reading 7 - ch. 15 Flashcards
5 core roles of political parties
- providing a foundation for the exercise of power by governments
- guidance: giving voters contrasting sets of policies from which to choose
- aggregation of interests and demands into manageable and prioritized packages of proposals
- mobilization: encouraging citizens to take part in politics by campaigning, raising funds, or voting
- recruitment: recruiting and preparing candidates for public office
party identification
+ partisan dealignment
party identification = long-term attachment to a particular political party, which helps provide voters with a road map through the world of politics
- e.g. big in the US, where there are only 2 parties
partisan dealignment = the weakening bonds between voters and parties
- e.g. in Europe, where there are many parties (meaning more opportunity to move from one to another)
- visible in: less party identification + decline in strength of party loyalty + higher rates of electoral volatility
causes for party dealignment
- reduced social divisions (e.g. social class, religion)
- improved education (can interpret events with less need for party cues)
- diversification (voters drift away from parties towards other channels of participation, e.g. digital activism)
- policy convergence (mainstream parties less distinct in polities to get more votes)
- disillusionment (anti-establishment sentiment + reduced trust in parties, e.g. because of corruption/scandals)
origins and evolution political parties
- origins in 19th century Western Europe
- first half 20th century: ruling parties communist and fascist states monopolized power
- later in developing world: nationalist parties as vehicles for driving colonial rulers back to imperial homelands
- end C20 parties in almost every political system
cadre party -> mass party -> catch-all party -> niche party
types of parties
cadre party / elite party / caucus party =
- members within a legislature joining together around shared concerns, working only to appeal to a restricted membership within a enlarged electorate
- remained committed to leader’s authority, ordinary members have a supporting role
mass party
- formed outside legislatures
- based on political cleavages that helped distinct social groups achieve representation
- e.g. working-class socialist parties
- built an enormous membership organized in local branches
- try to keep their representatives on tight rein
catch-all parties / big-tent parties
- party with a wider base
- seek to govern in the national interest
- look for electoral support wherever they can find it
- purpose to govern rather than represent
niche party
- appeals to a narrower part of the electorate
- limited/single issue, non-centrist/extremist, small focus
- cut across cleavages and partisan alignments
- often ideological ‘‘niche’’ (e.g. populist)
- rarely succeed by moderating their position, doing best by exploiting their natural but limited support group
(cartel parties):
colluding parties become agents of the state and employ its resources to ensure their own survival (weakens party’s role as agent for specific group: it becomes integrated with the state)
in what ways have political parties gone to far?
- no longer energetic agents of society seeking t bend the state towards the interests of their supporters
- instead have come close to something like the state itself
- often seem to be less concerned with offering voters alternatives than with promoting their own interest
political parties have lost much of their attraction to the politically engaged
5 main party system types
+ party system definition
= the configuration of political parties, based on their number, variety, relative importance, interactions and the laws that regulate them
no-party systems
- no political parties are allowed to compete with the ruler’s authority
- only in a small number of authoritarian regimes (eg. Kuwait, Qatar, UAE)
single-party systems
- only one party matters, any minority parties are strictly subordinate
- party is undemocratic (e.g. restricted membership)
- in world’s remaining communist systems (eg. China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam)
- e.g. China: CCP + allows independents and ‘United Front’ (but these are in the hands of the CCP)
Dominant party systems
- one party outdistances the others, becomes natural party of government (sometimes governs in coalition with junior partners)
- introspection, careerism, corruption (!not necessarily undemocratic)
- e.g. ANC South-Africa, LDP Japan, PAP Singapore (family dynasty, wins through control of media + lack resources opposition)
Two party systems
- two major parties compete to form single-party governments
- e.g. US, UK, Australia
- can become US-style duopoly, but e.g. Australia has a small third party
Multi-party systems
- 3+ parties compete, often leading to gov. by a coalition or a minority party
- legislature serves as an arena of conciliation
- coalitions forming and falling in response to often minor changes in the political balance
- often have niche parties + regional parties
- e.g. most of Europe and Latin America
(ideology)
= any system of thought expressing a view on human nature, the proper relationship between state and society and the individual’s position within this order
*age of ideology has passed, still we talk about them, placing them on a spectrum between left and right (origins of this habit lie in revolutionary France)
(6 major ideologies)
- anarchism (all forms of gov. authority are unnecessary)
- communism (elimination of private property to get a classless, self-governing society)
- socialism (collective distribution natural resources + means of production)
- liberalism
- conservatism (traditional institutions and practices)
- fascism (national unity + militarism + nationalism)
(coalition presidentialism)
= presidents who must rely on large and unstable coalitions to pass legislation
e.g. Brazil
(Europe’s major party families - table 15.2)
- far left
- green
- social democrat
- centre
- liberal
- christian democrat
- conservative
- far right
- regional
party organization - 3 main parts of te ‘organization’
parties are multi-level, hierarchical organizations
choosing leaders = important: often head of a party can become prime minister (in some systems party chairs can’t become prime ministers)
- traditional method = partly leaders chosen by members of the party in the legislature
- sometimes party members are also involved (e.g. conservative party UK: gives 2 options, members can vote)
choosing candidates = several options:
- inclusive = open vote entire electorate
- exclusive = selection by party leader
- *often local parties are chosen by national level (but using lists composed at lower levels)
*US: primary elections: supporters (take part in a closed primary) can choose their candidates for a particular office
managing finances
- falling levels of party membership -> reduced income for parties
- state support for national parties (public funding) is almost universal in democracies
- public funding = good: helps create equality + less corruption
- public funding = bad: reduces incentives to attract members + favours large established parties + parties more concerned with serving the state than the citizens
political parties: choosing candidates
inclusive = open vote entire electorate
exclusive = selection by party leader
*often local parties are chosen by national level (but using lists composed at lower levels)
nomination task is limited by 3 features of most democratic political system:
- incumbency: sitting members of a legislature are not easy to remove (except through defeat in election)
- rules applied to running for office: only citizens can + sometimes gender quotas
- electoral system used: choosing candidates for individual districts in a plurality system is a more decentralized task than in countries using proportional representation
iron law of oligarchy
Robert Michels:
even organizations with democratic pretensions tend to become dominated by a ruling clique of leaders and supporting officials
Primary elections
= choosing candidates to run for elections
Closed primary = only registered supporters of a party can vote
roles of political parties in authoritarian regimes
5
- conflict resolution: help solve intra-regime conflicts that might otherwise destabalize or end dictators’ rule
- balancing threats: provides a counter-balance to other potential threats, notably the military
- managing elections: overseeing elections, distributing bribes, awarding loyal members
- extending influence: expends gov. reach with supporter networks throughout the country
- education: educating and socializing voters to support the regime’s ideology and economic strategy
political parties in authoritarian regimes
often act as means of control (not a source of power, not a channel through which elections are contested, won and lost)
- function to carry out the work of gov. as directed by other agents with greater power (e.g. military(
- often presents ‘national agenda’ goals, serves to LEGITIMIZE
parties are based more on ethnic, religious and local identities than on natural political cleavages or economic differences
*Nigeria: parties remained tied to regional/ethnic lines after independence from Britain -> collapse of two civilian govs
e.g. Russia: United Russia dominates, the Kremlin uses threats and bribes to ensure it is supported by ministers, regional governors and large companies
e.g. sub-Saharan Africa: heroes nationalist struggle often one-party systems (justification: national unity had to be created) (often these parties were unstable)
support parties & authoritarian successor parties
authoritarian regimes
Geddes: ‘support parties’ can prolong the political life of individual leaders and regimes
(*Meng: ruling parties often don’t survive death/departure founding leader)
authoritarian successor parties (Loxton): ruling parties that once controlled an authoritarian regime, but then became part of a new democratic regime
- e.g. Mexico Institutional Revolutionary Party, Democratic Justice Party of South Korea
what makes Arab parties different/distinctive?
3 qualities
- most no-party systems in the world are found in the Middle East (region with many authoritarian regimes)
- party families are different from those in Europe: left, secular, moderate Islamist parties and Salafi parties (conservative fundamentalist)
- support for parties driven mostly by tribalism and clientalism (not sociological and psychological factors)
party politics in most countries in the region don’t have deep societal roots
Cavatorta and Storm: parties are important for understanding Arab politics + local context matters to understand parties
!study of parties in the Arab world are still rare/new
e.g. UAE: no-party authoritarian system (one of the least corrupt and most stable)
- federation of seven emirates, gov. by Federal Supreme Council of emirs + 1 president chosen out of them / by them (unlimited power for 5 years)
- Federal National Council can review proposed laws and question members of cabinet (1/2 of this is elected in non-partisan elections)
- no elections, controlled media, lack of transparent gov., limited freedom of speech and assembly, no judicial independence, bad treatment foreign workers
