Why did political parties develop? What is an internally created party? What is an externally created party? What is a cadre party? Mass party? Catch-all party? How do we explain the evolution of political parties?
The formation of what we consider modern political parties can be linked to: 1) Growing autonomy of parliaments. ◦ Political elites had to ensure that political decisions could be reached. 2) Expansion of suffrage. ◦ Political elites had to appeal to the masses as the suffrage expands; new types of parties emerge to appeal to new voters. 3) Avenues to political power. ◦ Political elites saw a value in creating political parties as a way to wield political power.
Despite attempts to govern without political parties, they have developed. The circumstances under which political parties form have critical effects on the political system. Political parties have evolved to meet changing political and social environments. Same patterns we observe in developed democracies seen as developing democracies become established.
Duverger (1954) ◦ Cadre parties Neumann (1956) ◦ Parties of individual representation. Politics centered on connections to aristocracy. ◦ Political office doled out as royal favors of sorts. Difficult to conceive of modern political parties in this atmosphere. ◦ No attempt to appeal to the masses.
By the 18 th 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 did develop within the legislature (i.e. internally created) ◦ Why? To be able to make decisions within the legislature. Example: Tories vs. Liberals in the UK.
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.
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.
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.
Duverger 1954 ◦ Mass parties Neumann 1956 ◦ Parties of social integration 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.
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. Push for large membership rolls on both sides of the political debate begins the era of mass parties.
CADRE PARTIESMASS 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.
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.
Neumann 1956 ◦ Parties of total integration Seek to encapsulate the lives of the citizenry Duverger 1956 ◦ Devotee parties A type of mass party. Aim to enroll the masses but closely guard the “purity” of the movement. More open than caucuses but more restrictive than mss parties ◦ Typically referred to communist and fascist parties
Organization ◦ Communist parties adopt a cell rather than a branch structure. Branch unites members on the basis of location Cell unites members on the basis of occupation rather than location. Typically much smaller than branches, intensity of devotion to cause is key. ◦ Fascist parties adopt a militia rather than a branch or cell approach Militias tend to adopt a more military facade. Involvement not limited to the typically “political” (i.e. violence/intimidation)
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.
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
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.
KIRCHHEIMER 1966EPSTEIN 1967 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.
PANEBIANCO 1988 MASS BUREAUCRATIC PANEBIANCO 1988 ELECTORAL PROFESSIONAL Emphasize an elected bureaucracy. Appeal to ‘electorate of belonging’ Internal leaders are “critical” Financing through membership dues. Emphasize ideology. Emphasize political professionals in campaigns. Appeal to ‘opinion electorate’ Public leadership is “critical” Financing through public funds and/or interest groups. Emphasize leadership and specific issues.
Pizzorno 1981 Convergence: Party statements and policies look different to party specialists and activists but not to the electorate. ◦ Linked to adoption of catch-all strategies as well as full expansion of the suffrage. External pressure groups have been accepted into the system; their demands have now become “negotiable” May reduce ideological spread between governing parties. ◦ But some argue this fosters disillusionment.
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.
Should point out that these are ideal types. ◦ Some overlap between eras. ◦ Some systems have parties with many different organizational types. Example: Canada ◦ One organizational type has not necessarily “won out” across all democratic systems. Convergence occurring in advanced democracies. ◦ Developing democracies show a similar pattern once the party system stabilizes. ◦ The typical response has been more elite cooperation across parties rather than differentiation. Katz and Mair 1997: ◦ New laws have allowed “accepted” parties to “collude” to prevent the rise of new parties and maintain control of the governing apparatus. It has been argued that the “cartelization” of party systems is prompting a rise in political extremism.
Game: Primitive Politics Theme: Parties and Membership ◦ Readings: Ware CH 2 and D/W Ch 5