Rally 'Round the Prime Minister: a study into the effects of a diplomatic conflict on public opinion under coalition government

Abstract

The rally ‘round the flag effect is a well-known phenomenon in the nexus between public opinion and international relations. This phenomenon has been well studied for the US. It has not been studied extensively for multiparty coalition systems. This study analyses the effect of a diplomatic crisis on the popularity of the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. It makes three key contributions to the literature on the rally effect. Firstly, it considers the effect of a diplomatic incident on the popularity of the head of government in a parliamentary system with coalition government. Secondly, it considers the effect of this incident on both the Prime Minister and the Vice Prime Minister who come from different parties. Thirdly, it employs a matching quasi-experimental design to get a better grip on the causal relationship between an international conflict and the support for government leaders.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    There are multiple studies in the United Kingdom (e.g. Lai and Reiter 2005) and single studies of France (Georgarakis 2017), Japan (Kobayashi and Katagiri 2018), Russia (Theiler 2018) and Israel (Feinstein 2018) as well as in comparative studies (Tir and Singh 2013; Singh and Tir 2018). Feinstein (2018)’s study of Israel is the only one of a coalition government but he does not problematise this element.

  2. 2.

    Mueller (1970) in his original contribution lists a “major diplomatic developments”, such as Cuban missile crisis, the enunciation of the Truman Doctrine and meetings between the US president and the Soviet leaders.

  3. 3.

    The formula for the effective number of government parties is: \(ENGP= \frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}{(\frac{{g}_{i}}{G})}^{2}}\) where gi is the number of seats a government party has in the lower house of parliament and G is the total number of seats of government parties in the lower house.

  4. 4.

    Nu.nl (11/32,017) “Dit weten we over de diplomatieke rel tussen Nederland en Turkije” Nu.nl. https://www.nu.nl/dvn/4533696/weten-we-diplomatieke-rel-tussen-nederland-en-turkije.html.

  5. 5.

    CNNTurk.com (11/32,017). “Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu: Hollanda uçuş iznini iptal ile tehdit etti”. CNNTurk.com. https://www.cnnturk.com/turkiye/mevlut-cavusoglu-hollanda-ucus-iznini-iptal-ile-tehdit-etti.

  6. 6.

    Niemantsverdriet, T. and Kas, A. (12/3/2017). “Rutte in NRC: Turkse premier en ik moeten snel gaan.

    eten”, NRC Handelsblad. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/03/12/politiek-is-nietromantisch-de-hele-dag-nieuwe-dingen-doen-7328387-a1549995.

  7. 7.

    Hendrickx, F. (28/122,017). ''Turkijerel gereconstrueerd: een nieuwe blik op de diplomatieke clash die.

    Nederland verenigde''. De Volkskrant.

  8. 8.

    Prent, N. (11/32,017). “Erdogan boos op 'fascistisch' Nederland”. BNR. https://www.bnr.nl/nieuws/internationaal/10319751/erdogan-boos-op-nederland.

  9. 9.

    Hendrickx (2017).

  10. 10.

    Niemantsverdriet and Kas (2017).

  11. 11.

    De Telegraaf (13/3/2017). “Doorpakken.” De Telegraaf.

  12. 12.

    Kranenburg, M. (12/32,017). ''Diplomatieke rel helpt Rutte en Erdogan'', NRC Handelsblad. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/03/12/diplomatieke-rel-helpt-rutte-en-erdogan-7329430-a1550025.

  13. 13.

    Obbema, F. (13/3/2017). “Conflict met Turkije” De Volkskrant.

  14. 14.

    Pelgrim, C. And P. Van den Dool (13/3/2017). “Politiek Panel: Rutte profiteert electoraal van conflict met Turkije”. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/03/13/heeft-het-conflict-met-turkije-electoraal-effect-voor-rutte-7349640-a1550081.

  15. 15.

    EenVandaag (2017). “DEBAT | Mark Rutte (VVD) vs Geert Wilders (PVV)”. EenVandaag March 13, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOB08lo3qEA.

  16. 16.

    Buitenhof (12/3/2017). “Sybrand Buma en Jesse Klaver over Turkije” Buitenhof.. https://www.vpro.nl/buitenhof/speel~POMS_VPRO_7815201~sybrand-buma-en-jesse-klaver-over-turkije~.html.

  17. 17.

    De Telegraaf (11/3/2017). “Lof voor Rutte in Zaak-Turkije”. De Telegraaf.. https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1328874/lof-voor-rutte-in-zaak-turkije.

  18. 18.

    To ensure that the effects, we find can be attributed to the crisis events, we look at data from a third wave of the survey (held on the Monday and Tuesday between the diplomatic incident and the elections) in Table A.4 in the Appendix. Respondents were asked about their knowledge of the conflict, their judgement about the decisions made and the role that the conflict played in their vote: 99% of respondents was aware of the events, 90% of the respondents agreed with the government actions and 18% of respondents indicated that the events played at least some role in the decision in the elections. While not a true manipulation check, it does show the Dutch–Turkish crisis was on the minds of voter in the week of the election. The lack of a manipulation check makes our estimates more conservative: if we find a pattern using this timing variable, it seems likely the effect would be larger if we were sure all ‘treated’ respondents actually knew the news.

  19. 19.

    The scale scores were ''not applicable at all'' (1), ''not so applicable'' (2), ''neutral'' (3), ''somewhat applicable'' (4) and ''fully applicable'' (5).

  20. 20.

    While the scales that Mueller (1970, p. 28) used and we use, are different, he finds that a rally effect that is of comparable size “five or six percentage points” of his scale compared to eight percentage points of ours.

References

  1. Andeweg, R.B. 1991. The Dutch prime minister: Not just chairman, not yet chief? West European Politics 14 (2): 116–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baker, W.D., and J.R. Oneal. 2001. Patriotism or opinion leadership? The nature and origins of the “rally 'round the flag” effect. Journal of Conflict Resolution 45 (5): 661–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baum, M.A. 2002. The constituent foundations of the rally-round-the-flag phenomenon. International Studies Quarterly 46 (2): 263–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brody, R.A. 1991. Assessing the President: The media, elite opinion, and public support. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brody, R.A., and C.R. Shapiro. 1989. Policy failure and public support: The Iran-Contra affair and public assessment of President Reagan. Political Behavior 11 (4): 353–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chatagnier, J.T. 2012. The effect of trust in government on rallies’ round the flag. Journal of Peace Research 49 (5): 631–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chowanietz, C. 2011. Rallying around the flag or railing against the government? Political parties’ reactions to terrorist acts. Party Politics 17 (5): 673–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cranmer, G.A. 2018. One-group pretest-posttest design. In The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods, ed. M. Allen, 1125–1126. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Edwards, G.C., and T. Swenson. 1997. Who rallies? The anatomy of a rally event. Journal of Politics 59 (1): 200–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Feinstein, Y. 2016. Rallying around the president: When and why do Americans close ranks behind their presidents during international crisis and war? Social Science History 40 (2): 305–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Feinstein, Y. 2018. One flag, two rallies: Mechanisms of public opinion in Israel during the 2014 Gaza war. Social Science Research 69: 65–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Feinstein, Y. 2020. Applying sociological theories of emotions to the study of mass politics: The rally-round-the-flag phenomenon in the United States as a Test Case. The Sociological Quarterly, 1–26.

  13. Fiers, S., and A.P.M. Krouwel. 2005. The Low Countries: from prime minister to president-minister. In The presidentialization of politics: A comparative study of modern democracies, eds. T. Poguntke, and P. Webb, 128–158 (2007). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  14. Gaines, B.J. 2002. Where’s the rally? Approval and trust of the president, cabinet, congress, and government since September 11. PS: Political Science and Politics 35 (3): 531–536.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Georgarakis, G.N. 2017. Unlocking the rally-round-the-flag effect conundrum: Affective and symbolic factors in a multidimensional understanding of the French public trust under terrorist threat. Master Thesis: Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris.

  16. Gomibuchi, S. 2004. Trust and leadership. Political Science 56 (2): 27–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Groeling, T., and M.A. Baum. 2008. Crossing the water’s edge: Elite rhetoric, media coverage, and the rally-round-the-flag phenomenon. The Journal of Politics 70 (4): 1065–1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hetherington, M.J. 2005. Why trust matters: Declining political trust and the demise of American liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hetherington, M.J., and M. Nelson. 2003. Anatomy of a rally effect: George W. Bush and the war on terrorism. PS: Political Science and Politics 36 (1): 37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ho, D.E., K. Imai, G. King, and E.A. Stuart. 2011. MatchIt: nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. Journal of Statistical Software 42: 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hobolt, S., J. Tilley, and S. Banducci. 2013. Clarity of responsibility: How government cohesion conditions performance voting. European Journal of Political Research 52 (2): 164–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jacobson, G.C. 2003. The Bush presidency and the American electorate. Presidential Studies Quarterly 33 (4): 701–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kernell, S. 1978. Explaining presidential popularity: How ad hoc theorizing, misplaced emphasis, and insufficient care in measuring one’s variables refuted common sense and led conventional wisdom down the path of anomalies. American Political Science Review 72 (2): 506–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kobayashi, T., and A. Katagiri. 2018. The “Rally ’Round the Flag” effect in territorial disputes: Experimental evidence from Japan-China relations. Journal of East Asian Studies 18 (3): 299–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Klüver, H., and J.J. Spoon. 2020. Helping or hurting? How governing as a junior coalition partner influences electoral outcomes. The Journal of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1086/708239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lai, B., and D. Reiter. 2005. Rally ‘round the union jack? Public opinion and the use of force in the United Kingdom, 1948–2001. International Studies Quarterly 49 (2): 255–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lambert, A.J., L.D. Scherer, J.P. Schott, K.R. Olson, R.K. Andrews, T.C. O’Brien, and A.R. Zisser. 2010. Rally effects, threat, and attitude change: An integrative approach to understanding the role of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98 (6): 886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lambert, A.J., J.P. Schott, and L. Scherer. 2011. Threat, politics, and attitudes: Toward a greater understanding of rally-’round-the-flag effects. Current Directions in Psychological Science 20 (6): 343–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee, J.R. 1977. Rallying around the flag: Foreign policy events and presidential popularity. Presidential Studies Quarterly 7 (4): 252–256.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Li, M. 2013. Using the propensity score method to estimate causal effects: A review and practical guide. Organizational Research Methods 16 (2): 188–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lijphart, A. 2012. Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. McCready, W.C. 2006. Applying sampling procedures. In The psychology research handbook: A guide for graduate students and research assistants, ed. F.T. Leong and J.T. Austin, 147–160. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Morgan, T.C., and C.J. Anderson. 1999. Domestic support and diversionary external conflict in Great Britain, 1950–1992. Journal of Politics 61 (3): 799–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mueller, J.E. 1970. Presidential popularity from Truman to Johnson. American Political Science Review 64 (1): 18–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Norpoth, H. 1987. The Falklands war and government popularity in Britain: Rally without consequence or surge without decline? Electoral Studies 6 (1): 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. O’Malley, E. 2007. The power of prime ministers: Results of an expert survey. International Political Science Review 28 (1): 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Oneal, J.R., and A.L. Bryan. 1995. The rally ’round the flag effect in US foreign policy crises, 1950–1985. Political Behavior 17 (4): 379–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Oversloot, H., and R. Verheul. 2006. Managing democracy: Political parties and the state in Russia. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 22 (3): 383–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Poguntke, T., and P. Webb, eds. 2007. The presidentialization of politics: A comparative study of modern democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Polsby, N.W. 1964. Congress and the presidency. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ruigrok, N., W. Van Atteveldt, S. Gagestein, and R. Van Keuken. 2017. ’15 minutes of frame’ De invloed van Nederlandse media tijdens de verkiezingscampagne van 2017. Free University of Amsterdam.

  42. Sanders, D., H. Ward, D. Marsh, and T. Fletcher. 1987. Government popularity and the Falklands War: A reassessment. British Journal of Political Science 17 (3): 281–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Schubert, J.N., P.A. Stewart, and M.A. Curran. 2002. A defining presidential moment: 9/11 and the rally effect. Political Psychology 23 (3): 559–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sigelman, L., and P.J. Conover. 1981. The dynamics of presidential support during international conflict situations: The Iranian hostage crisis. Political Behavior 3 (4): 303–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Singh, S.P., and J. Tir. 2018. Partisanship, militarized international conflict, and electoral support for the incumbent. Political Research Quarterly 71 (1): 172–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Theiler, T. 2018. The microfoundations of diversionary conflict. Security Studies 27 (2): 318–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Tir, J., and S.P. Singh. 2013. Is it the economy or foreign policy, stupid? The impact of foreign crises on leader support. Comparative Politics 46 (1): 83–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Van Vree, F.P.I.M. 1995. In de schaduwen van Auschwitz. Herinneringen, beelden, geschiedenis. Groningen: Historische uitgeverij.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Femke Bakker, Joop van Holsteyn and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Otjes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Electronic supplementary material 1 (DOCX 24 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beijen, M., Otjes, S. & Kanne, P. Rally 'Round the Prime Minister: a study into the effects of a diplomatic conflict on public opinion under coalition government. Acta Polit (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-020-00190-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Rally ‘round the flag
  • Prime Minister
  • Parliamentary systems
  • Coalition government
  • Quasi-experimental designs