Unit 4: Political Parties as Campaign Organizations

1. Ware CH 3, D/W CH 6 and Katz and Mair (reserves) Unit 4: Political Parties as Campaign Organizations

2. Guiding Questions • What are cartel parties? • How do they differ from cadre, mass, and catch all parties? • How does electoral politics play into the politics of cartel parties?

3. What Do Parties Organizations Do? • Ware 1996 • Party organizations: • Organize campaigns and elections • Maintain or build the party membership base • Determine policies/strategies for office holders. • But the emphasis that a specific party places on these functions varies • Developing new policies is often the least tended to area of organizational influence • Particularly amongst parties in opposition • Advances in technology have privileged the electoral functions of party organization over other functions.

4. Elections and Party Organization • Duverger 1956, Epstein 1967 • Electoral considerations prompts changes in organizations. • Contagion from the left  mass parties/Contagion from the right  catch-all parties • Panebianco 1988 • Professionalization of politics pushes emphasis away from party membership towards political professionals in the waging of campaigns. • Push towards electoral-professional parties.

5. Consequences of Professionalization • Shift in staffing from local branches to central party offices. • Central party is dominant • Elections driven by party leader (i.e. presidentialization). • Political consultancy has become a major growth industry • “Marketing” parties is key. • Mimicry amongst political parties adapting to new technologies. • Example: Republicans/Democrats on GOTV, Facebook, Twitter • Public financing of campaigns has shaped the list of contenders in a much more expensive political world. • Some “outside” parties still jump these hurdles.

6. Mass Parties, Catch-All Parties, and Linkages to Society • Why does this shift towards electoral politics matter? • Party research has focused on relationships between parties and society. • Neumann 1956 • Mass parties served as political structures which integrated citizens into political societies. • Kirchheimer 1966 • Bemoans the demise of mass parties. • Posits that the switch the catch all parties is problematic from a societal standpoint. • Katz and Mair 1997 • Argue that this research ignores relationship between parties and the state. • Modern relationships between parties, society and the state do not sustain mass parties. • Elections are fought over issues of competence and management rather than group belonging or identity.

7. Parties, Civil Society, and the State • Katz and Mair 1997 • Cadre: • State/society interpenetrated by elites; parties as cliques of notables. • Trustee form of representation. • Mass: • Extension of franchise push state and society apart; parties as intermediaries between the state and classes in civil society. • Delegate form of representation.

8. Parties, Civil Society and the State • Katz and Mair 1997 • Catch-All: • State and society separated as entry into government weakens ties between party and societal class groups. • Parties act as brokers between state and society which aggregate demands from society while justifying policies from the state. • Thus, parties are moving closer towards the state and further from society. • Entrepreneurial form of representation. • Contends that parties have become agents of the state.

9. Challenges for Catch-All Parties • Katz and Mair 2009 • Catch all era created new pressures: • Weaker social ties to traditional groupings. • Left-right debate over more services vs. lower taxes/less regulation. • But the parties’ ability to deliver was undercut by: • 1) Moderation of class cleavage made appeals to class less beneficial for parties. • 2) Campaigns shift towards greater professionalization (at greater costs). • 3) Social welfare state no longer economically viable. • Requires cuts in services or increases in taxes to remain functional • 4) Politics as a vocation • Response: • 1) Depoliticize controversial issues/Delegate to non political entities. • 2) Use public funding to reduce the costs of defeat.

10. The Emergence of Political Parties: Stage Four Cartel Parties (1970-present) • Katz and Mair 1997 • Characterized by “the interpenetration of party and state, and also by a pattern of inter-party collusion.” • 1) Politics as a profession • Competition based on efficient stewardship. • 2) Managed electoral competition • Shared sense of survival. • 3) Campaign resources provided by the state • Campaign resources provided to parties “inside the state” • 4) Greater rights to participation within party. • Centralization of party decisions weakens local party institutions.

11. The Emergence of Political Parties: Stage Four Cartel Parties (1970-present) • Creates a relatively permanent set of “in” parties. • Campaign finance rules make participation by “out” parties difficult. • Range of issues considered “fair game” for debate is constrained. • Delegation to apolitical entities and norms of “legitimacy” constrain this debate. • Electoral results may not always be reflected in governing coalitions. • Feedback mechanisms weakened. • New demands increasingly voiced by interest groups rather than cartel parties. • May provide impetus for extreme parties.

12. Conclusion: Stage Five? New Politics/New Parties • Poguntke 1987; Harmel 2002 • Counter-response to cartel parties. • Representing their followers is key (similar to mass parties). • Originally associated with environmentalism and postmaterialist movements. • Some parties of the far left and right are popping up as “anti-elite” or “anti-cartel” parties. • Parliamentary leadership (if it exists) is weak. • Power invested in the localities. • Some movements have opened up participation to non-members. • No developed party has completely adopted this form.

13. Next Unit • Theme: What do parties want? • Reading: • Ware CH 11 • Mueller and Strom pgs. 1-27 and 112-140