3316F: Political Parties
Political Parties, What, When and Why?
Attached are all my lecture notes from my course on Political Parties, to prepare for my final exam I must identify, define, and explain the significance/role within the course of all the terms listed below. Please provide an explanation for each term according to the instructions above by using my notes. In addition, reflect whether a given term came up more than once and whether its existence or occurrence make a difference in the real world. Please also make sure to keep your answers concise. Term List: Polarization
Populist polarization
Polarized pluralism
Negative party identification
Madison’s constitution under stress
US case of polarization
Lipset and Rokkan’s historical revolutions and resultant cleavages
The freezing hypothesis
The declining class cleavage
GAL-TAN
Post-materialism
Cleavages – territorial and functional
The globalization cleavage
Other newly emerging cleavages
Party merger on the Canadian right
Absent Liberal-NDP merger
Electoral systems and party systems – single-member plurality (FPTP) and proportional
representation
Duverger’s Law and Canada
Shift from regional to governance strategy
Party system nationalization
Party or partisan identification
Conservative alliances of “francophones and francophobes”
Public funding
External private funding
Disclosure or transparency rules in party funding
The cartel party thesis
Per Vote Subsidy
Italian party financing
Parties as public utilities
Random walk or planned excursion
Policy-driven parties
The three Canadian party systems
The fourth Canadian party system (and fifth?)
Constitutionalization of political parties
The first wave of party regulation in Germany, Italy, and France
Populism and major party convergence
Fidesz
The Lortie Commission
Lipset and Rokkan’s institutional thresholds for party formation
Soft money
Downsian spatial analysis
Valence issues
Green parties
Intraparty democracy
Party primaries
Open primaries
Canadian riding candidate primaries
Official or ‘recognized’ parties in Canada
Multiparty system
WHY ANTIPARTYISM
Holism -Commitment to unity: society is or should be unified in the most basic fashion. Divergences are either non-existent, afebrile or deeply problematic.
a) Religion and traditional social order.- mediated by class or caste, if there is a foundation for a sense that ex. faith is the dominant fact of society, the way we organize ourselves should reflect this faith or other dominant sense.
everyone has a place in a unified society.
Therefore parties will be seen as deeply problematic
b) The General Will
Social Contract, the General of Society has a general will. Societies have a fundamental interest that organizes, aspires. Rosseau wanted to eradicate the particularism of people’s Will’s.
c) The nation
The attachment to a national foundation of the nation
d) The state
because of the threat to a common interest of society we have the Hobbesian idea that we must be protected by the state, we need the state.
e) The “real people”- populism (shadow holism)
There is an appeal to the “real people”- suggests that the real people are all the people that matter. We have to protect the people that matter in society for example the average person. This can lead to the exclusion of elites, immigrants, refugees, minorities.
Divisiveness- Parties are inherently factional:
a) Unification against oppression (ex. American and French Revolutions) - unsustainable, differences start to surface on how society should be organized after the immediate threat is neutralized. Ex. Russia, Poland solidarity rises against the Society system, liberation established in 89, as new parties formed they disagreed over many things.
b) One party alone captures the whole - “country party- representing the country side, those that didn’t have access to power” against “court faction- those that were with the moanrchy”
Tori democracy- rooted in the idea that there is a traditional order, that is hierarchical but still unified- society is interlinked, the only proper way to act is for those with privilege must take care of those with less privilege.- traditionally this only promote single party. But once they see that democracy is happening, they adapt their monarch supremacy party to competitive democracy.
Tori’s say don’t vote for the other parties because they just sew divison.
c) Performance of “unity” parties - destabilizing, the idea that parties are divisive but those that are advanceing untiy are not divisive .
BASES FOR PARTY ACCEPTANCE
When we abandon the expectation of fundamental social unity.
Liberal Pluralism: differences of interest and opinion are inevitable.- eliminating disagreement is no longer acceptable.
And legitimate- parties become more diverse, socially and economically. It is ok for people to organize to advance their own particular interest.
So parties reflect significant divisions within society - partiality
Parties are identified by the part or parts of society they claim to represent — partisanship
DEFINING PARTIES
Approaches
A more or less coherent group or coalition- often parties are thought of a single group, but complex coalitions is also good, people must come together over a few principles.
Promoting common interests, ideas, or policies- there are different kinds of parties, office seeking, policy seeking, vote seeking.
pursuing power via electoral competition-
Operating in both the electoral and governmental arenas (PIE- Party in Electorate/PIG Party in Government)- parties have levels, some believe the electoral competition is what defines parties, some believe what defines them was the way or ability to organize government
Linking society and the public sphere-
With the support of a durable, rule-governed organization (PO Party Organization)n
PIE, PIG, PO - that is the tripod
Edmund Burke Definition:
“A body of men united, for promoting by their endeavors the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed” - the idea of a parties beyond coalitional possibilities was a novelty.
There can only be one such party for Burke
Because the claim of unconstitutional influence by the monarchy (the winning of elections)
Pointing to the only properly defined national interest (THE national interest, to move towards liberal and proto democratic state)- corrective not divisive
Which left it unclear whether parties would be permanent fixtures.
Joseph Schumpeter:
“A party is not… a group of men who intend to promote the public welfare ‘upon some particular principle on which they all agreed.’ A party is a group whose members propose to act in concert in the competitive struggle for power.'“ — the rational efficient model.
there must be more than one party
With competition as the raison d’etre and main motivator
The pursuit of power is not propelled by a common set of principles
Policies are chosen to increase chances of winning- strategically
The prospect of winning power is what generates unity
Anthony Downs: the party is the organization leaders use to pursue victor
WHY PARTIES
Institutional:
Driven by democratization - parliamentarization, popular participation
Sequence affects party form
To solve problems associated with competition and governance:
Streamlining competition for office by selecting candidates
Drafting platforms and bundling issues together
Providing a solid resource base- symbolic, material, organizational
Creating governing majorities
Enabling coherent voting in the legislature
Accountability - responsible parties:
a) Develop policy proposals in opposition
b) Advance these proposals during elections
c) Clarify what distinguishes them from their opponents
d) Have the capacity to carry out their proposed policies when in office
Parties and Perspective on Democracy
Our understand of democracy will influence our sense of the role and contribution of parties:
a) Parties as pursuing an identifiable national interest: Tory democracy versus for pluralists or social democrats
b) Parties as coherent: Grounded in a specific social base (ex. class, religion), versus operating purely competitively- what lets parties exist is the competitiveness.
c) Parties as representative: Or rather emphasizing educational function, malleability of society.. (do people not know what the want? Yes, sometimes people are too busy) Some take it further and say that parties create the group they then represent.
d) Parties as checks on power: Majoritarianism versus consensus, consociationalism. Consociationalism is a political and constitutional system designed to maintain peace and stability in a deeply divided society by ensuring power is shared among the elites of its distinct social or ethnic groups.
e)Parties as threats to democracy: Weberian emphasis (Parties are problematic that it will fall prey to the gradual bureaucracy) on bureaucracy, party machines (Robert Michels)- the Social Democratic Party, highly democratic, turned itself into a club as well as party (orgs to enhance literacy, finances etc internally). Over a few decades the party became subject to control from the top.
Party Origins - Presidential and Parliamentary
Gary Cox, The Efficient Secret
What to explain? Party cohesion!
“The marked regularity with which MPs vote with their parties, and the strong tendency of voters to vote for parties rather than individuals” (Cox)
two prongs to party cohesion, the MPs and the Voters who tend to vote.
Question: Why and when did party become the dominant influence on voting behaviour in England- in both the legislature and the electorate (PIG and PIE)? - late and early 18th and 19th century, highly modern parties formation- as early as the 17th century,
Is this undemocratic? It’s importance for accountability: voters being able to identify and embrace a cluster of governing politicians and policy proposals. - MPs just parrot party talking points
The Efficient Secret
Major factors:
a) Democratization - the extension of the suffrage
by the English 19th cenutry, they’ve had a parliament since the middle ages- parliament having a co-legislative position (Parliament and Monarch).
The Glorias Revolution, executive power in Monarch, legislative power shared between monarch and parliament.
5% or males —→ double males, —→ to the top level of male class, —→ working class males, ——→ 1918 women over 30 ——→ unmarried women under 30 1928.
b) Centralization - of legislative authority in the cabinet (political executive)
The King appoints ministers in the 18th century, an administrator. Responsible for portfolios, at the top of the Ministry- the political representative of a administrative body. The more disciplined a party is the more likely they are able to pass.
Middle 19th Century:
a) MPs emphasize personal independence, status as trustees
The believe they are elected because of their wisdom and that their jobs are to speak their minds and vote according to their wisdom and conscience.
b) Split of Conservative Party with Corn Law Repeal, 1846 — Peelites and Conservatives
c) Parties loose, poorly disciplined, and volatile- no one knew if the Peelites would stay with conservatives, float on their own or move somewhere else.
d) Providing unstable foundation for governments- Britain is a place without coalition governments, many of these “parties” were factions.
Big changes in motion 1860s-1880s:
a) Peelites absorbed into the new Liberal Party
b) Both main parties tend to vote together in Parliament
c) Organizational improvements better mobilize supporters in the constituencies.
reform introduced the idea of Party Registration making voter lists.
The Efficient Secret: Why Changes?
Helpful:
a) Influence of stronger party leadership-
b) Interest in party cues a response to issue complexity, cost to voters of being informed- this is what you should think on this issue etc.
Party wants to give direction and MPs want it too because they can’t handle it.
c) Improved party organization- National Liberal Federation and National Union of Conservative Constituency Associations - in context of increased voting population disciplines MPs.
Better (Cox)
a) Growth in cabinet authority over legislation - how, why, and with what impact?
b) And: Suffrage extension - (i) increasing need of MPs for party support; (ii) shift to policy and program over patronage.
The monarchy is becoming less and less significant, their finding out how patronage to buy out votes
Ministry thinks that they can come to the fore, they believe that to sell things to the parliament that they should come from parliament
People begin to vote because you are more likely to help vote in parties and their prospective governments.
The Cabinet will decide that they will not provide large constituencies to share your party ideologies.
Cox and Parliamentary Government
Parliamentary Government:
a) Parliament can choose and unseat a government - government dependent upon parliamentary majority
b) Parliament offers critical scrutiny of government
c) But governments - political executives - control the legislative agenda
d) Executive power within parliamentary systems has greatly increased since the 19th century
e) And so Cox’s sources of party discipline have only grown more influential
f) Parties tighter, and more differentiated - as in the responsible parties thesis.
Jean-Francois Godbout, Lost on Division (2020)
Steady and increased levels of common voting
The Canadian Case
Early on, party cohesion weaker - dissenting votes, governments hard to sustain \
BNA Act: Took pressure off federal parties by granting many controversial jurisdictions to the provinces
Which allowed patronage and ministerial office to bring most members to heel- wouldn’t people deviate more because they can now?- no because there was more patronage
But territorial expansion introduced new lines of conflict: language, ethnicity, religion.
The parties were too rigid to accommodate these concerns, so third parties formed.
Which increased the cohesion of the two main parties.
The Presidential Difference
No ministerial executive grounded within the legislature: every member of the candian cabinet are part of parliament.
a) Separate presidential and legislative elections
b) Cabinet appointed by president, with advice and consent - Secretaries are not elected legilslators
c) Weaker legislative leadership - Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House
Party cohesion less likely:
a) Candidates less in need of party support, program, and brand
b) Parties integrate legislature and executive less effectively
c) Congressional leadership is less capable of disciplining via carrots and sticks
Party Types
September 25th, 2025
Presidential Parties
Initial resistance to party formation - no constitutional basis or support for parties
Parties in motion by the 1790s - Federalists vs Democratic-Republicans
By 1800 you start to see formations of federalist and democratic republican parties
Grounded in the emergence of key differences of approach to Constitution and Policy: (parties formed on the basis of disagreement that cannot be easily resolved)
Strengthen national government (presidency, central bank) or protect rights of the states
Rely on capable elites or involve the people (democratize)
Advance primarily business or agricultural interests
What you get: federalists reject a form of developed party system, they want to overcome key differences of figures such as Hamilton and Jefferson
But not yet legitimate alternation within an accepted party system - parties to end all parties
Federalists weaken, abandon the field to the Democratic-Republicans - it worked!
Or did it? A single dominant party merely internalizes competition - factionalization
Parties becomes a very big tent that incorporates a lot of disagreement - difference in ideology
New parties emerge: Whigs, Know-Nothing, Republicans
Gradually, Americans settle into a (more or less) legitimate two party system
See each party as ‘enemies’, competition between parties is not reflective of democracy
Presidential Parties: Sources of Change
Democratization changes this - from 1820s/1830s onwards
US ends up expanding suffrage steadily over 19th century - beginning of movement towards male suffrage grows in this time frame
Drew settlers to them, wanted them to know they could be full participatory citizens when they arrive
By late 19th/early 20th century, stronger parties, as:
Parties incorporate immigrant populations, which means that:
Party organizations expand (development = need to organize lots of people)
With support of the spoils system and partisan press (democrat vs republican press, stood in relation to party)
US politics deeply corrupt (spoil system: vote and work for us, after election it will be ‘jobs for the boys’)
Dispute over how many appointments can be made on a partisan basis
Democratization driven by parties in competition - not to level, but to win
US: Competition that drives party formation
Expansion of presidential power, democratization, and then 20th century increase in role of federal government, further builds up parties
Steady expansion of presidential power in many presidential contexts over time
Presidency initially started as small and less powerful, over time it gets democratized, increasing centrality of presidential elections over congressional elections - allows build up of parties
The more there is to compete for, the greater the stakes
Party Types
Ideal Types
Aka ‘pure types’
Not representations of reality, they are purified and abstracted from existing reality
An abstract formulation
Highly abstract formulations, don't fully describe in full reality
Shows the different components that make up the full
Capturing characteristic features of a phenomenon
The ones that are most revealing, dynamic, causative
Depends on if you can see reflection of reality in the ‘ideal type’
In a way that is heuristically useful
Helps us understand the world instead of a theory
Evaluate their utility on how they look, function, where they are derived from (does it help you understand reality)
Analytical over normative (what is really going on here?)
Without being descriptively accurate
Does not have to be a comprehensive or accurate description of reality in the world, or else it would be less useful
Examples:
The fully competitive capitalist market economy (a fully deregulated doesn’t exist anywhere - but that doesn’t mean that we should ignore it)
Homo economicus (idea that human beings are maximizers of highest level priorities, completely self interested, no human being is purely driven by narrow self interest - but by making this assumption, plugging it in, and seeing how far it takes you, will teach you alot)
Don’t take typologies in the wrong way, learn from them
Shift Cadre to Mass - Causes
Democratization:
Broader suffrage - common people can decide elections
Increased competition - common members paying dues can match elite financing
More people participating, moving towards a new party model based on the idea that people who are now voters can match elites by paying dues
Money was coming from one or a few elites, but new parties coming in needed larger numbers because they expected only small dues to come from them
Industrial development - new working class has interest in supporting left parties
Increasingly distinct interests from elites that formed cadre party (grounded in land of elite and wealth)
Wanted a middle class contribution to political system, start to develop ideas of massive transformation to make a more egalitarian social order (open to absorbing marxist, socialist ideas - becomes a party more dependent on ideology and orientation)
Cadre parties adopt with mass party features
Adopts what is deemed as successful at the time (since mass parties are starting to become stronger)
Want to bring in lower class into cadre elite parties, but it doesn’t empower members, solely adjuncts into party instead of an invitation into party to reorient ideology
But without necessarily empowering party members
Creates a popular apparatus, reinforces idea of social hierarchy (improving status of lower class - we may not give you a voice into party/power, but we will look out for your interests)
Shift Mass to Catch-All - Causes
Aim of catch-all parties: become a channel between these parties
Grounded in the individuals, mediator between civil society and the state
Happy to have mass party members and collect dues, but they don’t depend on these as resources
Key is that members get less attention, less opportunity to engage in discussion, pays less attention to shape/educate them, they are consumers who play a role into the party
Weakening of traditional class structure - working class less clearly defined, relative to the middle class
Groups becoming less clearly and well defined, class starting to lose its sharpness as a force defining group (Marx wrong about a two class society, much more complexity)
Workers divide into blue, white collar workers, states employ workers, agricultural and artisan sector still exists, religious cleavages (groups becoming less defined)
More difficult to ground party politics - parties more open to marketing
Post-WWII prosperity broadly shared, welfare state supports in place
Unprecedented growth in developed world of economies (1940s onward), huge rebound, growth
Reduces significance of class and power mobilization - capitalism is a form of economic organization that can allow us all to do well
Defeat of fascism, onset of Cold War discourages political extremism
Reduction of ideological alternatives (totalitarianism and fascism is discredited)
Zero zone conflict relative to Liberal democratic west - less grounds for dispute (more that ties conservatives and liberals together, all in the same boat)
Reduced ideological commitment encourages programmatic convergence of these parties
Catch all parties looking for issues that they can use to position themselves (where should we be on the political spectrum?) - sell their party as a set of goods
Willing to alter their manifestos to guarantee political victory - relying on political consultants and pollsters to do this work for them
Decline in organized religion also weakens mass base for parties
Groupings that served for basis of party formation are less significant
Changes in electoral system - reduces the number of parties
Creation of majoritarian style electoral systems, or proportional representation system which doesn’t allow for as many parties
Extended reach of media - elections emphasize popularity over policies
Popularity and personality - leaders more significant
Voters grow more apathetic
For reasons having to do with all of the information presented in slide
Parties seem more cynical, position party in the place that will sell the best
Shift Catch-All to Cartel
Increased reliance on public rather than private sources of party financing
Cartel doesn’t create reliance - its a decision, public financing more democratic and public
Happens as state conceives of democracy as a public good that it provides
Change dependent on recognition that democracy is a public good, should be highly regulated
Party competition increasingly capital-intensive - professional consultants, pollsters
Don’t need as many members as they used to, professionals do the work - capital rather than membership that enables shift away from grounding in civil society (don’t need to depend on membership like they used to)
And less reliant on mass membership base as a consequence
And less reliant on ideological or program differentiation
Essentially working together and only competing within bounds
Parties come to adopt the state’s perspective as their own
Rather than a perspective deriving from ideology or expressive interest within society
And represent that to the people, rather than the other way around (Michael Saward: statal representation)
Collusion between parties*
Statal representation is key: intended to take ideas critically
Party Types - Canadian Innovations
The Exam:
Think about whether the party is generally successful or unsuccessful. Capturing government is not the only determinant of success.
First Part:
The long essay part will be on party typology, you will need the definitions but the main thing is application.
WISEMAN: CANADIAN CADRE PARTIES IN DEVELOPMENT
Charts a series of stages of cadre party development. Liberal and Conservative party early in the game.
Evolution influenced by institutional developments:
Court party- Governors control executive power- colonial power, - with cabinets responsible to them. It was more about Britain’s control over Canada because everyone was appointed. Elitist. The Court party is a single party that represents the Court (the Crown), to advance the interests of the Crown but as an extension of the Crown instead of directly. There is no party competition. It is not contentious for certain religious members to join the party.
The Competing party- driven by the dissatisfaction of the population of the excessive elitism. Driven by the rebellious 1830’s, the ‘country’ or outsider parties press for cabinets responsible to elected assemblies by 1848. They pressed for a constitutional change!
Coalition party - required by union, forcing tenuous governing deals transcending ideological and religious disagreements. The Durham Report- to assimilate upper and lower Canada to resolve dispute and segmentation in society. You cannot be a party without being more subtle, align the social disagreement between two social groups. Starting to look more and more like Catch-All party. This is the begining of the party not being able to be just one thing.
The Consolidated party - the product of Confederation, single-day elections, and the construction of national infrastructure, factionalism replaced party strategy and national party construction. Politics changes in substance, questions flowing from confederation.
PARTY BUILDING AND PATRONAGE AT THE TURN OF THE 20TH CENTURY (STEWART PIECE)
Canadian party politics saturated with patronage at this time
Questions: How was it acquired? What were the criteria? Party loyalty, loyalty mattered over merit, how was it demonstrated (loyalty)?- local riding associations giving out patronage at the local level. The more suffrage grew the more the need for party organization grew. The more you contribute over a longer stretch of time the more likely you were to receive patronage. Is patronage antithetical to democracy? Yes and no, no because it creates a base (to establish) to govern. Patronage is the training wheels needed to establish a party.
What were the key characteristics and implications?
Patronage favored by an undersupply of high-quality jobs- when high quality jobs could be found elsewhere, that is when patronage was rolled out.
Arguably, patronage if required for initial party formation.
The character of early Canadian patronage locked in the localism of party politics. Delaying the formation of national parties.
But it may weaken representativeness, adaptability, and linguistic accommodation. Delays the rise to political maturity in Canada.
DO YOU WANT FRIES WITH THAT?
Question: In what way does the business model of Canadian political resemble that of the McDonald’s corporation? The higher up federal parties are in charge of the brand identity while the local constituencies focus on local issues while representing the brand identity of the federal party.
Answer: The franchise model!
Conditions:
After the heavy reliance on patronage replaced by programmatic politics.
With parliamentary government - highly disciplined national parties competing for national power.
And with first-past-the-post electoral system and competitive riding elections.
And a large and diverse country requiring accommodation of differences.
THE FRANCHISE PARTY
“The conventional model of a centralized disciplined mass membership party, speaking with one voice, and committed to offering and delivering an integrated and coherent set of public policies, has never been the way to do this successfully” (Carty, p. 729)'
Need to connect up local supporters with the national struggle for power
The franchise party: providing “local autonomy for national discipline”
Local party associations are enormously varied - numbers, participation
Sources of tension:
Candidate selection - candidates at the local level, policy at the national level, - Block? Helicopter candidates- star candidates from talent, they drop them into a very safe riding so that they are guaranteed to win- this rustles the feathers, there are limits to the local riding association? - Stratarchy, there is a big distance between local and federal.
Ridings feeling neglected - resources, central support, guidance.
HONEST BROKERAGE?
What aspect of the Canadian setting might require a novel party form?- The norm is that we have parties grounded in specific constituencies within society. It does not mean they confine themselves to those constituencies.
What therefore are the main features of the brokerage party model?- Catch-All tries to be all things to all people. Brokerage parties are about accommodation across the cleavages, they are coming up with ideas, a vison for the national community rather than being a party that resolves by muting the division between people.
What therefore are the are the main features of the brokerage party model?
What is the connection between brokerage parties and stratarchy?
Has the brokerage party survived in Canada to date? Will it persist?
Party Systems’
WHAT IS A PARTY SYSTEM?
Party system: Repeated and recurring interactions amongst its component parties. Party systems are parties in interaction with each other and is systemic (component parts in a system of parties have explanatory power that goes beyond explain induvial party features).
A) Not just the study of individual political parties- systemic
b) Pursues explanation of individual party behavior
c) The IR analogy- LIT that points to the international system. In a bipolar system the stakes are incredibly high, in IR unipolar systems have different dynamics. The distribution of power resources create a structure that can be identified and defined, tell the difference between uni, bi and multipolar systems. You define the system and use the systemic features to ID the tendencies of specific actors. Once you define the system you say a great deal about the individual units.
d) The party system may affect parties in multiple respects: program, strategies, government formation. Lipset and Rokkan is talking about cleavages, party system is a product of the conflicts that exist, the party is grounded in specific sociological facts.
PARTY SYSTEMS: DETERMINANTS AND DYNAMICS
Factors determining party systems:
a) Relative party strength and size - but how to set boundaries? There is a need to set a threshold for size and strength that party does not serve our analytical purposes. Coalition potential, very must depends on the institutional character of the system
b) Patterns of government formation/opposition - competitive or cooperative.
c) Moderate versus polarized pluralism (Sartori): The same party will produce different results if they are dead set against cooperating with each other. In recent parties we’ve seen never ever parties become populist parties.
Party Positioning Matters:
a) 2 ½ party system - where is the half party? NDP, policies often undertaken by Liberals. The FDP a centrist party between the Christian democrats on one side and the social democrats on one side. Because it was a center party it was available as a coalition party on both sides.
b) Polarized pluralism pulls centrist parties toward more extreme positions - moderate pluralism does the opposite
c) A dominant party within a multiparty system changes its dynamic - mitigates extremism.
Two Party Systems (UK, US)
a) Responsible parties, government versus opposition, moderation, though…
b) US has become more of a polarized two-party system.
Multi-Party system (Continental Europe):
a) Initially criticized for producing weak and frequent changing governments.
b) Though increasingly favored as inclusive and consensus-oriented,
c) Two party governments have grown too strong- ex. Omnibus bills. Theres a tendency for a single party to get too much power whereas in coalition governments where you have to keep the other party happ.
Polarized party systems - we grown increasingly concerned that polarization may not enhance freedom and choice, but also threaten democracy.
LIPSET AND ROKKAN
Emphasize not patterns of Downsian strategic interaction in explaining party system. Downs understanding of parties- vehicles for political entrepreneurs to win elections.
But rather the fundamental cleavages in society
A cleavage is: a durable, socially rooted divide that structures conflict in a society. Something has happened forcing people to reconsider their lives and decide if people are still together or divided. This polarizes people. These cleavages are socially rooted critically. They must be durable.
These cleavages can be:
a) Territorial - responses to states defining boundaries and homogenizing populations
b) Functional - responses to the distribution of roles and resources.
Countries Vary:
a) Different experiences lead to different cleavages.
b) Not every cleavage becomes politically salient.
But salient cleavages are the bases for party development - the party system reflects the pattern of activated cleavages.
LIPSET AND ROKKAN: REVOLUTIONARY SHOCKS
Cleavages and parties derive from external shocks or ‘revolutions’
I. The National Revolution- the formation of nation- states produced conflict:
a) Between those building a strong central state and national community, and peripheral groups in danger of losing their autonomy - regionalists.
b) Between state-builders and those defending their Church- Christian Democrats.
II. The Industrial Revolution- the growth of modern economic forms produced conflict:
a) Between the landed aristocracy and the industrial middle classes - Conservative and Liberals.
b) Between the industrial owners and operators and the working classes - socialists or social democrats.
CLEAVAGE PARTIES AND DEMOCRACY
In a democracy, cleavage based parties:
a) Express the views and interests of social groups.
b) Seeks to resolve grievances within the political system- for L and R this is ideal, their vision for parties.
c) Form alliances with other groups and parties to govern
d) Respond to new cleavage-based parties as they emerged
e) If this works, new groups can express their frustrations, and integrate into the democratic political order.
THE INSTITUTIONAL IMPACT ON CLEAVAGES
Thresholds (there’s a cleavage, what barriers have been put in place to prevent cleavages to turn into parties)- how the rules influence political outcomes:
a) Legitimation- the right to oppose
b) Incorporation- the acquisition of citizenship rights
c) Representation - the need to join other groups and movements to have influence.
d) Majority power - the presence of checks against majority rule
High thresholds may deter successful party organization
So, the grievances will either be buried and forgotten, or fester and foment revolution.
Once a party passes over these thresholds, it is institutionalized and difficult to remove.
BRITISH EXAMPLES
Reformation:
a) National Anglican rather than supranational Catholic Church prevails.
b) Established Church aligned with rather than opposed to the nation-building project.
c) Although parties form based on the cleavage between the Anglican Establishment and excluded groups (Dissenting Protestants and Catholics)- The Whigs and Tories.
Industrial Revolution:
a) Landed upper class defends aristocratic interests and way of life via tariffs against new middle class wanting free trade and cheap food for workers - Conservatives and Liberals
b) Working-class politics become stronger by 20th century, setting workers against owners for decades- Labor and Conservatives.
THE FREEZING HYPOTHESIS
The party system in place by the 1920s remained in place in the 1960s (or longer?)
Why might this be?
a) Party systems reflected processes of territorial and functional integration
b) Which were largely completed by the 1920s
c) All highly salient groups had been granted inclusion, rights, and representation.
These cleavages have since the 1970s or so become much less powerful as organizing principles — dealignment
But — the U.K: the recent parliamentary election was still fundamentally organized around two-class based parties: the Conservatives and Labour
Though in the UK the territorial cleavages has been powerful reactivated — in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales
And, as many democracies, we have seen the emergence of new parties - e.g., Greens, populists - arguably representing new cleavages.,
Canadian Party System Development
In the European context everyone who wanted to be in the Dem process were already in and therefore the “freezing” occurred.
These parties however have declined in significance. Ex. Germany, the two major parties historically are luck to get 50% of the vote between them.
There are new cleavages at work which is not different to what Lipset and Rokkan argued, they did not argue that the Freezing would be permanent.
SOCIOLOGICAL ACCOUNT: CLEAVAGES
As in Lipset and Rokkan, which cleavages become salient, foundational? How have they changed in significance over time? (In some places it is harder form parties) Which cleavages emerge and become politically relevant.
Territorial:
a) (Imperial) state-building- - - state suited for a group that would become national over time. Does the sate building create a dynamic that shapes the cleavages?
b) Religion- Catholic versus Protestant - - - on an overt level religion definitely matters less, we have been predominantly a secular nation. Liberals over the 20th century have drawn on Catholic support, the connection remains somewhat of a mystery.
c) Region - (i) Quebec versus the rest; (ii) the west versus the center - - - why is regionalism more important than class in the Canadian context? Pruysers et al. on the basis of regional divisions that influence the parties- they will remain regional, there is a regional strategy and a government strategy. Do you have a party that plays the regional game or one that is dissatisfied with that and wants to play the Governance game?
Functional:
a) No local landed aristocracy- - - we don’t get the first phase of the industrial revolution (Bourgeois)
b) Class - workers versus employers- Johnston we are unlike the US as we have a third class based party (NDP).
INSTITUIONALIST ACCOUNT: ELECTORAL SYSTEM
Canadian system: Single-member plurality, or FPP- - - single winner ridings. The winner in every riding is a single person, need a plurality not a majority.
Duverger: “the simple- majority single-ballot system favors the two-party system”
So SMP suppresses the number of parties - how? - - - Duverger says…
a) Mechanical Effect - - -The mechanical ways that votes are translated into seats. 30% —> to entire seat for example. It is very hard for smaller parties to prevail. There is no strong incentive for them to form.
b) Psychological effect - - - people don’t like to vote for Losers. Low odds candidates are not supported because voters do not want to waste votes.
Proportional Representation: does not put a tax on party formation, enables every cleavage to express themselves. Enables cleavage groups to form into parties.
CANADA: WHY NO TWO-PARTY SYSTEM?
At least since the early decades after Confederation- The NDP gains a much larger percentage than 3rd parties in the U.S
Key Factors:
a) Duverger’s Law applies only at the riding level- - - we vote on each individual riding candidates not the PM. The individual ridings is where the work is done. It is possible to have a two-party system in every riding.
b) It takes great coordination to translate to a national two-party system.
c) Brian Gaines: Canada doesn’t even have a two-party system at the riding level.- - - most Canadian ridings have 2-4 significant riding contenders. At the riding level, Canadians see a plural system. Federalism, hedging votes, if the national GOV is one party perhaps you vote another way.
d) Canada features regionally concentrated pockets of diversity - favors third-party riding victories. - - -
e) Reverse Causation: parties may emphasize regionalism because of the payoff from the electoral system.
PARTY SYSTEM (COMPARATIVE)
Johnston: Dominant party system:
a) Canada- No completion of the passage from territorial to functional cleavages - - -
b) Electoral system encourages regionalism- - - the incentives this system it offers, there is a pot of gold if you truly organize your party.
c) NDP remained relatively weak - no consolidation of a left-right party system grounded in class dynamics - - - British context two party Dynamic between Libs and Cons, strength of industrialization- meant the emergence of a labor movement, the Libs realize their days may be over and therefore decided to increasingly participate in coalition with the labor party.
d) Liberals survived lingering in the center of the spectrum by relying on other, non-functional dimension: Quebec versus the rest. - - - the Key thing that the Libs did was not to center themselves and become catch all, they become the simultaneous pro-Quebec and pro-federalist party, they play a brokerage strategy.
e) Which left Conservatives the tough job of building coalitions of “francophones and francophobes.” The liberals had the easy coalition path and the Conservatives had the hard job of brining together more contentious cleavages together.
f) And largely blocked the successful growth through moderation of the NDP.- Only in periods of Liberal weakness can the NDP shine.
FEATURES OF THE FOURTH PARTY SYSTEM
What are the features?
a) New regional challenger parties- - - the Bloc, Reform. Regionalism is THE defining feature of the fourth party system.
b) Regionalized results for the leading parties.
c) Clearly regional brokerage not succeeding.
d) Multiparty system - as many as five parties!
IS THERE A FIFTH PARTY SYSTEM?
Koop Bittner from a decade ago - possible fifth system features:
a) Return to majority governments
b) Liberals losing their stature as the ‘natural governing party’
c) A Liberal return to power will have tp take a long time.
Is there a fifth party system, and what are its central characteristics?
THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL PARTY SYSTEMS
Daniele Caramani: expectation of nationalizing be overcoming the effects especially of the National Revolution.
Evaluates the extent to which key cleavages still organizes party politics:
a) Centre-periphery-— struggle, the difference between the nation forming capital and the peripheral areas.
b) Ethno-linguistic and religious factors that are still relevant
c) Class, especially urban-rural cleavages - - - if class falls in to establishing differences between Urban and Rural then it CAN fragment the country.
You get a more nationalized system if you DONT have these cleavages, or if you overcome the.
Establishes whether voter turnout and party support is evenly spread across the territory
Remaining cleavages are de-territorialized. - - - for instance the class cleavage becomes stripped of its urban rural differentiation. Seen in the move from the first industrial class divide (bourgeoise vs labor), when it becomes more modern the more you get close to nationalized state.
Over 150 years from the 1830s, European party systems had become increasingly homogenous, due to:
a) Industrialization and urbanization.
b) Stat- and nation-building
c) Development in communications technology
d) Democratization, formation of mass and other party types.
In recent decades, parties have emerged to express territorial grievances.
THE FORMATION OF NATIONAL PARTY SYSTEMS
Pradeep Chhibber and Ken Kollman
a) Party system nationalization: the extent to which national and state/provincial parties are integrated.
b) USA: strongly nationalized party system - the same two parties on offer at all levels, a common career path from the state party to the federal party.
c) Canada: not very nationalized - separate or merely nominal provincial parties, separate provincial and federal political careers. —- this is not a cause of the two party system, but evidence that the power is centralized at the top.
d) Key factor: the degree to which power is centralized - if yes, then political actors are riveted by the national level; if no, then actors will pursue political organization where power resides.
e) Canada: highly centralized in 1867, less so in decades to follow, more centralized with Great Depression and WWII, and then now much less centralized.
Ideology, Strategy, and Electoral Competition
APPROACHES TO PARTY STARTEGY
Downsian spatial analysis- vote seeking:
- - - Branding- both are trying to adjust the party’s brand. What is the image that voters have about the party, are the voters attached? If not, voters can’t find a reason to vote for you.
Why was there no Liberal-NDP merger- Liberals don’t really need a merger, less dependent on a merger with the NDP,
a) Voter preferences are fixed.
b) Voters will choose the party that adopts positions closest to their own.
c) Parties strategically advance policies that maximize the number of voters who prefer their policies over those of others.
d) This is generally in terms of the left-right political spectrum
e) And requires high-quality information on the part of the voters and party officials
f) And a commitment of parties to maximize their prospects of winning office.
g) In a two-party system, this tends toward partisan convergence.
h) In a multi-party system, parties must also more clearly differentiate themselves from rivals.
Policy-driven approach:
a) Parties have preferences, even convictions.
b) Although these are determined in part based on competitive dynamics.
c) So, party positions tend to remain roughly the same.
d) Especially in consolidated democracies- substantial commitment to party brand, identity.
e) Within strongly institutionalized parties and party systems- parties well grounded in relationships with social groups and voter constituencies.
f) And given internal factions - parties are not coherent rational actors.
g) Although change in electoral performance may inspire experimental from one election to the next.
Valence model:
a) Based on the notion that voters may respond not to party positions alone.
b) But to valence issues: party attributes or attachments that all voters like or dislike.
c) So all voters may want a strong economy, but may differentiate between parties with high and low economic ‘competence’
d) or ‘issue ownership’ - especially if married to an image of competence on the issue
e) Or party traits such as an appealing or charismatic leader.
f) Valence and position approaches interact - e.g., a party with lower economic competence must emphasize positional differentiation.
2015 FEDERAL CANADIAN ELECTION
Liberal Party announcement, August 27th: “This election is a clear choice between smart investments that create jobs and growth, or austerity and cuts that will slow our economy further”
Promise of $65 B more in infrastructure spending $10 B deficits spending until 2020
NDP announcement…
FORD AND JENNINGS
Longstanding cleavages of class and religion remained significant
But have we seen significant thawing out in recent decades of cleavages and social groups?
One result is partisan dealignment- party-constituency linkages collapsing, voting behavior increasingly unpredictable.
(West) Germany:
1972: SPD 45.8% and CDU 44.9%
2021: SPD 25.7% and CDU 24.1%
2025: SPD 16.4% and CDU 28.5%
Are politics more complicated now than a single Left-Right spectrum can capture - is there more than one dimension?
Do we need to add dimensions by:
a) Adding new interpretation of the main materialist divisions?
b) Setting materialism against a new values-based dimensions?
c) Identifying largely noneconomic or values-based foundations for social and pollical conflict.
THE CLOBALIZATION DIMENSION
Key: Change toward substantial reliance on the global market and other interactions
Whereas the old class—based politics operated primarily within nationally organized economic spaces.
Winners: well-educated workers with highly transferable skills, capitalist asset holders.
Losers: manufacturing workers, those in previously protected sectors.
This doesn’t map onto class, but arguably does map onto education. - Conservatives, discuss that the inequalities that arise from lack of education are justified.
Globalization and inequality: four decades of relative wage stagnation, while gains of globalization have been concentrated at the top (Mark Blyth)
Party Politics is profoundly sociological.
THE POST-MATERIALIST HYPOTHESIS
A new cleavage in society:
Materialists: vote based on ‘who gets what?’ on the left-right spectrum
Post-materialists: vote based on broader values considerations
Generational change from materialists to increasing post-materialists. Why?
a) People are the product of influences from their formative years - childhood, adolescence.
b) Materialists were formed by the experience of total war and the Great Depression. Who gets what? remained a crucial question that remained for the rest of their lives.
c) Post-materialists were formed by post-WWII peace and prosperity. -how do we find them? More or less police? They care about laws and policies that protect the middle class.
d) They are able to move up Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
e) And so can vote based on human rights, equality, and environment.
THE GAL-TAN HYPOTHESIS
Proposed new dimension of politics since the 1970s/80s
GAL- Green, Alternative, Libertarian
Supportive of increased personal freedoms- civil liberties, same-sex marriage, and enhanced popular participation in governance. Ex. 99% movement against globalization.
TAN - Traditional, Authoritarian, Nationalist
Supportive of traditional authority and arrangements — traditional family structures and relationships, strengthen defense of law and order, and moral authority in politics.- the Liberal Right sees that there is a decline moral authority.
Stimulated by the Information Revolution - technological change greatly enhanced the ease and efficiency of data collection and management.
But may also derive from two other critical external shocks: post-materialist cultural revolution and globalization.
THE GLOBALIZATION DIMENSIONS
Key: change toward substantial reliance on global market and other interactions
Whereas the old class-based politics operated primarily within nationally organized economic spaces.
Winners: well-educated workers with highly transferable skills, capitalist asset holders
Losers: manufacturing workers, those in previously protected sectors.
This doesn’t map onto class, but arguably does map onto education.
Globalization and inequality: four decades of relative wage stagnation, while gains of globalization have been concentrated at the top (Mark Blyth).
THE POST-MATERIALIST HYPOTHESIS
Materialists: vote based on “who gets what?” on the left-right spectrum.
Post-materialists: vote based on broader values consideration
Generational change from materialists to increasing post-materialists. Why?
a) People are the product of influences from their formative years- childhood, adolescence
b) Materialists were formed by the experience of total war and the Great Depression
c) Post-materialists were formed by post-WWII peace and prosperity
d) They are able to move up on Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
e) And so vote based on human rights, equality, and environment
Partisanship, Populism, Polarization,
PARTISANSHIP AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION
Partisanship: attachment or loyalty to a political party
Partisan identification: emphasizes the emotional/psychological over the rational/ideological aspects
Sources:
a) Socialization at home
b) Social group membership
c) Life-cycle processes
d) Party system institutionalization- when the parties are anchored, stable and durable, partly because they have defined themselves clearly.
The Canadian system has been institutionalized in some aspect. Partisan re-alignment: When there is structural change in the relationship between the party and those that align with it.
Partisan de-alignment
People do not stay attached to the same party over the course of their life time. Occurring around the 1960s and 1970s.
NEGATIVE PARTISANSHIP
Not necessarily related to positive partisanship:
a) Strong partisan attachment does not require hostility to another party
b) In proportional, multiparty democracies, findings suggest that positive feelings toward one’s own party can coexist with positivity also toward other parties
c) Even weak positive partisanship can align with strong negative partisanship
d) US 2016: Clinton voters moved largely by positive partisanship, whereas Trump voters responded to a blend of positive and negative partisanship
e) Medeiros and Noel: negative partisanship more ideological than ethnic or group-based
POLARIZATION
Partisanship: attachment to a political party
Polarization: movement of parties away from each other on the political spectrum - or the distance between them.
Polarization is generally a blend of ideological (issue-based) and affective - with the latter making it severe.
In highly polarized party system, partisans view each other with hostility, distrust, and bias - opponents seen as narrow-minded, unpatriotic, or ill-intentioned
Debate: does polarization come from elites, or from the masses?
IMPACT OF POLARIZATION
Effects
a) Reduced tendency of the parties to compromise
b) Negative partisanship, as politics is increasingly seen as a zero-sum game
c) Political opponents seen as fundamentally illegitimate
d) Fewer common political assumptions, facts
e) Self-reinforcing dynamic
f) Inspires populism, which exaggerates its effects
US
Since the 1980s, US has undergone substantial polarization:
a) Differentiation of issue priorties
b) And of party membership - Republicans incorporating more white and Chrisitian, and Democrats mobilizing more minorities and non-Christian (changing?)
Sources - I. Political sorting:
a) Post Depression party system - Democrats: Northern progressives and Southern conservatives
b) Civil Rights movement- Democrats mobilize African Americans, and support civil rights, leading Southern conservatives to turn to the Republican Party
c) Reinforced by the rise of the Evangelical movement, strengthening the religious character of the Republican Party.
d) Result: the parties become more ideologically and socially coherent.
Sources - II. Pierson and Schickler?
POPULISM
Populism, according to Cas Mudde and Kaltwasser
a) “a thin-centered ideology”- you see this because there are populists everywhere, like tofu. Associated with another ideology.
b) that considers society to be ultimately seperated into two homogenous and antagonistic camps
c) ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupts elite,’
d) and which argues that politics should be an expression of the general will of the people
Populism’s relationship to polarization:
a) Permits leader to define party direction - knows the ‘will of the real people’ — Populists are able to call into the legitimacy of elections because they “know” what the people want.
b) Emerges in response to partisan convergence—
c) And srives to sharply break with mainstream politics - left or right
IMPACT OF POLARIZATION
Effects
a) Reduced tendency of the parties to compromise- Compromise as a bad word in many political contexts. The less compromised the more polarized. Compromise used to be the essence of politics.
b) Negative partisanship, as politics is increasingly seen as a zero-sum game- You need some degree of party ID to clarify where you sit and to define where the other party lies.
c) Political opponents seen as fundamentally illegitimate- democracy depends upon identifying rivals and merely rivals, this is being lost. Political opponents are seen as undermining society, harm to the country.
d) Fewer common political assumptions, facts- we get reinterpretations
e) Self-reinforcing dynamic- the more polarized you become the more pressure there is to keep going.
POPULIST POLARIZATION
The Hungarian Case:
a) Party system institutionalized 1990-2010, though polarized.
Party institutionalizations, does the party system remain more or less intact. Hungary for the most part had a very durable system after the collapse of communism. All different parts of society feeling represented.
b) But strong polarization inspired the development of populist approaches
c) Which led to intensification of competition over the regime, not policy. — the survival of the regime, the populism was being expressed in changes to the constitution, to weaken the prospects for the other sides’ electoral success.
d) And on who can claim to be part of the ‘real people’ - populism premises a cleavage (a new one) between the real people and the corrupt.
Parties from Private to Public Entities
PRIVATE OR PUBLIC
What does it mean for parties to be considered private associations? What are the implications?
Parties as initially concieved were just organizations that performed in society. Parties were not born as public utilities, or having any relation to the state.
Over time, political parties have become “legitimate objects of state regulation to a degree far exceeding what would normally be acceptable for private associations in a liberal society” (Katz)
Tool for capturing power turns into a public good or service.
Should we allow parties to do as they wish or should we regulate them?
Parties may be seen as public utilities:
“performing a service in which the public has a special interest sufficient to justify governmental regulatory control, along with the extension of legal priviledges, but no governmental ownership or mangement of all agenec’s activities”
Like, say, electricity? Public has a compelling interest, the provision has to be fair and reliable, and the company can’t operate in a way that leads to corruption or to the failure to serve the public.
PARTIES AS “INEVITABLE” AND “DESIRABLE” (VAN BIEZEN)
The historical trajectory:
a) The historical rejection of parties- we don’t want factions to impede the common interest.
b) Selective acceptance of parties- some types better than others. Tendency to have a fixed idea of what the proper type of party.
c) Broader acceptance of parties. - “mass democracy is inconceivable save parties”
d) But especially in Anglo-American two-party systems - then spreading
e) Then emerges an appreciation of multiparty systems- starts to move towards the modern balanced picture.
f) More recently, we debate the possible transcendence of parties.
PARTY CONSTITUTIONALIZATION
West Germany, Basic Law, 1949 - article 21(as amended 1984):
a) “The political parties participate in the formation of the political will of the people. They may be freely established. Their internal organization must conform to democratic principles. They must publicly account for their assets and for the sources and use of their funds as well as assets.” - not only are we regulating parties, we are undergirding the role of the party into the constitution in order to no longer have a system without parties.
b) “Parties which, by reason of their aims or the behavior of their adherents, seek to impair or destroy the free democratic base order or to engage in the existence of the Federal Republic of (west) Germany are unconstitutional.”
Spain, post-Franco constitution, 1978- article 6:
“Political parties are the expression of the political pluralism, they contribute to the formation and expression of the will of the people and are an essential instrument for political participation”
CORDUWENER
a) To party denial thesis- political elites early on became open to parties, especially Germany and Italy.
b) To Katz and Mair - parties moved towards the state much earlier than Katz and Mair imagined.
c) But patterns are disrupted by ‘critical junctures,’ such as mass democratization and WWII
d) Entanglement with the state has actually facilitated the democratization of Europe.
e) Katz and Mair - danger not of party entanglement with
f) Emergence of weakened parties and anti-parties
g) Which could either spark new forms of entanglements, of their final collapse.
Party Funding
Sources of Party Financing
Private or public
Klaus Von Beyme (two types of private funding vs public funding):
Internal private: membership dues (obligation of members is to pay dues), donations from party members
External private: donations from non-members, firms and corporations on one hand, unions on the other
Public:
Direct: state subsidies
Indirect: tax exemptions for contributions (government has to substitute that money, indirect), free media access
Role of Party Financing Reform
To regulate donations:
Foreign and anonymous donations are generally banned
Public or semi-public bodies are often banned
Private corporations and/or unions sometimes banned
Ceilings may be set for all kinds of donations
To regulate expenditures:
Limit spending by parties
Limit spending by candidates in their constituencies
To provide direct and indirect public support
To influence the transparency of the financing process
Internal Private Financing
Why is it desirable in the first place?
Keeps party elites accountable to the membership
Promotes political participation within well-organized parties
Why is it hard to sustain?
In early democratizers, waning of mass party model, and deep declines in party membership in recent decades
In more recent democratizers, weakness of democratic participatory norms, and absence of experience building mass parties
In more recent democratizers, or with new parties, too much familiarity with or access to public financing
Campaigns becoming increasingly expensive
Does Private (External) Financing Influence Elections?
Pro:
It's a form of speech
Speech becomes superior when people have the opportunity to become informed
Parties informing people of their positions costs money
It enhances debate
Allows for multiple pov’s to be expressed (esp in normative consensus)
People have many good reasons to give - not just to gain undue influence
Danger: lose sight of fact that democratic politics and engagement in that costs money
Con:
It can influence nomination processes
Candidates who prevail may benefit from substantial support from unions, corporations, individual supporters, etc.
It can set the political agenda
And encourage privileged treatment- even if quid pro quos are hard to establish
There are many cases of abuse
Though the evidence is split
Likely yes, but less than was originally thought
Spending generally favours challenger candidate more than incumbent - unless the incumbent is little known
Implication: Campaign spending limits may reinforce advantages of incumbency
It still pays to try to outspend your opponent - especially if the gap is great
Transparency
For party contributions - is transparency a good thing?
Yes:
Openness cleans up politics, at least in public perception
Even if it's not actually working, the perception that it is working is a good thing and would bring a greater degree of legitimacy (since people are losing confidence)
It combats the sense of political illegitimacy
Actual evidence can make people stay bound to their facts
No:
Expensive for all to maintain and monitor
Not clearly effective
Maybe we need privacy/secrecy - level of embarrassment/shame in advancing one set of goals
Perhaps donor privacy is appropriate - e.g., secrecy of vote, or to protect against punishment or exclusion from benefits
The German case:
Small donations (under 5000 euros) remain anonymous
Medium donations (10 000 euros and up) must be disclosed, but in reports that may emerge 1-2 years later
Hard to establish accountability with delayed exposure
Large donations (50 000 euros and up) must be disclosed immediately
Many party and campaign financing reformers want to see medium-sized contributions disclosed immediately by law
Why Might Public Funding Be Desirable?
Limits the extent of influence of wealthy or well-organized special interests
Combats corruption, especially in association with disclosure requirements
Levels the playing field for parties in competition for votes, office, and policy
Permits entry of new parties - fresh ideas
Overall, parties seen as performing crucial services to democracy, worth paying for
May decrease party leadership’s accountability to members, suppress participation
May favour large parties and exclude potential new entrants (benefits proportional)
This may be what induces existing parties to collaborate to establish subsidies in the first place - the cartel party thesis
Work is done based on idea that party’s ability to rely on social membership stimulates an interest in public financing, by parties and those participating in the political system to ensure strong parties
May favour extremist or even anti-democratic parties - in Germany, 2021:
The CDU and SPD (two mainstream parties) received the bulk of the public subsidies, roughly 54 million euros each
But the AfD received 11.8 million euros, and the NPD 370 000 euros
How Has the Cartel Thesis Held Up?
No strong correlation between public funding and the number of political parties
Depends on how subsidies are structured:
Payout threshold - does the party have to win seats, or merely gain a certain number of proportion of votes?
Payout principles - by vote share, or flat rate?
Egalitarian: flat rate, equal share in access to public funding
Purpose - specific, or open-ended?
What is the purpose of the subsidies, are they targeted towards certain periods of time?
Public funding has not greatly reduced competitive drive - parties emphasize additional private financing in order to win elections
And perhaps partisanship motivates changes in structure of financing (e.g. Canada)
Parties have not necessarily been organizationally transformed
Decline in participation exaggerated - perhaps not there at all
Campaign professionalization preceded public funding
And parties remain intermediaries between state and society rather than agencies grafted on to the state
The Italian Case
1948: Open system of party financing - private financing unregulated
1974: Public funding introduced, as a response to major cross-party scandal
‘Clean Hands’ 1992-94: Public party subsidies repealed, but not electoral reimbursement, which grew greatly in the coming years
Under pressure of party corruption and economic crisis:
2008: Public funding reduced by 20m euros
2012: Maximum public funding cut in half over six years
2014: Abolition of all state funding by 2017, replaced by due per mille tax payment (0.2% of taxes)
US CASE:
1883 Pendleton Act: banned contributions from civil servants
1907: bans on corporate donations, without enforcement
Federal Election Campaign Act, 1971, amended 1974: donations of $1000 by individuals during each of primary and general elections; limits on spending
1976: Buckley v. Valeo- spending limits unconconstitutional, contribution limits justifiable
1979 FECA Amendment: unlimited ‘soft money’ contributions from any source- party building activities
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, 2002 - up to $2000 per election for individuals; no contributions from corporations, unions, etc. Limits on issue advocacy ads within 30 days of the election
Citizens United (2010)- unlimited amounts to independent outside groups (PACs or 501c4s) - dark money orgs move against transparency and disclosure, tax exempt non-profits that allow to speak without any disclosure on contributions.
FECA created public financing system - matching funds for first $250, cap on total campaign spending in primaries, flat grant from government for general election
The 2008 presidential election greatly challenged the system.
System is broken, but no political capacity to repair it, highly polarized politics, and changing judicial interpretations.
Intraparty Democracy
WHAT IS A PRIMARY?
Primary election, precedes a general election
For the purpose of electing its participants
A primary has an open and inclusive selectorate:
a) Party members, supporters, and/or voters more broadly - pure primary
b) Party members, only participate indirectly, through delegates - not a primary (Bulk of how it happened in Canada 20th century)
c) Party members uninvolved, only elite actors such as the parliamentary party group - not a primary.
d) Primary selectorate combined with non-primary selectorate (leader, elites, PPG, delegates)- mixed primary- the Conservatives leadership approach, the parliamentary group has control but so do the members.
e) For some, it’s only a primary if the primary selectorate dominates
f) Blanket primary: all party candidates on a single ballot, cross-partisan selection, winners.
USES OF PRIMARIES
Primaries may be introduced for:
a) National party leadership
b) Subnational party leadership
c) Legislative candidates
In descending order, these party bodies have frequently become more inclusive and open:
a) By introducing primaries, within some or all parties
b) By expanding the selectorate- to all party members, supporters, and voters.
Canada: first closed primaries in the provinces - PQ 1985, Ontario PCs 1990, BC Liberals 1993.
Now common federally as well as provincially
WHY PRIMARIES?
Party elites do not easily yield control of party functions, like recruitment and candidate selection
Leading reasons:
a) To stem general party decline and delegitimating
b) To combat corruption
c) In reaction to electoral defeat- it can take more than one
d) In response to another party making such changes
e) Because party constitutionlization encourages it
Why not primaries? Consider Ignazi
THE US CASE
No history of major mass parties
But now the most advanced case of intraparty democratization
The Progressive Era inspired reliance on intraparty democracy- diffusion of primaries
Then pushback by party elites.
Thereafter, primaries could be strategic, but the party was generally decisive.
Then pushback by party elites.
Thereafter, primaries could be strategic, but was generally decisive
The contentious 1968 Democratic Convention led to McGovern-Fraser reforms: rules binding delegates to the primary results.
“The Party Decides?” Yes for Biden and, no for Trump in 2016.
Primaries out of control? How does Trump use primaries to exert control over his party?
WHY OPEN PRIMARIES?
Open primaries:
a) Increase participation
b) Increase range of choice- 80 plus elections at the state level are determined one the primary happens.
c) Non-partisan versions- push back against polarization
But at the cost of further hollowing out of parties?
GREENS AND THE GRASSROOTS
European Green Parties - born out of the new social movements of the late 1960s and the 1970s:
a) Movement parties must shift from a single- to multi-issue focus
b) And will experience pressure to compromise and conform
Distinctive Features:
a) Grounded less in class than in values - postmaterialist or GAL rather than TAN
b) Universalistic in aims
c) Committed not just to positions, but to changing the world by being different:
Expressivist- they didn’t just want to come up with policies, they wanted to internalize their hate for inequality, they dismantled inequality internally.
Anti-political- they were not going to operate the way normal political parties do.
Decentralized and non-hierarchical
Relying on direct engagement and symbolic appeals
West German Green Party:
a) Formed 1979
b) By 1983, already 5.6% of the vote, 27 Bundestag seats.
c) Split emerged, fundis Vs. realos
d) Party adaptation: identifiable leaders, no rotation of members, moderation of pacifism and zero-growth policies
e) Join state governments, and then the national government in 1998
f) Remain a strong party- were ahead in the polls at points during the 2022 federal election.