Week 9 - Political Parties Flashcards
define political parties
Political parties: organizations that seek to promote their shared goals and policies by nominating and electing candidates for public office
Key part of definition is in how they seek to influence government – makes them distinct from interest groups
What are the 6 critical roles of political parties
- Integrate citizens into the political system
2.Generate policy
3.Organize government - Structure the vote
5.Organize public opinion
6.Aggregate societal interests
Define party organization
Party organization: central committees tasked with getting candidates elected – or electioneering
What are the central functions of the party organization committees (5)
- Recruiting candidates
- Administering primary elections and running nominating conventions
- Fundraising
- Constructing policy platform
- Campaign assistance (i.e. strategy, polling, GOTV)
What are the 4 major parties in Canada
- Conservative, liberal, green, NDP
Define the party in office and its central functions (4)
Party-in-Office: all candidates at all levels of government who are elected to public office
Central functions:
•Set policy agenda
•Fill leadership positions and oversee the policy making process
•Executive policy agenda of the party
•Organize the day to day functions of the legislature
Define Party-in-the-electorate and its central functions (3)
Party-in-the-Electorate: all citizens who identify with, or have some attachment to the political party.
Central functions:
•Vote in leadership elections
•Volunteer for campaigns
•Donate to the party
What is the brokerage party model? And what does it stand in contrast to?
For most of Canada’s history scholars have argued that our major political parties follow a brokerage model
•Parties strive to become the dominant party by incorporating and deemphasizing all important societal divisions (e.g., class, ethnicity)
•Stands in contrast to mass parties (e.g. labour parties) or niche parties (e.g. Green parties) common in other national contexts
Why no mass parties? List 3 possible reasons
No firm answer for why Canadian parties developed so differently from other countries
•Some possible reasons:
➢The importance of the “national question”
➢Regional tensions, especially Western alienation
➢Weakness of organized labour
List 7 characteristics of brokerage model parties
- Under-institutionalized
- Loose connection to social cleavages in society
- Goal = national accommodation rather than the representation of interests
- Electoral pragmatism
- Leader dominant
- Unquestioned party allegiance seen as a virtue
- Antipathy to coalition politics
What is the franchise model? (Key distinctive feature, how its defined)
•Most distinctive feature is the lack of development of central party bureaucracy
•Principally defined by a struggle between the party in office and the party on the ground
•Norm of mutual coexistence: party in office sets the policy and communications, while the party on the ground manages local affairs
•A franchise style model
Central vs. Local party - what are the tensions between them?
•There has always been tension between the central and local parties
•Particularly due to national encroachment on local party decision making
•Flash points: local nominations, policy development
•Iron Law of Oligarchy: posits that party elites will come to dominate party decision making
3 points that define the first system (1867 - 1921)
•characterized by two loose coalitions (cadre parties) bound together by PATRONAGE
•Conservatives were centralists and had support of RELIGIOUS and industrial interests
•Liberals were decentralists, anti-clerical and pro-trade (but distinctions were loose)
4 points that characterize the decline of the patronage system (1867-1917)
•CIVIL SERVICE REFORM limited the ability of the parties to give out patronage
•Conservatives and Liberals became more cohesive and sharply distinguished by religion (Protestant v Catholic) and language (English v French)
•Conservative party alienated French Canadians
•Splinter parties, like the Progressives, shattered the two party system; now 2+1 system
3 points that define the second party system (1921 - 1957)
•The PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE led to the rise of the Ottawa Mandarins
•Increasingly REGIONAL POLITICAL CONFLICT led to the rise of powerful ministers who had control over the extra-parliamentary party
•Minimal policy differences between Liberals and PC, who adopted post-war Keynesian consensus
4 points that defined the third party system (1957-1993)
•Liberal Party governed with an increasingly centralist vision at odds with Quebec nationalism and Western alienation
•Rising importance of party leaders and extra-parliamentary parties, decline of cabinet
•Liberals and PC remain brokerage parties
•Liberals sees decline towards the end of this period due to waning support in QC
4 points to define the fourth party system (1993-2004)
•Failure of Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords broke the Canadian party system
•Rise of the Reform Party, which responded to Western alienation, and the Bloc Québécois
•PC party shattered (down to 2 seats, 16%)
•Split right-wing allowed Liberals to win majorities by sweeping Ontario in 1993, 1997 and 2000
3 points to define the fifth party system ( 2004-present)
•Conservative Party formed in 2004 after Peter McKay won leadership of the PCs and Harper won leadership of the Alliance
•Return to 2+1 party competition with a competitive Conservative Party
•Blip in 2011 with temporary rise of the NDP and decline of the Bloc (short lived)
What is wither brokerage?
•Some indications that the major political parties in Canada have polarized
•Conservatives have moved right, while the Liberals have moved left
•Major parties no longer focused on national unity and accommodation
•Is Canada’s unique brokerage model fading away?
What are the 4 aspects of party organization?
- Leadership elections
- Candidate nominations
- Party membership
- Policy development
What are the three principal models of electing leaders?
1) Party caucus
2) Convention
3) One-member-one-vote (OMOV)
What are the benefits and costs of the caucus model
- define caucus model
- which parties used this model and when
•Elected MPs choose their party leader
•Elected MPs have the ability to turf their leaders – this is still the case in Australia and U.K.
•Conservative Party used this model until 1927, and the Liberals until 1919
•Benefits: empowers elected MPs relative to party leaders
•Costs: not transparent, disempowers party activists and members
What is an example of a liberal leader being a exception to the caucus model
Election of ignatieff
What are the costs and benefits of the convention model?
- define convention model
- which parties used this model and when
•Riding associations hold delegate selection meetings, and these elected delegates vote on a leader at a designated convention
•Conservative Party (and PCs) used this model between 1927 and 2004; Liberals until 2013; and NDP until 2003.
•Benefits: empowers motivated party activists, and ensures selection is broadly acceptable
•Costs: weakens link between leaders and their MPs; delegate selection process is very inside baseball
