class 7 - political parties Flashcards
why study political parties?
Kopecky’s main research topic, bc
- Bryce: parties are inevitable, no free country has been without them, and no one has shown how representative gov. could work without them
- Schattsneider: modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of political parties
- Stokes: parties are endemic to democracy, an unavoidable part of democracy
problem with these optimistic views:
- always been ideological resistance to the role of parties (always some thinkers against role of parties, e.g. founding fathers called them factions (divisive), pol. should represent general will rather than interests of specific groups, e.g. Civic forum (Klaus) in Czechoslovakia
- cont. democracy and their performance is often criticized for the failure/criticism of parties (e.g. seen as corrupt, elitist etc.)
- 3d wave new democracies: from outset role of pol. parties not so strong as in European countries
functions of political parties
- parties in the electorate: mobilization/representation/education of citizens
!many scholars argue that this is crucial to be a party (but this view brings you in trouble, e.g. forza Italia, la republique en marche) - parties as organizations: recruitment and training of political leaders + articulation and aggregation political interests (usually helped by internal think tanks)
- parties in government: organization and coordination of the parliament and gov.
*diff than in book
3 important points:
- parties are complex organizations: need resources, organizational layers, coordination
- parties don’t have monopoly on these functions: in healthy pol. systems other groups also have some of these functions (e.g. social movement groups mobilizing + interest groups aggregating interests) = if they do, it is partycratia = autocracy of parties (not good)
- understanding what parties do helps identify/define what a party is(n’t): are all functions necessary to be a party?
Forza Italia
- Berlusconi
movement, rather than party, has practically no organization
mobilization primarily done by the media that Berlusconi owns
wins elections, he becomes minister
doesn’t perform all functions of a party
la republique en march
Macron
2016
movement that unites left and right - goal to make a change = extremely successful in elections
no strong defined ideology
is it a party?
minimalist definition of political parties
any organization that has a name and puts candidates to the office is a political party
- Kopecky holds this view, maximalist view would lead to elimination half of the parliament
!textbook has a mid-definition: any organization that has a name, clear ideology and puts candidates into office
other definition argues that strong mobilization is required
features of party organizations
- origin of party organization: where was the party formed?
- character of party organization: how is the party organized?
- nature of party membership: who are the members?
- primary resource base: who pays for the party activities?
party organizations (Katz and Mair)
!important to remember
- Cadre parties
- Mass parties
- Catch-all parties
- cartel parties
- business-firm parties and entrepreneurial parties
!no party matches perfectly: it’s an ideal-typical analytical device
!new democracies challenge this table: new parties that don’t fit these categories (also new parties in Europe)
!this table is about European party politics, usually cadre->mass->catch-all->entrepreneurial
+applied outside of Europe
almost all also mentioned in the book
this table gives you a handle on how to understand party organizations
(Cadre parties)
- parliamentary origin
- small (parliamentary) organization
- elites are members
- personal donations
(e.g. The Whigs-Liberal Party (UK, C19))
mass parties
- created outside of parties = extra-parliamentary origins: big social movements
- large and intensive organization (not only in parliament: were overall in the country, e.g. own newspapers etc.)
- mass homogeneous membership (usually collective membership, e.g. through labor unions etc.)
- fees from members and ancillary organizations
e.g. Labour Party (UK, 1920s), PASOK (Greece, 1970s)
two points:
- dominant type of organization until the 1960s, now they are history
- becomes benchmarks by which we judge political parties (when you think of pol. party you usually think about a mass party)
(catch-all parties)
- evolution of existing parties
- large professional organization
- heterogeneous membership
- private and corporate donations
e.g. CDU (Germany 1960s), Liberal Party of Canada (1960s)
Cartel parties
- evolution of existing parties (mass parties disappear)
- professional organization (not large and extensive, almost PR agencies: sleek organization dominated by consultants that work to get the leadership votes)
- small membership (no recruitment effort)
- state subsidies = crucial
e.g. PSOE (Spain), OVP (Austria), PvdA (NL)
- most typical type of organization in contemporary party organization
- there is also a cartel of cartel parties: they work together to get the other parties out by authorizing subsidies for themselves (and not for other parties)
indicators:
- party membership = declining member-vote ration
- sources of income = % of income that comes from state subsidies (esp. in new democracies)
*e.g. in Labour party conflict/tension between mass organization history/sentiment and more cartel sentiment (e.g. campaign amidst groups of people vs on tv show)
*now also backlash against party cartelization: e.g. populist right (Baudet)
!!in cartel parties leadership is important/crucial!!
business-firm parties and entrepreneurial parties
*in book: niche parties
*Cirhan: large parts votes goes to these parties
- (extra-)parliamentary origin
- minimal formal organization
- minimal membership
- corporate money (and state subsidies)
e.g. Forza Italia, Ano (Czech Republic)
2-party system vs multi-party systems
two-party systems
- single-party gov.
- alternation in office: full change after elections (almost always) = elections are decisive
- centripetal competition: competition that revolves around the center (they fight for the voters in the middle -> moderating function)
- stability
- 2 RELEVANT parties (e.g. Britain has 5-6 parties, but 2 are relevant)
- e.g. USA, UK, Ghana
multi-party systems
- coalition gov.
- lack of alternation
- centrifugal competition (fight for voters at the extremes, the outskirts / specific)
- instability
- more than 2 RELEVANT parties
!relevance (Sartori): parties in parliament with coalition-potential and blackmail-potential (if it doesn’t have enough seats) to form a gov.
*blackmail potential: e.g. threaten to support the opposition, block formation of ..wing gov. (e.g. communist party Czech rep.)
variations of multi-party systems
- Multi-party systems with alternating coalitions
- multi-party systems with shifting coalitions
- polarised multi-party systems
- party systems with dominant parties
characters:
- how many parties
- how nr of relevant parties is reflected in composition of gov
- how decisive are elections
multi-party systems with alternating coalitions
- more than 2 major parties
- 100% alternation in gov.
- elections are decisive
there are blocks (usually left and right), behaves almost like a 2-party systems
e.g. France, Sweden (Germany)
