 Hello once again, let's talk about politics and governance. Let's jump to France, and the year is 2005. So French voters just rejected the proposed European Union constitution in a referendum, but the government ignored the results and implemented the legislation anyway. What were the consequences of this decision? That's what we're here to explore with our guests, which I welcome Stefan Sliverhuis, is from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and together with Stefan we'll explore all the electoral impacts of bypassing this popular vote. Stefan will tell us also how this decision led to lower voter turnout, more blank votes, larger gains for anti-system parties, suggesting perhaps we'll see that ignoring the will of the people can have a lasting, you know, negative impact on democracy. Stefan, welcome. Thank you very much, how do you go? Happy to be here and yeah. Perfect. Stefan, let's start. Tell us in what ways, which I mentioned might be several, in what ways is this study important? Sure. So as you just mentioned, on the surface it's a case study, right? It's about France in 2005 and a referendum that was ignored. But we think that the case actually encapsulates lots of the most important issues that we still face in our current political landscape. Not just in France, but basically in all established democracies. So the case touches upon, of course, the frictions between the nation-state and international integration, globalization. It touches upon democratic accountability, or the lack of it, by ruling politicians. It touches upon large segments of society that feel, you know, ignored or not being heard by politicians or by the political class, let's say. And in that vein it also touches upon frictions between, you know, urban centers and rural periphery and this clash that we see in a lot of democracies that nowadays are invoked by lots of populist politicians and what we nowadays see very frequently or hear very frequently. And this case is also, of course, about the intent or the attempt to resolve the conundrum of domestic criticism on or surrounding international integration with a referendum, which can backfire. We know that also because of Brexit, of course, but also France is a prominent example. So the case is important because, you know, it shows firstly that this political polarization, these cleavages around international integration is not just, you know, a new thing. It doesn't exist only since Trump and Brexit had already manifested much earlier. For example, in France in 2005 where, you know, there was also a clash between two forces. And the case shows a certain particular layout which has not been studied a lot in the literature. The literature really focused on economic and cultural issues that are driving, you know, discontent with the status quo and with globalization and international integration. But we try to show that also other drivers might, you know, foment discontent with the status quo. And this is the institutional framework or party behavior. So we really put the theory of party catalyzation at the heart of our paper, which just says that a lot of parties, mainstream parties or like parties which have the chance to govern, really aligned in an ideological way and on economic issues in such a way they resembled in such a way and agreed in such a way that a lot of of the voting base and of social groups that, you know, they didn't feel represented anymore by the parties. And this is also due to the structure of parties and how this decision making within the party system is being made. And we wanted to focus a little bit on that and we think that the case is just a great example to empirically analyze that because it is, of course, also about a referendum, right? And a referendum that was ignored. So basically politicians ignoring what's a popular vote. And yeah, it's really, let's say it like that. Bottom line, because I talked about, let me summarize it. I think the topic is important because it encapsulates a lot of the most salient issues that we also face nowadays, you know, the critique on the status quo and so on and the political elites ignoring the people and so on. And we show that this is not just because of economic and cultural issues, which certainly play a role, but we also want to show that it's party behavior and really the structure of parties and decisions of ruling people who are sometimes just fomenting grievances. And of course, it shows what happens when our referendum gets ignored, you know, that's the most particular case in our case when popular and elite interests collide and elites just ignore basically a popular vote. Because I'm curious to, I'm very curious to already jump into the findings, but before we go there and to see what happens in France, what were your main findings. I want you to, you have explored this a bit, but I want to listen a bit more because you indicated now in the article that, you know, after bypassing this referendum outcome, it was expected to see a decrease in political participation and increase in support for anti-system parties. So let me know a bit about the expectations that you had before you found out about those findings. Yeah, so I mean, as researchers, of course, you shouldn't expect to find anything, you know, it should be quite open. But yeah, of course, at least my expectation was that when people get ignored or when people feel like their voices are not being heard, that they will make their voices being heard again, you know, in one way or the other. Or in other ways, actions have consequences, you know. So I thought, okay, there will be something in the data which will show just content with this decision to ignore the vote of the referendum. But in which ways this will play out, I did not know whether this will play out. But the research, yeah, so in a sense, for us, the case is just, it was a great opportunity to empirically assess our expectations, let's say. That was maybe our expectations and it actually came to fruition, let's say like that. Stefan, let us know about the findings. Of course, so as you just, as you already mentioned in the beginning, we found that municipalities which rejected the proposed European constitution, which subsequently got their votes ignored, we saw a lower turnout, we saw a higher share of blank voting, and we saw a higher support for far left and far right parties in all subsequent elections after the referendum. And now this is when controlling for various socioeconomic indicators on the municipality level and past voting behavior on the municipality level. However, yeah, so first of all, the effect sizes, let's say, are quite substantive. So they eclipsed, for example, the importance of unemployment on the municipality level. So how you voted in the referendum was more important than, for example, your unemployment level. But an important nuance is that the effects on voter engagement, so the effects on turnout and on blank voting, they grew weaker over time. So we see that at the beginning in the elections most closest to the referendum, we really see a drop in turnout, for example. But then in later elections, the effect grew weaker or disappeared eventually. However, the effect for anti-system parties, so for the far left and the far right, which really also opposed the referendum, the effect on these parties, they grew stronger over time. So what we think is what happened is that these forces were successful in mobilizing this affected non-voters over time. And we also corroborate our findings with survey data that shows that satisfaction with French democracy was really at a low shortly after the referendum, when it became obvious that the vote will remain inconsequential, that the vote will be ignored. So yeah, we just deliver pieces of evidence that show that the procedure about the referendum and the decision to ignore the vote was really detrimental for French democracy, at least in terms of turnout participation and in terms of satisfaction with it. Of course. I'm curious to know more about potential policy impacts of this, either on government level or municipal level. And considering that there were some other situations in Europe that you mentioned in which the referendum results created serious dilemmas for the governments, you also said this in an article. So tell me about potential policy impacts. Sure. So I think it is very implied research, you know, so for policymakers, I think it shows that they don't, they do not only have to consider the content of their policies, but also how, how, how the decision making comes, comes to be, you know, within their party structures. Is there an effective bottom up communication possible? For example, can activists, party activists really bring in new opinions and a plurality of opinions, or is it top down approach, which, you know, the our theory criticizes, which a lot of parties have become now, that is really a top down approach in a lot of parties. And, yeah, I mean, just talking about real life impacts, I think the, the two big parties, which are one of the main actors in our, the two traditional big parties in France, the former ones, Baptiste Salis and Leroy Publique, they really fail to achieve this because nowadays they are played minor roles in French politics, you know, they, they have been completely eclipsed by other forces. And other big parties in Europe should take notice, you know, and maybe really try to reform their internal structure that the whole structure seems more participatory, that people feel more, you know, included in decision making. And of course, for policy markers, also, that seems a little bit maybe contradictory now, but you know, having a party structure that for years basically ignored most of the voices from the bottom, you know, and then just calling a referendum doesn't make good for years of neglect. So if you, if you want to call a referendum, you should be really certain about the outcomes and whether you can follow through, because usually, especially like in general political matters, but especially matters on international integration cannot be condensed to a binary yes and no decision. So a referendum might not be the most adequate tool to resolve this, this conundrum, my opinion. And a final point, of course, and in line with this is that if you want people to recognize the merits of international cooperation, we really have to explain the merits and the benefits in an open and transparent way. This is not just true for the European Union, even for, you know, initiatives such as China's Belt and Road Initiative, which I read in the last weeks is really tanking and popularity, because a lot of the population just thinks it's not, it's not really benefiting them, it's just benefiting the elites. And if, if you as a politician think it is good for your country and for the community, then you also have to be able to communicate that transparently and put more effort in it. And maybe now talking about just, you know, individuals, the general audience, I think what was very, very encouraging to see. So the article was published in your journal and it got then linked in a very, very popular forum, which is called Reddit. And there's a sub forum called, yeah, sub Reddit, which is about scientific findings and academic publications. And somebody linked this article within this very popular website. And it really gained a lot of traction. So it was really nice to see somebody sent me the link and look, this is your article, because I sent it to friends. And they said, oh yeah, I saw it. And it gained a lot of traction in thousands, thousands of politically interested individuals were really engaging with our findings and relating the findings to their own personal situation. You know, they were relating it, for example, to when they felt ignored by their state legislature in the US, for example. So I think it was a really interesting, it was super interesting for me and encouraging to see that it already made an impact, maybe not with policymakers, but then with, you know, thousands of newly politically interested individuals which could relate to the finding, which could resonate, you know, which could see, which could find themselves basically in the results. So I'm not sure if it's possible, maybe you could link to the spread in the description. Of course, yes. Well, some tips for politicians. One step at a time. You'll convince them because actually the article is now on 33,000 views, which is, yeah, I think, I think that is because a month ago, a month and a half ago. I think that's because of this. Which is good. So you have given the tips to the politicians. Let's now turn to academia again. So what's next to research about this topic? Yeah, so of course, there are other settings where referenda got ignored, as you already incinerated as well. So for example, in the Netherlands, there was also a referendum on the European Constitution. The setting was quite different, but still, you know, and as I also learned from this, from this, the community interaction, there were a lot of referendum in the US, for example, where state legislators ignored referenda on abortion rights or public infrastructure. And it would be super interesting to see whether our findings could be replicated also in these settings, you know, to see whether it was in general disappointment with politicians and the way how how parties decide and politicians decide policies. Yeah, super interesting for me to see, but also personally, I think it was, it would be really interesting to see, to investigate local, more local outcomes, for example, on the municipalities to see whether mayors, which have a very inclusive, collaborative approach to decision making are rewarded for that or not. I think that is super interesting, just not from, you know, not from a nation perspective, or really on the local for municipalities. I think that would be super cool. Now, some tips for the future. You mentioned that there was a lot of people interested in the politics and in the topic of this article. Is there any materials that you could recommend or listeners to explore the topic? Yeah, of course. So on, you know, on the party cartelization theory, there are two really great books, which we consulted a lot also for the article. One is Peter Myers, Ruling the Voids 2013 and Jonathan Hopkins Antisystem Politics 2020. But in general, I think all of the sources that we cite are of course, great sources. And I think, again, I think I'm repeating myself, but you get a, you know, the reaction of laymen and to get a very diverse reaction to our findings and how the laymen relates to them. I think it's super interesting just to scroll through this website, Reddit website, and to see what people answered. You know, a lot of people also criticized our paper, which is also interesting to see. So the listeners could take a look and see for themselves. Perfect. And for those who are watching us on, let's talk about politics and governance website scrolling down, there will be some materials available to further explore the topic. And then that's Stefan suggested. Stefan, to close the episode, although I know it's kind of challenging. If you could, if you, if someone just started to listen to us now, and you wanted our audience to remember about this talk, one, two sentences, what would it be? Okay. So our original title was, which was unfortunately too long from the journal, but it was ignoring the people paying the price. So basically, what we wanted to convey is people remember shady politics. And for policymakers, it's really a warning sign engage with voters, engage with your base, people need to feel heard. It's essential for democracy. And on the other hand, referenda, you know, if you don't do this, if it's not part of your structure of your party structure, and of how you perceive democracy, calling in a referendum on very complex matters is almost certainly prone to backfire, you know. So maybe a little bit contradictory in my statement, but I think everybody's understanding what I'm saying. Perfect. Straight to the point. Stefan, it was a pleasure. Thank you, Rodrigo. For the listeners that are watching us on YouTube, you can find all the resources, the article, the materials of this conversation on the Let's Talk About Politics and Governance website. You can also listen to this episode wherever you get your podcast. You can, in the website, you can subscribe to our newsletter. You can follow us on Twitter at Kojutatu LTA, so many, many ways for you to engage with us.