Unit 2: The Evolution of Political Parties

1. Unit 2: The Evolution of Political Parties Readings: Reserves: Aldrich, LaPalombara and Weiner, Neumann, Duverger, Kirchheimer, Epstein, Pizzorno.

2. Guiding Questions • 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?

3. Why 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.

4. Why Do We Care? • 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.

5. The Emergence of Political Parties: Cadre Parties (Pre 1890) • 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.

6. The Emergence of Political Parties: Cadre Parties (Pre 1890) • 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 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.

7. The Emergence of the Mass Party:Cadre Parties (Pre 1890) • 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.

8. 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.

9. The Emergence of the Mass Party:Cadre Party Challenged • 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.

10. The Emergence of Political Parties: Mass Parties (1890- approx. 1945) • 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.

11. The Emergence of the Political Parties: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. • Push for large membership rolls on both sides of the political debate begins the era of mass parties.

12. Cadre vs. Mass 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. CADRE PARTIES MASS PARTIES

13. 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.

14. A Hybrid? Devotee Parties • 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

15. A Hybrid? Devotee 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)

16. The Emergence of Political Parties:Catch All Parties (1945 to approx 1970) • 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.

17. The Emergence of Political Parties: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

18. The Emergence of Political Parties: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.

19. Consequences of Catch All? • 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. KIRCHHEIMER 1966 EPSTEIN 1967

20. The Emergence of Political Parties: Electoral-Professional Parties • 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. PANEBIANCO 1988 MASS BUREAUCRATIC PANEBIANCO 1988 ELECTORAL PROFESSIONAL

21. Consequences of Catch All?Policy Convergence • 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.

22. 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.

23. Conclusions: Prelude to Cartel 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.

24. Next Unit • Game: Primitive Politics • Theme: Parties and Membership • Readings: • Ware CH 2 and D/W Ch 5