| OCR Text |
Show 58 The Response of Mainstream Parties to Niche Issues The primary way researchers discuss the effects that mainstream parties have on niche party success is how they address the "big" issue or cluster of issues that niche parties promote. Meguid describes the strategic process as having two principal steps: 1) Once a niche party has introduced an issue, mainstream parties must decide whether to recognize (flag as important) or dismiss (issue lacks merit) the issue; and 2) If the issue has been recognized, the mainstream party must then pursue either an accommodative (policy convergence) or adversarial (policy divergence) strategy (Meguid 2005, 348-57). On one hand, Meguid finds that "an accommodative tactic undermines the distinctiveness of the new party's issue position, providing like-minded voters with a choice between parties" (2005, 349). As Eatwell reiterates, When insurgent parties picked up issues with a wider resonance, mainstream parties usually defused them by incorporating elements of the new platforms into their own programmes. Thus the 1980-90s witnessed a ‘greening' of parties, especially centre-left ones, while the moderate right became more attuned to antiimmigrant and nationalist sentiment. (2000, 415) Yet, mainstream parties must tread with some caution in pursuing an accommodative strategy, especially if they take it too far. As Inglehart explains, "The established parties of the Left are trying to co-opt the Postmodern constituency, but if they move too far in this direction, they risk losing their traditional constituency" (1997, 265). On the other hand, if a mainstream party pursues an adversarial strategy, it is calling attention to the niche party challenger and its issue(s) without providing an alternate solution (i.e., through the mainstream party itself). One would expect, then, niche parties to receive higher percentages of votes in situations where one or more of the mainstream parties has dismissed the issue outright or has recognized the issue yet |
