Why are parties that call themselves "Centre" almost always actually right wing?

[parochial boy]

I was just thinking about it, if you go across Europe, a lot of parties that call themselves "Centre" or "Centrist" seem to always align themselves to the right

For example from my understanding, the Nordic "Centre" parties are in reality right leaning; the Swedish one amost always joins in right wing coalitions as part of the Alliance.

In France, the UDI/Nouveau Centre are basically annexes of whatever Les Republicains are calling themselves this week. The exception being Bayrou, who seems to want to earnestly sit between the two major parties.

In Switzerland, the far right SVP call themselves "Union Democratique du Centre" in French, and the Parti Liberal-Radical (or FDP) call themselves centrist but everyone else calls them right wing.

Similarly, the German FDP is very much liberal on economics; and Ciudadanos in Spain seem pretty right wing too.

Is it basically a case that being centrist amounts to being a moderate right winger? Or is it my perception bias in calling otherwise quite socially liberal parties "right wing" on the basis of their economic policies?

[Phony Moderate]

'Centre' has connotations of 'stablity' for many people, and centre-right parties, in general, try to market themselves as parties that can provide stable government.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The technical term is sinistrisme.

[Hash]

[DavidB.]

Norwegian Centre are generally part of the (rather loose) left-wing "bloc".

[dead0man]

perspective

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

The technical term is sinistrisme.

There might have been a few 'turns' since the moment that conceptualization, apparently mainly made out of a French perspective, has been raised that would kinda relativize the very base of that said 'concept'...

One...



Later an other one...



And well,



Which finally led to this...



And if ever we wanna update it, it would definitely work all the way nowadays if ever we called it 'destrism'...



Tu m'as compris ^^

[parochial boy]

The technical term is sinistrisme.

And if ever we wanna update it, it would definitely work all the way nowadays if ever we called it 'destrism'...

So the right's increasing extremism has pulled the left and the centre with it?

As for Sinistrisme, I can see that it works in Switzerland and France, if you accept that the PLR and UDF/UDI/wahtever are descendants of the radical tradition, which was the left before socialism emerged.

But the agrarian "centre" parties (the nordic ones and the UDC) never considered themselves to be left wing.

[SNJ1985]

The Netherlands once had a far-right party called the Centre Party.

[Helsinkian]

The Finnish Centre Party (originally called Agrarian League) was originally a party for small-farmers who rejected socialism but couldn't bring themselves to vote for the main right-wing parties because they viewed them as representing rich city folks who don't understand the countryside.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

The Finnish Centre Party (originally called Agrarian League) was originally a party for small-farmers who rejected socialism but couldn't bring themselves to vote for the main right-wing parties because they viewed them as representing rich city folks who don't understand the countryside.

Yeah it's basically the same history for all three of the Nordic Centre Parties. Just like the Labour and Social Democratic parties started out as the political arm of the trade unions, the Agrarian Leagues started as the political arm of different farmer movements with their primary objective to defend and advance rights for farmers. 

Since farmers are land owners (and thus technically capitalists) they couldn't accept Socialism as an ideology. On the other hand farmers in Norway, Sweden and Finland were much poorer than their continental counterparts, due to the worse climate, so they neither felt at home with the outright right-wing parties. Thus their party came to align between the two, thus ending up in the centre of the old political landscape.

Over time the Centre parties also worked with both the left and right in all three countries. In Sweden they went into coalition with the Social Democrats in the 30's, and then again in the 50's. During the 70's, as the Social Democrats with Palme in charge turned left, they however found themselves closer to the centre-right and formed a government with them with Fälldin as leader. Still in the late 90's they had a good working relationship with Social Democratic Prime Minister Göran Persson. It's only after 2000 that the party started to gain a more stable centre-right identity.     

[MaxQue]

On the subject, the French Nouveau Centre (New Centre) is now called Les Centristes (The Centrists).

[Famous Mortimer]

Most mainstream left-of-centre parties around the world (the US Democrats, pre-Corbyn Labour, the SPD, French PS, most SI parties) are already EXTREMELY close to the centre. So anyone who finds them "too left-wing" is inevitably going to be a right-winger in denial.

[IceAgeComing]

In practical terms the Estonian Centre Party probably leans to the left a wee bit; at least as much as ideology matters in Estonia.  I mean its not a left wing party by any means but compared to how fiscally liberal the other parties in Estonia are its on the left; although that's not a big factor in why it gets support (gets the vast majority of the Russian vote and has to be a bit of a catch-all; Savisaar was a prick but he's gone now and hopefully their new leader (and now Prime Minister; the minority partners of the previous coalition chucked out the previous governing party and replaced them with the Centre Party literally weeks after they voted Savisaar out of the leadership.

I mean Eastern Europe is a special case in that the party systems are usually formed down different lines rather than the usual left/right class thing; so the "centre" might be talking about another issue.  There's also the fact that parties there aren't usually based on ideology and are basically vehicles for their leaders to get into power; so they are more than happy to flit around on the spectrum to get votes and get into government; plus you'll get parties that rise from nowhere; win elections and then collapse in the next election four years later (Res Publica and Pro Patria in Estonia are good examples of that; they merged recently which is funny plus I think that the Lithuanian fake Greens will do that as well) which you don't see in more established democracies.  To use Estonia as another example; the two "big" parties (Reform Party and the Centre Party) are both vaguely liberal and actually sit in the same European Parliament group (ALDE; although that's a bit of a wide group) yet they don't like each other and won't serve in government with each other since the latter is the Russian party and the former has used that to get support from amongst more nationalist parts of the Estonian population.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Don't forget the Hitler enabling German Centre Party.

[Lord Halifax]

I mean Eastern Europe is a special case in that the party systems are usually formed down different lines rather than the usual left/right class thing; so the "centre" might be talking about another issue.  There's also the fact that parties there aren't usually based on ideology and are basically vehicles for their leaders to get into power; so they are more than happy to flit around on the spectrum to get votes and get into government; plus you'll get parties that rise from nowhere; win elections and then collapse in the next election four years later (Res Publica and Pro Patria in Estonia are good examples of that; they merged recently which is funny plus I think that the Lithuanian fake Greens will do that as well) which you don't see in more established democracies.  To use Estonia as another example; the two "big" parties (Reform Party and the Centre Party) are both vaguely liberal and actually sit in the same European Parliament group (ALDE; although that's a bit of a wide group) yet they don't like each other and won't serve in government with each other since the latter is the Russian party and the former has used that to get support from amongst more nationalist parts of the Estonian population.

Ten years ago isn't really recent...

Reform is a right wing Liberal party and very much class based. Its the party of the urban upper middle class and its voters has the highest income, wealth and education of all, whereas Centre is a populist catch-all party with the Russians as a special constituency. It doesn't make sense to call Centre a Liberal party.

[IceAgeComing]

Cor was it really that long ago - I wrote my dissertation on ethnic minority politics in the Baltic States and it was recent when I wrote it...

I wouldn't call Russians merely a "special constituency" of the Centre Party; they are a significant portion if not a majority of the Centre Party vote; basically the entirely of their core support.  I think that now Savisaar has gone they might find it easier to build support amongst ethnic Estonians although its hard to say - they have a good lead in the polls though.  Centre certainly are populist and try to present themselves as all things to everyone and it makes it hard to characterise exactly what they are (which is the case for most parties in the region mind; the Estonian Social Democrats aren't particularly Social Democratic for example) and I think that the term "Liberal" is vague enough to characterise it: although certainly most of the other parties are more to the right on economy-related matters.  Its certainly not really your typical modern Centre Party; its actually probably closer to how they used to me in Nordic countries before they either moved to the far right or decided to support right wing governments consistently.

[Lord Halifax]

Cor was it really that long ago - I wrote my dissertation on ethnic minority politics in the Baltic States and it was recent when I wrote it...

I wouldn't call Russians merely a "special constituency" of the Centre Party; they are a significant portion if not a majority of the Centre Party vote; basically the entirely of their core support.  I think that now Savisaar has gone they might find it easier to build support amongst ethnic Estonians although its hard to say - they have a good lead in the polls though.  Centre certainly are populist and try to present themselves as all things to everyone and it makes it hard to characterise exactly what they are (which is the case for most parties in the region mind; the Estonian Social Democrats aren't particularly Social Democratic for example) and I think that the term "Liberal" is vague enough to characterise it: although certainly most of the other parties are more to the right on economy-related matters.  Its certainly not really your typical modern Centre Party; its actually probably closer to how they used to me in Nordic countries before they either moved to the far right or decided to support right wing governments consistently.

Liberal is primarily an economic term in European politics, and they are the least economically liberal of the major parties and also fairly SoCon (at least more than Reform and the Social Democrats).

The Norwegian Centre Party support Labour. None of the Nordic centre parties are far right.

[IceAgeComing]

To say liberal is "primarily an economic term" here is really quite simplified - most centre-right parties in Europe have liberal economic policies but I wouldn't describe them all as liberal parties.  In the same way that the Lib Dems pre-2010 were clearly a liberal party; even though their economic policies had a fair few left-leaning elements in them.

The Centre Party is an odd beast really; although most Estonian parties are a bit odd and you can't really be very specific about ideology there (the not very Social Democratic Social Democrats are a great example to that) since people vote for other reasons - ethnicity is slowly becoming less relevant but is still a key issue in the Baltics; plus you get the more personality or patronage stuff that you get more widely in the region.  I'm partially predicting where I think the party will go under Ratas where it may well develop into a  vaguely left-wing liberal party (kind of like the Lib Dems in a way) that still is very much in favour of minority rights to counter Reform without giving up too much ground and which still means that they can be a catch-all party.  The big question is whether they them being in government is a one-off thing or whether the other parties will go back to keeping them out of government after the next election: I imagine that without Savisaar they are likely to be more palatable to the smaller parties in the parliament, and that can only be a good thing.

[parochial boy]

To say liberal is "primarily an economic term" here is really quite simplified - most centre-right parties in Europe have liberal economic policies but I wouldn't describe them all as liberal parties.  In the same way that the Lib Dems pre-2010 were clearly a liberal party; even though their economic policies had a fair few left-leaning elements in them.

The UK is somewhat different in that the term "Liberal" tends to be applied in a way that is closer to the use in the USA.

Certainly, in Switzerland or France, if you refer to someone or something as "liberal" you are going to mean it in terms of economics, and not so much that they are pro-immigration of gay rights or whatever.

That is why someone like Fillon can be described as "Liberal" in the French media, or why the old Swiss Liberal (now Liberal-Radical) party are considered to be firmly on the right hand side of the political spectrum.

[palandio]

Don't forget the Hitler enabling German Centre Party.

Well, it is true that the German Centre Party shifted rightward under prelate Kaas and that its support resulted in the Enabling Act of 1933 getting the necessary 2/3 majority.

It is also true that the German Centre Party was started as a clerical/SoCon reaction to cultural "liberalism" (separation of church and state, civil marriage, secular education).

That being said from the standpoint of political arithmetics the Centre Party was really in the centre of the political spectrum for most of its existence. The Centre Party was part of the democratic and republican forces (together with SPD and DDP) during the Weimar Republic (at least until about 1932). The people that are to blame most for Hitler are the conservative establishment of the time (Hindenburg and his kamarilla, the intrigue-spinning Schleicher and von Papen and the reactionary big industrials).

The (defunct) German Centre Party is actually a quite good example for a party that occupies a spot in the centre of the political spectrum (without actually being centrist in the proper sense...)

[DC Al Fine]

Don't forget the Hitler enabling German Centre Party.

Well, it is true that the German Centre Party shifted rightward under prelate Kaas and that its support resulted in the Enabling Act of 1933 getting the necessary 2/3 majority.

It is also true that the German Centre Party was started as a clerical/SoCon reaction to cultural "liberalism" (separation of church and state, civil marriage, secular education).

That being said from the standpoint of political arithmetics the Centre Party was really in the centre of the political spectrum for most of its existence. The Centre Party was part of the democratic and republican forces (together with SPD and DDP) during the Weimar Republic (at least until about 1932). The people that are to blame most for Hitler are the conservative establishment of the time (Hindenburg and his kamarilla, the intrigue-spinning Schleicher and von Papen and the reactionary big industrials).

The (defunct) German Centre Party is actually a quite good example for a party that occupies a spot in the centre of the political spectrum (without actually being centrist in the proper sense...)

I dispute that there's any 'proper sense 'of centre. Centre must fluctuate with time and place or else you wind up like those poor fools at Political Compass calling the entire western world right wing. The Roundheads and Cavaliers would be be hardcore rightwing traditionalists if you transported them to the present for example.

Far better to adapt the definition to the context being discussed. Weimar Germany's political spectrum ran roughly from anti-democratic left to anti-democratic right. Within that context Centre is well, quite centrist.

[ingemann]

I was just thinking about it, if you go across Europe, a lot of parties that call themselves "Centre" or "Centrist" seem to always align themselves to the right

For example from my understanding, the Nordic "Centre" parties are in reality right leaning; the Swedish one amost always joins in right wing coalitions as part of the Alliance.

In France, the UDI/Nouveau Centre are basically annexes of whatever Les Republicains are calling themselves this week. The exception being Bayrou, who seems to want to earnestly sit between the two major parties.

In Switzerland, the far right SVP call themselves "Union Democratique du Centre" in French, and the Parti Liberal-Radical (or FDP) call themselves centrist but everyone else calls them right wing.

Similarly, the German FDP is very much liberal on economics; and Ciudadanos in Spain seem pretty right wing too.

Is it basically a case that being centrist amounts to being a moderate right winger? Or is it my perception bias in calling otherwise quite socially liberal parties "right wing" on the basis of their economic policies?

Historical Europe shared the Conservative and Liberal dichotomy which USA have, which meant the centre lay between these two, but when socialism rose, it pushed the entire political spectra to the left, which placed the former moderate parties on the right. It's why in Danish political the Radical Left are a placed around the middle, while Venstre (meaning Leftformerly known as the Moderate Left) are placed on the right.

[mencken]

Much for the same reason that a discussion forum filled with fish will wonder why creatures identified as "amphibians" are almost always actually terrestrial.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Much for the same reason that a discussion forum filled with fish will wonder why creatures identified as "amphibians" are almost always actually terrestrial.

whew lad