1 ON FAR RIGHT PARTIES , MASTER FRAMES AND DIFFUSION : A COMPREHENSIVE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The existing literature on far right parties (FRPs) emphasises a fertile breeding ground, open political opportunities and favourable internal supply-side factors as the primary explanatory factors for its development. This research continues to treat FRPs as discrete and independent entities, rather than to consider their interdependence, whereas current societal developments like globalisation make this unlikely. Due to its emphasis on the spread of innovations and various dynamic processes, the diffusion literature provides a useful starting point to analyse FRP development and the introduction of a new master frame. The proposed framework serves to complement the existing, more variable-oriented explanatory models. The author designs a theoretical framework of the trans-national diffusion of a new master frame between FRPs based on four core dimensions of diffusion: (i) the transmitting agent, (ii) the adopting agent, (iii), the object of diffusion, (iv) and the channel of diffusion. The paper uses the case of the FN and the master frame it designed in the late 1970s to illustrate the importance and utility of the inclusion of trans-national diffusion dynamics. Introduction Preceded by vigorous debates, most of the literature now agrees far right party (FRP) development can be largely contributed to a successful combination of three different factors: a fertile breeding ground, open political opportunities and favourable internal party dynamics (Eatwell, 2003; Mudde, 2007). Such a variable-oriented approach has served as the basis of the vast majority of existing scholarship, however, it is important to not limit any explanatory 1 I prefer the term far right parties to the more common extreme right parties and populist radical right parties. The term extreme comes from the German term rechtsextremismus, which is defined as an anti-democratic, antiliberal and anti-constitutional ideological approach (Backes and Jesse 1993; Minkenberg 1998; Backes 2001). This term has often been deemed interchangeable with ‘extreme right’ (Weinberg 1993), whereas most parties referred to as ‘extreme right’ do not fit this definition since they accept democracy but oppose liberal democracy. The term ‘radical’ was historically used to refer to the supporters of the French Revolution, i.e. the ‘left’ (Schwartz 1993; Mudde 2007). Today it is still an often-used term with respect to left wing and/or progressive parties (e.g. Parti Radical de Gauche and Parti Radical in France, Politieke Partij Radikalen in the Netherlands, Partido Radicale Italiano in Italy). Additionally ‘radical right’ refers to the Birch Society and McCarthyism (late 1940s, early 1950s in America), which are movements (not parties), and which are labelled extremely conservative (not extreme right). Therefore ‘radical right’ is too ideographic and too general to describe this particular phenomenon. Therefore, I use the term FRPs, which is based on three broad criteria. Firstly, the spatial criterion refers to the party’s positioning to the right of the more traditional parties, but still to the left of extreme right parties. Secondly, the attitudinal criterion refers to the attitudes an FRP proposes. The focus here is put on ethnonationalism (Barker, 1981), cultural xenophobia (Huntington, 1993), and authoritarianism (Adorno, e.a., 1950). Lastly, the systemic criterion refers to the party’s attitude towards the societal system as a whole. This focuses on anti-liberal democratic populism and a strong state. (Mudde, 2007). Additionally, the term FRP represents simplicity and is rather straight forward, something that is often not a primary concern in the contemporary literature.