Heywood (CH11: Parties and Party Systems)

factionalism (socialism and democracy)

- The existence of factions and tendencies is as important as formal organization in determining the location of power within a party. While all parties, even those with an apparently monolithic character, embrace some measure of political and ideological rivalry, the degree to which this rivalry is reflected in conflict between organized and coherent groups is crucial in determining the degree of authority of party leaders. In some cases, factions can break away from parties in the manner that European communist parties often emerged out of socialist parties in the years following the 1917 Russian Revolution. - Factionalism is often linked to the weight that parties place on political ideas and ideological direction. Whereas pragmatic right-wing parties usually merely have to balance or conciliate rival tendencies, more ideological parties of the left often have to deal with open disagreement and institutionalized rivalry. Together with their inclination to endorse internal democracy, this has generally made socialist parties more difficult to lead than liberal or conservative parties. Perhaps a more significant consideration, however, is the extent to which parties have a secure hold on power. Factionalism is, in a sense, a luxury that only long-time parties of government can afford. This is why monopolistic communist parties were able to keep factionalism at bay only by exercising ruthless discipline enforced through the strictures of democratic centralism. It also explains the deeply factional nature of 'dominant' parties such as the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in Japan and the Italian Christian Democratic Party (DC). The UK Conservative Party is an example of a party with an ethos that once stressed, above all, deference and loyalty. - (DC). The UK Conservative Party is an example of a party with an ethos that once stressed, above all, deference and loyalty. However, the Party became increasingly factionalized in the 1980s and 1990s through a combination of its more ideological character and its prolonged electoral success after 1979. Bottom-up pressures thus gave the Conservative Party a more democratic character than its formal leader-dominated structure suggested was possible. The most conspicuous casualty of this process was Margaret Thatcher, who was forced to stand down as party leader in 1990 despite having won three successive general elections. Heywood, Andrew. Politics (pp. 257-258). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.

Functions of parties

- filling of political office - wielding of government power Constitutional parties operating in a context of electoral competition tend to be portrayed as bastions of democracy; indeed, the existence of such parties is often seen as the litmus test of a healthy democratic system. On the other hand, regime parties that enjoy a monopoly of political power are more commonly portrayed as instruments of manipulation and political control. 1. representation 2. elite formation and recruitment 3. goal formulation 4. interest articulation and aggregation 5. socialization and mobilization

coalition

A coalition is a grouping of rival political actors brought together either through the perception of a common threat, or through a recognition that their goals cannot be achieved by working separately. Electoral coalitions are alliances through which parties agree not to compete against one another, with a view to maximizing their representation. Legislative coalitions are agreements between two or more parties to support a particular bill or programme. Governing coalitions are formal agreements between two or more parties that involve a cross-party distribution of ministerial portfolios. A 'grand coalition' or 'national government' comprises all major parties.

dominant party systems

A dominant-party system is competitive in the sense that a number of parties compete for power in regular and popular elections, but it is dominated by a single major party that consequently enjoys prolonged periods in power. Japan is usually cited as the classic example of a dominant-party system. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has been in power since its foundation in 1955, with the exception of the period between 1993 and 1994 and again from 2009 to 2012. it has also reflected the powerful appeal of the party's neo-Confucian principles of duty and obligation in the still traditional Japanese countryside, and the strong links that the party has forged with business elites. These advantages have enabled the LDP to withstand challenges from, for example, economic stagnation, deep factionalism and the advance of the Democratic Party of Japan, which, in 2009, became the first opposition party since 1945 to win a parliamentary majority. The Indian National Congress enjoyed an unbroken spell of 30 years in power, commencing with the achievement of independence in 1947. Until 1989 it had endured only three years in opposition, following Indira Gandhi's 1975-77 state of emergency. The African National Congress (ANC) has similarly been the dominant party in South Africa since the ending of apartheid in 1993, its position being based on its pre-eminent role in the long struggle against white rule 263). The best European examples of a dominant-party system are Sweden, where the Social Democratic Labour Party (SAP) held power for 65 of the previous 74 years until its defeat in 2006; Italy, where the Christian Democratic Party (DC) dominated every one of the country's 52 post-World War II governments until the party's effective collapse amidst mounting allegations of corruption in 1992-94. Heywood, Andrew. Politics (p. 262). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.

faction, factionism

A faction is a section or group within a larger formation, usually a political party. Its aims and organizational status must therefore be compatible with those of its host party; otherwise the group is a 'party within a party'. A distinction is sometimes drawn between 'factions' and 'tendencies', the latter being looser and more informal groups, distinguished only by a common policy or ideological disposition. Factionalism refers either to the proliferation of factions, or to the bitterness of factional rivalry. The term faction is often used pejoratively; the term factionalism is always pejorative, implying debilitating infighting.

caucus

A meeting of party members held to nominate election candidates, or to discuss legislative proposals in advance of formal proceedings.

threshold

A minimum level of electoral support needed for a party to be eligible to win seats.

political party

A political party is a group of people that is organized for the purpose of winning government power, by electoral or other means. Parties typically exhibit the following characteristics. (1) They aim to exercise government power by winning political office (small parties may nevertheless use elections more to gain a platform than to win power). (2) They are organized bodies with a formal 'card carrying' membership. (3) They typically adopt a broad issue focus, addressing each of the major areas of government policy (small parties, however, may have a single-issue focus). (4) To varying degrees, they are united by shared political preferences and a general ideological identity.

primary election

A primary election is an intraparty election in which candidates are selected to contest a subsequent 'official' election. During the twentieth century, primaries became the principal nominating device used in the USA, also being used to choose convention delegates and party leaders. Most US states hold 'closed' primaries, in which participation is restricted to registered supporters of the party; 'open' primaries allow all voters to participate, regardless of party affiliation. Primary elections give rank-and-file voters more of a voice in party affairs and lead to a more candidate-orientated and less party-orientated style of politics. Heywood, Andrew. Politics (p. 253). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.

party system

A relatively stable network of relationships between parties that is structured by their number, size and ideological orientation. relevance - what is vital is to establish the 'relevance' of parties in relation to the formation of governments and, in particular, whether their size gives them the prospect of winning, or at least sharing, government power. This approach is often reflected in the distinction made between 'major', or government-orientated, parties and more peripheral, 'minor' ones (although neither category can be defined with mathematical accuracy). accuracy). A third consideration is how these 'relevant' parties relate to one another. Is the party system characterized by cooperation and consensus, or by conflict and polarization? This is closely linked to the ideological complexion of the party system, and the traditions and history of the parties that compose it.

two party systems

A two-party system is duopolistic in that it is dominated by two 'major' parties that have a roughly equal prospect of winning government power. In its classical form, a two-party system can be identified by three criteria: ​Although a number of 'minor' parties may exist, only two parties enjoy sufficient electoral and legislative strength to have a realistic prospect of winning government power. ​ The larger party is able to rule alone (usually on the basis of a legislative majority); the other provides the opposition. ​ Power alternates between these parties; both are 'electable', the opposition serving as a 'government in the wings'. Its key advantage is that it makes possible a system of party government, supposedly characterized by stability, choice and accountability. The two major parties are able to offer the electorate a straightforward choice between rival programmes and alternative governments. Voters can support a party knowing that, if it wins the election, it will have the capacity to carry out its manifesto promises without having to negotiate or compromise with coalition partners. Two-party systems have also been praised for delivering strong but accountable government based on relentless competition between the governing and opposition parties. creates a bias in favour of moderation, as the two contenders for power have to battle for 'floating' votes in the centre ground. This was, for example, reflected in the so-called 'social-democratic consensus' that prevailed in the UK from the 1950s to the 1970s. towards adversary politics (see p. 361). This is reflected in ideological polarization and an emphasis on conflict and argument, rather than consensus and compromise. In the UK in the early 1980s, this was best demonstrated by the movement to the right by a 'Thatcherized' Conservative Party and the movement to the left by a radicalized Labour Party, although a new, post-Thatcherite consensus soon emerged. Criticism - Adversarial two-partyism has often been explained by reference to the class nature of party support (party conflict being seen, ultimately, as a reflection of the class struggle), or as a consequence of party democratization and the influence of ideologically committed grass-roots activists. - A further problem with the two-party system is that two evenly matched parties are encouraged to compete for votes by outdoing each other's electoral promises, perhaps causing spiralling public spending and fuelling inflation. - fulfil. A final weakness of two-party systems is the obvious restrictions they impose in terms of electoral and ideological choice. While a choice between just two programmes of government was perhaps sufficient in an era of partisan alignment and class solidarity, it has become quite inadequate in a period of greater individualism (see p. 179) and social diversity.

multiparty systems

Germany, for example, tends to have a 'two-and-a-half-party' system, in that the CDU and SDP typically have electoral strengths roughly equivalent to those of the Conservative and Labour parties in the UK. However, they were forced into coalitions with the small Free Democrat Party by the workings of the mixed-member proportional electoral system (see Italian multipartyism traditionally involves a larger number of relatively small parties. Thus, even the DC rarely came close to achieving 40 per cent of the vote. 'moderate' and 'polarized' pluralist systems. In this categorization, moderate pluralism exists in countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway, where ideological differences between major parties are slight, and where there is a general inclination to form coalitions and move towards the centre ground. . Polarized pluralism, on the other hand, exists when more marked ideological differences separate major parties, some of which adopt an anti-system stance.Evidence of polarized pluralism can be found in Italy, where in 2018 a government was formed by two rival populist parties, the Five Star Movement and the anti-immigrant League (formerly known as the Northern League) (see p.

decline in class politics?

Indeed, the decline in party membership and partisanship may merely be one aspect of a wider trend towards anti-politics (see p. 460), which has also witnessed the birth of new parties, or the emergence of parties from the political fringe. What these newly founded and once-fringe parties usually have in common is an antipathy towards conventional centres of power and opposition to established parties of government, linking this development to the advance of populism. anti populist populism

organization of government

It is often argued that complex modern societies would be ungovernable in the absence of political parties. In the first place, parties help with the formation of governments, in parliamentary systems, to the extent that it is possible to talk of 'party government' (see p. 261). Parties also give governments a degree of stability and coherence, especially if the members of the government are drawn from a single party and are, therefore, united by common sympathies and attachments. Even governments that are formed from a coalition of parties are more likely to foster unity and agreement than those that consist of separate individuals, each with his or her own priorities.

Left and right wing parties

Left-wing parties (progressive, socialist and communist parties) are characterized by a commitment to change, in the form of either social reform or wholesale economic transformation. These have traditionally drawn their support from the ranks of the poor and disadvantaged (in urban societies, the working classes). vs. Right-wing parties (conservative and fascist parties, in particular) generally uphold the existing social order and are, in that sense, a force for continuity. Their supporters usually include business interests and the materially contented middle classes. . However, this notion of a neat left/right party divide is, at best, simplistic and, at worst, deeply misleading. Not only are both the left and the right often divided along reformist/revolutionary and constitutional/insurrectionary lines, but also all parties, especially constitutional ones, tend to be 'broad churches', in the sense that they encompass their own left and right wings. Moreover, electoral competition has the effect of blurring ideological identities, once-cherished principles commonly being discarded in the search for votes. Finally, the shift away from old class polarities and the emergence of new political issues such as the environment, animal rights and feminism has perhaps rendered the conventional ideas of left and right redundant

Elite formation and recruitment

Parties of all kinds are responsible for providing states with their political leaders. Exceptions to this include parties that are, effectively, the creation of powerful politicians and are used as political vehicles to mobilize support for them, such as Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia, established in 1993 but rebranded as the People of Freedom party in 2009, and Vladimir Putin's United Russia party, founded in 2001. however, politicians achieve office by virtue of their party .post: contestants in a presidential election are usually party leaders, while in parliamentary systems the leader of the largest party in the assembly normally becomes prime minister. Cabinet and other ministerial posts are usually filled by senior party figures, though exceptions are found in presidential systems such as the USA's, which allow non-party ministers to be appointed.

first us party

Parties of the modern kind first emerged in the USA. Despite the abhorrence of parties felt by the 'founding fathers' who created the US constitution, the Federalist Party (later the Whigs and, from 1860, the Republican Party) appeared as a mass-based party during the US presidential election of 1800. Many conservative and liberal parties started life as legislative factions. Only later, forced to appeal to an ever-widening electorate, did they develop an extraparliamentary machinery of constituency branches, local agents, and so on. on. In contrast, socialist parties and parties representing religious, ethnic and language groups were invariably born as social movements, or interest groups, operating outside government.

party democracy

Party democracy is a form of popular rule that operates through the agency of a party. There are two models of party democracy. In the first (intra-party democracy), parties are democratic agents, in that power within them is widely and evenly dispersed. This implies, for instance, that there should be broad participation in the election of leaders and selection of candidates. In the second model, democracy dictates that policy-making power should be concentrated in the hands of party members who are elected and, therefore, publicly accountable. In this view, the first model may lead to the tyranny of non-elected constituency activists.

party government

Party government is a system through which single parties are able to form governments and carry through policy programmes. Its key features are as follows. (1) Major parties possess a clear programmic character and thus offer the electorate a meaningful choice between potential governments. (2) The governing party enjoys sufficient ideological and organizational unity to deliver on its manifesto commitments. (3) Responsibility is maintained by the government's accountability to the electorate through its mandate, and by the existence of a credible opposition that acts as a balancing force.

goal formulation

Political parties have traditionally been one of the means through which societies set collective goals and, in some cases, ensure that they are carried out. Parties play this role because, in the process of seeking power, they formulate programmes of government (through conferences, conventions, election manifestos, and so on) with a view to attracting popular support.Not only does this mean that parties are a major source of policy initiation, it also encourages them to formulate coherent sets of policy options that give the electorate a choice amongst realistic and achievable goals. This function is most clearly carried out by parties in parliamentary systems that are able to claim a mandate (see p. 222) to implement their policies, if they are elected to power. However, it can also occur in presidential systems with usually non-programmic parties, as in the case of the Republicans' 'Contract with America' in the US congressional elections of 1994. Nevertheless, the tendency towards de-ideologized catch-all parties, and the fact that electoral campaigns increasingly stress personality and image over policies and issues, has generally reduced the impact that parties have on policy formulation. Party programmes, moreover, are almost certain to be modified by pressure from the civil service and interest groups, as well as in the light of domestic and international circumstances. Policy implementation, on the other hand, is usually carried out by bureaucracies rather than parties, except in one-party systems such as those in orthodox communist states, where the 'ruling' party supervises the state apparatus at every level.

representative parties vs integrative parties

Representative parties see their primary function as being the securing of votes in elections. They thus attempt to reflect, rather than shape, public opinion. representative parties adopt a catch-all strategy and therefore place pragmatism before principle and market research before popular mobilization. The prevalence of such parties in modern politics gave considerable force to arguments based on rational choice models of political behaviour, Integrative parties, in contrast, adopt proactive, rather than reactive, political strategies; they wish to mobilize, educate and inspire the masses, rather than merely respond to their concerns. Although Neumann saw the typical mobilizing party as an ideologically disciplined cadre party, mass parties may also exhibit mobilizing tendencies. For example, until they became discouraged by electoral failure, socialist parties set out to 'win over' the electorate to a belief in the benefits of public ownership, full employment, redistribution, social welfare, and so on. Thatcher embraced 'conviction politics' in pursuing a mobilizing strategy based on firm support for cutting taxes, encouraging enterprise, promoting individual responsibility, tackling trade union power, and so forth. Heywood, Andrew. Politics (pp. 247-248). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.

revolutionary party

Revolutionary parties, on the other hand, are anti-system or anti-constitutional parties, either of the left or of the right. Such parties aim to seize power and overthrow the existing constitutional structure using tactics that range from outright insurrection and popular revolution to the quasi-legalism practised by the Nazis and the Fascists. In some cases, revolutionary parties are formally banned by being classified as 'extremist' or 'anti-democratic', as has been the case in post-World War II machinery. In one-party systems, whether established under the banner of communism, fascism, nationalism, or whatever, the distinction between the party and the state is so weakened that the 'ruling' party, in effect, substitutes itself for the government, creating a fused 'party-state' apparatus. It was common in the USSR, for instance, for the General Secretary of the CPSU to act as the chief executive or head of government without bothering to assume a formal state post. Heywood, Andrew. Politics (p. 248). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.

democratic centralism

The Leninist principle of party organization, based on a supposed balance between freedom of discussion and strict unity of action.

russia

The collapse of communist rule in 1991 and the initial banning of the CPSU was always going to make the emergence of a competitive party system a difficult, perhaps tortuous, business. Russia's problem was a proliferation of parties and political groupings, none of which came close to establishing a mass membership or a nationwide organization. No fewer than 43 parties contested the 1995 parliamentary elections, with the largest of these, the Russian Communist Party, gaining just 22 per cent of the vote. The subsequent introduction of measures such as electoral thresholds and registration on the basis of petitions greatly reduced the number of parties, meaning, for instance, that just seven parties contested the 2011 Russian Duma elections. Heywood, Andrew. Politics (p. 258). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.

Mainstream and populist parties

The final way of distinguishing between parties takes account of contrasting approaches to how societies should be governed. Mainstream parties are parties that broadly accept the constitutional status quo and so tend to operate within what can be seen as the established rules of the political game. The vast majority of the major parties of government across the globe can, in this sense, be classified as mainstream parties, together with most established minor parties. These parties are 'conventional', in that they are strongly orientated around the acquisition and maintenance of power, having pronounced 'catch-all' features, and their leaders act essentially as political entrepreneurs. Mainstream parties have, as a result, a marked tendency towards the centre ground of politics, where they believe most voters can be found. This has been evident since the 1980s in the growing convergence in the economic platforms of centre-left and centre-right parties around market-orientated policies. However, in serving to disengage centre-left parties, in particular, from their traditional working- class supporters, this has created opportunities that populist parties have been eager to exploit. This has occurred either through the emergence of left-wing populist parties (such as Syriza in Greece or Podemos in Spain) or through the tendency for populist parties that embrace a right-wing platform on social and cultural issues to adopt leftist or interventionist economic policies. populilst 1. they challenge the authority of a political establishment deemed to be deceitful, arrogant and self-serving, at the heart of which lie mainstream parties and conventional politicians; and 2. they claim that the only legitimate source of political and moral authority rests with 'the people' anti-party parties - French National Rally (national Front)/ Danish People's party, jobbik in hungary, and polan's law and justice party This gives rise to a form of politics that tends to have a combative, even insurrectionary, character. Populist parties also reject conventional politics' obsession with the centre ground in favour of a more narrowly focused electoral and political strategy. For example, right-wing populist parties, which account for the bulk of populist parties worldwide, target people who have been 'left behind' by contemporary society, especially those who have been disadvantaged by the onset of globalization (see p. 161). This includes people who have suffered from economic grievances such as stagnant living standards and job insecurity, and those whose sense of social esteem has been undermined by, for instance, the changing role of women, the spread of minority rights and the general advance of liberal values. In the process, politics has come to be structured increasingly by the gulf between rival 'open' and 'closed' ideological leanings Finally, if they achieve power, populist parties differ from mainstream ones in their desire to dismantle 'politics as normal'. This is particularly the case when they seek to subvert safeguards on executive power, such as institutional checks and balances, judicial independence and the rule of law. pg 251

factions

The most prominent feature of a dominant-party system is the tendency for the political focus to shift from competition between parties to factional conflict within the dominant party itself. The DC in Italy, for example, functioned as little more than a coalition of privileged groups and interests in Italian society, the party acting as a broker to these various factions. The most powerful of these groups were the Catholic Church (which exercised influence through organizations such as Catholic Action), the farming community and industrial interests. Each of these was able to cultivate voting loyalty and exert influence on DC's members in the Italian parliament. The most prominent feature of a dominant-party system is the tendency for the political focus to shift from competition between parties to factional conflict within the dominant party itself. The DC in Italy, for example, functioned as little more than a coalition of privileged groups and interests in Italian society, the party acting as a broker to these various factions. The most powerful of these groups were the Catholic Church (which exercised influence through organizations such as Catholic Action), the farming community and industrial interests. Each of these was able to cultivate voting loyalty and exert influence on DC's members in the Italian parliament. Heywood, Andrew. Politics (pp. 263-264). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.

one party (africa)

The second type of one-party system is associated with anti-colonial nationalism and state consolidation in the developing world. In Ghana, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, for example, the 'ruling' party developed out of an independence movement that proclaimed the overriding need for nation-building and economic development. In Zimbabwe, one-party rule developed only in 1986 (six years after independence) through the merger of the two major parties, ZANU and ZAPU, both former guerrilla groups. In other cases, such parties have developed as little more than vehicles through which a national leader has tried to consolidate power, as with General Ershad's People's Party in Bangladesh in the 1980s and President Mobutu's Popular Movement of the Revolution in Zaire, 1965-97. One-party systems in Africa and Asia have usually been built around the dominant role of a charismatic leader and drawn whatever ideological identity they have possessed from the views of that leader. Kwame Nkrumah, the leader of the Convention People's Party (CPP) in Ghana until his overthrow in 1966, is often seen as the model such leader, but other examples have been Julius Nyerere in Tanzania and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Not uncommonly, these parties are weakly organized (very different from the tight discipline found in communist one-party states), and they play, at best, only a peripheral role in the process of policy-making. Their monopolistic position, nevertheless, helps to entrench authoritarianism (see p. 121) and to keep alive the danger of corruption.

strength multiparty system

The strength of multiparty systems is that they create internal checks and balances within government and exhibit a bias in favour of debate, conciliation and compromise. a broad responsiveness that cannot but take account of competing views and contending interests. Thus, in Germany, the liberal Free Democrats act as a moderating influence on both the conservative CDU and the socialist SPD. Where SPD-Green coalitions have been formed in the Länder (provinces), the Green presence has helped to push environmental issues up the political agenda. Similarly, the multiparty features of the Swedish system, which make coalition government more common than not, have encouraged the SAP to build a broad welfare consensus, and to pursue moderate policies that do not alienate business interests. criticism - The post-election negotiations and horse-trading that take place when no single party is strong enough to govern alone can take weeks, or (as in Israel and Italy) sometimes months, to complete. -A final problem is that the tendency towards moderation and compromise may mean that multiparty systems are so dominated by the political centre that they are unable to offer clear ideological alternatives. Coalition politics tends, naturally, to be characterized by negotiation and conciliation, a search for common ground, rather than by conviction and the politics of principle. This process can be criticized as being implicitly corrupt, in that parties are encouraged to abandon policies and principles in their quest for power. Heywood, Andrew. Politics (p. 265). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.

Do parties breed discord and constrain political debate

Yes - Sacrificing person conscience(destruction of individualism) - disharmony and adversarialism(This inevitably breeds a tribal mentality in which the flaws and failings of other parties are exaggerated, while those of one's own party are consistently denied..) - domination by the cunning and ambitious (concentrate political power) No - forums of debate (allows endless debate) - engaging the people(channel of communication)(the ideas and interests of the people generates pressure within parties to permit, even encourage, internal debate and argument among their members, rather than uncritical obedience. - cross party interaction(coalition and cohabitation- principle that a party may not have sufficient parliamentary strength to rule on its own )

Machine politics

a style of politics in which party bosses control a mass organization through patronage and the distribution of favors

constitutional parties

acknowledge the rights and entitlements of other parties and, thus, operate within a framework of rules and constraints. In particular, they acknowledge that there is a division between the party and the state, between the party in power (the government of the day) and state institutions (the bureaucracy, judiciary, police, and so on) that enjoy formal independence and political neutrality. Above all, constitutional parties acknowledge and respect the rules of electoral competition. They recognize that they can be voted out of power as easily as they can be voted in. Mainstream parties in liberal democracies all have such a constitutional character.

Interest articulation and aggregation

articulate and aggregate the various interests found in society. Parties, indeed, often develop as vehicles through which business, labour, religious, ethnic or other groups advance or defend their various interests. Example :The UK Labour Party, for instance, was created by the trade union movement with the aim of achieving working-class political representation.. - US parties did in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with immigrant groups. - Constitutional parties are clearly forced to do this by the pressures of electoral competition, but even monopolistic parties articulate and aggregate interests through their close relationship with the state and the economy, especially in centrally planned systems. However, not even in competitive party systems are all interests articulated, those of the poor being most vulnerable to exclusion.

cadre party

cadre party 'party of notables', dominated by an informal group of leaders who saw little point in building up a mass organization. Such parties invariably developed out of parliamentary factions or cliques at a time when the franchise was limited. term 'cadre' is now more commonly used (as in communist parties) to denote trained and professional party members who are expected to exhibit a high level of political commitment and doctrinal discipline. in this sense Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), the Nazi Party in Germany and the Fascist Party in Italy were cadre parties, as are the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and the Indian Congress party cadre parties rely on their politically active elite(subject to quasi military discipline) that is capable of offering ideological leadership to the masses Although strict political criteria are laid down for party membership, careerism and simple convenience are often powerful motives for joining such parties, as both the CPSU and the Nazis found out.

political spectrum

linear horseshoe two-dimensional

Socialization and mobilizaiton

parties are important agents of political education and socialization. The issues that parties choose to focus on help to set the political agenda, and the values and attitudes that they articulate become part of the larger political culture (see p. 195). In the case of monopolistic parties, the propagation of an 'official' ideology (be it Marxism-Leninism, National Socialism, or simply the ideas of a charismatic leader) is consciously acknowledged to be a central, if not its supreme, function. - Mainstream parties in competitive systems play no less significant a role in encouraging groups to play by the rules of the democratic game, thus mobilizing support for the regime itself. For example, the emergence of socialist parties in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was an important means of integrating the working class into industrial society. - Nevertheless, the capacity of parties to mobilize and socialize has been brought into doubt by evidence in many countries of partisan dealignment (see p. 241) and growing disenchantment with conventional pro-system parties. The problem that parties have is that, to some extent, they themselves are socialized (some would say corrupted) by the experience of government, making them, it appears, less effective in engaging partisan sympathies and attracting emotional attachments.

mass parties

places a heavy emphasis on broadening membership and constructing a wide electoral base. Although the extension of the franchise forced liberal and conservative parties to seek a mass appeal, the earliest examples of mass parties were European socialist parties, such as the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the UK Labour Party, which constructed organizations specifically designed to mobilize working-class support. The key feature of such parties is that they place heavier stress on recruitment and organization than on ideology and political conviction. Although such parties often have formally democratic organizations, except for a minority of activists, membership usually entails little in the way of participation and only general agreement about principles and goals. modern parties fall into the category of 'catch all parties', which are parties that reduce their ideological baggage in order to appeal to the largest possible number voters(german CDU or US republican and democrat) Modern de-ideologized socialist parties such as the German Social Democrats and the Labour Party in the UK also fit this description. These parties differ from the classic model of a mass party in that they emphasize leadership and unity, and downgrade the role of individual party members in trying to build up broad coalitions of support, rather than relying on a particular social class or sectional group.

representation

primary function of parties - refers to the capacity of parties to respond to and articulate the views of both the members and the voters - parties are major 'inputting' devices that ensure that government heeds the needs and wishes of the larger society - economic model - voters are consumers and politicians are entrepreneurs - criticized - on the grounds that parties seek to shape or mobilize public opinion, as well as respond to it; that the image of voters as well-informed, rational and issue-orientated consumers is questionable; and that the range of consumer (or electoral) choice is often narrow.

Party Organization: where does power lie?

representation of individual interests had lost out to the growing influence of the party machine and control exerted by a caucus of senior party figures. "iron law of oligarchy" German SPD ,despite the party's formally democratic organization, power was concentrated in the hands of a small group of party leaders. For Michels, the 'law' explained the inevitable failure of democratic socialism and, indeed, exploded the myth of political democracy. Critics, however, point out that Michels' observations are generalizations made on the basis of a single political party at a particular moment in time, and also rest on questionable psychological theories. In practice, party elites have often proved to be more faction-ridden, and mass memberships less deferential and quiescent, than Michels suggested. USA US parties differ in many respects from their European counterparts. Being loose coalitions of sometimes conflicting interests held together by little more than the need to contest presidential elections, they are highly decentralized and generally non-programmic. Traditionally, state-based or city-based party bosses (a legacy of the machine politics of the early twentieth century) acted as power brokers and exercised a decisive influence at nominating conventions. Following protests and clashes at the 1968 Democratic national convention in Chicago, however, a reform movement sprang up, aimed at weakening the power of local party leaders and strengthening the role of rank-and-file members. - reformed through nominating primaries and caucuses - This was accomplished largely through the wider use of nominating primaries and caucuses. These, first with the Democrats and later with the Republicans, attracted a growing number of issue and candidate activists into party politics, leading to the nomination of more ideological candidates such as George McGovern for the Democrats in 1972 and Ronald Reagan for the Republicans in 1980. Such tendencies generated concern, particularly amongst Democrats, who feared that more open and participatory structures could simply result in the nomination of unelectable 'outsider' candidates. - Both the main US parties responded to this by modernizing and strengthening their committee structures, especially at national, congressional and senatorial levels. Although this has been portrayed as a process of 'party renewal', it is evidence of the parties' desire to provide better electoral support for individual candidates, rather than of the emergence of European-style, party-focused elections.

one party systems

the term one-party system is contradictory since 'system' implies interaction amongst a number of entities. The term is, nevertheless, helpful in distinguishing between political systems in which a single party enjoys a monopoly of power through the exclusion of all other parties (by political or constitutional means) and those systems characterized by a competitive struggle amongst a number of parties. Because monopolistic parties effectively function as permanent governments, with no mechanism (short of a coup or revolution) through which they can be removed from power, they invariably develop an entrenched relationship with the state machine. This allows such states to be classified as 'one-party states', their machinery being seen as a fused 'party-state' apparatus. Two rather different types of one-party system can be identified, however. The first type has been found in state socialist regimes where 'ruling' communist parties have directed and controlled virtually all the institutions and aspects of society. Such parties are subject to strict ideological discipline, traditionally linked to tenets of Marxism-Leninism, and they have highly structured internal organizations, in line with the principles of democratic centralism. These are cadre parties, in the sense that membership is restricted on political and ideological grounds. party core consists of well-paid full-time officials, the apparatchiki, who run the party apparat, or apparatus, and exercise supervision over both the state machine and social institutions A central device through which communist parties control the state, economy and society, and ensure the subordination of 'lower' organs to 'higher' ones, is the nomenklatura system. This is a system of vetted appointments in which, effectively, all senior posts are filled by party-approved candidates. The justification for both the party's monopoly of power, and its supervision of state and social institutions, lies in the Leninist claim that the party acts as the 'vanguard of the proletariat' in providing the working masses with the ideological leadership and guidance needed to ensure that they fulfil their revolutionary destiny. Vanguardism has, however, been criticized for being deeply elitist and providing the seed from which Stalinism later grew. Trotsky (1937), on the other hand, offered an alternative interpretation by suggesting that, far from the 'ruling' party dominating Soviet development, its formal monopoly of power merely concealed the burgeoning influence of the state bureaucracy. Heywood, Andrew. Politics (p. 260). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.

criticism dominant party system

to erode the important constitutional distinction between the state and the party in power. When governments cease to come and go, an insidious process of politicization takes place through which state officials and institutions adjust to the ideological and political priorities of the dominant party Second, an extended period in power can engender complacency, arrogance and even corruption in the dominant party. The course of Italian and Japanese politics has, for example, regularly been interrupted by scandals, usually involving allegations of financial corruption. Third, a dominant-party system is characterized by weak and ineffective opposition. Criticism and protest can more easily be ignored if they stem from parties that are no longer regarded as genuine rivals for power. Finally, the existence of a 'permanent' party of government may corrode the democratic spirit by encouraging the electorate to fear change and to stick with the 'natural' party of government. Heywood, Andrew. Politics (p. 264). Macmillan Education UK. Kindle Edition.

early parties

what were called 'factions' (see p. 246) or 'parties' were little more than groups of like-minded politicians, usually formed around a key leader or family. 'court' parties, for instance, often developed within autocratic monarchies as a result of the struggle for influence amongst notables and advisers.