Political Parties and Party Systems Reading List/Course Outline

Final Year Politics Major Course

Spring/Summer 1997

Introduction

An introduction to the course and to the main themes and issues to he addressed throughout the term.

Parties and Democracy

In this first week we examine the way in which parties have been integral to theories of liberal democracy and we question whether their status in theory has been justified by their status in practice, and we ask whether modern bureaucratic politics have rendered the political party a redundant form of political mobilisation. *Max Weber "Politics as a Vocation" in Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds.) From Max Weber 2nd ed. (Routledge, 1991) or @ Max Weber "The Advent of Plebiscitarian Democracy" *@Peter Mair "Introduction"

Discussion Questions from the Reading:

Questions on Weber

"Politics as a Vocation" is a classic article in Political Science. For those of you who have read the non-extracted version. What does Weber define as (1) the origin of political power, (2) the state and (3) the three different forms of authority?

Weber is writing about the development of the party from its pre-modern to its modern form. What are the key differences between the two forms of party? What general process and more specific event brought about the transition? How does the change take place? How far does Weber's description of the modern party still apply to contemporary parties? How is Weber's analysis of parties linked to the concept of democracy?

Questions on Mair

Mair summarises some of the literature that talks about the shift from the mass party to the catch-all party. Identifying this change means that the focus is on one particular component of the party. What is that component? Why has this change occurred and what is the implication of it for democracy?

Do you think that recent years have witnessed the decline of party? What evidence would you need to gather to prove either that parties have declined or that they have not declined? How important are parties for contemporary conceptions of democracy?

Additional Readings:

Essay Questions:

1. Are political parties inimical or integral to democracy as practised in contemporary liberal democratic regimes?
2. What alternatives to the political party are there?
3. How far do the internal organisation of parties act as a microcosm of the dilemmas or possibilities of democracy?
4. Is there a contemporary crisis of party?

In the Beginning: Party Formation

In this week, we examine two theoretical arguments which stress the formation of parties as a subsequent determinant of their nature, structure and success. First we deal with the seminal contribution of Lipset and Rokkan who link party systems to social cleavages and then we move onto the more explicitly organisational approach of Panebianco who argues that we can understand parties though seeing how they were formed.

*Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan "Cleavage Structures, Party Systems and Voter Alignments" in Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan (eds.), Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross National Perspectives, (Free Press, 1967), pp.1-67 or @ Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan "Cleavage Structures, Party Systems and Voter Alignments"

*Angelo Panebianco, Political Parties, (Cambridge University Press, l988) Chaps. 3 & 4.

Discussion Questions from the Reading:

Questions on Lipset and Rokkan

Lipset and Rokkan stress that party systems develop historically. What is it that allows different parties to develop? What do they identify as the three key historical events? How do the two revolutions they identify translate into different constellations of parties? Do you think that their approach is an adequate one? Are there other Political Scientist you have come across who approach different areas in the same way?

Lipset and Rokkan are described as having articulated the "freezing hypothesis". What is this? How does it hold up to events subsequent to the time that they were writing? How could we, using their assumptions, account for key changes in West European party systems in the past three decades? How far could we extend their approach to account for non-European party systems?

Questions on Panebianco

Like Lipset and Rokkan, Panebianco believes that historical development conditions political parties. However he focuses on one particular aspect of parties' development which Lipset and Rokkan do not stress. What is this aspect?

Panebianco develops a model of party development that identifies two major factors as causal. What are these factors, what do they explain and how do they explain it? What is the one exception? What, then, are the possible types of party origin and what are the possible examples of each? What are the assumptions implicit in Panebianco's approach? Do you think they are assumptions?

Additional Readings:

Essay Questions:

1. How does the way in which a party comes into being affect its subsequent development?
2. What are the principle weaknesses of the sociological approach to studying political parties?
3. What are the strengths of the "freezing hypothesis"?
4. What are the dominant cleavages that determine the nature of contemporary party systems?

Party Organisations

In this session we will examine the role of organisation both as a analytical method of characterising parties and as having a potential link to the life-chances of parties. Much of the literature has focused around changes in the organisational form of parties as a way of characterising party systems and so we examine the changes engendered by the shift from mass parties, to catch-all parties to professional-bureaucratic parties.

*Maurice Duverger, Political Parties, (Methuen, 1954) Book 1 Chapters 1 and 2 or @ Maurice Duverger "Caucus and Branch, Cadre Parties and Mass Parties".

*Otto Kirchheimer, "The Transformation of the Western European Party Systems" in Joseph LaPalombara and Martin Wiener (eds.), Political Parties and Political Development, (Princeton University Press, 1966), pp.l77-200 or @Otto Kirchhemier "The Catch-All Party"

*Angelo Panebianco, Political Parties, (Cambridge University Press, l988). Chapter 14.

Discussion Questions from the Reading:

Questions on Duverger

Duverger elucidates the different elements of parties. What are the differences between a caucus and a branch? How far do you think the concept of "contagious organisation" is valid? What was new about the mass parties? What sort of parties tend to be mass parties? How far do you think Duverger's model is tainted by the archetypes he is using? What assumptions underlie Duverger's approach and how convincing do you find it? What similarities do you see to the Weberian approach?

Questions on Kirchheimer

Kirchheimer is identifying the emergence of the catch-all party. He places this in historical context. What were the two failures that interacted with each other after WWI? Why did parties change and what were the five features of the new form? How far do you think Kirchheimer's model is tainted by the archetypes he is using? What does Kirchheimer see more broadly as the three functions of parties? What are the weaknesses of Kirchheimer's arguments?

Questions on Panebianco

Panebianco, like Kirchheimer, is identifying the emergence of a new model of party. What does Panebianco note about Kirchheimer's analysis? How does Panebianco's model of a electoral-professional party contrast with what has preceded it? What factors determine transformation from one form to the other and what environmental factors reinforce that change? What is the new dimension of political conflict that is emergent? Panebianco outlines three future scenarios. How far are they becoming a reality? How far do you find Panebianco's model to be usefully applicable?

Additional Readings:

Essay Questions:

1. Using the categories proposed by Duverger and Kirchheimer show the major changes in party types since the Second World War and draw out the implications for theories of political parties.
2. How Iron is the "Iron Law of Oligarchy"?
3. "Who says organisation says oligarchy." Do you agree?
4. What was the impact of social democratic and Christian democratic parties on Duverger's and Kirchheimer's theories respectively?
5. How far have Green parties been successful in challenging the dominant model of party organisation?
6. Is the "cartel party" really a new model of political party?
7. What are the differences between the caucus and cartel models of political parties?

Factions, Activists and Leaders

We move onto examining the elite level of political parties and we focus on three topics. The first topic is just how far activists reflect or determine the nature of the wider party. The second topic is the way in which activists differentiate themselves into factions, and the final topic is the nature of leadership in political parties.

*Richard Rose "Parties, Factions and Tendencies in Britain" Political Studies Vol.XII, No.1 (1964).

*David Hine "Factionalism in West European Parties: A Framework for Analysis" West European Politics Vol.5, No.1 (January, 1982)

*Dennis C. Beller and Frank P. Belloni, "Party and Faction: Modes of Political Competition" in Frank P. Belloni and Dennis C. Beller (eds.) Faction Politics: Political Parties and Factionalism in Comparative Perspective (ABC-CLIO, 1978) Chapter 17.

*John D. May "Opinion Structure of Political Parties: The Special Law of Curvilinear Disparity" Political Studies Vol.21, No.2, 1973: 135-51.

Discussion Questions from the Reading:

Questions on Rose

Rose is focusing on one functional dimension of parties. What is this? He argues that there are three key divisions within this aspect of parties. What are these? How does he define factions and tendencies? What causes factionalism for Rose? Rose is using the British case as a basis for a more general theory. What is his conclusion about British party politics based on his study of factions and tendencies? Does the British focus create problems? Is there something distinct/unique about British parties that means we cannot generalise from them?

Questions on Hine

Why does Hine want to focus on factionalism? What does Hine add to Rose's approach? What three dimensions dictate the nature of intra-party division? What causes factionalism for Hine? Has Hine missed out anything important in his identification of structural determinants? What do you make of his assertion of the different levels of factionalism in parties of the left and the right?

Questions on Beller & Belloni

How do Beller and Belloni define faction and the different types of faction, and how do they differentiate between different types? What causes factionalism for Beller and Belloni? Do they view factions positively or negatively? What do Beller and Belloni conclude about the bias in the study of factions, and what do they suggest we should do about it? What biases do you detect in their approach?

Questions on May

What is the Law of Curvilinear Disparity? What are May's assumptions in his theory, and how tenable do you find these assumptions? How far does his data support his theory and can you think of additional cases that would either support or undermine his law? What are the implications of the law?

Additional Reading:

Essay Questions:

1. How useful is the differentiation between factions and tendencies?
2. Are some parties more liable to factionalism than others? If so, what are the key determinants of factionalism?
3. Why are activists activists?
4. What role does leadership play in determining the fate of political parties?
5. How far does the Law of Curvilinear Disparity hold?

Party Systems I

In the first of two sessions we will take on some of the major theoretical literature that seeks to analyse and explain party systems. We focus particularly on Duverger's differentiation between party systems and, in so doing, we seek to answer the question about the value of counting parties as an approach in itself. We also look at Lijphart's theory of consociational democracy.

*Maurice Duverger Political Parties Book 2 Chapter 1 or @ Maurice Duverger " The Two Party System and the Multi-Party System"

*Arend Lijphart "Typologies of Democratic Systems" Comparative Political Studies, Vol.1, 1968, pp.3-44.

Discussion Questions from the Reading:

Questions on Duverger

Duverger is concerned with dualism. What are the two kinds of dualism and what is the key difference for party systems? Why does Duverger think there is there no such thing as a "true Centre" in a party system? What is the most natural type of party system for Duverger and why do other forms exist? Is Duverger's analysis of political conflict correct? What assumptions is Duverger making about the nature of politics in general?

Questions on Lijphart

Lijphart is critiquing the monolithic conception of multipartyism. What is it that, he claims, the dichotomous differentiation between multipartyism and two-party systems fails to take account of? What two factors shape part systems according to Lijphart?

Lijphart introduces the idea of consociational democracy. What are its defining features, preconditions, necessary conditions and its explanatory value? What do you think consociational democracy explains? What conclusions about democracy does Lijphart draw from his theory? What do you think are the democratic implications?

Additional Reading:

Essay Questions:

1. What is the relationship between electoral systems and party systems?
2. Are parties merely electoral machines?
3. What role does dualism play in Duverger's theorising? How natural is dualism to a party system?
4. How convincing is Duverger's account of change in two-party systems?

Party Systems II

In this second session addressing the theoretical literature, we move onto examine Sartori's categorisation of party systems. This means that we are differentiating between different types of multi-party systems. A question that we will address is the relationship between Sartori's two types of multi-party systems and their relative stability.

*Giovanni Sartori, Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis, (Cambridge University Press, 1976) or @Giovanni Sartori "A Typology of Party Systems" or Giovanni Sartori, "European Political Parties: The Case of Polarised Pluralism", in Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Wiener (eds.), Political Parties and Political Development, (Princeton University Press, 1966), pp.l37-176.

*Arend Lijphart, Democracy in Plural Societies, (Yale University Press, 1977) or @"Dimensions of Ideology in European Party Systems"

Discussion Questions from the Reading:

Questions on Sartori

Sartori starts from the supposition that the numerical criterion is an important starting point in classifying party systems. Which parties count for him? This is only his starting point as he sees the need to classify different variants of multipartism. What are these different variants and how can we recognise them? What types of party systems are there for Sartori?

Do you think that there is slippage between the categories? What factors will cause structural changes to the type of party system that a country has? Do you think that Sartori has archetypes in mind for his classification of the different variants of multipartism? Can you think of party systems that Sartori's approach would fail to classify? How would you classify Sartori's approach to parties?

Questions on Lijphart

What are the cleavages identified by Lijphart? Are they comprehensive? Do they apply to party systems in the 1990s? What would Beller and Belloni say to Lijphart? How would you classify Lijphart's approach to parties?

Additional Reading:

Essay Questions:

1. What does Sartori's categorisation of party systems add to that of Duverger?
2. Is Sartori's model of extreme multipartyism really a euphemism for instability?
3. What are the determinants of party hegemony or predominance?
4. What does the theory of consociational democracy suggest about the role of parties in democracy?
5. What determines the success or failure of new political parties?
6. Where is the centre of a party system?

Keeping it in the Family: Party Types in Western Europe

As we begin to understand the context in which parties operate, we will start to make sense of different types of parties to see whether we can generalise across national boundaries, or whether it only makes sense to examine party systems in national contexts. In this session we use Western Europe as a case study to try and answer these questions.

*Richard Rose and Derek W. Urwin "Persistence and Change in Western Party Systems Since 1945, Political Studies Vol.18, No.3 (1970), pp.287-319 or @ Rose & Urwin "Persistence and Change in West European Party Systems 1945-1969" and @ Mogens. N. Pedersen, "Electoral Volatility in Western Europe, 1948-1977".

*Ronald Inglehart, The Silent Revolution (Princeton University Press, 1977) or Culture Shift (Princeton University Press, 1990) or @ "The Nature of Value Change" and @ "From Class-Based to Value-Based Politics"

*@ Jean Blondel "Types of Party System"

Discussion Questions from the Reading:

Questions on Rose and Urwin

How do Rose and Urwin measure party change? What do their measures suggest is the general trend in the period 1945-1969? What then must Political Scientists explain about change in party systems?

Questions on Pedersen

Why do we need to reconsider the stability thesis of Lipset & Rokkan and Rose & Urwin? How does Pedersen measure party system change? What three "families" of party system does Pedersen's data analysis reveal? In classifying the type of elections experienced, Pedersen concludes what specifically and what generally?

Questions on Inglehart

How does Inglehart differentiate between materialism and postmaterialism? How does he measure the rise of postmaterialism? What factors facilitate the change, and what are the causes of the change? Why does Inglehart see his theory as the antithesis of Marxism? What is the implication of the rise of postmaterialism for party systems? How useful is postmaterialism as an explanatory concept?

Questions on Blondel

What are the three dimensions along which he characterises party systems? What typology does Blondel come up with using these dimensions? What does Blondel add to other typologies of party systems? Is this an improvement on Sartori?

Additional Reading:

Left Parties

Liberal Parties

Right Wing Parties

Other Small Parties

Materials on Western Europe

For specific party systems see:

France:

Germany

Austria

Italy:

Scandinavia:

Denmark:

Sweden:

United Kingdom:

Belgium:

Spain:

Ireland:

Netherlands:

Essay Questions:

1. Taking one party family, outline and account for the key organisational similarities.
2. What role does ideology play in determining a party's development?
3. Is putting parties in families merely a method of conceptual pigeon-holing devoid of any real analytical utility?
4. Is postmaterialism a cause or an effect of change?
5. How convincing is the postmaterialist thesis in explaining contemporary party systems?

Party Realignment in American Politics

In this session we will focus on the issue of the alleged American "exceptionalism" and examine the party as electoral machine. The particular focus is on the realignment that has been effected within the US party system.

*Walter D. Burnham, Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics, (Norton, 1970). Excerpts in David W. Abbott and Edward T. Rogowosky (eds.) Political Parties, (Rand McNally, 1978).

*V.O. Key "A Theory of Critical Elections" Journal of Politics Vol.17 (1955), pp.3-18. Reprinted in David W. Abbott and Edward T. Rogowosky (eds.) Political Parties, (Rand McNally, 1978).

Discussion Questions from the Reading:

Questions on Key

How does Key define a critical election? How does he measure the concept of a critical election? What was the difference between Somerville and Ashfield? Who were the Democrats picking up in the 1928 presidential election? Can we apply the concept of a critical election elsewhere? Questions on Burnham

What do realignments change? What is Burnham trying to differentiate critical realignments from? What are the four features of a critical realignment? How does Burnham sum up critical realignment? Can we apply the concept of critical realignments elsewhere? What implications do the concepts of critical elections and realignment have for the study of parties generally?

Additional Reading:

Essay Questions:

1. How cyclical is realignment in the US?
2. What determines when realignment will take place?
3. What are the key differences between realignment and dealignment and are we witnessing either in contemporary US politics?
4. "The American party offers us an example of the true function of the political party. It is the party in its purest form". Discuss.

Dissertation Topics

This week will be devoted exclusively to talking about dissertation topics. This means that you must have both a question and a preliminary bibliography for this session.

India and the Congress System

Through an examination of the Indian party system we will address the issues of stability and change in a volatile and fluctuating context. We particularly focus on the role of the Congress (I) party and we examine the Congress "system".

Reading:

Additional Reading:

Essay Questions:

1. What was the "Congress system" and what sustained it?
2. What was Indira Gandhi's impact on the Indian party system?
3. How would you best describe the present party system in India?
4. What does the Indian case add to our understanding of comparative party systems?

For these remaining three weeks, we will have workshops in which students present an overview of their dissertations. As far as possible, these workshops will be grouped around dissertations with a similar topic or focus.