It is the aim of the coalition-building analysis to explore how the two coalitions Generation Identity and Fortress Europe were created, what the national groups do and/or did to maintain them, and whether these coalitions survived or not. The theoretical framework is based on a synthesis of existing literature on (mainly left-wing) trans- and national social movement coalitions, and the factors found to be key for the further development of a coalition, both in terms of degree of cooperation (the closeness of the relationships) and the coalition’s durability over time. Hence, while the framework, in a sense, outlines the expected facets of a coalition-building process, the identified factors are not necessarily determinant for its further development. One can thus not define them as rigidly as process tracing’s ‘mechanisms’, which are conceptualised as the causal link between a dependent variable and its outcome, usually with the aim of testing or creating theories (see e.g. Beach 2016; Checkel 2005).
Instead of this more positivist approach to the research, which “fundamentally” is “at odds with more interpretative epistemologies” (Checkel 2005: 5), I suggest a more exploratory approach, which utilises the identified factors as guiding for the analysis, i.e. without any assumption of causality. As an example, a coalition may continue existing, even though the groups do not develop solidaristic ties towards each other, do not communicate frequently, or do not establish shared norms and rules for the cooperation. Moreover, other factors may also influence the development of the coalition, such as more subjective deliberations by the various movement entrepreneurs, just as they may have very diverse underlying rationales for the transnational cooperation. One can better explore such perceptional influences without a too-rigid analytical framework in terms of causality. Hence, as prior research has shown (see e.g. McCammon & Moon 2015; Van Dyke & McCammon 2010), the exact ‘activities’ involved in transnational coalition-building is likely to vary from case to case, depending on the actors involved, and the degree of commitment between the actors. Moreover, as argued by Van Dyke and Amos (2017), unlike left-wing coalitions, we still do not know much about the actual factors influencing coalition-work on the right.
Hence, as the application of social movement coalition literature to far right groups and actors is still a rather unexplored territory, I have decided to use the same factors for the analysis of the ‘outcome’ of the two coalitions, or at least their statuses at the end of the year 2017. For instance, a seeming ‘end’ of a coalition may only be periodic, as it may be revived, if the circumstances call for renewed action. I therefore wish to provide an analysis that both entails a more descriptive account of the occurrences leading to the establishment of the coalition and its further developments, while drawing on the theories where appropriate. By employing a qualitative approach, I am also more flexible in terms of redirecting the research focus, if this is deemed required due to unanticipated findings, entailing the opportunity “to pursue new discoveries and relationships” (Maxwell 2013: 30). Aside from providing a better understanding of the given case, this should also make it possible to use the analytical findings to further refine, or elaborate upon, the already established theories, by adding findings about far right groups.
Sources for Analysing the Transnational Coalitions
Even though I am not utilizing process tracing (PT) as my research method, I still draw on the approach as a pragmatic tool to determine the required data for the analysis. Process tracing requires an extensive amount of data, mainly of a qualitative nature, usually collected in the form of evidence proxies (instead of personal observations), such as documents, interviews, historical accounts, and newspaper articles (Checkel 2005). Another key objective of process tracing is to ensure that one has accounted for all possible alternative explanations or interpretations of a given finding (Beach 2016; Checkel 2005), thereby limiting the potential for wrong deductions, and thus, the provision of incorrect findings. This is important to keep in mind, when analysing the underlying rationales of the decisions and outcomes of the coalitions, again due to the difficulty of obtaining substantial and substantiated data.
It is therefore not sufficient to have a lot of empirical data if it derives from sources that are questionable in terms of reliability and potential biases, just as all available sources should be explored (Beach 2016). This, however, produces something of an issue in terms of exploring the far right from the ‘outside’, as not all primary data is accessible for people that are not part of the groups. It of course poses certain questions as to the reliability of the research findings, when key sources (such as meeting minutes, internal communication documents, etc.) are either inaccessible or untrustworthy and/or biased (e.g. interview data with key informants, see more below). Yet, there are certain measures, which one can take to prevent such an occurrence, for instance, through triangulation of the data, e.g. by ensuring that the interview data is ‘backed up’ by either other respondents and/or less subjective sources. Moreover, another means to ensure the validity of the findings is by including all identified data, i.e. also the evidence that potentially speaks against my own interpretations or preconceptions, thereby avoiding the fallacy of researcher bias or subjectivity.
Employing the framework, which will be further explained in Chapter 3, the following table outlines the various theoretical findings with the evidence required to consider.
Table 2.5: Identifying evidence for the factors involved in coalition building.
Theoretical Factors Dimensions to Consider Coalition Initiation
POS/DOS at time Open/closed domestic and European
political opportunities Establishing links between groups
(Existing network and/or Movement Entrepreneurship)
Recruitment process, (prior) contacts between the groups
Value homophily/shared views Political views of the groups
Respectability deliberations Perception of the role of the groups in their domestic settings (e.g. considered ideologically ‘extreme’)
Diffusion Adaption of other coalition-member’s
frames, organizational set-ups, protest repertoires, etc.
Coalition Maintenance
Shared activities (to foster in-group unity)
Type of activities (collective action, meetings, conferences, etc), rationales for, and perceptions of, participation Resource mobilization (role of groups) Actors financing joint activities, leading
groups in the given coalitions, other groups’ contributions
Creation of a European Collective identity (?)
Use of similar collective identity frames (constructions of protagonist/antagonist identities)
Shared goals with coalition / Overlaps in expectations
Statements about the coalition cooperation, contextual information (does the group for instance cooperate with other European far right actors?) Coalition Survival/End
Rules of membership Membership proscriptions, invited participants, potential exclusions of groups
Ideological divergences Disparate views on certain crucial issues
Leadership quarrels (Potential) conflicts and fights between the coalition leaders
National contextual changes National elections leading to new power-holders, stronger repressive measures by the state, etc.
Evidencing Transnational Diffusion Processes
As will be further elaborated upon in the theoretical framework (see Chapter 3), it is likely that certain diffusion processes take place between the different groups of the coalitions, which may make them become more homogenous as a group of actors. As the exact ‘diffusion process’ is rather difficult to trace empirically (compared to e.g.
the establishments of contacts between the various groups), it requires some further explanations in terms of the methods employed.
It is expected that parts of the national groups’ transnationalization processes (both in terms of coalition-building and collective action) take part through various types of diffusion mechanisms, both before, during, and after they instigate closer cooperative relations with actors from abroad. With this, I do not wish to argue that diffusion is the main mechanism involved in the transnationalization of contention, but that it may be a key component of both the transnationalization of collective action and coalitions.
This is, in fact, already known to have played a vital role in terms of the creation of the various Generation Identity (GI) and PEGIDA groups, as GI France and PEGIDA Germany provided the blueprint for the entire organizational set-ups of the other European groups, including the main frames and symbols (see e.g. Berntzen &
Weisskircher 2016; Bruns et al. 2017). However, it is not so clear what relationship there was, and potentially currently is, between the groups that make up the various national GI and PEGIDA groups, and how this may relate to their creations.
Depending on the level of involvement of the transmitting group in the receiving groups’ composition, activities, and etcetera, it can reveal a lot about the different roles of the groups in the respective coalitions.
Yet, while it is rather easy to show that a diffusion process has taken place, it is much trickier to demonstrate empirically how such diffusion occurred. It thus necessitates a strong operationalization, in order to unravel which exact form of diffusion has taken place (for instance, whether it was through emulation or learning) (Van Hauwaert 2014b). This means that the ‘before’ and ‘after’ of a specific diffusion process must be established, and one must confirm what was in the given place prior to diffusion (i.e. what changed, why, and how?). In the analysis, I am particularly considering the (potential) diffusion of organizational set-ups, frames, and protest tactics.
Organizational Set-Up
While it is often rather self-evident and easily observable that a transnational diffusion process of the entire organizational set-up has taken place, due to for instance the adoption of the name of the transmitter (e.g. PEGIDA Austria adapting PEGIDA Germany’s name to its national setting), it is harder to unravel the more cognitive or strategic rationales behind this adoption. Hence, it is often much easier to demonstrate that a diffusion process has taken place, rather than exactly why or how. Therefore, when identifying the empirical data, I will look for data that conveys information about the (potential) relationship between the transmitter and adopter prior to the adoption of the organizational set-up in order to deduce whether it took place through emulation or learning. For instance, if I find proof that PEGIDA Austria’s initiator was in contact with PEGIDA Germany’s Orga-team prior to setting up the Austrian offshoot, this is a rather strong indicator of diffusion through direct channels, most likely through learning. Conversely, if such connections cannot be evidenced, and the initiator, for example, stated that he heard about PEGIDA Germany in the news and then decided to set up an Austrian branch, then this indicates emulation through indirect channels. Moreover, in order to answer why the adoption took place, I will look for statements from the adopting actors, explaining why they chose to utilize another group’s name and action repertoire in their own national setting. I will also utilize statements by national far right experts, who can provide more insights on the national far right scene, and thus, potentially explicate the contextual reasoning behind such a transnational diffusion process.
Collective Action Frames and Campaign Issues
It is extremely difficult to estimate whether the diffusion of frames and campaign issues take place through direct or indirect channels of diffusion. This is especially the case, when diffusion is related to major events, such as a terrorist attack in a European city, ‘Brexit,’ the EU’s refugee quota proposal, etcetera, which might have led to similar responses across Europe, without in- or direct exchanges between the actors. Thus, diffusion of frames will only be considered in the analysis when it can be proven that this is due to the in/direct influence of a transmitter. For example, this could be the diffusion of a particular concept from group A to group B or the instigation of a similarly worded protest campaign as group A by group B. Such processes can be traced through the protest event data set and/or the interviews with the key actors from the groups. Adaptions of frames and campaigns often either occur between actors, who are “spatially or culturally relevant” to each other (proximal diffusion), and/or are in hierarchical relationships, where the leading organization
‘trickles down’ its frames and issues to the hierarchically lower organizations or actors (Soule 2004: 295). In this way, the occurrence of such diffusion can also give good indications as to the (potential) hierarchy in the given transnational coalition, particularly if it is frequently the same group, which is emulated.
Protest Tactics
Concerning protest tactics, it is slightly easier to deduce the occurrence of a diffusion process, especially when it comes to the more creative and/or innovative types of protest repertoires. Here, I will search for the following indicators in order to identify diffusion: explicit statements about drawing inspiration from another European actor;
sharing of another actor’s events on the group’s website or Facebook page and later carrying out the same tactic, and interview data about protest events and communication between the groups.
The establishment of all of these various types of diffusion across the European borders will help me to argue more convincingly about the groups’ Europeanization process aside from the mobilization related to the EU. Hence, it can reveal more about the similarities of the groups, plus (potentially) indicate if there are groups who act as
‘role models’ for the other groups, i.e. groups the others want to learn from and/or emulate. The diffusion aspect of the research is thus not a main feature of the analysis, but rather aids in gaining a deeper understanding of the relationship between the various groups in the coalitions. It thus acts as a (potential) mechanism in the groups’
coalition building and collective action endeavours.