ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

Creating Political Legitimacy in a Semi-Authoritarian Microstate: the Principality of Liechtenstein

Comparative Politics
Democracy
Executives
Political Leadership
Political Participation
Referendums and Initiatives
Freedom
Wouter Veenendaal
Leiden University
Wouter Veenendaal
Leiden University

Abstract

The Principality of Liechtenstein is not only one of the smallest states in Europe, but also one of the continent’s least democratic countries. Liechtenstein is ruled by a Prince who enjoys far more political power than monarchs in larger European states, rendering the Principality a semi-constitutional monarchy. Whereas international organizations like the Council of Europe and the OSCE often criticize the constitutional role of the Prince in Liechtensteiner politics, elections and referendums in the Principality demonstrate that a wide majority of citizens (between 60 and 70%) continues to support the political position of their Prince, and is even willing to extend his powers. After a long-lasting constitutional crisis and an ensuing constitutional referendum in 2003, 64.3% of voters endorsed the Prince’s political reform proposals, which were broadly seen to further augment his political influence. Not only Liechtenstein, but also other small countries like Bhutan, Brunei, Monaco, Swaziland, Tonga, and the Gulf States are governed by powerful non-elected traditional leaders. In all of these small monarchies, Weber’s (1922) category of traditional authority seems to provide enduring political legitimacy to hereditary leadership, whereas this type of legitimacy appears to have declined in other parts of the world. In light of their similar size, it might be hypothesized that the smallness and international vulnerability of these small monarchies can explain the continuing legitimacy of traditional leadership. On the basis of earlier analyzed theories on the political effects of smallness (cf. Veenendaal, 2013), this paper seeks to examine how the smallness of Liechtenstein influences the general conduct of politics in the microstate, and especially the maintenance of non-democratic institutions. The paper is based on field research that will be conducted in the Principality in January 2014, as part of which semi-structured interviews will be held with Liechtensteiner respondents from various political and societal backgrounds.