LIST OF PANELS

Crises have been said to provide politicians with a ‘window of opportunity’ to ‘depolitize’an issue, but this process often has important consequences – including providing an opportunity for opposition groups to repolitize the subject. Earlier work on depoliticization has been criticized as being overly focused on a ‘top down approach’ as well as neglecting important counter-processes of politicization/repoliticization. We are, therefore, looking for papers addressing: i) how the recent crisis impacts on ongoing processes of depolitization; ii) the manifestation of discontent to these processes, and; iii) (the variation in) the extent to which actors successfully repolitize crisis issues. In particular, we welcome papers seeking to uncover the nature of domestic bargaining that takes place under the shadow of austerity and the dynamics of a discourse of ‘no alternative’. Secondly, we welcome studies linking this process to manifestations of its discontent, such as declines in trust, abstention, protest movements or rise in populist parties. Examples of relevant questions are: Do policy-makers scapegoat the EU or the Troika to pass preferred reforms? Which groups mobilize to resist reforms? Which groups get heard and which are ignored? Why are some countries so diligent to embrace reforms while others are reluctant? Does the economic crisis undermine democratic accountability, and if so through which mechanisms? Is discourse strategically shaped to convince voters that there is no alternative? Is the increase of abstention a direct consequence of this process? What can explain variation in the occurrence, intensity and/or influence of protest movements?

A recent literature on depoliticization has emerged in response to the supposed ‘crisis of democracy’ and ‘post-political’ era that we entered at the end of the 20th century.  Depoliticization is most often conceptualized as a move from ‘discretion to rules’, in which actors employ a variety of tactics and tools – including delegation, binding rules, international commitment and ‘no alternative discourse’ – in a political strategy to distance themselves from policy failure  (Flinders & Buller, 2006) and isolate politics from external pressures (Burnham 2001). The recent financial crisis brought depoliticization to the forefront of popular, as well as academic, thought, particularly within the Eurozone. Indeed, governmental responses to the crisis were constrained by a number of depoliticizing factors - the EU’s macro-economic criteria, the reaction of rating agencies and/or the conditionality imposed by the troika in exchange for loans. Increasingly, and particularly in bailed out countries, essential socio-economic decisions were taken in international arenas where domestic opposition forces are not represented. It is well known that this process might open a ‘window of opportunity’ allowing government to implement preferred reforms, which in normal circumstances would not have been accepted by domestic groups (Putnam 1988; Vreeland 2004; Drazen, 2002, Moury and Freire 2014, ‘t Hart 2009). Across Europe, mainstream political parties argued that there was no alternative to the structural reforms and the public sector cuts they implemented; and – probably as a direct consequence – trust in national and European institutions has been decreasing (Freire and al. forthcoming) and electoral participation is historically low. At the same time, growth of public protest (Accornero and Ramos Pinto 2014) and populist political movements on the left and right have been observed almost everywhere in Europe. The link between those phenomena and (attempts at) depoliticization, however, remain under-researched and there are still large differences across Europe which need to be explained. We are, therefore, looking for papers which seek to broaden understandings of how crisis impacts on processes of depoliticization and how opposition to this process manifests itself. Accornero, Guya, and Pedro Ramos Pinto. "‘Mild Mannered’? Protest and Mobilisation in Portugal under Austerity, 2010–2013." West European Politics ahead-of-print (2014): 1-25. Burnham, Peter. "New Labour and the politics of depoliticisation." The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 3.2 (2001): 127-149. Drazen, Allan, (2002), “Conditionality and ownership in IMF lending: A political economy approach”, CEPR Discussion Papers 3562, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers. Flinders, M., Buller, J (2006) ‘Depoliticization: Principles, Tactics and Tools’, British Politics, 1: 293-318 Freire, A., Teperoglou, E. and Moury, C., (forthcoming), ‘Wakening the sleeping giant in Greece and Portugal? Elites’ and voters’ attitudes towards EU integration under harsh economic times’, South European Society & Politics. Moury, Catherine, and André Freire. "Austerity Policies and Politics: the case of Portugal." Pôle Sud 2 (2013): 35-56. 't Hart, Paul, and Tindall, Karen (eds.) (2009), Framing the Global Economic Downturn: Crisis Rhetoric and the Politics of Recessions, Canberra, Australian National University. Vreeland, James Raymond. The International Monetary Fund (IMF): politics of conditional lending. Routledge, 2006. Putnam, Robert (1988), “Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games”, International Organization, 41 (3), pp. 427-460.