The catch-all thesis Original version of the essay, titled "The Transformation of the Western European Party Systems" by Otto Kirchheimer appears in the volume "Political Parties and Political Development", edited by Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Weiner, published in 1966

According to the catch-all thesis… …two main changes have taken place in political parties: Organisational Parties have become more elitist Ideological Ideological differences between parties have been reduced For the catch-all party, the top priority is vote maximising

Kirchheimer’s point of departure… …is the ‘ante-bellum’ (pre-war) Mass Integration Party, i.e. socialist working class parties. Had an important function in socialising members into the political system This they failed to do, due to resistance from the ‘bourgeois’ parties (i.e. conservative, liberal or Christian Democratic parties; here referred to as non-socialist) The socialist parties failed to integrate their members and supporters into the official political system Non-socialist parties did not even try. Remained parties of Individual Representation, with no incentives to integrate people. Their core groups already had access to the state and political system Note the parallel between: Kirchheimer: mass integration v individual representation parties Maurice Duverger: mass v cadre parties

The conditions for these two types of parties changed gradually… …and these changes became increasingly apparent after WWII The law of the political market took over Extension of the right to vote meant that political democracy was established At the same time, affluence and increased standard of living meant that traditional class boundaries eroded Socialist parties saw their core of support reduced, and also less loyal than before Meanwhile the non-socialist parties began to see their chance to make electoral inroads into previously unreachable groups

The nature of elections changed Earlier, elections were focused on mobilisation of the social groups that supported them. Little point in trying to convince other groups into voting for them The new development meant that elections were also about persuasion It had become possible to persuade people that traditionally had belonged to social groups that used to be unreachable for your party

The parties had to adapt to the new situation No longer any good for the traditional mass integration parties to portray themselves as the champions of a particular class, because… …it would mean that they disqualified themselves from competing for all the other, socially unattached, votes that were now up for grabs Socialist parties thus adapted to the new situation, and became what Kirchheimer calls Catch-All parties, or 'people's parties' These parties had given up their efforts to educate and integrate underprivileged citizens, and instead concentrated on maximising their share of the vote

According to Kirchheimer… …catch-all parties are not totally unconstrained in their appeal to the electorate. For example Christian Democratic parties cannot try to appeal to secular or anti-clerical people, and Social Democratic/Labour parties may find it difficult to appeal to real estate interests (this was written over 40 years ago) or agricultural interests Still, this leaves them with large groups that are up for grabs, for example the blue and white collar, wage earning and salaried employees in the cities, and the civil servants This encourages parties to concentrate on issues which will meet little resistance, such as education

Four functions of political parties, according to Kirchheimer: Channels for integrating individuals and groups into the political order Determining policies Nomination of office holders Expression of opinion

Catch all parties less able to perform their key functions The integrative fuction not successful in the first place The expressive function has become increasingly problematical Before democracy, the business of government and the expression of opinion were separate With democracy, the functions of government business and expression of opinion are concentrated into the same organisations, the political parties. Catch-all parties find it difficult to maintain the expressive function, because they must put re-election at risk There is a conflict between the parties' role as critics of the establishment and their role as support for the establishment The expressive function is hindered by restrictions and tactical considerations

Reasons why catch-all parties cannot perform their functions: Drastic reduction of ideological baggage in favour of short term tactical considerations and attempts to appeal to the new groups A strengthening of the top leadership groups and, consequently… …downgrading of individual party members Less emphasis on parties' respective traditional core class in favour of recruiting voters among the population at large Attempts to secure access to a wide range of interest groups

Access to interest groups… …has happened partly due to financial considerations… …but the main reason is that the interest groups provide something that the catch-all parties have left behind them, namely loyal voters If the party has distanced itself from their traditional socially defined support groups, interest groups may offer a short-cut back to the support of such groups Often random who wins in a competition between catch-all parties Therefore party has to look for what Kirchheimer calls "a more permanent clientele". Only the interest group can provide "mass reservoirs of readily accessible voters" Co-operation between parties and interest groups is not new. What is new is the type of relationship between them There used to be co-operation towards the same goals between, for example, socialist parties and trade unions A catch-all party tries to secure links to other interest groups, so that they gain access a broader range of interest group members

The most important function of catch-all parties… …is the nomination of political leaders The de-ideologisation and reduction of politically controversial policies mean that personalities become more important in the quest for votes Thus, the choice of the best leader is crucial for the party At the same time parties have increased the distance to ordinary citizens Parties used to provide a channel of protest, a source of visions for the future and also protection Now, Kirchheimer argued, parties have become remote, quasi-official and alien structures.

Kirchheimer was normative He did not make much of an attempt to hide that he was critical of the development into catch-all parties His criticism came from a Leftist, democratic socialist, perspective He deplored the loss of the parties' ability and willingness to facilitate the integration of ordinary citizens into the political system He had a class-based perspective on society, and he seemed to suggest that the catch-all parties are letting the underprivileged classes down

Kirchheimer also unhappy… …about catch-all parties’s focus on getting elected The way he puts the argument, it could be that if a high and equal level of education had been achieved, then the catch-all model would work quite well. But he does not accept that this level of high and equal level of education has been reached, and therefore significant groups in society are being let down

The development into catch-all parties has… …adversely affected the parties' role as links, or transmission belts, between people and the governmental institutions This is partly because the parties are no longer interested in representing the interests, thoughts and ambitions of ordinary people It is also because the catch-all parties do not offer any participatory facilities

The fact that… …voters have been cut off from the organisations of the catch-all parties, and reduced to voting customers, could backfire on the parties A party, argues Kirchheimer, cannot be any more rational than the voters. The voters were once subject to some sort of discipline, provided by the parties of mass integration Now that this discipline is no longer at hand, the catch-all parties may be transformed into too blunt an instrument to provide a link between government and the people What he means is that, in return for involving, protecting and integrating ordinary people in the political process, the mass integration parties could count on their loyal support If they stop involving, protecting and integrating people, the support from their traditional supporters may not be as reliable as the catch-all parties may think

“Then”,… …concludes Kirchheimer,: "we may yet come to regret the passing -- even if it was inevitable -- of the class-mass party and the denominational party, as we already regret the passing of other features in yesterday's stage of Western civilisation"

Leon D. Epstein… …in his book “Political Parties in Western Democracies" (1967) came to the same conclusion as Kirchheimer – but Epstein saw this as positive Epstein argued that it was no longer rational for parties to provide citizens with political participation and large numbers of influential rank-and-file members Members could get in the way of rational adjustments of the parties' policies, and the free and unconstrained competition against other parties Hence, to stay competitive in the electoral market, parties had to drop internal membership democracy and activist based campaigning This he called “contagion from the right”, meaning that the non-socialist type of party organisation would prevail

Maurice Duverger… …some 15 years earlier, had predicted precisely the opposite. H argued that parties need active members to be competitive But Epstein disagreed. Parties cannot afford to have influential members and activists The growth of the media, the development of opinion polls and the general technological development meant that it was cumbersome and risky to fight election campaigns based on a large membership organisation. Members are unpredictable, and inefficient recuiters of votes

Thus, Epstein and Kirchheimer reached a similar conclusion There are, however, two main differences: First: Kirchheimer does not speak of a contagion. The catch-all party is a new type of party which all the existing parties have to relate to Second: Epstein is positive to the development, while Kirchheimer deplores it