Research on intra-party deliberation focuses extensively on its normative aspects and its potential benefits for democratic quality. Little is known about how deliberation functions in practice and the consequences it has. This symposium aims to fill this gap in the literature by bringing together four examples of political parties that use deliberative practices: the Czech Pirate Party, the Danish Alternativet, the Romanian Demos, and the Spanish Workers’ Socialist Party. The symposium maps the use of deliberation and identifies effects such as high quality of internal decision-making process, legitimacy of those running for public office, and electoral performance.

This paper is the first exploratory analysis of the ideological features of extra-parliamentary radical-right populist parties in Romania, which, despite lacking parliamentary power, confirm the latent fertility of Romanian politics for populism. Using qualitative content analysis of programs and statutes, we identify a decreased relevance of ethnicity-based mobilization and an increased emphasis on cultural, religious, and/or gender-based criteria. All of the analyzed parties converge on the need for increased discipline and major anti-corruption measures, a smooth continuity with previous forms of populism. The extra-parliamentary group of Romanian radical populists resembles a phoenix, regularly rising from its ashes, although only partially renewed.

This article analyses and explains the rapid electoral success of an emergent populist radical right party in Romania—the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR). AUR’s definition of ‘a transnational people’ relates to a multi-layered community—native Romanians within Romania, co-ethnic communities in neighbouring countries, and Romanians living and working abroad—that create, together, a Romanianness in need of representation, and preservation. By focusing on AUR’s definition of ‘the people’ and on (trans)national mobilization, we unwrap a new dimension of populism which refers to broader fields of connectedness across borders in which bottom-up and top-down dynamics co-exist, acting as rhetorical and operational openings for the party’s development and success in the homeland arena.

The article examines the evolution of party regulation in Romania and identifies a progressive shift from the early 1990s promotion scope of party legislation towards a multi-layered prescriptive and rather restrictive legislation. The dynamics identified fit the party cartelisation idea, although with significant amendments. The mid 90s and the 2000s changes were not primarily geared towards controlling access to public funding for party politics; beyond the rhetoric pleading in favour of a simpler democracy, the various amendments testify parties' interest to limit access to privileged state contracts and patronage positions.

There is much research about how migrants engage with politics in their home countries and about how state institutions facilitate this involvement. Yet, we know little about how members of Parliament refer to, and debate, issues related to communities of emigrants. The ways in which legislators give voice to and represent the de-territorialized demos has broad implications for the functioning of contemporary democracies. This article analyzes the ways in which the Romanian parliamentarians refer to emigrants. We focus on the parliamentary speeches from the plenary sessions in the Chamber of Deputies in the two most recent terms in office (2012–2016 and 2016–2020). The study includes 239 parliamentary speeches and uses thematic analysis. Our results identify an ambivalent attitude toward emigrants that transcends political divides. The Romanian legislators express concerns related to the representation of emigrants and their needs and see them as a valuable pool of economic and electoral support.