PARTY GOVERNMENT i: party organization

1. PARTY GOVERNMENT i: party organization Readings: Duverger, Kirchheimer, Katz and Mair

2. Guiding Questions • What are cadre parties? • Mass parties? • Catch-all parties? • Cartel parties? • How does party organization in Europe differ from the US? • How does party organization shape elections in European democracies? Politics in European democracies?

3. The Emergence of Political Parties: Pre 1890 • Politics centered on connections to aristocracy. • Political office doled out as royal favors. • Difficult to conceive of modern political parties in this atmosphere. • No attempt to appeal to the masses.

4. The Emergence of Political Parties • By the 18th century, rule by royal prerogative is disappearing. • Eighteenth century politics centered on conceptions of suffrage based on property. • Limited electoral audiences did not require political platforms that appealed to mass audiences. • But groups developed within the legislature (i.e. internally created) • Why? To be able to make decisions. • Example: Tories vs. Liberals in the UK.

5. Cadre Parties (Pre 1890) • Duverger (1954) • Cadre parties • Constituency organizations relatively weak at this point. • Limited suffrage reduced the need for constituency organization. • Temporary electoral committees (or caucuses) would spring up around election time to promote candidates. • Connections are based not on quantity of members but on quality of connections. • Caucuses dissolved in between elections, so the constituency organizations are not permanent.

6. American Political Parties-Cadre • Framers opposed the idea of political parties (Federalist 10). • Aldrich 1995 • Big ticket issues such as placing the capital, and financial disputes surrounding the Revolution were hotly debated with no resolution. • Formation of legislative factions useful to organize this debate. • Members owed position in both chambers to personal connections rather than mass support. • Cadre organization • US parties then begin to “look like” political parties in 1828.

7. The Emergence of the Mass Party • Duverger: 1954 • Nascent political parties were a collection of caucuses roughly tied to parliamentary factions. • Initially, not predicated on ideology • As calls for suffrage expand, demands from movements from outside parliament (i.e. working classes) challenge elite dominance • Once cadre parties have to seek support within the electorate, parliamentary factions merge with constituency caucuses. • Cadre parties are the norm in a social context that emphasizes social rather than ideological connections. • Cadre parties are not as viable in an ideologically based political system.

8. The Era of Mass Parties (1890- approx. 1945) • Duverger 1954 • Mass parties • Growth of working class movements pressured political elites to expand suffrage. • Working class organizations could not rely on legislative connections to express their demands. • These parties formed externally, drawing on mass support. • Caucus form of organization was not viable for these parties; branch organization more appropriate • Members would pay dues and become active in local branches of the party.

9. Contagion from the Left? • Quantity of members key. • Mass parties created cradle to grave organizations for their memberships; party organization always active. • Initially, mass parties were a function of the left • Great for mobilization. • Parties of the right began to adopt the branch style of organization in response. • Christian Democratic could draw on Catholic organizational strength. • Push for large membership rolls on both sides of the political debate begins the era of mass parties. • Clerical to confessional shift opened up voters for the Christian Democrats.

10. MASS PARTIES Cadre vs. Mass Parties CADRE PARTIES • Internally created • Organized via caucuses • Constituency organizations dissolved in between elections • Generally less ideologically charged. • Appeal to elites; “quality” of membership key. • Were predominantly liberal or conservative. • Externally created • Organized via branches • Constituency organizations permanently in place. • Generally more ideologically charged. • Appeal to masses; “quantity” of membership key. • Predominantly socialist/social democrat or Christian democrat.

11. American Political Parties-Mass • US never develops truly mass based parties per se; party funding never based on dues. • Epstein 1966: • US political parties remain funded by notables but attempt to appeal to masses. • Aldrich 1995: • Van Buren attempted to create a party “bigger than its individuals”. • Created mass based electoral mechanisms to win election in disparate regions; ideological vagueness suited party’s electoral goals. • Whigs follow suit; Whigs and Democrats compete to controls spoils of office. • Arguably collude to prevent the issue of slavery from coming to the forefront.

12. The Emergence of Catch All Parties • Kirchheimer 1966 • Catch all parties: • 1) Mass party in a post ideological state • 2) Electoral success trumps ideology. • Major parties cooperate to forestall a rise in political extremism. • Socialist parties are finally brought into government. • As socialist parties enter government, class distinctions begin to wane. • Political parties begin to look for votes “outside their base” to gain political advantage.

13. The Emergence of Catch All Parties: 1945 to approx. 1970 • Kirchheimer 1966 • Strategy involves: • 1) jettisoning “ideological baggage” • 2) trumpeting efficiency of administration over ideological goals. • 3) reducing the role of individual party member while boosting the role of the central party. • 4) reducing emphasis on classe gardée to pull votes from other societal groupings. • 5) creating channels within various interest groups to boost electoral support. • Only major parties can make this transition. • Not all parties will go this route. • Example: Niche parties

14. Contagion from the Right? • Epstein 1967 • Catch all strategy facilitated by new communications and informational technology (i.e. TV). • TV reduces the emphasis on building mass membership bases. • Catch all parties need access to funds to buy advertising. • No problem for the middle class parties but tough for working class parties. • Parties seek to get the funds necessary to compete effectively. • Unions become key for parties of the left; business organizations for parties of the right.

15. EPSTEIN 1967 Consequences of Catch All? KIRCHHEIMER 1966 • Problematic. • Mass parties provide critical integration and expressive functions not provided by catch all parties. • Reduced focus on controversial legislation. • Catch all parties may lose their traditional supporters as a result. • Normal. • Allows parties to jettison more ideological components. • Political parties are free to compromise. • Parties can gain freedom from ideological activists or groups.

16. American Political Parties: Catch All • US political parties are typically viewed as cadre parties. • Mass parties never caught on in the US • Although both the Democrats and Republicans typically make “catch-all type” electoral appeals. • Aldrich 1995: • Suggests evidence of convergence until the 1970’s. • Highlights the role of supporters and activists to both major political parties. • Present era: seeing a return to ideological differentiation amongst the major parties.

17. Challenges for Catch-All Parties • Katz and Mair 2009 • Catch all era created new pressures: • Weaker social ties to traditional groupings. • Left-right debate over more services vs. lower taxes/less regulation. • Parties’ ability to deliver was undercut by: • 1) Moderation of class cleavage made appeals to class less beneficial for parties. • 2) Campaigns shift towards greater professionalization (at greater costs). • 3) Social welfare state no longer economically viable. • Requires cuts in services or increases in taxes to remain functional • 4) Politics as a vocation • Response: • 1) Depoliticize controversial issues/Delegate to non political entities. • Convergence • 2) Use public funding to reduce the costs of defeat.

18. The Emergence of Cartel Parties • Katz and Mair 1997 • Cadre: • State/society interpenetrated by elites; parties as cliques of notables. • Trustee form of representation. • Mass: • Extension of franchise push state and society apart; parties as intermediaries between the state and classes in civil society. • Delegate form of representation.

19. The Emergence of Cartel Parties (1970-present) • Katz and Mair 1997 • Catch-All: • State and society separated as entry into government weakens ties between party and societal class groups. • Parties act as brokers between state and society which aggregate demands from society while justifying policies from the state. • Thus, parties are moving closer towards the state and further from society. • Entrepreneurial form of representation. • Contends that parties have become agents of the state.

20. Cartelization of Party Systems • Katz and Mair 1997 • Characterized by “the interpenetration of party and state, and also by a pattern of inter-party collusion.” • 1) Politics as a profession • Competition based on efficient stewardship. • 2) Managed electoral competition • Shared sense of survival. • 3) Campaign resources provided by the state • Campaign resources provided to parties “inside the state” • US/UK outliers on public financing of campaigns. • 4) Greater rights to participation within party. • Has important implications for governance.

21. Conclusions: Consequences of Cartelization • Creates a relatively permanent set of “in” parties. • Campaign finance rules make participation by “out” parties difficult. • Range of issues considered “fair game” for debate is constrained. • Delegation to apolitical entities and norms of “legitimacy” constrain this debate. • Electoral results may not always be reflected in governing coalitions. • Feedback mechanisms weakened. • New demands increasingly voiced by interest groups rather than cartel parties. • May provide impetus for extreme parties.

22. Next Unit • Theme: Party Government II: Political Parties and Ideology • Reading: Hay and Menon CH 12