Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Political parties, lecture 2 of 3 Lecture 1: –Definitions. Party systems Lecture 2: –Party models. Catch-all, cartel, etc. Lecture 3: –Party organisations.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Political parties, lecture 2 of 3 Lecture 1: –Definitions. Party systems Lecture 2: –Party models. Catch-all, cartel, etc. Lecture 3: –Party organisations."— Presentation transcript:

1 Political parties, lecture 2 of 3 Lecture 1: –Definitions. Party systems Lecture 2: –Party models. Catch-all, cartel, etc. Lecture 3: –Party organisations. Membership, internal democracy

2 Origins of parties: Internal origin: from inside parliaments. Groups of like-minded parliamentarians who started to co-operate, first loosely and informally, then more institutionalised Most conservative and liberal parties are of internal origin External origin: from outside parliaments. Popular movements begin to put up candidates in elections Socialist/labour and agrarian parties tend to be of external origin

3 External and internal parties… …developed different characteristics. These differences remained, even though… …external parties, with the extension of suffrage, got representatives elected… …and internal parties were forced to develop organisations outside parliament, in response to the growth of new parties

4 Mass versus cadre parties Cadre parties: –Of internal origin. Groups of notabilities. No formal membership. Basic organisational unit is the caucus, a meeting to nominate candidates. Number of members not as important as the quality of the members; prestige, technical skill, wealth. Financed by private donations. –Tended to be liberal or conservative Mass parties: –Of external origin. Based on their members. Basic organisational unit is the local branch. Financed by membership dues. Number of members crucial. –Tend to be socialist or social democratic

5 Mass and cadre parties… …have hardly ever existed in reality. They are ideal types, theoretical constructions, used as illustrative examples rather than depictions of reality The mass versus cadre parties dichotomy comes from the famous book Partis Politiques, by the French political scientist Maurice Duverger. First published in the early 1950s

6 Duvergers party models… …reflected a situation in the early post-war period. The parties he was talking about had had their hey-day in the inter-war period In fact, the mass versus cadre dichotomy was almost obsolete already when Duvergers book came out Enter the catch-all party

7 The catch-all thesis was presented… …by the German political scientist Otto Kirchheimer, in an article published in English in 1966 (in German a year earlier) English version published after his death (in November 1965) The concept soon caught on, and is still used frequently In German, Kirchheimer used the word Allerweltspartei

8 According to the catch-all thesis… …two main changes have taken place in political parties: 1.Organisational –Parties have become more elitist 2.Ideological –Ideological differences between parties have been reduced For the catch-all party, the top priority is vote maximising

9 After WWII… …the law of the political market took over Extension of the right to vote and defeat of authoritarian movements meant that political democracy was now firmly 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

10 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

11 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

12 Main characteristics of catch-all parties: Drastic reduction of ideological baggage 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

13 The catch-all thesis has been criticised Kirchheimers points of departure as well as his predictions for the future have been questioned Nevertheless, other writers (e.g. Leon D Epstein, 1967) presented quite similar arguments: Parties are increasingly focused on winning elections They care less about involving ordinary people in the political process… …and are less democratic internally

14 The catch-all thesis predicted… …the melting of all parties, irrespective of origin, into one form, the catch-all party However, other writers followed, who were open for the co-existence of two competing models, dichotomies (e.g. Duvergers mass v cadre parties) These dichotomies tended to consist of one mass democratic socialist type and one vote- seeking bourgeois type W.E. Wright (1971): Party democracy v Rational- efficient parties Angelo Panebianco (1988): Mass bureaucratic v Electoral-professional parties

15 But then, in the 1990s… A new, unitary, model was presented The Cartel Party, in an article by Richard Katz and Peter Mair, first published 1995 The cartel party thesis has not had the same impact in journalism or in the more general political debate, but has been very influential in the academic discourse about political parties

16 The Cartel Party is characterised by: interpenetration of party and state and collusion among parties Parties have: become part of the state colluded with each other become distanced from society

17 Crucial in this development… …are three factors: Parties have access to state patronage appointments, meaning they can share out the spoils among each other Parties are increasingly funded by public subsidies. Their existence depends on the state Parties can themselves manipulate electoral rules, and make it more difficult for newcomers to enter the party system

18 Thus… …the established parties are dependent on the state… …dependent on each other, as the share of patronage spoils reduces the impact of losing elections… …and at the same time they have distanced themselves from civil society

19 A cartel party is… capital intensive professional centralised relies on subsidies and other benefits provided by the state. Its membership can be quite large, and is not without influence, but it is split up into incoherent bits, unable to mount a joint challenge against the leadership Members mainly a legitimizing alibi for the leadership

20 The cartel thesis has been criticised The development has not gone equally far everywhere. Furthest in countries with high degree of party influence on state patronage appointments, and generous state subsidies, introduced early. E.g. Austria, Scandinavia The cartels are hardly very effective, with lots of challenger parties having emerged in the past 20-30 years The core characteristics of the cartel party (last slide) do not stand to scrutiny The alleged changes in the relationship between parties, the state and civil society have been criticised

21 In fact… Katz and Mair may have cooked quite a dense, tasty broth on the basis of a rather thin nail The one thing where they are clearly correct, is the growth of state subsidies, which will have long-term consequences for the development parties Other than that, their evidence is somewhat thin But there were similar problems with the catch- all model, as well as the mass v cadre models And the cartel party thesis raises many important questions about the development of parties and their relationship with society

Download ppt "Political parties, lecture 2 of 3 Lecture 1: –Definitions. Party systems Lecture 2: –Party models. Catch-all, cartel, etc. Lecture 3: –Party organisations."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google