Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:48:49.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ideological Contours of “New Politics” in Canada: Policy, Mobilization and Partisan Support*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Neil Nevitte ,
Herman Bakvis  and
Roger Gibbins
Neil Nevitte
Affiliation:
University of Windsor
Herman Bakvis
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University
Roger Gibbins
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evidence from other advanced industrial societies indicates that the traditional ideological contours of old states are being reshaped by the advance of a new political agenda. Using attitudinal survey data, this article explores the ways in which “new politics” has shaped the political belief systems of a segment of the Canadian population born after 1945. Findings indicate the presence of postmaterialist orientations among the young and a structuring capacity of postmaterialism versus left/right with respect to attitudes in different policy domains. Postmaterialism is also linked to greater mobilization potential and, among left identifiers, is shown to predict New Democratic party versus Liberal party support.

Résumé

II devient évident du point de vue de plusieurs autres sociétés industrielles avancées que les contours idéologiques traditionels des états sont en train de prendre une nouvelle forme dictée par la mise en place de programme politique inédit. Les auteurs ont recours ici à des données de sondages afin d'examiner comment cette « politique nouvelle » a formé les convictions politiques de la population canadienne née après la fin de la seconde guerre mondiale. Les résultats indiquent la présence d'une orientation post-matérialiste parmi les jeunes et une capacité de structuration post-matérialist—plus que les dimensions gauche/droite—concernant les opinions tenues sur plusieurs domaines politiques. Le post-matérialisme est aussi lié a un potentiel de mobilisation supérieur. Enfin, en ce qui concerne les adeptes de la gauche, le post-matérialisme est susceptible de prédire une orientation favorable au Nouveau Parti Démocratique plûtot qu'à l'égard des Libéraux.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 1989 , pp. 475 - 503
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Laponce, J. A., People vs. Politics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Laponce, J. A., “In Search of Stable Elements of the Left-Right Landscape,” Comparative Politics 4 (1972), 455–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Meisel, John, Working Papers on Canadian Politics (2nd ed.; Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1975).Google Scholar

2 See for example, Clarke, Harold D., “Ideological Self-Perceptions of Provincial Legislators,” this Journal 11 (1978), 251–78Google Scholar; Gibbins, Roger and Nevitte, Neil, “Canadian Political Ideology: A Comparative Analysis,” this Journal 18 (1985), 577–98Google Scholar; Johnston, Richard, “The Ideological Structure of Opinion on Policy,” in Perlin, George (ed.), Party Democracy in Canada: The Politics of National Party Conventions (Scarborough: Prentice-Hall, 1988), 54–71Google Scholar; Lambert, Ronald D., Curtis, James E., Brown, Steven D. and Kay, Barry J., “In Search of Left/Right Beliefs in the Canadian Electorate,” this Journal 19 (1986), 541–63Google Scholar; Zipp, John F., “Left-Right Dimensions of Canadian Federal Party Identification: A Discriminant Analysis,” this Journal 11 (1978), 251–78.Google Scholar

3 See, for example, Barnes, Samuel H. and Kaase, Max (eds.), Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979)Google Scholar; and Dalton, Russell J., Flanagan, Scott C. and Beck, Paul Allen (eds.), Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment? (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984).Google Scholar

4 Dalton, Russell J., “The Environmental Movement and West European Party Systems,” Environmental Movements in Western Democracies, Project Report 8, Tallahassee, Florida, 1988Google Scholar; Chandler, W. M. and Siaroff, Alan, “Postindustrial Politics in Germany and the Origins of the Greens,” Comparative Politics 18 (1986), 303–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wolinetz, S. B., “The Netherlands: Continuity and Change in a Fragmented Party System,” in Wolinetz, S. B. (ed.), Parties and Party Systems in Liberal Democracies (London: Routledge, 1988), esp. 141–45.Google Scholar

5 Offe, Claus, Contradictions of the Welfare State (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1984)Google Scholar; and Offe, Claus, “Challenging the Boundaries of Institutional Politics: Social Movements Since the 1960's,” in Maier, Charles S. (ed.), Changing Boundaries of the Political: Essays on the Evolving Balance between State and Society, Public and Private in Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 63–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Crewe, Ivor, Sarlvik, Bo and Alt, James, “Partisan Dealignment in Britain, 1964–74,” British Journal of Political Science 7 (1977), 129–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Inglehart, Ronald, “The Silent Revolution in Europe: Intergenerational Change in Post-Industrial Societies,” American Political Science Review 65 (1971), 991–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Inglehart, Ronald, The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Inglehart, Ronald, “Post-Materialism in an Environment of Insecurity,” American Political Science Review 75 (1981), 880–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Ronald Inglehart, Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, forthcoming).

8 Laponce, J. A., Left and Right: The Topography of Political Perceptions (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981).Google Scholar When we refer to the “traditional left/right axis” we mean left/right as understood in the context of nineteenth- and twentieth-century industrialization and the mobilization of electorates around class issues.

9 Savage, James, “Postmaterialism of the Left and Right: Political Conflict in Postindustrial Society,” Comparative Political Studies 17 (1985), 431–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Lambert, Curtis, Brown and Kay, “In Search of Left/Right Beliefs in the Canadian Electorate,” 562.

11 Gagnon, Alain G. and Tanguay, A. Brian, “Minor Parties of Protest in Canada: Origins, Impact and Prospects,” in Gagnon, Alain G. and Tanguay, A. Brian (eds.), Canadian Parties in Transition: Discourse, Organization and Representation (Scarborough: Nelson, 1989), 241–45.Google Scholar

12 Bakvis, Herman and Nevitte, Neil, “In Pursuit of Postbourgeois Man: Postmaterialism and Intergenerational Change in Canada,” Comparative Political Studies 20 (1987), 357–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Johnston, “The Ideological Structure of Opinion on Policy.”

13 Inglehart, “Postmaterialism in an Environment of Insecurity,” 881.

14 Maslow, A. H., Motivation and Personality (New York: Harper, 1954).Google Scholar

15 Inglehart, “The Silent Revolution in Europe,” 991.

16 Ibid.

17 Inglehart, Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society.

18 See variously, Flanagan, Scott C., “Changing Values in Advanced Industrial Societies: Inglehart's Silent Revolution from the Perspective of Japanese Findings,” Comparative Political Studies 14 (1982), 403–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Flanagan, Scott C., “Measuring Value Change in Advanced Industrial Societies: A Rejoinder to Inglehart,” Comparative Political Studies 15 (1982), 99–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Inglehart, Ronald and Flanagan, Scott C., “Value Change in Industrial Societies,” American Political Science Review 81 (1987), 1289–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Böltken, M. and Jagodzinski, W., “In an Environment of Insecurity: Postmaterialism in the European Community, 1970 to 1980,” Comparative Political Studies 17 (1985), 453–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marsh, Alan, “The Silent Revolution, Value Priorities and the Quality of Life in Britain,” American Political Science Review 69 (1975), 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Deth, Jan Van, “The Persistence of Materialist and Postmaterialist Value Orientations,” European Journal of Political Research 11 (1983), 83–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 For example, Inglehart, R., “New Perspectives on Value Change: Response to Lafferty and Knutsen, Savage, and Böltken and Jagodzinski,” Comparative Political Studies 17 (1985), 485–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Lafferty, William J. and Knutsen, Oddbjørn, “Postmaterialism in a Social Democratic State: An Analysis of the Distinctiveness and Congruity of the Inglehart Value Syndrome in Norway,” Comparative Political Studies 17 (1985), 411–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bakvis and Nevitte, “In Pursuit of Postbourgeois Man.”

21 Inglehart, The Silent Revolution, 13.

22 Respondents were asked to assign priority to 12 values by rank-ordering them. The postmaterialist items include: “ideas count,” “free speech,” “beautiful cities/nature,” “less impersonal society,” “more say on the job and in the community” and “more say in government.” The materialist items include: “strong defence forces,” “fight crime,” “maintain order,” “stable economy,” “economic growth” and “fight rising prices.” For details see Inglehart, The Silent Revolution, 52, note.

23 Bishop, George F., “The Effect of Education on Ideological Consistency,” Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (1976), 337–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Converse, Philip E., “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” in Apter, David E. (ed.), Ideology and Discontent (New York: Free Press, 1964), 206–61Google Scholar; Hans D. Klingemann, “The Background of Ideological Conceptualization,” in Barnes And Kaase (eds.), Political Action, 255–78; and Luskin, Robert, “Measuring Political Sophistication,” American Journal of Political Science 31 (1987), 856–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Following the procedures outlined by Inglehart in The Silent Revolution (52, note), a two-stage process was used to generate a single scale score from 0 to 10 for each respondent. Details on the algorithm used are available upon request from the first author.

25 Lafferty and Knutsen, “Postmaterialism in a Social Democratic State.”

26 Flanagan, Scott, “Values in Industrial Societies,” American Political Science Review 81 (1987), 1303–19Google Scholar; and Marsh, “The Silent Revolution, Value Priorities and the Quality of Life in Britain.”

27 For example, see Pammett, Jon, “Class Voting and Class Consciousness in Canada,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 24 (1987), 269–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Inglehart and Flanagan, “Value Change in Industrial Societies,” 1292–95.

29 Inglehart, The Silent Revolution, 5.

30 Ibid., 365.

31 For example, Dalton et al., Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies.

32 Inglehart, “New Perspectives on Value Change,” 488.

33 Ibid., 489.

34 Lafferty and Knutsen, “Postmaterialism in a Social Democratic State.”

35 Laponce, Left and Right, 47–56.