3.8 Article

THE 'BRUSSELS BUBBLE': POPULISM IN SLOVENIA IN THE EU CRISES CONTEXT

期刊

TEORIJA IN PRAKSA
卷 59, 期 2, 页码 509-528

出版社

UNIV LJUBLJANA, FAC SOCIAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.51936/tip.59.2.509-528

关键词

EU; Euroscepticism; populism; illiberalism; Slovenia; public opinion; political parties

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article focuses on the rise of populism and Euroscepticism in the context of the crisis of liberal internationalism and the EU. It argues that the weak integration of Slovenian-EU politics makes the country vulnerable to this trend. The article examines different variations of populism and draws on various sources such as public opinion surveys, party manifestos, and interviews with mediators to analyze the impact of EU politics in Slovenia.
The focus of this article is on the rise of populism and Euroscepticism in the context of the crisis of liberal internationalism and of the EU in particular. The article considers the view that the weak integration of Slovenian-EU politics makes the country vulnerable to this trend. Modern-nationalist, postmodern-cosmopolitan and faux-modern-partially modernised variations of populism are explored. The research draws on public opinion surveys, party manifestos, focus groups with party supporters, and interviews with mediators in elite and popular debates. The dominant modern economist/functionalist view of the EU is shown to have fed into different framings in line with the underlying thick ideologies. On the right, this has been a retro-modern nationalist reaction to the EU's overly progressive policy and polity, with certain illiberal faux-modern elements like authoritarianism and ethno cultural exclusivism. On the left, it has reinforced the already existing contradictions with (neo)liberalism on the level of politics, leaving the post-modern post-nationalist framing detached from the EU's polity and policy. The article offers some proposals for better integrating the EU politics in Slovenia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据