9. Political actors: political parties & media Flashcards
hard-liners vs moderates
and authoritarian parties in transition
- parties in democratic transition
- hard-liners are parties in conflict –> causes violent transition
- moderates are parties willing to negotiate –> causes a pacted transition
- early transitions third wave mostly pacted
- authoritarian parties tend to survive transitions because they support the dictator and opposition parties are limited
- authoritarian parties more organised so they tend to have more success
why do we need political parties in representative democracies?
for consolidation
- they have a coherent set of ideas, they organise the choices available, and have a story about where the country is going to go
- they bring people together and organise them
- they represent the people
- parties will give people an idea of where they belong/should vote for
- connect citizens to the government, are accountable and responsive
- parties can reach more people than an individual candidate
- parties connect easier to the people, because they’re all different individuals with different stories/backgrounds/ideals/opinions
3: people don’t know what to do when newly transitioned because there was always one person who represented them
5: a lot of things need to happen after transitioning, parties need to be held to account if they’re not performing
6: more people who are representative
why are parties extra important in new democracies
there’s a need to build voter trust:
1. show people it makes sense to vote in elections
2. show people that you’re actually representing their interests
3. part of the voters will support the former ruler so society will be really divided, thus it is important to show both sides can work together
4. there’s a need to fix bigger problems
5. voters are not informed and integrated
4: good representation needed to fix big problems left behind by authoritarian regime
5: parties can play role in informing them and showing how democracy works, if you want people to support the new system you have to show them they have a say
Rise of authoritarianism can be explained by voters not having a party that represents them.
how can parties connect citizen to government?
- through linkages, depends on the degree and type of linkages
types of linkages and how does it affect democratic/autocratic consolidation
- ideological/programmatic
- clientelist
- personalist
- ethnic/nationalist
ideological best linkage, consolidates democracy. other ones show people aren’t voting for the policy ideas, which gives the incumbent/party more freedom to move away from democracy. it also consolidates autocratic regimes and destabilises democratic regimes.
ideological/programmatic linkage
- ideology (social democrat, liberal, conservative etc) and the policies following from this.
- in the ideal democracy this is the only link parties should have with voters
clientelist linkage
- offering voters a payment for their vote.
- especially in new democracies
- public service delivery is way worse in these countries, because they don’t have a reason to do anything for these people. they can get their votes with their money.
- no accountability by voting out because you can buy votes
personalist linkage
- people vote for the person representing the party
- problematic in new democracies, because they’re voting for a charismatic leader while they don’t know his policies
- personalist linkage between voters and government ruins elections because elections should represent voter interest
ethnic/nationalist linkage
- voting for person/party because they’re from the same ethnic group
- can create violence because it can leave other ethnic groups out
- if there’s one ethnic party you as part of that ethnic group cannot vote them out and hold them accountable because you wouldn’t vote for other ethnic parties
- revolutionary parties often ethnic –> south africa party that ended apartheid, people still vote for them despite their bad performance because they are thankful
what is also important for connection to citizen and government and why?
- party organisation because better organisation means more connection to civil society
- more nationally organised parties don’t know what goes on locally which makes them less representative
- connections to civil society groups result in more connection with the people (churches, unions etc)
- the groups parties connect with also contribute to what the parties will do when they get into office, which can affect democratisation (certain religious groups for example)
- liberation vs authoritarian successor parties: liberation after transition so weaker organisation compared to authoritarian successor parties, which makes the latter more successful
parties can also want to go back to the old system like fascist or communist ones after WWII, creates a lot of instability
sartori’s typology of party systems
definition of party system
- the system of interactions resulting from inter-party competition
- the amount of political parties in the system decides how they work together and interact
sartori’s typology of party systems
two distinguishing attributes of party systems
- fragmentation: the number of parties in a party system
- polarisation: the ideological distance between parties
fragmentation
distinction between:
1. two party: low fragmentation
2. moderate multipluralism: moderate fragmentation
3. segmented multipluralism: high fragmentation
another distinction between a party’s:
1. coalition potential: ability to influence competition by inclusion in government coalition
2. blackmail potential: ability to influence competition by small parties as they can make the difference between a majority or minority cabinet, so they can make good deals
pro about high fragmentation is more representation but harder to form coalitions + voters not properly informed on what they stand for
polarisation
how does it create stability/instability
- centrifugal competition: parties move away from each other. especially happens in forced/violent transitions. causes violence if one camp wins and hard to get to agreements. destabilises democracy quite strongly, but there is more representation if it’s a multiparty system.
- centripetal competition: competition in the middle, parties can work together and governments can alternate without radical parties taking office, good for democratisation. however, because you have multiple parties that are ideologically close to each other it creates no choice. a group of voters wouldn’t be represented which causes instability.
types of party systems vs institutionalisation
mainwaring and torcal
- say it’s also important to look at if a party system is unstable or not.
- party institutionalisation can change the relationship between similar types of party systems and democracy considerably
- parties get kicked out every election, new parties come in who have to establish linkage with voters etc. this creates instability.
- more of a latin american perspective
