| Abstract: | This article explores the role of electoral politics in managing immigration as a policy option in Italy. Italy was late in passing its first comprehensive immigration legislation (1990). A small, liberal party waged a campaign against the proposed immigration law. A party known for right-wing posturing did not mobilize against the law. These political postures were not anticipated by conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom suggests that immigration should not be an electoral issue and that consensus solutions should be sought. It is argued that the Italian response supports the view that in a fragmented, multi-party system, minor parties will be more likely to mobilize. Two mass media studies were used as the basis for this article's analysis. The studies provide detailed evidence on party willingness to publicly discuss immigration and the ways the issues are framed. The Italian case illustrates the tendency for mainstream, pro-system parties to politicize the issue and extremist, anti-system parties to depoliticize it. The DC and PCI, as mass parties, behaved traditionally and supported moderately open immigration policies, but in closed forums. The minor parties had a stake in shifting electoral support, so the PSI took an outspoken stand and the PARI publicized its exclusion from the policy-making process and its support for more restrictive policies. It was the constituencies and the leadership structure that facilitated these strategies. The author differs from Betz's party analysis by arguing that party ideology may not be a useful guide for predicting stands on immigration, and that it is difficult to generalize about immigration. |
