The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Issue and Ideological Congruence of Trump and Bolsonaro Administrations
Palavras-chave:
Congruence, COVID-19, Donald Trump, Ideology, Jair BolsonaroResumo
Recent political developments and government control actions in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic draw attention to the contrast between the duties of government and the demands of democratic representation. Elected by mobilizing far-right issues, Trump and Bolsonaro moved away from the WHO guidelines but had to accommodate demands on the health and on the social protection system on the one hand and demands from the economic sector on the other. This study used the MARPOR Project method to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the issue and ideological congruence between the electoral and governmental arena in both the Trump and Bolsonaro Administrations. Findings reveal issue congruence between arenas in "National Way of Life: Positive", "Law and Order," and "Technology and Infrastructure" for Donald Trump, and "Welfare State Expansion" for Bolsonaro. Ideological estimation results show that Trump and Bolsonaro positioned to the right in their presidential elections, initially moved to the center-right. However, welfare policies actions at high frequency during the COVID-19 pandemic moved the ideological estimations of both governments to the center-left, despite their denial rhetoric.
Referências
Aldrich, Jhon. 2011. Why parties? A second look. London: University of Chicago Press.
Bardi, Luciano, Stefano Bartolini, and Alexander Trechsel. 2014. “Responsive and responsible? The hole of parties in Twenty-First Century politics.” West European Politics 37, no. 2: 235-252.
Carrerão, Yan. 2015. “Representação política como congruência entre as preferências dos cidadãos e as políticas públicas: uma revisão da literatura internacional.” Opinião Pública 21, no. 2: 393-430.
Carrerão, Yan. 2019. “O debate metodológico nos estudos de congruência política: uma revisão da literatura internacional.” Revista de Sociologia e Política 27, no. 69: 1-28.
Contador, José Celso. 2008. Campos e armas da competição. São Paulo: Saint Paul.
Contrera, Flávio, Priscilla Leine Cassotta and Matheus Lucas Hebling. 2021. “Estudio de la aplicación del método estándar del MARPOR para el posicionamiento ideológico de partidos argentinos, brasileños y chilenos en campañas presidenciales.” Revista SAAP 15, no. 2: 449-477.
Dahl, Robert. 1997. Poliarquia: Participação e Oposição. São Paulo: EDUsp.
Diniz, Simone, and Gleidilucy Oliveira. 2020. O Sistema presidencialista: perspectivas analíticas nos EUA e no Brasil. São Carlos: EDUFSCar.
Downs, Anthony 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Egan, Patrick. 2013. Partisan Priorities: how issue ownership drives and distorts American politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freitas, Andréa and Victor Araújo. 2016. “Partidos, coalizões e influência sobre políticas públicas no Brasil: um jogo de arenas múltiplas e payoffs variados”. X Encontro da Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política. Belo Horizonte: ABCP.
Hofferbert, Richard, and Ian Budge. 1992. “The party mandate and the Westminster model: election programmes and government spending in Britain 1945-85.” British Journal of Political Science 22, no. 2: 151-182.
Karremans, Johannes, and Zoe Lefkofridi. 2020. “Responsive versus responsible? Party democracy in times of crisis.” Party Politics 26, no. 3: 271-219.
Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, Ian Budge, and Michael Macdonald. 2006. Mapping policy preferences II: estimates for parties, electors and governments in Central and Eastern Europe. European Union and OECD 1990-2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Manin, Bernard, Adam Przeworski, and Susan Stokes. 1999. Democracy, accountability, and representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manin, Bernard, Adam Przeworski, and Susan Stokes. 2006. “Eleições e representação.” Lua Nova, 67: 105-138.
Naurin, Elin, Terry Royed, and Robert Thomson. 2019. Party mandates and democracy: making, breaking and keeping election pledges in twelve countries. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Petrocik, Jhon. 1996. “Issue ownership in presidential elections: with a 1980 case study.” American Journal of Political Science 40, no. 3: 825-850.
Petrocik, Jhon, William Benoit, and Glenn Hansen. 2003. “Issue ownership and presidential campaigning (1952-2000).” Political Science Quarterly 118, no. 4: 599-626.
Powell, G. Bingham. 2009. “The ideological congruence controversy: The impact of alternative measures, data, and time periods on the effects of election rules.” Comparative Political Studies 12, no. 42: 1475-1497.
Przeworski, Adam, Susan Stokes, and Bernard Manin. 1999. Democracy, accountability, and representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spoon, Jae-Jae, and Heike Klüver. 2015. “Voter polarisation and party responsiveness: why parties emphasise divided issues, but remain silent on unified issues.” European Journal of Political Research 54, no. 2: 343-362.
Tarouco, Gabriela, Soraia Vieira, and Rafael Madeira. 2015. “Mensuração de preferências políticas: análise de manifestos partidários.” Revista Política Hoje 24, no. 2: 135-150.
Thomassen, Jacques. 1994. “Empirical research into political representation: failing democracy or failing models?” In Elections at home and abroad: essays in honor of Warren Miller, edited by M. Kent Jennings, and Thomas Mann, 237-265, Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Thomassen, Jacques. 2012.“The blind corner of political representation.” Representation 01, no. 48: 13-27.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2022 Flavio Contrera, Paulo Cesar Gregorio
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
