Historically, social movements and political parties had changing understandings of who contributes what to socio-political transitions. For the early workers’ movements, as well as the green ecological movements of the 1980s, it was clear that there had to be a steady strategic communication between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary organization to realize a better society. In contrast, contemporary mobilizations, such as Fridays for Future, make demands towards the parliamentary system but have declared to stay away from party politics. Drawing on a series of qualitative interviews with Fridays for Future activists and party functionaries in Germany and Austria, I compare how perceptions of the functioning of the party systems shape how movement activists and party functionaries form linkages: How do they understand the different roles of movements and parties? Which imaginations of democracy and logics of cooperation between institutions and extra-parliamentary mobilization do they maintain? Who is responsible for what? Results show differences that can be related to the varying openness of the party systems which facilitate or hinder party-movement-cooperations. Whereas German activists remain distant, but cooperate pragmatically with Green or leftist parties, Austrian activists are much more cautious and reject closer movement-party cooperations. By comparing the two party systems, I contribute to the better understanding of how party systems shape party-movement-cooperations and, more generally, how relationships between civil society, movements, and more traditional political channels such as political parties evolve.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Felix Butzlaff (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: