Unit 12: Party System Change: Realignment and the Freezing of Party Systems

1. Unit 12: Party System Change: Realignment and the Freezing of Party Systems Reserve readings: Flanagan and Dalton, Inglehart and Flanagan, Shamir, Mair

2. Guiding Questions • What is realignment? • How do we determine if realignment is occurring? • What do we mean when we say that party systems are “frozen”? • Are party systems “frozen”? • What challenges do political parties face from realignment?

3. Verzuiling and the Freezing of Party Systems • Lipset and Rokkan 1967 • Party systems are frozen in the aftermath of the extension of universal suffrage. • How do party systems “freeze”? • Rokkan 1977 • Verzuiling =Pillarization • Vertical networks used by societal groups and political parties to promote group identity. • Isolate supporters into groups with others who share outlook or identity. • Increases social distance when physical distance no longer ensures cultural or ideological distinctiveness. • As other entities become critical for the dissemination of political information, pillarization declines (ontzuiling). • Why do we care? • Can create opportunities for extreme parties • Can indicate a lack of connection to the political system.

4. Realignment • Flanagan and Dalton 1984; 1990 • Changes in the salience of certain cleavages changes partisan alignments • Weaker party attachment creates volatility • How do cleavages weaken? • Generational change • Younger generations do not share the same intensity on a given issue as older generations. • Realignment is cyclical. • Differentiation of party appeals at first, then convergence over time as salience of cleavage wanes. • Expects volatility to increase prior to realignment, level off after and then slowly increase. • What types of events can restructure partisan alignments? • Critical junctures.

5. End of the Cold War: Critical Juncture? • Ware 1996 • Speculates about what a “critical juncture” might look like • Suggests the end of the Cold War has shaped political competition in some systems. • Cold War “anchored” several advanced democratic parties systems (e.g. Italy) • Notes: • 1) Changes in vote share of governing parties. • 2) Rise of new parties. • But also suggests that these changes may be • 1) Temporary for governing parties; retrenchment at subsequent elections • 2) Effective in only a small number of cases • 3) Temporary for new parties; difficult to gain a foothold within the system

6. Globalization: Critical Juncture? • Kriesi 2008 • Speculates that globalization has fostered a new cleavage. • Divides those that benefit from globalization (integration) from those who do not (demarcation) • Integration/demarcation cleavage is a result of the “weakening” of the state’s ability to control changes in economics, politics, and culture. • Result: Political parties stoke anxieties amongst those who “lose” from globalization. • Manifests itself in the rise of populist right parties. • Kriesi 2009 • Further research suggests that this new cleavage is not as pervasive as previously thought. • Has not eclipsed other traditional cleavages in most countries.

7. Postmaterialism: Critical Juncture? • Inglehart1977, 1987 • Priorities in advanced democracies shifting from a materialist towards a postmaterialist phase. • Advanced democracies exhibit concerns for socio-tropic concerns rather than ownership of the means of production. • Voters place priority on needs that are in short supply. • Younger groups have different needs than older cohorts. • Relative affluence in postwar era shifts outlook. • Voters retain values structure throughout their lives • Although changes take time to manifest themselves in the party system.

8. Postmaterialism and the Left • Inglehart 1987 • Posits that postmaterialism places a particular strain on parties of the left. • Absence of total war facilitates shift to postmaterialism. • Policies of state intervention and protection of the welfare state pass the “point of diminishing returns.” • As societies become “more equal” the coalition in favor of further redistribution declines. • Left is a victim of their own “success” • Result: • Splits on the left: • Sense of community and quality of life issues trump issues of class for middle and upper class voters (shift to the Greens) • Counter-response on the right • Restoring “order” can prompt a shift from working c lass voters on the left to parties of the right (shift to Conservatives, Christian Democrats or far right)

9. Evaluating Postmaterialism • Flanagan 1987 • Libertarianism and postmaterialism are similar, but materialism should be more tightly defined. • Focus on voters privileging a stable economy, lowering prices, etc. • Inglehart ignores the ‘new right” • Authoritarianism has also resulted from postmaterialism • Intolerance towards outsiders, strong support for law and order, patriotism, etc. • These voters are shifting from the old left to the new right.

10. Are Party Systems Frozen? • What does the presence of new cleavages suggest about Lipset and Rokkan’s “freezing hypothesis”? • Theories of realignment would argue that the system has changed • But the jury is outabout whether or not this negates the freezing hypothesis. • No consensus. • Questions include: • 1) How would we test the “freezing hypothesis”? • 2) What constitutes the “freezing” of party systems? • 3) What constitutes the “thawing” of party systems?

11. Are Party Systems “Frozen”? • Shamir 1984 • What does it mean to say that party systems are “frozen”? • Possible explanations: • 1) stability in party support at the ballot box • 2) persistence of a given set of parties and party organizations • 3) persistence in mass loyalties to parties. • Definition of freezing- • “The party system is stable if it tends or is able to recover its original position or steady motion when disturbed by exterior forces or interventions” • Freezing does not mean no change at all. • But rather- “stability means then that the party system is not affected—not in any essential way and only temporarily—by outside factors”

12. Are Party Systems “Frozen”? • Shamir 1984 • Examines elections in 19 systems both within and outside Europe. • Includes Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, and the US • Time frame includes all elections where there is an “identifiable” party system. • Looks at several systemic variables including: • 1) party system instability (volatility) • 2) party system fragmentation • 3) ideological polarization • Includes systemic variables and a variable to account for randomness. • If systems are “frozen” stability at time t+1 should be dependent upon stability at time t. • If systems are “thawing” stability at time t+1 may be dependent upon random factors from previous elections. • Finds that most party systems are not “thawing” • Argues that they were never frozen to begin with.

13. Are Party Systems “Frozen”? • Mair 2001 • Debate over whether party system change is a function of • 1) Cleavage change (are cleavage patterns persisting?) • 2) Party instability (are traditional parties remaining?) • Both speak to different concepts of freezing (and both could be correct) • What does it mean to suggest that party systems are “frozen”? • 1) Cleavage system is frozen into place. • Same social cleavages coupled with the same parties. • 2) Freezing of political parties competing • May or may not be associated with the previous cleavage structure. • 3) Freezing of party systems • Patterns of inter-party competition are frozen. • The freezing hypothesis is only realistic when applied to the third category.

14. Are Party Systems “Frozen”? • Mair 2001 • If patterns of competition within a system are “stable” the system is frozen. • Voters are choosing not only between parties but also between governments. • As long as the patterns of competition remain the same the identities of the parties can change and the system can remain stable. • Stability appears to be the norm. • Although some party systems are more “predictable” than others. • Predictability is becoming rarer. • Political institutions can facilitate freezing. • But institutional reform could lead to further “thawing”

15. Conclusions FREEZING THAWING • Is the left-right cleavage still the most relevant to understanding modern politics? • Yes. • Are the same parties fighting today that were fifty years ago? • In most cases, yes. • Are patterns of government changing frequently? • No. • But some cases fluctuate more than others. • Have cleavage structures changed? • Consensus appears to be yes. • Are there new parties on the scene? • Certainly. • Are patterns of governance changing? • Perhaps • But some cases exhibit more predictability than others.

16. Next Unit • Theme: Dealignment • Readings: • Dalton and Wattenberg CH 2-4 • Reserves: Mair et al. pgs. 145-178