real difference between being ‘in
government’ and being ‘in power’.
Nevertheless, a systematic comparison of the governmental record of Green parties in
Belgium, Finland, France, Germany and Italy can provide tentative answers to these
questions. An obvious point of departure for our analysis is provided in the comparison of
their paths to power, which may have exposed individual Green parties to substantially
different institutional pressures to streamline their party structures and moderate ideological
appeal. Once in power, the format of national party systems and the type of coalition may
account for any substantial variation in their strategy within government and their
concomitant policy achievements. Finally, what were the electoral payoffs of joining
government? Did Green parties suffer at the polls, and could they maintain their links with the
Paths to Power
Governmental incumbency on a lower level of the political system provides parties with
valuable experience for their role in national government. Not all Green parties have been
equally well prepared to meet the challenges of national government. Nor have they had equal
chances of preparing themselves, because the institutional make-up of individual countries
differs substantially. To be sure, all parties have experienced the opportunities and constraints
of being in local government to a greater or lesser extent. However, local politics is not
politicised to the same extent as regional or national government. Frequently, personal
contacts and reputations may be more important than party affiliation or ideology, and the
small number of activists in a local party branch may have rendered many formal provisions
of grass roots democracy either superfluous or simply impractical (Poguntke, 1994).
Consequently, experience in local executives will normally not make parties fit for national
government. The exigencies of regional government, on the contrary, resemble those of
national governmental responsibility. We would therefore expect that parties would enter
national government well prepared if they previously have held power at this intermediate
Yet, experience in regional government did not leave the German and Italian Greens better
prepared for taking on the challenges of national government. Arguably, the German Greens
should have been most familiar with handling the levers of executive power. After all,
German federalism provides a unique opportunity structure for new parties to acquire
governmental experience, at the intermediate level of governance provided in a truly federal
system. However, the party certainly did not have a smooth start and felt the need to reform
its party structures twice (!) shortly after joining federal government in order to create a more
efficient leadership structure that would (hopefully) provide the necessary institutional
framework for co-ordinating party, parliamentary party and Green members of government
(Raschke, 2001: 40-55). Another indication of how unprepared the Greens were upon entering
government was the debate as to whether or not Green members of government should be
allowed to maintain their parliamentary seats. While combining a cabinet post with a
parliamentary mandate would violate the Green principle of separating office and mandate,
the debate over this issue reflected a profound misunderstanding about the mechanics of party
government in a parliamentary system (Lijphart, 1992; Verney, 1992); revealingly, the
example of French semi-presidentialism was frequently used in this debate.
Probably even more telling than the party’s inability to enter government with organisational
structures suited for governing was the fact that the Green Party’s basic programme dated
back to 1980. By 1998 it could at best serve as a source of entertaining or sometimes even
grotesque quotations from the period when Green programmatic statements usually called for
maximal solutions to be achieved over a minimal period of time. The basic programme, to
give but one example, still called for the dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pact - the
latter having been achieved without much contribution by the German Greens, one is tempted
to add (Poguntke, 1993). It would be unfair, of course, not to mention that the Greens had
modernised their programmes over the years by drafting a series of election manifestos and
special programmes. However, the absence of an up-to-date basic programme, whose revision
had been delayed repeatedly in order to maintain the truce between factions, is indicative of
the lack of reflection upon the role and function of a party in national government.
Similarly, the Italian Greens seem to have been unable to draw consistent conclusions from
their experience in regional government. After all, their participation in national government
resembles a roller coaster ride between conflictual and consensual strategies within
government, accompanied by similarly sharp turns in their approach to party organisation.
This culminated in the 1999 re-launch of the party while it was still in government.
Experience in regional government is, however, but one important factor that may leave
parties better prepared for national government. Equally important are parliamentary
experience and, above all, parliamentary strength (see introductory chapter). Only parties that
have had sizeable parliamentary delegations over a considerable period of time can hope to
have acquired sufficient familiarity and expertise with the intricacies of national politics. Size
is a particularly relevant variable here as politics is highly specialised and a small number of
MPs simply would be overwhelmed by the multitude of tasks concomitant with modern
parliamentary politics and the number of policy areas that need to be covered. In opposition, a
small party may simply resort to concentrating on its core themes. Once in government, such
self-limitation becomes untenable and may produce considerable problems. The uneven
record of the Italian Greens appears less surprising from this perspective, while the Belgian,
Finnish and German Greens should have entered national government with a sufficient
number of politicians familiar with a wide range of policy areas and the nuts and bolts of
national politics (at least with regard to parliamentary politics).
Organisational Change and Incumbency
Grass roots democracy has been the hallmark of Green parties ever since they slowly (and
sometimes painfully) grew out of the new social movements and established themselves as
political parties. It was as much a normative concept aimed at reforming representative
democracy as it was intended to be a safeguard against losing touch with the movements and
becoming an established party (Frankland & Schoonmaker, 1992; Poguntke, 1989; Poguntke,
1993: 34-41). Moving from protest politics towards government meant that Green parties
experienced a gradual shift of the relative importance of different relevant environments
(Panebianco, 1988: 12). While the movements remained important to mobilisation and
ideological inspiration, an increasingly electoral (and eventually governmental) orientation
meant that other relevant environments had to be given more attention. In other words, Green
parties had to adapt to a changing environment (Harmel & Janda, 1982: 11; Katz & Mair,
1992: 9), which was changing not least because they had chosen to play the game of electoral
When analysing organisational change within Green parties on the path to power, two
complementary patterns are identifiable. On the one hand, parties decide to adapt their
structure to systemic constraints because they anticipate the need for centralisation should
they eventually enter national government. On the other, they reform their organisation after
joining government because they quickly realise that their ‘reaction time’ has been drastically
reduced and they need more centralised leadership structures.
Anticipatory adaptation was widespread among successful European Green parties. The
Italian Greens, for example, abolished collective leadership in 1993, at a time when the entire
Italian party system was undergoing a fundamental transformation (Bull & Rhodes, 1997;
Newell & Bull, 1997; Morlino, 1998). The Flemish AGALEV strengthened its leadership
after the experience of negotiations over entering government in 1991, and even the
organisationally conservative German Greens introduced a ‘Land council’ as their co-
ordinating body after their electoral defeat in the Bundestag elections of 1990 when they lost
all their West German seats. However, virtually all Green parties experienced a further need
to streamline their party structure after they had entered national government. As mentioned
already, even parties which have had substantial experience with regional government (like
the German and Italian Greens) realised that being in national government is an entirely
different ball game. To a greater or lesser extent, all parties share the somewhat sobering
experience that whatever was left of grass roots democracy was hard to sustain under the
pressures of participation in national government. Probably the most telling example of
institutional constraints is that of the Finnish Greens who found it unsustainable not to allow
their party chairperson to take up a post in government in a country where these positions are
traditionally combined. Yet grass roots democracy was not abandoned totally. ECOLO and
the German Greens still maintain collective leadership and, while AGALEV allows ministers
to hold party office, this is still very restricted (if highly disputed) in the German Green Party.
Equally significant as these abrupt changes were the gradual processes that resulted from
adapting to the new role as a party of government (Harmel & Janda, 1994: 275). Increased
media exposure, the frequent need for quick decisions, the constraints of coalition politics and
the increased resources that come with holding ministerial posts enhanced the power of party
elites (and particularly members of government) at the expense of the rank-and-file.
Consistently, linkages between new social movements and Green parties have played a
secondary role once the latter were admitted to government. While the Italian Greens actively
tried to reconnect with their extra-parliamentary roots towards the end of their term in
government, party-movement relationships were not always easy. Military involvement in the
Balkans was one of the major bones of contention in Italy and Germany, and the conflict over
the transports of nuclear waste in Germany led to a passionate confrontation between a Green
Minister for Environment and local protest groups trying to block those transports. At the
same time, however, there have been many examples when Green members of government
used their connections to the movements as a substitute for their lack of access to expertise
and support from within the government apparatus.
Power within Government?
Greens in government means Greens in coalition government. Not only is coalition
government the dominant mode of party government in democracies, but Green parties can
only expect to play a relatively minor role in coalition government since their growth has had
clear limits everywhere. However, as the example of the German FDP illustrates (Poguntke,
1999), small parties may be capable of achieving disproportionate power, depending on the
format of the party system and the nature of the coalition.
The power of a party within a coalition largely depends on its capacity to blackmail its
coalition partners. First and foremost, this presupposes that the survival of government is at
stake should the party decide to leave government. When assessing the governmental power
of a party, our first criterion is therefore whether or not it is indispensable for the survival of
government. However, while a particular coalition may not survive the exit of a small party
like the Greens, the major coalition partner(s) may have attractive alternatives to which they
can turn. While the German Greens, for example, were clearly needed for the survival of the
first red-green federal government, they were in no position to remove Gerhard Schröder from
the Chancellery. After all, he could have turned to the FDP, or even the Christian Democrats,
Likewise, the credibility of a small party’s threat to leave government depends on the range of
its own available options. Again, Greens are in a uncomfortable strategic position. In three out
of five countries, they are clearly part of the Left, in two cases even locked into an electoral
alliance. Whereas coalition formulae follow a less clear-cut left-right logic in Belgium and
Finland, they are still highly unlikely to side exclusively with the Right. In other words, Green
parties suffer from a strategic disadvantage in that they are not pivotal parties that can turn to
either side. On the contrary, they are clearly part of the left camp, maybe even adding to a bi-
polar pattern of party competition and coalition formation in several European countries
Arguably, the Belgian Greens were in a particularly strong position, because AGALEV was
an indispensable coalition partner for the Flemish government and their exit would most
likely have removed one of the larger coalition partners from power. Given the unique linkage
between regional and federal coalitions, this clearly provided the Greens with a reasonably
strong position within government. However the German Greens, frequently dubbed ‘the
most powerful Green party’ in Western Europe, found themselves, as mentioned above, in a
less than comfortable position. Modest policy achievements clearly reflect this.
From the perspective of blackmailing power, being a junior partner in an oversized coalition
is certainly the least comfortable position to be in (Laver & Schofield, 1990: 85; Sartori,
1976: 122-25). The experience of the Greens in France, Italy, and Finland shows, however,
that a purely numerical approach to evaluating the power of coalition partners is myopic. The
examples demonstrate that the bargaining position within a coalition is not the sole power
resource for a smaller coalition partner. Connecting to new social movements, appealing to
public opinion, or simply implementing existing legislation are ways to achieve substantial
policy goals in a situation where no credible exit option is available. After all, their position
might not have been so much different from that of other green parties in government: given
their unambiguous anchorage in the Left, even in a minimum winning coalition, exit could
only mean opposition – hardly an attractive option after 20 years on the road to power.
Last but not least an additional complication needs mentioning; the Italian and French Greens
came to power as partners in an electoral alliance. Given the uncertain knowledge about the
‘real’ electoral strength of each alliance partner that inevitably accompanies such
arrangements, this may actually enhance the bargaining position of a smaller party within an
alliance. After all, the larger parties can never be entirely sure whether it had not been the
additional momentum that was provided by a small party that eventually tipped the balance in
favour of their majority.
Overall, Green parties have been in a relatively unfavourable strategic position when they
entered national governments for the first time. With the partial exception of the Flemish
AGLEV, they were (numerically) not essential for keeping the other coalition partners in
power. Arguably, much depended on how skilfully they exploited the structurally rather
limited opportunities government would offer them. Again, the record is a mixed one.
Strategies in Government and Policy Impact
Next to deciding on the governmental programme, choosing portfolios is the most
fundamental strategic decision upon entering government - albeit a highly constrained one,
because it may involve clashes with coalition partners who claim the same ministry.
Controlling the apex of the executive power responsible for a certain policy area gives a party
the prerogative of formulating policy initiatives in this field, and it enables it to control and
enforce the implementation of existing legislation. From this perspective, choosing the
Environment portfolio was an obvious choice for all Green parties although it considerably
limited their scope for broadening their appeal beyond environmental issues. To be sure, none
of these ministries was restricted to environmental protection in a narrow sense. However,
when looking at the policy areas which were covered by Green ministers, it was only the
German Greens who managed to obtain a so-called ‘classical’ portfolio, the Ministry for
Foreign Affairs. Yet, another pattern is discernible. Green parties have attempted to expand
into policy areas which can be regarded as natural extensions of ecological politics like
Health and Agriculture, the latter now fashionably renamed in Italy and Germany as ‘Ministry
for Consumer Protection’. All parties attempted to shed their image of being a single-issue
party. The Italian Greens made the most decisive attempt when they decided to trade the
Ministry for the Environment for two other ministries (Agriculture, Community Policy) in the
short-lived Amato government.
Clearly, selecting portfolios means choosing policy areas which will become (or remain)
strongly associated with the Greens in the public mind. Equally important for a party’s public
image is, however, its general approach towards governing. Within the strategic constraints
that have been discussed above, Green parties could still have chosen a conflictual approach
that would have conveyed the message that they were, despite being in government, still
calling for a more fundamental transformation of politics and policy. Somewhat surprisingly,
none of the five Green parties has attempted such a double strategy. By and large, Green
parties have been co-operative partners in government. The attempt of the leader of the Italian
Greens, Carlo Ripa di Meana, to heighten the public profile of his party by publicly criticising
coalition partners was soon met with strong disapproval from his own ranks. Eventually, the
conflict led to his own exodus from the Greens and to the election of a party leader who was
committed to a co-operative approach.
While the Greens decided to play by the rules and adopt a constructive approach to coalition
government, this did not leave them without significant policy impact. It is in keeping with
their rather limited blackmail potential that their most noticeable achievements are in policy
areas that do not touch upon the core of vested socio-economic interests. All parties have had
some success in modernising some of their country’s legislation related to a libertarian
agenda. More rights for illegal immigrants, an improved legal status for gay and lesbian
couples, or a more liberal approach towards asylum seekers are relatively low-cost projects,
and it is precisely here where the Greens scored points. The picture is less convincing when it
comes to ecological tax reform or the single most important issue for Green parties - nuclear
power. While it is hardly an exaggeration to consider the conflict over nuclear power the
essential launch pad for most Western European Green parties, their success in this policy
area, which touches so much upon their core identity, has been very limited. Unsurprisingly,
the French Greens achieved next to nothing in this respect, while their Finnish friends stopped
a further expansion of nuclear energy but without a definite change of national policy. The
German red-green government agreed on phasing out nuclear energy over two or three
decades without providing a definite date as to when the last nuclear power station will have
to be shut down. Compared to the original Green slogan of the early 1980s, which called for
an immediate halt to all nuclear power generation in Germany, this is hardly a convincing
Much Green success, however, does not meet the eye immediately. Given the considerable
discretionary power of European administrations, much could be achieved by simply
enforcing laws that already exist. Italy is a particularly telling example for this strategy which
concentrated, often with the active support of experts from the movements, on implementing
legislation that is already on the statute book but is not enforced seriously. Likewise, the
French Greens could substantially increase the manpower and financial resources of the
Ministry for the Environment. The experience of German Greens in Land governments is
another case in point. In many policy arenas, federal law takes precedence over Land
legislation, but the administration is left to the Länder, where Green ministers of the
environment could achieve much without conspicuous victories (Lees, 1999: 179-81). The
attempt of Green Land ministers to exploit their administrative discretion to further their
causes has at times led to conflicts with the federal minister responsible for the same policy
area. Confrontations between Green Land Ministers of the Environment and their Christian
Democratic colleagues in Bonn gained much public attention and tended to end with an
instruction by the federal minister which forced the reluctant Land minister to carry out
federal policies. Obviously, being in federal government has also meant considerably more
freedom of manoeuvre for Green Land ministers – an aspect that must not be forgotten when
assessing the achievements of Green participation in national government.
Voters and Movement Activists: Equally Disappointed?
Given the lack of conspicuous success, particularly in the core area of nuclear power, a degree
of disillusionment among Green voters may have been unavoidable. On the other hand, many
studies have shown over the years that Green voters tended to be reformist and appreciative of
the inherent limitations of governmental participation – not least because all Greens entered
local governments during their years of electoral growth. This would suggest continued voter
support for Green parties in government. Such contradictory expectations seem to be matched
by inconclusive evidence when looking at how the Greens have fared after entering national
governments. However, exactly what evidence is there?
The electoral effects of incumbency are notoriously difficult to disentangle. This is the classic
problem of an ‘over-determined outcome’ in that many other independent variables that have
no relation to the fact that the party has just joined government may account for a change in a
party’s electoral fortune (Müller & Strom, 2000: 27; Rüdig & Franklin, 2000). Our analysis is
complicated by the fact that in some cases no national election has been held after the Greens
joined government. Hence, there is no reliable standard of comparison. Survey results are
equally problematic because they tend to report a ‘mid-term effect’, which means that
governing parties usually experience a slump in their poll ratings halfway through their
legislative term. Since only the Finnish Greens have entered a second term of office, no
meaningful data for comparison exist in the other countries. Local, regional or European
elections have been held in all countries after the Greens have joined national governments,
and even though there are obvious problems of comparison involved here too, they can be
used in an attempt to gauge the electoral effects of incumbency.
Overall, the picture is inconclusive. Those who have maintained that Green parties in national
government were bound to lose support because they would inevitably disappoint (or even
betray) the hopes and aspirations of their supporters have been proven wrong. The Finnish
Greens managed to increase their share of the vote and were returned to government with an
additional ministry for the first two years of the new government. The Italian Greens
experienced both the worst European election result in their history and good returns in local
and regional elections though their ‘true’ electoral strength in the 2001 national elections is
hard to determine because of the complications of the electoral systems which forces parties
into electoral alliances. The Belgian and French Greens have performed reasonably well at the
polls since they joined government, but the real test will be the next general election. This
leaves us with the German Greens, who have suffered dramatic defeats at every single Land
election since entering the national coalition with the SPD. To be sure, the extent of their
decline in the polls tends to be inflated by the fact that these results are compared to a phase
in German electoral politics when the Greens were considered to be something like the
leading opposition party while the SPD was in shambles. Nevertheless, even when these
distortions are taken into account, there is unambiguous evidence that the Greens have been
penalised for entering national government.
Although evidence is still very patchy, the German Greens seem to represent almost a deviant
case in that their record is so clearly negative. One possible explanation is that expectations
were highest in a situation when a Green party was the sole (albeit not indispensable)
coalition partner and when the new government represented – for the first time in the Federal
Republic’s history – a complete turnover of government.
It may be for these reasons that the German Greens suffered most from a strategic situation
that is the inevitable consequence of joining national government, which (to a greater or lesser
extent) has been the same for all parties considered in this volume. Incumbency has put Green
parties at loggerheads with their own core constituency. Given the inevitably slow pace of
policy change in national politics (frequently involving EU-wide changes), movement
activists are bound to be disappointed. By their very nature, those who are active in new
social movements tend to be single-issue oriented and call for fast and radical change. This is
the very antithesis to national coalition government constrained by European-wide
regulations. Ironically, taking over the Ministry of the Environment is probably the most
problematic (yet virtually inevitable) choice for a Green party because it involves the largest
potential for confrontations with the very core of the Green constituency.
Again, the German example is instructive here. The dilemma of being a party of government
was epitomised by the conflict over the transport of nuclear waste that led to a massive
mobilisation of protest in Germany. Unenthusiastically committed to a policy of gradually
phasing out nuclear energy production, Green politicians found themselves confronted by
their formerly most loyal allies, the activists of the anti-nuclear movement, which is the
nucleus of the ecology movement and the ‘birthplace’ of the Green party. Another highly
conflictual issue for Green parties has been the conflict over the involvement of their
countries in the Kosovo conflict, which touched upon the second element of Green identity,
that is, their strong roots in the movement against the deployment of intermediate range
nuclear missiles in the early 1980s. Although only parts of these movements were outright
pacifist, acceptance of the Kosovo mission nevertheless represented a dramatic departure
from previously held Green convictions that the use of military force should not be a means of
Inevitably, government incumbency required acceptance of the constraints of domestic and
international policy-making even if this meant alienating a considerable portion of committed
movement activists who no longer regarded the Greens as an adequate and trustworthy
mouthpiece for their concerns and therefore withdrew their electoral support. One obvious
reaction to this strategic dilemma was to broaden their appeal. All Green parties have
attempted to free themselves from the image of a single-issue party and to acquire
competence in other policy areas, not least by trying to occupy ‘promising’ portfolios like
consumer protection. While this may pay off in the medium or long term, immediate electoral
rewards are unlikely, because voters’ perceptions of parties change very slowly. The almost
universal weakness of parties on the Left when it comes to deciding who is to be trusted in
economic policies is a case in point. Furthermore, there is a danger of neglecting Green core
competence by trying too hard to become a party concerned with a broader range of themes.
After all, the only unmistakably Green issue is the concern with ecological politics, which
goes beyond the mere concern with environmental protection now common place in modern
democracies. Neglecting to emphasise what is distinct about the Green approach to the
environment may lead to the electorally highly damaging feeling among the electorate that the
Greens are no longer needed. The alternative option - ‘reconnecting’ with the movements -
has proven hardly more promising. After all, a posture of ‘opposition in government’ is barely
tenable except for parties that hold the balance of power – a favourable but rare strategic
position that has so far eluded the Greens everywhere.
In the end, Green party power within national coalition governments (and hence their
electoral success) rests primarily on the skilful exploitation of a rather limited room for
manoeuvre below the threshold of threatening or even exercising the exit option. Given the
format of the respective party systems, normally this could only mean return to opposition on
the radical fringes of the party system, including reconnecting with the movements. While
this may win back some of the voters lost in the process of moderation, others, who are more
moderately inclined, may defect instead. Obviously, self-limitation to opposition is hardly a
viable and promising strategy for the majority of Green party activists. Instead, they may find
that their performance in government (and at the polls) can be improved by treading a thin
line between loyal co-operation within government and making it clear that Green policy
objectives go far beyond the rather limited reforms which are possible under the constraints of
Bull, Martin and Martin Rhodes (Hrsg.) (1997), Between Crisis and Transition: Italian
Politics in the 1990s,
Special Issue of West European Politics, Bd. 20, Nr. 1.
Doherty, Brian and Marius de Geus (eds.) (1996), Democracy and Green Political Thought,
Frankland, E. Gene and Donald Schoonmaker (1992), Between Protest and Power: The
German Green Party,
Boulder/San Francisco/Oxford: Westview.
Harmel, Robert and Kenneth Janda (1982), Parties and their Environment. Limits to Reform?,
New York/London: Longman.
Harmel, Robert and Kenneth Janda (1994), 'An Integrated Theory of Party Goals and Party
Change', in Journal of Theoretical Politics, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 259-87.
Katz, Richard S. and Peter Mair (1992), 'Introduction: The Cross-National Study of Party
Organizations' in Richard S. Katz and Peter Mair (eds.), Party Organizations. A Data
Handbook on Party Organizations in Western Democracies, 1960-90, London/Newbury
Park/New Delhi: Sage, pp. 1-20.
Laver, Michael and Norman Schofield (1990), Multiparty Government. The Politics of
Coalition in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lees, Charles (1999), 'The Red-Green Coalition', in: German Politics, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 174-
Lijphart, Arend (1992), 'Introduction' in: Arend Lijphart (Hrsg.), Parliamentary versus
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-27.
Mair, Peter (2001), 'The Green Challenge and Political Competition: How Typical is the
German Experience?' in Stephen Padgett and Thomas Poguntke (eds.), Continuity and
Change in German Politics. Beyond the Politics of Centrality? Festschrift for Gordon
Smith (first published as special issue of German Politics, Vol. 10, No. 2),
London/Portland, OR: Frank Cass, pp. 99-116.
Morlino, Leonardo (1998), Democracy between Consolidation and Crisis. Parties, Groups,
and Citizens in Southern Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Müller-Rommel, Ferdinand (1990), 'New Political Movements and New Politics Parties in
Western Europe' in Russell J. Dalton and Manfred Kuechler (eds.), Challenging the
Political Order. New Social and Political Movements in Western Democracies, New
York: Oxford University Press, pp. 212-18.
Müller-Rommel, Ferdinand (1993), Grüne Parteien in Westeuropa, Opladen: Westdeutscher
Müller, Wolfgang C. and Kaare Strom (2000), 'Coalition Governance in Western Europe. An
Introduction' in Wolfgang C. Müller and Kare Strom (eds.), Coalition Governments in
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-31.
Newell, James L. and Martin Bull (1997), 'Party Organisations and Alliances in Italy in the
1990s: A Revolution of Sorts', in West European Politics, Vol. 20, pp. 81-109.
Panebianco, Angelo (1988), Political Parties: Organization and Power, Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press.
Poguntke, Thomas (1989), 'The 'New Politics Dimension' in European Green Parties' in
Ferdinand Müller-Rommel (ed.), New Politics in Western Europe. The Rise and Success
of Green Parties and Alternative Lists, Boulder/London: Westview, pp. 175-94.
Poguntke, Thomas (1993), Alternative Politics. The German Green Party, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Poguntke, Thomas (1994), ''Basisdemokratie and Political Realities: The German Green
Party'' in Kay Lawson (ed.), How Political Parties Work Perspectives from Within,
Westport, Con./London Praeger, pp. 3-22.
Poguntke, Thomas (1999), 'The Winner Takes it All The FDP in 1982/1983 - Maximizing
Votes, Office and Policy?' in Kaare Strøm and Wolfgang C. Müller (eds.), Policy, Office,
or Votes? How Political Parties Make Hard Decisions,
Cambridge Cambridge University
Press, pp. 216-36.
Raschke, Joachim (2001), Die Zukunft der Grünen. "So kann man nicht regieren",
Frankfurt/New York Campus.
Richardson, Dick and Chris Rootes (1995), The Green Challenge. The Development of Green
Parties in Europe, London/New York Routledge.
Rootes, Christopher A. (1997), 'Environmental Movements and Green Parties in Western and
Eastern Europe' in Michael Redclifft and Graham Woodgate (Hrsg.), The International
Handbook of Environmental Sociology, Cheltenham/Northampton, MA Edward Elgar,
Rüdig, Wolfgang and Mark N. Franklin (2000), Government Participation and Green
Electoral Support Comparative Analysis, Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of
the UK Political Studies Association.
Sartori, Giovanni (1976), Parties and Party Systems. A Framework for Analysis, Cambridge
Cambridge University Press.
Verney, Douglas V. (1992), 'Parliamentary Government and Presidential Government' in
Arend Lijphart (Hrsg.), Parliamentary versus Presidential Government, Oxford Oxford
University Press, pp. 31-47.
- Strategies in Government and Policy Impact
Dostları ilə paylaş: