{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029580152671755726, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0028625954198473282, 'mean_word_length': 6.387323943661972, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Revisiting the ‘Moderating Effects of Incumbency’: A Comparative Study of Government Participation and Political Extremism

This article seeks to achieve three goals:(1) clarification of ‘extremism's’ conceptual boundaries and problematic relationship with democracy; (2) articulation of a framework for locating incumbency among a range of strategic responses to political extremists; and (3) systematic cross-national comparison of incumbency's consequences for right-populist/nationalist politicians and parties. In particular, the study addresses a fundamental question in the study of political extremism—how accurate (and how generalisable) is the argument that participation in government will ultimately serve to moderate ‘extreme’ parties and politicians? The subsidiary question is whether denying power to electorally successful extremist parties is in the interest of—or antithetical to—democracy. Pursuit of answers to these questions should advance our understanding of the fates of extremist parties under democratic political rules.