Advertisement

Wettstreit um Deutung: Rechtsradikale Politik und narrativer Parteienwettbewerb am Beispiel der Slowakei und Ungarn

  • Bartek PytlasEmail author
Essay

Zusammenfassung

In den letzten Dekaden konnte rechtsradikale Politik zunehmende Salonfähigkeit in der Mitte des gesellschaftspolitischen Mainstreams erlangen. Basierend auf klassischer und aktueller Forschung zielt der Beitrag daher darauf, Wettbewerbsmechanismen rechtsradikaler Politik im politischen Prozess zu untersuchen. Um diese dynamischen und interaktiven Prozesse tiefer zu verstehen, ist es notwendig, die Perspektive um die narrative Dimension des Wettbewerbs zwischen rechtsradikalen Herausforderinnen und ihren konventionellen Konkurrentinnen zu erweitern. Parteienwettbewerb ist nicht nur ein räumlicher Wettstreit um Besetzung von Themenpositionen, sondern auch ein Wettstreit um ihre distinktive und dominante Deutung. Die Politisierung der sog. „Flüchtlingskrise“ in der Slowakei und Ungarn nach 2015 eignet sich für eine systematische Untersuchung des Framing-Wettbewerbes zwischen rechtsradikalen Herausforderinnen und konventionellen Regierungsparteien. Eine computergestützte qualitative Datenanalyse von Online-Parlamentswahlkampagnen liefert empirische Evidenz, dass konventionelle Parteien nicht „bloß“ restriktive asylpolitische Positionen übernommen haben, sondern diese auch mithilfe nativistischer Bedrohungsnarrative legitimiert haben. Fidesz in Ungarn besetzte die Agenda dabei mit einem eigenen übergreifenden rechtsradikalen Generalnarrativ. Trotz narrativer Kopierstrategien konnten rechtsradikale und rechtsextreme „Originale“ gleichzeitig ihre normalisierten Bedrohungsszenarien auf andere Themen kollektiver Identitätspolitik erweitern (Slowakei) oder ihre nativistischen Frames als vermeintlich „entideologisierte“ Kompetenzpolitik diskursiv umpacken (Ungarn), und somit ein Alleinstellungsmerkmal im Parteienwettbewerb beibehalten. Die Befunde haben einen konzeptuellen und analytischen Mehrwert für die Erforschung vom rechtsradikalen Agenda-Setting, Framing und Wettbewerbsstrategien auch jenseits der untersuchten Fälle. Die Analyse erlaubt zugleich ein tieferes Verständnis der Normalisierungsprozesse rechtsradikaler Politik und ihrer Auswirkung auf europäische Parteiensysteme und liberale Demokratie.

Schlüsselwörter

Rechtsradikalismus Flüchtlingspolitik und Asylpolitik Mittel- und Osteuropa Ungarn und die Slowakei Framing Parteienwettbewerb 

Contest over meaning: Radical right politics and narrative party competition in Slovakia and Hungary after 2015

Abstract

In recent decades, radical right politics increasingly entered the political mainstream. Against this background, this contribution explores mechanisms of radical right agency in the political process. Based on extant research it argues that in order to better understand these dynamic and interactive processes we need to expand our optic towards the narrative dimension of party competition between radical right challengers and their conventional competitors. Party competition is not only a spatial contest over ownership of issues, but also a contest over their dominant meaning (frame ownership). The politicization of the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ in Slovakia and Hungary after 2015 provides crucial cases to systematically explore framing strategies of radical right challengers and conventional government parties. Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis of online election campaigns provides empirical evidence that conventional parties did not ‘merely’ adopt restrictive positions on asylum policy, but also legitimized them with nativist threat narratives. Fidesz in Hungary demonstrates a case where a conventional government party dominated the agenda with its own overarching radical right master frame. Despite these copying strategies, radical and extreme right ‘originals’ managed to keep their distinctive feature in party competition by shifting their normalized threat scenarios to other issues of collective identity policy (Slovakia) or by ‘repackaging’ nativist frames as allegedly ‘de-ideologized’ expert politics (Hungary). The findings have broader implications for researching radical right agenda-setting, framing and competition strategies. The analysis also contributes to a deeper understanding of mainstreaming processes of radical right politics and its impact on European party systems and liberal democracy.

Keywords

Radical right politics Refugee and asylum policy Central and Eastern Europe Hungary and Slovakia Framing Party competition 

Literatur

  1. Abou-Chadi, Tarik, und Werner Krause. 2018. The causal effect of radical right success on mainstream parties’ policy positions. A regression discontinuity approach. British Journal of Political Science 41:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ágh, Atilla. 2001. Public sector reforms, institutional design and strategy for good governance in east central Europe. In Democratic transition and consolidation in central and eastern Europe, Hrsg. Lidija Basta Fleiner, Edward Swiderski, 33–58. Bâle: Helbing & Lichtenhahn.Google Scholar
  3. Ágh, Attila. 2016. The decline of democracy in east-central Europe. Problems of Post-Communism 63:277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akkerman, Tjitske. 2015. Immigration policy and electoral competition in western Europe. Party Politics 21:54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alonso, Sonia, und Sara Claro da Fonseca. 2011. Immigration, left and right. Party Politics 18:865–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ARD Wien. 2016. Für 300.000 Euro Zugang zum Schengen-Raum. https://www.ard-wien.de/2016/09/30/aufenthaltsrecht-fuer-nicht-eu-buerger-in-ungarn-und-schengen-raum. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  7. Art, David. 2007. Reacting to the radical right. Lessons from Germany and Austria. Party Politics 13:331–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arzheimer, Kai, und Elisabeth Carter. 2006. Political opportunity structures and right-wing extremist party success. European Journal of Political Research 45:419–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bakker, Ryan, Catherine de Vries, Erica Edwards, Liesbet Hooghe, Seth Jolly, Gary Marks, Johnatan Polk, Jan Rovny, Marco Steenbergen, und Milada Vaduchova. 2015. Measuring party positions in Europe: the Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999–2010. Party Politics 21:143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bale, Tim. 2003. Cinderella and her ugly sisters: the mainstream and extreme right in Europe’s bipolarising party systems. West European Politics 26:67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benford, Robert, und David Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26:611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benoit, Kenneth, und Michael Laver. 2009. Party policy in modern democracies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Biró Nagy, András, und Tamás Boros. 2016. Jobbik going mainstream. Strategy shift of the far right in Hungary. Budapest: Policy Solutions.Google Scholar
  14. Bohle, Dorothee, und Béla Greskovits. 2012. Capitalist diversity on Europe’s periphery. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Brubaker, Rogers. 2017. Between nationalism and civilizationism. The European populist moment in comparative perspective. Ethnic and Racial Studies 40:1191–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bustikova, Lenka, und Herbert Kitschelt. 2009. The radical right in post-communist Europe. Comparative perspectives on legacies and party competition. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 42:459–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Camus, Jean-Yves. 2017. Die Identitäre Bewegung oder die Konstruktion eines Mythos europäischer Ursprünge. In Europäische Identität in der Krise?, Hrsg. Gudrun Hentges, Kristina Nottbohm, und Hans-Wolfgang Platzer, 233–248. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Csurka, István. 1992. Néhány gondolat. A rendszerváltozás két esztendeje és az MDF új programja kapcsán. Magyar fórum. 20.08.1992.Google Scholar
  19. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  20. Ellinas, Antonis A. 2014. The media and the far right in western Europe. Playing the nationalist card. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fico, Robert. 2016. Robert Fico: Samovražedná politická korektnosť. http://www.vlada.gov.sk/robert-fico-samovrazedna-politicka-korektnost/. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  22. Fidesz. 2018a. A Fidesz és a KDNP egyhangúlag döntött a Stop Soros törvénycsomag támogatásáról. https://www.facebook.com/FideszHU/photos/a.10150098801139307.312699.9844779306/10157067209019307. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  23. Fidesz. 2018b. Ha egyszer elvétettük, vége. https://www.facebook.com/FideszHU/posts/10157166335069307. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  24. Fidesz. 2018c. Harcolni fogunk az ellen, amit Soros György birodalma Magyarországgal tenni akar. https://www.facebook.com/FideszHU/photos/a.10150098801139307/10157166309829307. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  25. Fidesz. 2018d. A ma kezdődő EU-csúcson mindent megteszünk, hogy érvényt szerezzünk Magyarország érdekeinek. https://www.facebook.com/FideszHU/posts/10157192099334307. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  26. Fidesz. 2018e. Ha Soros emberei alakítanak kormányt, bevándorlóországgá változtatják hazánkat. https://www.facebook.com/FideszHU/photos/a.10150098801139307/1015724064123430. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  27. Gamson, William. 1988. Political discourse and collective action. In International social movement research. From structure to action: comparing social movement research across cultures, Hrsg. Bert Klandermans, Hanspeter Kriesi, und Sidney Tarrow, 219–246. Greenwich: Jai.Google Scholar
  28. Gamson, William. 2004. Bystanders, public opinion, and the media. In The Blackwell companion to social movements, Hrsg. David Snow, Sarah Soule, und Hanspeter Kriesi, 242–261. Malden, Oxford, Carlton: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Giugni, Marco G., Ruud Koopmans, Florence Passy, und Paul Staham. 2005. Institutional and discursive opportunities for extreme-right mobilization in five countries. Mobilization: An International Journal 10:145–162.Google Scholar
  30. Gruber, Oliver, und Tim Bale. 2014. And it’s good night Vienna. How (not) to deal with the populist radical right: the Conservatives, UKIP and some lessons from the heartland. British Politics 9:237–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Győri, Gábor. 2016. The political communication of the refugee crisis in central and eastern Europe. Budapest: Policy Solutions.Google Scholar
  32. Halikiopoulou, Daphne, Steven Mock, und Sofia Vasilopoulou. 2013. The civic zeitgeist: nationalism and liberal values in the European radical right. Nations and Nationalism 19:107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heisler, András. 2017. Mazsihisz elnök: A „sorosozás“ komoly kockázatokat hordoz. http://www.mazsihisz.hu/2017/07/06/mazsihisz-elnok--a--sorosozas--komoly-kockazatokat-hordoz-10707.html. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  34. Herman, Lise E. 2016. Re-evaluating the post-communist success story. Party elite loyalty, citizen mobilization and the erosion of Hungarian democracy. European Political Science Review 8:251–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Index.hu. 2017. A fideszesek több mint fele felesleges pénzkidobásnak tartja a Soros-plakátokat. https://index.hu/belfold/2017/07/23/a_fideszesek_tobb_mint_fele_felesleges_penzkidobasnak_tartja_a_soros-plakatokat/. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  36. Isaac, Jeffrey. 2017. Communism, post-communism, and democracy. Perspectives on Politics 15:317–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jobbik. 2018a. Orbán nem csak a kerítést vágta át, hanem a magyar embereket is! https://www.facebook.com/JobbikMagyarorszagertMozgalom/posts/10155877778566405. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  38. Jobbik. 2018b. A Fidesz megy, a Jobbik jön, a kerítés mellett pedig professzionális határőrség is lesz! https://www.facebook.com/JobbikMagyarorszagertMozgalom/videos/10155890862911405/. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  39. Jobbik. 2018c. Míg Orbán a kerítéssel pózolt, titokban 2300 migránst csempészett be rajta. https://www.facebook.com/JobbikMagyarorszagertMozgalom/photos/a.484403621404/10155896272901405/. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  40. Karl, Philipp. 2017. Hungary’s radical right 2.0. Nationalities Papers 45:345–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Karsai, László. 1999. The radical right in Hungary. In The radical right in central and eastern Europe since 1989, Hrsg. Sabrina P. Ramet, 133–146. University Park: Penn State Press.Google Scholar
  42. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, Ian Budge, und Michael McDonald. 2006. Mapping policy preferences II. Estimates for parties, electors, and governments in eastern Europe, the European Union and the OECD, 1990–2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kluknavská, Alena, und Matej Hruška. 2018. We talk about the “others” and you listen closely. Problems of Post-Communism 10:1–12.Google Scholar
  44. Kopper, Ákos, Pál Susánszky, Gergely Tóth, und Márton Gerő. 2017. Creating suspicion and vigilance. Using enemy images to hinder mobilization. Intersections 3:108–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Krekó, Peter, und Gregor Mayer. 2015. Transforming Hungary—together? An analysis of Fidesz-Jobbik relationship. In Transforming the transformation? The east European radical right in the political process, Hrsg. Michael Minkenberg, 183–205. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kriesi, Hanspeter, und Takis S. Pappas (Hrsg.). 2015. European populism in the shadow of the great recession. Colchester: ECPR.Google Scholar
  47. Kriesi, Hanspeter, Edgar Grande, Romain Lachat, Martin Dolezal, Simon Bornschier, und Timotheos Frey (Hrsg.). 2008. West European politics in the age of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kuckartz, Udo. 2007. Einführung in die computergestützte Analyse qualitativer Daten. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  49. Lendvai, Paul. 2010. Mein verspieltes Land. Ungarn im Umbruch. Salzburg: Ecowin.Google Scholar
  50. Levitsky, Steven, und Daniel Ziblatt. 2018. How democracies die. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
  51. ĽSNS. 2016a. Protest proti cigánskemu teroru v Zborove. http://www.naseslovensko.net/nasa-praca/protest-proti-ciganskemu-teroru-v-zborove/. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  52. ĽSNS. 2016b. Darujte 2 % z dane pre slušné biele rodiny! http://www.naseslovensko.net/nasa-praca/darujte-2-z-dane-pre-slusne-biele-rodiny/. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  53. ĽSNS. 2016c. Najčastejšie mýty a klamstvá o Marianovi Kotlebovi a Ľudovej strane Naše Slovensko. http://www.naseslovensko.net/nase-nazory/najcastejsie-myty-a-klamstva-o-marianovi-kotlebovi-a-ludovej-strane-nase-slovensko/. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  54. Mair, Peter. 2013. Ruling the void. The hollowing of western democracy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  55. Mayring, Philipp. 2000. Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research.  https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Meguid, Bonnie M. 2008. Party competition between unequals. Strategies and electoral fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mehler, Andreas. 2009. Komparative Area-Forschung in der Vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft. In Methoden der vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft. Eine Einführung, Hrsg. Hans-Joachim Lauth, Gert Pickel, und Susanne Pickel, 91–100. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  58. Minkenberg, Michael. 1998. Die neue radikale Rechte im Vergleich. USA, Frankreich, Deutschland. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Minkenberg, Michael. 2000. The renewal of the radical right: between modernity and anti-modernity. Government and Opposition 35:170–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Minkenberg, Michael. 2001. The radical right in public office: agenda-setting and policy effects. West European Politics 24:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Minkenberg, Michael. 2002a. The new radical right in political process: interaction effects in France and Germany. In Shadows over Europe. The development and impact of the extreme right in Western Europe, Hrsg. Martin Schain, Aristide Zolberg, und Patrick Hossay, 245–269. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  62. Minkenberg, Michael. 2002b. The radical right in post-socialist central and eastern Europe: comparative observations and interpretations. East European Politics and Societies 16:335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Minkenberg, Michael. 2003. The west European radical right as a collective actor: modeling the impact of cultural and structural variables on party formation and movement mobilization. Comparative European Politics 1:149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Minkenberg, Michael (Hrsg.). 2015. Transforming the transformation? The east European radical right in the political process. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Minkenberg, Michael. 2017. The radical right in eastern Europe. Democracy under siege? New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Minkenberg, Michael, und Bartek Pytlas. 2012. The radical right in central and eastern Europe: class politics in classless societies? In Class politics and the radical right, Hrsg. Jens Rydgren, 206–223. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Mondon, Aurelien. 2015. The French secular hypocrisy. The extreme right, the Republic and the battle for hegemony. Patterns of Prejudice 49:392–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mudde, Cas. 2007. Populist radical right parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mudde, Cas. 2010. The populist radical right: a pathological normalcy. West European Politics 33:1167–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mudde, Cas. 2016. Conclusion: studying populist radical right parties and politics in the twenty-first century. In The populist radical right. A reader, Hrsg. Cas Mudde, 609–620. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mudde, Cas. 2017a. On extremism and democracy in Europe. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. Mudde, Cas. 2017b. Politics at the fringes? Eastern Europe’s populists, racists, and extremists. In The Routledge handbook of east European politics, Hrsg. Adam Fagan, Petr Kopecký, 254–264. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Orbán, Viktor. 2017. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s state of the nation address. http://www.miniszterelnok.hu/prime-minister-viktor-orbans-state-of-the-nation-address-2/. Zugegriffen: 23. Aug. 2017.Google Scholar
  74. Orbán, Viktor. 2018. Viktor Orbán’s “state of the nation” address. http://www.miniszterelnok.hu/viktor-orbans-state-of-the-nation-address/. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  75. Petrocik, John. 1996. Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science 40:825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pirro, Andrea L. 2015. The populist radical right in central and eastern Europe. Ideology, impact, and electoral performance. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Political Capital. 2018. Összeesküvés-Elméletek, Álhírek, Babonák a Magyar Közvéleményben. Medián-Umfrage für Political Capital Institute Budapest und Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Prag. http://www.politicalcapital.hu/pc-admin/source/documents/pc-boll-konteo-20181107.pdf. Zugegriffen: 8. Nov. 2018.Google Scholar
  78. Polk, Jonathan, Jan Rovny, Ryan Bakker, Erica Edwards, Liesbet Hooghe, Seth Jolly, Jelle Koedam, Filip Kostelka, Gary Marks, Gijs Schumacher, Marco Steenbergen, Milada Vachudova, und Marko Zilovic. 2017. Explaining the salience of anti-elitism and reducing political corruption for political parties in Europe with the 2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey data. Research & Politics 4:205316801668691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pytlas, Bartek. 2013. Radical-right narratives in Slovakia and Hungary: historical legacies, mythic overlaying and contemporary politics. Patterns of Prejudice 47:162–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pytlas, Bartek. 2015. Radical right parties in central and eastern Europe. Mainstream party competition and electoral fortune. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pytlas, Bartek. 2018a. Populist radical right mainstreaming and challenges to democracy in an enlarged Europe. In Trumping the mainstream: the conquest of democratic politics by far-right populism, Hrsg. Lise Herman, James Muldoon, 164–185. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. Pytlas, Bartek. 2018b. Radical right politics in east and west. Distinctive yet equivalent. Sociology Compass 12:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Pytlas, Bartek, und Oliver Kossack. 2015. Lighting the fuse: the impact of radical right parties on party competition in central and eastern Europe. In Transforming the transformation? The east European radical right in the political process, Hrsg. Michael Minkenberg, 105–136. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rovny, Jan. 2013. Where do radical right parties stand? Position blurring in multidimensional competition. European Political Science Review 5:1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rydgren, Jens. 2003. Meso-level reasons for racism and xenophobia. European Journal of Social Theory 6:45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rydgren, Jens. 2004. Explaining the emergence of radical right-wing populist parties: the case of Denmark. West European Politics 27:474–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Salzborn, Samuel. 2016. Renaissance of the new right in Germany? A discussion of new right elements in German right-wing extremism today. German Politics and Society 34:36–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Scheppele, Kim. 2013. The rule of law and the Frankenstate: why governance checklists do not work. Governance 26:559–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sikk, Allan. 2012. Newness as a winning formula for new political parties. Party Politics 18:465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Snow, David A., Robert D. Benford, Burke E. Rochford, und Steven K. Worden. 1986. Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51:464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. SNS. 2013. Popradské memorandum. https://www.sns.sk/dokumenty/popradske-memorendum/. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  92. van Spanje, J. 2010. Contagious parties. Anti-immigration parties and their impact on other parties’ immigration stances in contemporary western Europe. Party Politics 16:563–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Szabó, Gabriella, Ov C. Norocel, und Márton Bene. 2018. Media visibility and inclusion of radical right populism in Hungary and Romania. Problems of Post-Communism 15:1–14.Google Scholar
  94. Szayna, Thomas. 1997. The extreme-right political movements in post-communist central Europe. In The revival of right-wing extremism in the nineties, Hrsg. Peter H. Merkl, Leonard Weinberg, 111–148. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  95. Tagesspiegel. 2017. Das erinnert an Europas dunkelste Stunden. https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/kampagne-gegen-soros-in-ungarn-das-erinnert-an-europas-dunkelste-stunden/20058964.html. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  96. Teraz.sk. 2016. Hrnko: Sťahovanie národov ani Durayovu uhorku na Slovensku nechceme. http://www.teraz.sk/slovensko/hrnko-migranti-narodov-duray-uhorka-sns/179215-clanok.html. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  97. Venice Commission. 2016. Opinion on the act on the constitutional tribunal (opinion 860/2016). Strasbourg: European Commission for Democracy Through Law, Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  98. Verseck, Keno. 2018. Orbán auf dem Durchmarsch in Europa? https://www.dw.com/de/orbán-auf-dem-durchmarsch-in-europa/a-44316528. Zugegriffen: 24. Okt. 2018.Google Scholar
  99. de Vries, Erik, Martijn Schoonvelde, und Gijs Schumacher. 2018. No longer lost in translation. Evidence that Google translate works for comparative bag-of-words text applications. Political Analysis 26:417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wagner, Markus, und Thomas Meyer. 2017. The radical right as niche parties? The ideological landscape of party systems in western Europe, 1980–2014. Political Studies 65:84–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wodak, Ruth. 2015. The politics of fear. What right-wing populist discourses mean. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zacsek, Gyula. 1992. Termeszek rágják a nemzetet, avagy gondolatok a Soros-kurzusról és a Soros-birodalomról. Magyar fórum 03.09.1992.Google Scholar
  103. Zald, Mayer. 1996. Culture, ideology and strategic framing. In Comparative perspectives on social movements. Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings, Hrsg. Doug McAdam, John McCarthy, und Mayer Zald, 261–274. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geschwister-Scholl-Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Lehrstuhl für Politische Systeme und Europäische IntegrationLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMünchenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations