Party government II party families

1. Party government II party families Reading: Hay and Menon CH 12

2. Announcements • Bale and Kitschelt are assigned for this week • We will discuss them in class during the unit on party system change • If you have time, skim them now • If not, skim them when we get to the discussion of party system change • Policy memos for unit one are due Monday

3. Guiding Questions • What is party government? • What are political parties? • How do we classify political parties? • What are the familles spirituelles referred to in studies of political parties?

4. Political Parties and Government • Political science suggests that political parties play a central role in promoting and maintaining democracy. • Schattschneider 1942 • “modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of political parties” • Muller and Strom 1999 • In a democracy, voters delegate policy-making authority to representatives via political parties.

5. What Is Party Government? • We can conceive of democracy as “party government” • Particularly the case in parliamentary systems • Confidence vote • Katz 1986; Katz 1987 • 1) Parties organize policy-making • Government decisions made by party leaders. • Government policy decided within political parties. • Parties act cohesively to enact policy. • 2) Parties serve as intermediaries between voters and government. • Elections seen as mechanisms to ensure party accountability. • 3) Parties recruit political leadership. • Most elected officials are affiliated with a party.

6. What Are Political Parties? • Ware 1996 • Political parties: • 1) seek influence in a state often by attempting to occupy positions in government • 2) usually consist of more than a single interest in society and to some degree attempt to ‘aggregate interests’

7. Political Parties vs. Interest Groups • Interest groups • 1) primarily interested in advancing a single interest or set of interests within a polity. • 2) organized outside of the state; seek to influence governments but generally. do not put forth candidates for office. • Both political parties and interest groups are involved in interest articulation (expressing citizen wants and needs). • Only political parties are interested in interest aggregation (combining citizen wants/needs to create coherent policy).

8. 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.

9. Classifying Parties: Familles Spirituelles • A party’s ideology bases strongly shapes their policy positions. • Regardless of whether or not parties view policy goals strategically or sincerely. • Party “type” is often linked to a party’s stated ideology. • von Beyme 1985 • Examines ideological roots of parties rather than position along the ideological spectrum. • Identifies party groups in order of their ideological emergence. • Identifies nine party families (familles spirituelles)in the European context. • Laver and Hunt 1992 • Measures ideology on two scales: stance on public ownership (left-right) and stance on social issues. • Allows for comparison within and across party families.

10. Liberal/Radical Parties • Developed in the late 19th century. • Formed by bourgeoisie to protect interests against landowners who controlled the state. • Wanted to remove state restrictions on means of production and promote a separation of state and society. • Often favored extension of the franchise (especially Radical parties). • Center-left on social issues (7.9), right on economics (15.3). • Electoral appeal: middle classes, business owners

11. Conservative Parties • Opposed extension of the franchise in response to Liberal/Radical parties. • Historically opposed to social change. • Focus on national honor; paternalistic view of society. • Right on economics (15.8), right on social policies (12.2). • New Right issues have changed some of these appeals particularly in terms of the market. • Many modern conservative parties take a very free market approach to the economy. • Electoral appeal: middle and upper classes.

12. Socialist/Social Democratic Parties • Formed as working classes organized. • Sought the extension of the franchise and public ownership of the means of production. • Modern variants accept the free market. • Seek a social safety net to protect those affected by globalization • Movement split after WW1 as communist parties formed. • Affirmed support for liberal democratic institutions following WWII. • Ideological placement: Economic 8.2, Social 6.3 • Electoral appeals: Working and lower middle classes

13. Christian Democratic Parties • Formed by Catholic groups in response to secularism. • Organized to compete against socialist parties. • Gained momentum after WWII. • Right of center on social issues (15.5), more centrist on economics (13.9) • Favors a more active role for government in the economy than conservative parties. • Shift towards the right in recent years on economic issues. • Electoral appeal: Catholic workers, middle classes

14. Communist Parties • Took direction from Moscow until the collapse of the USSR. • Collapse of the USSR has resulted in a change in name and ideology of many of these parties. • Favored public ownership (3.1) and permissive social policy (4.8). • But also accepted democratic institutions both during and after the Cold War. • Many have transformed into credible social democratic parties • Example: PDS in Germany, PCI in Italy • Other movements associated with the far left are shifting towards anti-capitalist appeals • Example: NPA in France • Electoral appeal: youth, unemployed, working classes.

15. Agrarian Parties • Small farming and peasant based parties formed in response to industrialization. • Mainly formed in Scandinavia and Eastern European countries. • Generally right of center on both economic and social issues, but usually absorbed by other parties of the right. • Changes in political orientation make it difficult to classify them as a group. • Electoral appeals: agricultural interests, middle classes.

16. Regional/Ethnic Parties • Represent regional or ethnic minority groups within societies. • Apresence since the 1960’s where movements are not absorbed by larger parties. • Many merge nationalism (generally associated with the right), with center left stances on economic and social policy. • Difficult to classify on the left-right spectrum. • Electoral appeals: nationalists.

17. Extreme Right Parties • Generally associated with anti-immigrant, extreme nationalist, anti-government and anti-tax philosophies. (Economic 18.5, Social 19) • Right of center on both social and economic policies. • Many have roots in fascism (authoritarian state to protect national ideals). • Although modern far right parties are generally not anti system parties (change from the interwar era); • Anti-Islamic appeals have boosted their vote totals in recent elections. • Stance typically means they are not invited to join coalitions. • Although this appears to be changing • Electoral appeals: working classes

18. Ecological/Green Parties • Newest party family. • Associated with post-materialist concerns (e.g. environment and quality of life issues). • Favor government intervention and international cooperation on ecological issues placing it on the left in terms of economic policy. • Center left on economic issues (8.0) and the most permissive on social issues (4.2). • Electoral appeals: youth, gay/lesbian voters, middle and upper middle classes

19. Party Family Positions Compared ECONOMIC POLICY SOCIAL POLICY • Greens 4.2 • Communists 4.8 • Socialists 6.3 • Liberals 7.9 • Conservatives 12.2 • Christian Dem 15.5 • Extreme Right 19.0 Communists 3.1 Greens 8.0 Socialists 8.2 Christian Dem 13.9 Liberals 15.3 Conservatives 15.8 Extreme Right 18.5

20. Applicability outside of Europe:The Strange Case of the United States? • Aspects of both parties make classification difficult. • Broad tent rather than explicitly ideological parties. • Generally classified as liberal parties although they emphasize different strands of liberalism. • The terms “conservative” and “liberal” have taken on a different meaning in the US context. • US Democrats slightly outside the mainstream of European center left parties on economic issues. • US Republicans outside the mainstream of European liberal parties on social issues.

21. Conclusions • Concept of party families works well for many systems, not so well in others. • Every system has a social democratic/socialist party. • Every system has EITHER a conservative or a Christian Democratic party. • No system has both. • Most systems have liberal and green party families represented. • Although their strength varies • Far right parties have been growing in strength. • Weaker resolve on keeping them out of office by parties of the right.

22. Next Lecture • Political Parties and Party Systems: Competition • Readings: Sartori • PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO: • 1) Party system fragmentation • 2) Party system polarization • 3) Polarized pluralism