PARTY ORGANIZATION
LECTURE 3
JAN ROVNY
CADRE PARTY
•
Quality over Quantity
•
restricted to select few
members
•
made up of influential,
connected persons.
•
organized in closed caucuses
in localities
•
weak extra-parliamentary
organization
•
financed by few larger
contributions
MASS PARTY (DUVERGER 1954)
•
Parties of social integration
•
Based on a pre-defined social
class
•
Typified by socialist parties
•
Meed of membership “without
members a mass party is like a
teacher without
pupils” (Duverger p.41)
•
Finance based on membership
•
Program is an ideologically
coherent whole
MASS PARTY
•
Program is an ideologically
coherent whole
•
Popular involvement is
normatively legitimate
•
Centrality of direct popular
involvement
•
Supremacy of extraparliamentary party
organization
CATCH-ALL PARTY
(KISCHHEIMER 1966)
•
Erosion of traditional
social boundaries in
1950s and 60s
•
Economic growth and
welfare state facilitate
less partisan programs
•
Mass communication
CATCH-ALL PARTY
•
Professionalization of mass
party
•
Limited ideology in favor of
general appeal
•
Leaders rather than
programs
•
Voters as consumers
•
Electoral behavior based on
choice, not predispositions
DECLINE OF PARTIES?
•
‘Catch-all party’ seems as
an oxymoron.
•
Loss of linkage between
society and party
•
Expected to lead to party
decline and rise of
candidate-based politics
SOCIETY-PARTY-STATE
•
•
Parties traditionally
understood as linkages
between society and state
•
Mass party = society in
politics
•
Catch-all party influences
state from outside, seeking
temporary custody of policy
There is no continuous
separation of party-statesociety
STAGES OF PARTY DEVELOPMENT
(KATZ AND MAIR 1995)
•
1) Cadre party: narrow
elite (social) interests
coincide with state
•
2) Mass party: responds
to narrow cadre elite.
Party stands between
society and state (classical
conception of democracy)
•
3) Catch-all model as
response to mass party
CARTEL PARTY
(KATZ AND MAIR 1995)
•
•
Parties connect to the state
•
Politics is more about
specific issues than
ideologies
•
Membership insufficient for
financing
•
Turn to state for financing
•
Formal rules of media access
Parties use the state to ensure
their own survival
CARTEL DEMOCRACY
(KATZ AND MAIR 1995)
•
Prior models assumed
alternation in office
•
In cartel model no one is
definitely out
•
Programs are increasingly
close
•
Limits of election outcomes
affecting government actions
•
Difficult for voters to punish
parties
POLITICAL ENTREPRENEUR
PARTIES
•
Challenge the established
cartel
•
Generate resources from
private sector
•
Associated with interests, firms
•
Focus on media control
•
Weak organization, strong
communication
•
Flexible ideological
orientation
CRITIQUE OF THE CARTEL THESIS
(KOOLE 1996)
•
Conceptual critique:
•
Cartel is a system level
characteristic, why
apply it to parties?
•
State and society as a
distinction?
•
Are cartels new?
•
Are cartel parties
successful?
FAILURE OF CARTELS
(KROUWEL 2013)
•
Few cartel parties have emerged, but not many. Why?
•
1) Cartel requires party coordination and exclusion
•
2) Outsider parties appeal to ignored sections of
electorate
•
3) Overestimation of the power of the state
•
4) Limits of state resources to support cartel
•
5) Weakening of major parties (Christ dem and Soc Dem)
RADICAL OPPOSITION PARTIES
•
Radical right
•
Radical left
•
New parties
•
Pirates
•
Anti-system
movements