Week 9: Political Parties

Question 1

Political Parties:

Answer 1

organizations that seek to promote their shared goals and policies by nominating and electing candidates for public

Key party is in how they seek to influence government makes them distinct from interest groups

Question 2

Role of parties

IGOSOA

Answer 2

Although we might disdain political parties, they serve some critical roles in democratic life

1. Integrate citizens into the political system
2. Generate policy
3. Organize government
4. Structure the vote
5. Organize public opinion
6. Aggregate societal interests

Question 3

Party organization

Answer 3

Central committees tasked with getting candidates elected or electioneering

Central functions:
- Recruiting candidates
- Administering primary elections and running nominating conventions
- Fundraising
- Constructing policy platform
- Campaign assistance

Question 4

Party in Office

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Party in the Electorate

Answer 5

All citizens who identify with, or have some attachment to the political party

Central function:
- Vote in leadership elections
- Volunteer for campaigns
- Donate to the party

Question 6

The brokerage party model

Answer 6

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

Stands in contrast to mass parties or niche parties common in other national contexts

Question 7

Why no mass parties

Answer 7

No firm answer for why canadian parties developed so differently from other countries
- The importance of the national question
- Regional tensions, especially western alienation
- Weakness of organized labour

Question 8

Characteristics of brokerage parties

Answer 8

1. Under Institutionalized
2. Loose connection to social cleavages in society
3. Goal = national accommodation rather than the representation of interests
4. Electoral pragmatism
5. Leader dominant
6. Unquestioned party allegiance seen as a virtue
7. Antipathy to coalition politics

Question 9

The franchise model

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Central vs. local party

Answer 10

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 elite will come to dominate party decision making

Question 11

First system (1867-1921)

Answer 11

The earliest party system was 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

Question 12

Decline of the patronage system (1867-1917)

Answer 12

Civil service reform limited the ability of the parties to give out patronage

Conservatives and liberals became more cohesive and sharply distinguished by religion and language

Conservative party alienated french canadians

Splinter parties, like the progressives, shattered the two party system; now 2+1 system

Question 13

The second party system (1921-1957)

Answer 13

The professionalization of the civil service led to the rise of the ottawa mandarins

Increasingly regionalized 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

C.D Howe, who served under king and st.laurent

Question 14

The third party system (1957-1993)

Answer 14

The 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 see decline towards the end of this period due to waning support in QC

Question 15

The fourth party system (1993-2004)

Answer 15

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

PC party shattered (down to 2 seats, 16%)

Split right-wing allowed liberals to win majorities by sweeping ontario in 1993, 1997 and 2000

Question 16

Fifth party system? (2004-present)

Answer 16

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)

Question 17

Wither brokerage?

Answer 17

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?

Question 18

Party Organization

Answer 18

Useful to understand the inner workers of political parties

1. Leadership elections
   - Through canadian history there have been three principal models of electing leaders
   a. Party caucus
   b. Convention
   c. One member one vote (OMOV)
2. Candidate nominations
3. Party membership
4. Policy development

Question 19

Caucus model

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Convention model

Answer 20

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 ensure selection is broadly acceptable

Costs: weakens link between leaders and their MPs; delegate selection process is very inside baseball

Question 21

One member one vote model (OMOV)

Answer 21

All paid party members can vote for a party leader, usually via ranked ballot

Points procedure limits influence of areas with large party memberships

Benefits: most democratic, allows parties to build up lists of supporters and donors

Costs: breaks link between MPs and their leader (centralization); weakens party activists as well

Question 22

Impact of leadership rules

Answer 22

Scholars have argued that OMOV elections strengthen party leaders at the expense of MPs

Leaders owe their position, not to MPs but to anonymous party members

Supporters argue that anything other than OMOV is inherently anti-democratic

Large leadership campaigns may provide a better test for the general election

Question 23

Local nominations

Answer 23

Typically carried out with OMOV, but the implementation of democratic nominations is “very inconsistent”

Party leaders will often shield elected MPs from the need for re-nomination races

They may also parachute in and nominate star candidates into certain ridings

Central party often takes a subtler approach to manipulate nomination process
- Set conditions for opening nominations
- Set closing date for nominations
- Candidate vetting

Local party associations aren’t entirely powerless
- Set voting location
- Set nomination date
- The media

The tug of war over local nominations is a very frequent source of controversy

Question 24

Party membership

Answer 24

Require very little for eligibility in OMOV elections

Open to all party members, 13-14 years and older

Membership fee: $10-25

Nomination contests treated as mobilization exercises

Membership valid if meets some cut off deadline ranging from 2-30 days

Loose eligibility rules relatively free from manipulation from the central or local parties

One major consequence: flood of temporary new members in advance of nomination periods (around 45% join specifically to help a candidate)

Dilutes voice of party activists

Risk of takeover of nominations by outsider candidates

Question 25

Law of curvilinear disparity

Answer 25

Ordinary members and voters are mostly non-ideological and apathetic

Party officials dilute ideological appeals to win re-election

As a result, ideological core is found among party activists: party members who are active in local constituency associations and are found among convention delegates

OMOV help reinforce brokerage politics by weakening activists

Question 26

Policy development

Answer 26

Policy development another flashpoint of contestation between central and local parties

Recall that party of the franchise model is that the parliamentary party/ central party manages the brand and policy

Increasingly unacceptable to party members, activists, and the general public

Question 27

Party in office dominance

Answer 27

Historically the party in office has dominated policy development

Liberals had first orchestrated policy discussion in 1919, but it did not affect the party platform

Conservatives made no meaningful effort to engage members in policy until the 1980s

Question 28

Member policy outreach

Answer 28

Local associations debate and pass up policy resolutions to regional and then finally a national policy convention

Resolutions are debates and then voted on by the membership

Only two major efforts by gov parties: trudeau liberals in 1970 and Mulroney PCs in 1989

Ultimately, policy resolutions were ignored

Members have more say in opposition parties

Liberals 1960 kingston conference and policy convention influential during pearson years

Ontario PC leader Mike Harris’s common sense revolution platform the result of policy consultation

Populist leaning parties, like NDP, Reform/Alliance long histories of member policy development

Question 29

Weaknesses in policy development

Answer 29

Usually ad hoc in structure and inconsistent in application

Policy passed by members often ignored by party without justification

Sadly under-resourced: limited staff availability to develop thoughtful policy proposals

Exclusively reliant on member opinions, without input from economists and policy experts