CHAPTER 12 Political parties Richard S. Katz Chapter contents Introduction 208 Definitions of party 208 Origins of parties 209 The functions of parties 210 Models of party organization 212 [Parties and the stabilization of democracy 220 Conclusion 221 Reader's guide Political parties are among the central institutions of modern democracy- But what is a political party? Why are parties central to democracy, and how are they organized? This chapter considers the definition, origins, and functions of parties. What role do parties play in the working of democracy? And what benefits do parties provide for those who organize them? The chapter then considers the ways in which parties are organized, regulated, and financed. It concludes with brief discussions of the role of parties in the stabilization of democracy in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, and of challenges confronting parties in the new millennium. 208 RICHARDS. KATZ CHAPTER 12 POLITICAL PARTIES 209 Introduction Organizations identified as 'political parties' are among the central actors in politics. Whether or not in power as the result of victory in free and fair elections, the governments of most countries have effectively been in the hands of party leaders: Winston Churchill as leader of the British Conservative Party; Indira Gandhi as leader of the Indian National Congress; Adolf Hitler as the leader of the German Nazi Party; Mikhail Gorbachev as leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; Ahmed Sckou Toure as leader of the Parti Democratique de Guinec-Rassemblement Democratique Africain. When governments were not in the hands of party leaders, most often because party government was interrupted by a military takeover, the resulting juntas {see Chapter 6) usually announced that their rule would be only temporary—until a regime of legitimate or honest or effective parties can be restored. And if, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, there are occasional suggestions that social movements and governance networks might supplant parties as the leading institutions channelling political participation and structuring government, experience to date offers little reason to suspect (or hope) that this will happen any time soon. KEY POINTS Political parties are the central actors in democratic politics, as welt as in many authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. * It is unlikely that social movements or governance networks will replace the parties' many roles. Definitions of party Given their ubiquity, one might think that the definition of political party would be straightforward, but quite the reverse is true. Parties like the American Democrats, the Italian Fascists, or the Kenyan African National Union (KANU)—not to mention the myriad smaller parties like the Polish Beer Lovers or the British Official Monster Raving Loony Party—are so different in motivation, organization, behaviour, and relevance as to raise the question of whether a single umbrella category can encompass them all. Indeed, there are many scholars who would argue that some of these 'parties' should not be included. Although it is only one among many possible definitions of party (see Box 12.1 for more examples), it is instructive to unpack Huckshorn's (1984:10) definition—'a political party is an autonomous group of citizens having the purpose of making nominations and contesting elections in the hope of gaining control over governmental power through the capture of public offices and the or ganization of the government'—in order to highlight uvl issues involved. Huckshorn explicitly combines four ele-l ments common to many definitions, and implicitly adds another. The first explicit element concerns the objective ofpar. ' ties: 'gaining control over governmental power through the capture of public offices and the organization of the govern- I ment! However, there has been considerable disagreement concerning the underlying motivation for this pursuit of ! power. For some (Lasswell 1960), the pursuit of power r< fleets psychopathology; others (Downs 1957; Schumpeter I 1962; Schlesinger 1991) emphasize the pursuit of office essentially as an employment opportunity. From a mote I public-regarding perspective, one finds h'dmund Burke's I (1770) classic definition, as quoted in Box 12.1. The second explicit element concerns methods: 'making nominations and contesting elections ... and the organization of the government: This points to two separable arenas in which parties operate: the electoral and the governmental. As will be noted in the section on the Origins of Party, one significant question is: whicw came first? The third explicit element of Huckshorn's definition is competition, expressed in the 'contesting' of elections I and the 'hope [as opposed to the certainty] of gaining] control! But does the contesting of elections require free and fair competition among independent competitors I or merely that the form of elections is observed? This is I related to the fourth element, that the group of citizens be autonomous. At the extreme, these criteria appear to disqualify the parties of 'one-party' states, although I on the other side these parties may claim to be facing | real, if clandestine and illegal, opposition from 'counter- I revolutionary forces! Moreover, these parties' strueB tures may also play a significant role in the organizatioa I and control of the government, mate conventionally I understood. The implicit element of Huckshorn's definition is thai I the group of citizens has some level of coherence that at-J lows them to coordinate their actions and to maintain ao| identity over time. While this does not require a formal organization, it certainly is facilitated by one, so that both I some minimal level of organization and some minimal! level of unity have become part of the definition of party. I While these issues are important for political science, I they arc also important in law, because organizational that are legally recognized as parties are frequently ac-| corded special privileges (such as public subventions)! and obligations (such as enhanced requirements &»■ transparency). One particularly vexing question is * I happens if a recognized party falls below the thresho ■ for initial recognition: does it retain its privileged staWJ anyway, lose its special status but remain in existed as a non-party political organization, or altogether? ^ BOX 12-1 definition Definition of party 'fifcvld~Hurne (1741) Factions may be divided into personal and real; that is, into factions, founded on personal friendship or animosity among such as compose the contending parties, and into those founded on some real difference of sentiment or interest... though ... parties are seldom found pure and unmixed, either of one kind or the other. Edmund Burke (1770) [A] party is a body of men united, for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which thev are all agreed. Walter Bagehot (1889) the moment, indeed, that we distinctly conceive that the House of Commons is mainly and above all things an elective assembly, we at once perceive that party is of its essence: there never was an election without a party. Max Weber (1922) '[Parties' live in a house of'power! Their action is oriented toward the acquisition of social power: that is to say toward influencing communal action no matter what its content may be. Robert Michels (1911) The modern party is a fighting organization in the political sense of the term, and must as such conform to the laws of tactics. Joseph Schumpeter (1950) A party is not... a group of men who intend to promote the public welfare 'upon some particular principle on which they are all agreed! A party is a group whose members propose to act in concert in the competitive struggle for political power. Anthony Downs (1957) ' In the broadest sense, a political party is a coalition of men seeking to control the governing apparatus by legal means. By coalition, we mean a group of individuals who have certain ends in common and cooperate with each other to achieve them. By governing apparatus, we mean the physical, legal, and institutional equipment which the government uses to carry out its specialized role in the division of labor. By legal means, we mean either duly constituted or legitimate influence. v.o. Key Jr (1964)- -.A political parry, at least on the American scene, lends to be a 'group' of a peculiar sort.... Within the body of voters as a whole, groups are formed of persons who regard themselves as party members.... In another sense the term 'party' may refer to the group of more or less professional workers.... At times party denotes groups within the government.... Often it refers to an entity which rolls into one the party-in-the-electorate, the professional political group, the party-in-the-legislature, and the party-in-the-government. William Nisbet Chambers (1967) [A] political party in the modern sense may be thought of as a relatively durable social formation which seeks offices or power in government, exhibits a structure or organization which links leaders at the centers of government to a significant popular following: ifi the political arena and its local enclaves, and generates in-group perspectives or atleastsymbols of identification or loyalty, Joseph Schlesinger (1991) A political party is a group organized to gain control of government in the name of the group by winning election to public office. John Aldrich (1995) Political parties can be seen as coalitions of elites to capture and use political office. [But] a political party is more than a coalition. A political party is an institutionalized coalition, one that has adopted rules, norms, and procedures. Elections Canada Act (PJolilicalparty means an organization one of whose fundamental purposes is to participate in public affairs by endorsing one or more of its members as candidates and supporting their election. [Registered party means a political party that is registered in the registry of political parties referred to in section 394 as a registered party. KEY POINTS • Parties arc u -.uttous in modern political systems. • The definition of 'party' is contentious because it speci-^P*5 which cases provide appropriate evidence for con-^B^'ngor discontinuing empirical theories—and which cases deserve special legal privileges and obligations. Definitions centring on the objectives and methods of ; a Party, and emphasizing their role m political competi-^K°n' re^ect viilue-laden assumptions about the proper I ""zoning of politics. Origins of parties The origins of modern parties lie first in the representative assemblies of the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, and second in the efforts of those who were excluded from those assemblies to gain a voice in them. In both cases, parties arose in response to the fact that coordinated action is likely to be more effective than action taken by isolated individuals, even if they are in perfect agreement. RICHARD S. KATZ CHAPTER 12 POLITICAL PARTIES The earlier parties were parties of intra-parliamentary origin, evident, for example, in the British parliament in the seventeenth century—and even then the novelty was not the existence of factions but rather acceptance of the ideas that disagreement was not synonymous with disloyalty and that organization was not synonymous with conspiracy. Over time, these parties developed recognizable leadership cadres and became active in electoral campaigns. Their most significant contribution to the development of modern politics, as well as the greatest reinforcement of their own strength, was to wrest control of the executive from the hands of the monarch and replace that control with responsibility to parliament, which ultimately meant that ministers would in fact be chosen by, and be responsible to, the parties (and especially their leaders) that controlled a majority of the parliamentary seats. The rise of parliamentary government was far from equivalent to democratization, because well into the nineteenth century, and generally into the twentieth, the right to participate in political life, including the right to vote, was highly constrained by a variety of economic, religious, and gender restrictions. The need to mobilize and organize large numbers of those excluded from legitimate participation to support leaders advocating for reforms—including the extension of political rights—gave rise to development of parties of extra-parliamentary origin. The ultimate success of these parties in inducing the parties of the regimes censitaires to broaden the suffrage was instrumental in converting the liberal regimes of the nineteenth century into the liberal democracies of the twenty-first century. Indeed, as Schattschneider (1942: 1) famously remarked, 'the political parties created democracy, and modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of the parties! The distinction between parties of intra- and extra-parliamentary origin (Duverger 1954) is not only a matter of timing, with parties of internal origin generally coming earlier. Especially at their origins, they often differ substantially in their organizations as well, and these 'genetic' differences tend to persist for many decades after parties of external origin win parliamentary representation, or parties of internal origin build membership organizations 'on the ground' (see Panebianco 1988). Parties of internal and external origin have also tended to differ with respect to their social bases, with those originating in parliament representing the 'establishment' of the upper and upper middle classes (or earlier, the nobility and gentry, and more recently, particularly in 'pacted' transitions to democracy in the former Soviet bloc, the clientele of the old regime), while those of external origin represent the middle, lower middle, and working classes, sometimes the adherents of dissenting religions, speakers of marginalized languages, opponents of the old regime, etc. In the late twentieth century, a new type of ext^B nally originating party has appeared in a number q9 countries—most notably and successfully in Italy [ 1 these cases, a rich entrepreneur used his wealth in ef I feet to create (or 'buy') a party in much the same wa 1 as he might create a chain of retail stores (Hopkin and I Paofucci 1999). Although created outside parliament these parties tend to look more like older parties of in' ternal origin, both in their balance of power betwee the central party organization (dominated by the en I trepreneur through party officials who arc in reality his employees) and ordinary members (if any), and in their conservative, or at least pro-business, policy profile. In , particular, they are created to be 'cheerleaders' for an I already established leader, who has little interest in or need for input of ideas or resources from below. Like the earlier parties of internal origin, and unlike most leader-centred parties of external origin, they depend on the material resources that the leader can mobilize, rather than on his/her personal charisma. Even more recently, there have been attempts to create 'virtual parties' through the internet, with discussion groups and c-mail lists replacing party meetings. KEY POINTS Some parties originated within parliaments, while others originated outside parliaments with the objective of getting in. ■ The subsequent power relations of a party generally favour leaders whose positions in public office, or in an jl external party organization, are analogous to the positions of the leaders who originally built the party. The functions of parties Political parties perform a number of functions (see Box 12.2) that are central to the operation of modern democracies, Indeed, as already observed, parties are often defined at least in part by the performance of these functions. It should be recognized, however, that these are not the only things that parties do (for example, parties may serve as social outlets for their members), nor do aD I parties effectively perform (or even attempt to perform) all of these functions. and Coordination Historically, the first function of political parties, still one of the most important, is that of coordination I within government, within society, and between government and society at large. Particularly, the function offl connecting society and the state is frequently identified I as 'linkage! ^ BOX 12.2 zoom » n Functions of parties Maintaining discipline and communication within the parliamentary caucus. Coordinating action of the parliamentary caucus in support of, or opposition to, the cabinet. Organizing the political activity of like-minded citizens. Patterning linkage between representatives in public office and organized supporters among the citizenry. Conducting electoral campaigns and structuring competition Providing candidates, and linking individual candidates to recognizable symbols, histories, and expectations of team-like behaviour. Developing policy programmes. Recruiting and coordinating campaign workers. Selection and recruitment of personnel Selection of candidates for elections. Recruitment and/or selection of candidates for appointed office. Recruitment and socialization of political activists and potential officeholders. Representation Speaking for their members and supporters within or in front of government agencies. Being the organizational embodiment in the political sphere of demographically or ideologically defined categories of citizens. Coordination within government Coordination within government (the 'party in public office') takes place in many venues. Most obviously, the coordination function is manifested in party caucuses (or groups, clubs, or Fraktionen) in parliaments, with their leaders, whips (party officials in charge of maintaining discipline and communication within the party's parliamentary membership, and 'newsletters' informing members of the expectations of their leaders), policy committees, etc. Parliamentary party groups also structure the selection of committee members and the organization of the parliamentary agenda. Whether in a system of formal separation of powers, like the US, or more pure parliamentary government, like New Zealand, parlies provide the bridge between the legislative and executive branches. They also structure coordination between different levels (national, regional, etc.) of government. To the extent that parties perform this function comprehensively and effectively, it becomes reasonable to regard parties, rather than the individual politicians who hold office in their name, as central political actors. Coordinat;on within society Political parties are among the institutions (along with interest groups, NGOs, and the like) that organize and channel the political activity of citizens. Even in the absence of a formally organized 'party on the ground^ party names and histories serve as points of reference and identification for citizens. Where there are more formal organizations, these provide venues for political ^ucation, discussion, and the coordination of collective action, Coordination between government and society Parties also link the party on the ground as a group of active citizens supporting a particular political tendency and the party in public office as a group of officials claiming to represent the same tendency. Within party organizations, this function is often performed by a party central office. Whether this linkage takes, or is supposed to take, the form of control over the party in public office on behalf of the party on the ground, or direction of the party on the ground as an organization of supporters of the party in public office, varies among parties, as indeed does the effectiveness of the linkage whichever way it runs, and the level of coordination and discipline within either the party on the ground or the party in public office. Contesting elections A second major defining function of political parties is the conduct of electoral campaigns, and of political competition more generally. Parties provide most of the candidates in elections, and an even larger share of those who are elected. In many political systems, parties are the formal contestants of elections—the ballot clearly identifies parties as the things among which the citizen is asked to choose—but even when the object of choice formally is individual candidates, the most relevant characteristic of those candidates is usually their political party affiliation. Ordinarily (the US, in which the organization and funding of campaigns is based primarily on individual candidates, being a notable exception), most of the funds required for a political campaign are raised and spent by parties, whether nationally or at the constituency 212 RICHARD S. KATZ level, and campaign workers arc recruited and directed by parties. The policy positions advocated in a campaign are generally those that were formulated and agreed to within parties. Between elections as well, parties generally act as the primary protagonists in political debates. Recruitment A third major function of parties is the recruitment and selection of personnel, with the balance between recruitment (finding someone willing to do the job) and selection (choosing among multiple aspirants) depending both on the party and the nature of the position to be filled. The selection function is most significant with regard to candidacies for important offices and within parties whose candidates have a high probability of success. For minor offices (especially those that are unpaid), hopeless constituencies, or positions at the bottom of a party list of candidates, the primary function often is recruitment—avoiding the embarrassment of not being able to fill the position (Sundberg 1987). Taken together, these three functions of coordination (especially within the party in public office), conducting electoral campaigns (especially the formulation and presentation of policy programmes, platforms, or manifestoes), and recruitment of candidates for both elective and appointive office, to the extent that they are performed in a coordinated way, and to the extent that party elected officials effectively control the state, make the parties the effective governors, and give rise to the idea of 'democratic party government' (Rose 1976; Castles and Wildenmann 1986). Of course, not all democratic governments are democratic in this way. In the US, for example, the coherence of parties is much lower than in most other democracies, making individual politicians rather than their parties the real governors. In Switzerland, the referendum makes the citizens, and the variety of groups (including but by no means limited to parties) that can organize petitions demanding a referendum, the ultimate deciders of individual questions at the expense of party government.1 Representation Finally, parties perform a variety of functions that may be classified as representation. First, parties speak and act for their supporters, in electoral campaigns, in the corridors of power, and in the media and other public fora of discussion. Parties serve as agents of the people, doing things that the people do not have the time, the training and ability, or the inclination to do for themselves. Parties also represent citizens in the sense of being the organizational embodiment in the political sphere of categories of citizens, as with a labour party, a Catholic party, the party of a language group or region, or even possibly a women's party.2 Parties may, by analogy, represent the organizational embodiment of ideologies. In another common categorization of the functions of parties (Almond and Powell 1967: 14-15), these are groups as interest articulation (the expression of fej mands), interest aggregation (the formulation of policy packages and the construction of coalitions), and rulemaking and application (actually governing). KEY POINTS Political parties play a central role in coordinating among public officials, among citizens with common political preferences, and between citizens and officials. Political parties are generally the central participants in elections, responsible for both the candidates and the issues among which voters will choose. Political parties are central participants in the recruitment of political personnel, both for elective and appointive office. « Political parties serve as representatives of both social groupings and ideological positions. Models of party organization Types of party Models of parties are summarized in Table 12.1. Cadre or elite parties The earliest 'modern parties were the cadre (or elite or j caucus) parties that developed in Furopean parliaments. Because, particularly in an era of highly restricted suffrage, each of the MPs who made up these parties gen- i erally owed his election to the mobilization of his own personal clientele or the clientele of his patron, there was little need for a party on the ground, and certainly | not one organized beyond the boundaries of individual constituencies. Hence, there was also no need for a party j central office. Within parliament, however, the advantages of working in concert both to pursue policy objectives and to secure access to ministerial office led W I the evolution of parliamentary party organizations, frequently cemented by the exchange of patronage. As electorates expanded, elite parties in some I places developed more elaborate local organizations^ J most famously the 'Birmingham caucus' of Joseph | Chamberlain—and some greater coordination {fo'm quently taking the form of centrally prepared 'talking points' and centrally organized campaign tours by na*J tionally known personalities) by a central office, but I CHAPTER 12 POLITICAL PARTIES 213 : .Si ; pai c B ■3 party Eo pres ion oft 1 Š Evolut S3 0 0\ Q. r "3 c heart of the organization remained the indivii dual MP £• E S 6 E S i 1 I-a a* I II Ei3 Is Z- i on B E 5 Qß tj -2 2 • f 1 gl i> « o ■S* B M ■Ě. -Q T3 R a. c "5 9 X 9 S II u 5. E -a Í 3 •2 k c tu S £ K I I Í s i II £ ff SO o 11 O iE .53 — »o overt connection to a campaign). These regulations CHAPTER 12 POLITICAL PARTIES take three general forms: bans on particular forms of spending, limitations on total spending, and required disclosure of spending. Aside from bans on such obviously corrupt practices as vote buying or bribery, the most significant prohibition (or limitation) of a specific form of expenditure concerns the buying of advertising time in the broadcast media. Limitations on total spending are generally based on the size of the electorate and the type of office involved. Expenditure reports are frequently required, and provide some element of transparency, but differ widely among countries with regard to the categories of expenditure that are reported, the degree of detail (e.g. specific recipients or only category totals), the frequency and currency of reports, and the degree to which reports are audited or otherwise subject to independent verification. Beyond these questions of reporting, all forms of regulation of party spending confront a number of interrelated problems concerning exactly whose spending is to be controlled. Is it parties as organizations, or candidates as individuals, or everyone, including those without formal ties to either candidates or party organizations? To exclude parties (or to include national party organizations but not their local affiliates) is likely to make regulation nugatory, but to include them requires a level of official recognition that until recently was rare in countries with single-member district electoral systems. To include everyone may be seen as an unacceptable limitation on the political speech rights of citizens, but to include only formal party organizations and their candidates risks the explosion of spending by organizations that are effectively the party in another guise, but now unregulated or less regulated. Once party and campaign spending are equated, a further problem becomes the definition of the campaign. This involves two questions. First, when does the campaign begin? If the regulated campaign period is too short, its regulation may be of little consequence. Japan, for example, has a very short formal campaign period during which virtually everything is prohibited, but it is preceded by a real campaign subject to very little regulation. Second, what activity is campaign activity? As with the question of regulating non-party spending, an excessively broad definition of campaigning may subject all political speech to burdensome regulation, but an excessively narrow definition, such as the American 'magic words' doctrine (only messages containing words or phrases like 'vote fori 'elect; 'Smith for Congress; 'vote against! and 'defeat; and referring to a specific candidate, count as campaigning) may defeat the purpose of the regulations. Regulation of fundraising Contribution limits are designed to prevent wealthy individuals or groups from exercising undue influence 219 220 RICHARD S. KAT Z CHAPTER 12 POLITICAL PARTIES 221 over parties (although, of course, the meaning of 'undue' is often in the eye of the beholder). In various places, foreigners, corporations {sometimes only public corporations or only firms in heavily regulated industries; in other cases all businesses), or trade unions are barred from making, and parties from accepting, political contributions. Anonymous contributions are also generally barred, perhaps from fear that the anonymity will be in name only Regardless of who is allowed to make contributions, there may also be limits on the size of contributions from an individual donor to an individual recipient, in aggregate, or both. However, both kinds of limits are relatively easy to evade: rather than making a corporate contribution, a corporation can 'bundle' (collect centrally and then deliver together) what appear to be individual donations from its officers or employees; an individual can give many times the individual legal limit by 'arranging' to have donations made in the name of his/her spouse, children, and other close relatives. Moreover, the definition of'contribution' itself is problematic. Money is obvious, but should in-kind contributions be included (and how should they be valued)? What about the donation of services? And perhaps most vexing of all, if a person or group independently advocates the election of a party or candidate (what in the US are called 'independent expenditures'), does that count as a contribution subject to limitation, or free speech that must be protected? Finally, whether or not contributions are restricted, their subversive (of democracy) effect may be limited by requirements of public disclosure. Public subventions A growing number of countries provide support for parties through their tax systems, through the direct provision of goods and services, or through direct financial subventions. In some cases, these supports are specifically tied to election campaigns (or, alternatively, limited to non-campaign-related research institutes) while in others they are unrestricted grants for general party activities (see Chapter 7). The earliest and most common public subventions are the provision of staff to parliamentary parties or their members, ostensibly to support their official functions but often convertible to more general political purposes. Particularly in countries in which broadcasting is a public monopoly, parties are generally given an allocation of free air time; other examples of free provision of services include the mailing of candidates' election addresses (e.g. UK), free space for billboards (e.g. Spain, Israel, and Germany), free use of halls in public buildings for rallies (e.g. UK, Spain, Japan), and reduced rates for office space (e.g. Italy). Although these raise some problems, the more contentious question is the direct provision of money, which is nonetheless becoming nearly universal. questions (bj people idifc ' Pri- govern. Public support for parties raises two yond the somewhat specious question of whether should be compelled through their taxes to gn] causes with which they do not agree). First, is ttji mary effect of state subventions to allow parties form better their functions of policy formulation, j education, and linkage between society and the ment? Or is it to further the separation between and those they are supposed to represent by making par ties less dependent on voluntary support? Second do systems of public support (in which the levels of suppj are almost always tied to electoral support at the prevj ous election),7 as well as rules limiting individual contrj butions, further fairness and equality, or do they unfair] privilege those parties that already are dominant? KEY POINTS Party organizational types have evolved over time as suffrage was expanded and societies changed. * Rather than reaching an endpomt, organizations continue to evolve and new types continue to develop. ] Party membership, and involvement of citizens in party politics more generally, appears to be declining virtu- \ ally throughout the democratic world. * Parties are increasingly the subject of legal regulation which, while justified in the name of fairness, may also contribute to the entrenchment of the parties that currently are strong. Parties and the stabilization of democracy Parties were central to the transition from traditional monarchy to liberal democracy in the first wave of de-mocratization, but they have also been central actors in I the third wave (see Chapter 5). In the older democracies, I where the liberal rights of contestation were established before suffrage was expanded to the majority of citizens, parties helped to integrate newly enfranchised citizens into the established patterns of competition. While enfranchisement generally led to the rapid growth of parties (most often socialist) appealing specifically to the new voters, even what are now identified as 'bourgeois parties' found it in their interest to appeal to the new voters—for example, as citizens, or Christians, or mem* J bers of a peripheral culture rather than as workers. 1 In immigrant societies, such as the US, Canada, Australia, or those in South America, the parties also caOrM tributed to the integration of arrivals into their new country. The degree to which parties (and other institutions}! could perform this function successfully was strongly i" I fluenced by the magnitude of the load placed upon theffl j e rapidity of suffrage expansion. Where the franchise ^ broadened in several steps spaced over decades, as in aTuK the existi|1B Parties were generally able to adapt, th the result that would-be demagogues or revolution-n found a very limited market. When franchise ex- s more abrupt, as in France in 1848 or Italy in twin dangers that masses of new voters would mobilized by radicals, and that this possibility would pansion * 1913,the Ije erceived by others to be a threat requiring drastic measures, often led to the collapse of democracy. This function of integration and stabilization is also otentially important in the new democracies of the late twentieth century. Particularly in the formerly com-munist bloc (but not only there), the process of democratization has differed from that in the earlier waves in that political mobilization of the citizenry preceded the development of public contestation (Enyedi 2006: 228). Moreover, the levels of literacy, general education, ac- cess to mass media, and international involvement far exceed those of earlier waves. Coupled with this has been a deep distrust of the whole idea of political parties, rooted in the unhappy experience of the communist party state. Among the results have been extremely low rates of party membership (giving rise to the idea of a 'couch party'—one whose membership is so small that they could all sit on a single couch) and quite high electoral volatility. Not only has the attachment of voters to particular parties been problematic, so too has the attachment of elected politicians, with parliamentary party groups showing such low levels of stability that in some cases parliamentary rules have been changed specifically to discourage party splits or defections. A second major area in which the role of parties in stabilizing democracy is in doubt is the Islamic world, where the question is whether the electoral success of Islamist parties helps to integrate their followers into democratic politics, or, alternatively, threatens to undermine democracy altogether (Tepe 2006). The underlying conflict of values—the will of God as articulated by clerics versus the will of the people as articulated at the ballot box—is hardly unique to the Islamic world (and indeed was important throughout the nineteenth century in Europe), but now appears particularly pressing there. KEY POINTS * Parties have played, and continue to play, a vital role I m stabilizing democracy by integrating new citizens (whether new because they have come of age, immigrated, or benefitted from expansion of the rights of citizenship) into the existing political system. * Whether the electoral success of anti-democratic partes helps to moderate them and to integrate their followers into democracy, or instead serves to undermine democracy, is an unresolved but pressing issue. Conclusion Political parties remain central to democratic government in the twenty-first century. Nonetheless, parties face a number of potentially serious challenges. Party membership is declining almost everywhere (Biezen et at. 2012). One result has been to force parties to become more dependent on financial contributions and other forms of support from corporations and organizations of special interests, and more recently to feed at the public trough' through direct public subventions. This decline in party involvement has not been limited to formal members, but is also reflected in declining party identification, and perhaps most significantly in the growth of hostility not just to the particular parties in a given country at a given time, but to the whole idea of parties and of partisanship. The growing popularity of such ideas as 'consensus democracy' (Lijphart 1999) and 'deliberative democracy' (e.g. Guttmann and Thompson 2004; Budge 2000), like the complaint of former President Carter that the 2004 US presidential election campaign was 'too partisan', arc reflective of a desire for amicable agreement that denies the existence of real conflicts of interest. But if one accepts Finer's (1970: 8) definition of politics as what happens when 'a given set of persons ... require a common policy; and ,.. its members advocate, for this common status, policies that are mutually exclusive', this is in effect to want to take the politics out of democracy. Although rarely put overtly in these terms, the alternative to contentious and partisan politics is generally some form of government by experts or technocrats. Often these 'reforms' have been enacted by parties themselves as a way of avoiding responsibility for unpopular but unavoidable decisions or for outcomes that are beyond their control. Even when the parties remain centrally involved in policy, increasingly their role (and the basis upon which they compete) is defined in terms of management rather than direction. However, by reducing the policy stakes of elections, parties have also decreased the incentives for citizens to become active in them (Katz 2003) and given ammunition to those who ask why the state should provide subsidies and other special privileges (Mairl995). The role of parties as representatives of the people, or as links between the people and the state, has also been challenged by the increasing range of organizations that compete with them as 'articulators -of interest! Rather than being forced to choose among a limited number of packages of policy stances across a range of issues— some of which may be of little interest, and others which he/she may actually oppose—the modern citizen can mix and match among any number of groups, each of which will reflect his/her preferences more accurately on a single issue than any party could hope to do. With 222 RICHARD S. KATZ improved communications skills, and especially with the rise of the internet, citizens may feel less need for intermediaries—they can communicate directly with those in power themselves. Many parties have themselves tried to adapt to more sophisticated electorates and new technologies, giving rise to the possibility of 'cyber parties' (Margetts 2006; see also Chapter 19). In its initial stages, this may be little more than the use of mass e-mailings to 'members' (now of mailing lists rather than of real organizations) and the use of the mechanisms of ocommerce to facilitate fund-raising from individuals. In a more developed form, it is likely to include chat-rooms, discussion list-servers, and extensive fundraising facilities. In theory, the technology might allow what would amount to a party meeting that is always in session. To date, however, there has been more evidence of people at the grass roots using the internet to send messages to those in positions of authority rather than evidence of those in authority actually listening. And as with the party congresses of the last century, even if the internet (or simply the regular Questions Knowledge based 1. What is the 'iron law of oligarchy'? 2. How do cartel parties differ from catch-all parties? 3. What is the meaning of'left' in political terms? 4. Do political parties play the same role in new democracies as in the established democracies? 5. Must a democratic political party be internally democratic? Further reading Katz, R. S. and Crotty, W. (eds) (2006) Handbook of Party Politics (London: Sage). Extensive discussions of many of the topics raised. Katz, R. S. and Mair, P. (1992) Party Organizations: A Data Handbook on Party Organizations in Western Democracies, 1960-90 (London: Sage). Extensive, but somewhat dated, data concerning party organizations. Classics on political parties Duverger, M. (1954) Political Parties (New York: John Wiley). mail) is used to allow party members or supporters to make decisions, real power will continue to rest with those who frame the questions. It remains unlikely that the internet will somehow lead, to the repeal of the iron law of oligarchy. Overall, then, there are two challenges facing parties at the beginning of the twenty-first century. One is the increasing complexity of problems, the increasing speed of social and economic developments, and increasing globalization—all making the problems facing parties as governors less tractable. The other is the increasing political capacity of citizens (cognitive mobilization) running into the ineluctable limitations of individual influence in societies of the size of modern states—expectations of effective individual involvement, even if restricted to the minority who are politically interested, are often unrealistic. Both challenge widely held views of how democratic party government should work. I low parties adapt to these changing circumstances, whether by redefining their roles or by altering public expectations, will shape the future of democracy. T Critical thinking 1. Is a group that nominates candidates in order to put pressure on other parties, but with no real hope of winning an I election itself, properly called a political party? 2. Is 'political party' better understood as a category, into which each case either does or does not fit, or as an ideal type, which each case can more or less closely approximate? 3. Is democracy conceivable without political parties? 4. Does the US have 'real' political parties? 5. Is the regulation of political parties' finance compatible with I political freedom? Hershey, M. R. (2006) Party Politics in America (12th edn) (New York: Longman). LaPalombara. |. and Werner, M. (eds) (1966) Political Parties at Political Development (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press). Panebianco, A. (1988) Political Parties: Organization and Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Sartori, C. (1976) Parties and Party Systems: A Frameworkfor j Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). ual reports (from 1991) on party politics in most established r .-i-ip"; are available in the Political Data Yearbook, (jerrwerat-'" - ... as the last issue each year of the European Journal of oublisneu £ Web links date election results and other information on and the main institutions. ^.electionworld.org Website mcL ■: : information on political parties around the world with up the party systr www.gksoft.co: ■ ,/govt/en/parties.htm] Webpage of Govei n ment on the WWW devoted to political parties and party systems around the world. The main page includes additional information on heads of state, parliaments executives, courts, and other institutions. CHAPTER 12 POLITICAL PARTIES Political Research. In addition, the European journal of Political Research, West European Politics, and Party Politics focus heavily on issues concerning political parties. http://www.pdba.georgetown.edu/ Website of the Political Database of the Americas including information on parties and party systems. http://www.idea.int Website of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA). http://www.partylaw.leidenuniv.nl/ Website of the Party Law in Modern Europe project. 223 For additional material and resources, please visit the Online Resource Centre at: online http://WWW.Oxfordtextbooks.CO.uk/orC/caramani4e/ Endnotes 1 The importance of the referendum is one of the factors underlying the Swiss practice of entrusting executive power to an ^Hvently permanent coalition of all the major parties. As Lehner and Homann (1^87) explain, given the threat that any parliamentary decision can be overturned by referendum, the ruling parties are at pains to assemble overwhelming majorities in the hope ot deterring any referendum in the first place (see also Chapter 10). 2 To date, the only women's party that has had any lasting j success was the Icelandic Kvinnalistinn (Women's List), which existed from 1983 to 1999, and at the height of its success (1987) j won more than 10 per cent of the national vote, and six of sixty-I three seats in parliament. In 1999. the Women's List merged Hb a more general left-wing alliance. 3 The term 'genetic myth' is used here in the same sense that the term 'stylized' is often used in rational choice theory to suggest the essence of j story without claiming that it fits the details ofany parties. . ,St, Or with different terms, but equivalent meaning, they might de-the interest of their particular class to be the national interest. 5 There is no inherent reason why a cadre party must be on the right, but as history developed they were generally parlies of the propertied classes, who were the only ones who could vote under the regimes censitaires. 6 It should be noted that these regulations apply only to federal parties, which are organizationally distinct from provincial parties, even when they apparently have the same name. For example, the Liberal Party of Quebec has not been affiliated with the Liberal Party tif Canada since 1955, and indeed when Jean Charest resigned the leadership of the federal Progressive Conservative Party in 1998, it was to become leader of the Quebec Liberal Party. 7 Exceptions include some schemes for media access (as well as the British free mailing of electoral addresses) that allocate resources equally among parties or candidates without regard to prior electoral success, schemes that base support at least in part on numbers of members rather than voters, and schemes of (partial) public matching of privately raised contributions.