Persuasion and Consensus: Dissent Management in the European Parliament

Abstract

What explains the variation of dissent levels among party groups in the European Parliament and why are party group cohesion levels on the whole so high? How do party group leaders manage dissent and how does this impact the form of dissent expression by individual MEPs? To provide answers to these questions, I conducted field research consisting of eighty-four elite-centered interviews, and observations of thirty-three party group meetings. The research was divided into two phases in the fall of 2011 and the spring of 2012 in Brussels, Belgium and Strasbourg, France where the parliament holds its sessions. Dissent is more broadly defined in the study to encompass outlets for expression prior to plenary (party group meetings) and options in plenary such as voting to abstain. In addition, cohesion is defined more broadly to encompass members' attitudes toward group unity (See Brown 2000) as well as the extent to which the party group is unified in roll-call votes. I find that an MEP's ideology at the individual level in conjunction with a whip structure and socialization processes at the group level explains variation in dissent levels among party groups. MEP ideology refers to the proximity of an MEP's views to those of the party group on a given subject (See Hix et al. 2007). However, ideology does not explain instances where a dissenting MEP changes their position or decides to express dissent in a less costly manner. Accordingly, party group leaders acting as legislative entrepreneurs develop strategies and construct forums to facilitate dissent management. Dissent management or whip structures function as an early alert system and consist of clearly assigned roles to group leaders (president, vice-presidents, etc.) and group forums within a communication network in which leaders (and staff) share information and collaborate to ensure maximum support for the group line. Socialization processes facilitate lobbying efforts and consist of norms governing dissent announcement by MEPs as well as a shared conceptualization of the (party) group identity. In this sense, MEPs adopt the group line or select a less costly form of dissent because it is the appropriate or norm of behavior.