The Importance of the Party Organization According to Danish MPs
Helene Helboe Pedersen
Aarhus Universitet
helene@ps.au.dk
Paper til præsentation ved Årsmøde i Dansk Selskab for Statskundskab, Vejle, oktober 2013
1
The time is over when scholars were about to declare the death of political parties. The political parties
survived and it is still hard to imagine modern democracy without parties (Schattschneider, 1942). The
question is: How are political parties important to day? Parties serve many functions (Katz, 2011: 223). They
select candidates running for elections, they aggregate preferences in society as well as in legislative
bodies, and they serve as a linkage between political representatives and citizens. This linkage is most
directly established on Election Day. Between elections, party organizations serve as a potential channel
through which the preferences of the party voters and party members can be expressed to the party
representatives (Müller, 2000). However, parties are not the sole channel for communication between
politicians and citizens. Interest groups, think tanks and especially the media are also highly important. So
how important is the party organization?
Studies of (Danish) party statues show that at least formally party members still have an important say in
the selection of candidates, some are also important to the selection of the party leader (Pedersen, 2010;
Bille, 1997), but when it comes to the importance of party organization in relation to the party policy, party
statutes are less helpful. Bille (2000) argues that in terms of policy formulation and implementation the
party groups in parliament are the power centers in Danish politics. However, even if the party statues do
not ascribe the party organization many rights, the party may still be important. MPs may anticipate the
reaction of the party organization when taking a stand on specific issues or they may discuss the issues
informally with members of the party. These aspects of party influence are difficult to trace in party
statutes. A possible source to information about these types of party influence is then opinions of the party
representatives, the members of parliament. The aim of this paper is to take the study of the importance of
the party organization to party policy one step further by investigating the importance MPs ascribe to the
party organization when deciding on specific issues in their parliamentary work.
MPs play a crucial role in modern parties. They interpret and implement the policy program of the party,
they constitute the most direct link between the party organization and the legislative chamber as they are
selected by the party, and hereby they may function as a constraint on party leaders in public office (Katz,
2001:278-280). Because of the centrality of MPs as linkages between the party on the ground and the party
in public office their perceptions of the importance of the party organization is crucial for our
understanding of the role parties play in modern democracies.
The analyses are based on a time series (1980-2008) of survey questions answered by Danish MPs
regarding the importance of different actors such as the media, experts, party leadership and the party
organization when a party decides on specific issues. These data have two great advantages. First, it makes
it possible to learn about the importance of the party organization from the MPs’ point of view. Second, the
data makes it possible to investigate changes in MPs’ perception over almost 30 years. Hereby it not only
contributes with another side to the story of modern political parties but also to the debate about the
declining importance of political parties.
The most significant finding is that the importance of the party organization has indeed declined according
to the MPs but the party is still the most important factor compared to e.g. interest groups, media or
experts when parliamentary party groups make decisions on political proposals.
2
The paper proceeds by presenting a theoretical explanations to why party organizations can be expected to
influence MP behaviour. Next structural changes in society and their implication for the relationship
between parties and their representatives are discussed. From this the expectation of declining importance
of the party organization to the decisions of the parliamentary party group is derived. Next the research
design utilizing a series of MP surveys is presented and finally analyses of 314 MP answers are conducted
and a conclusion is drawn.
Why is the party organization important to the behaviour of MPs?
According to most constitutions MPs operate on a free mandate. Once elected, they are formally not
required to represent the interests of their constituency or party. However, scholars have over time
acknowledged that parties play a crucial and desirable role in practicing democracy in modern states
(Scarrow, 2000). Müller argues that parties are essential for making the democratic accountability of MPs
meaningful and without political programs committing MPs to certain policy positions election would not
allow the voters to exercise any prospective influence over policy on Election Day (2000: 311, see also
Carey & Reynolsds, 2007). Hence, even though MPs are not formally required to represent the party they
listed under, in practice MPs are expected to do so and this is crucial for the way party democracy works.
Overall two models exist regarding why MPs can be expected to act according to the preferences of the
party organization: a model based on rational calculation and a more sociological model. According to the
sociological explanation an important aspect of the relation between the MP and the organization is the
socialization that takes place within the party. MPs have been screened and selected by party organs. Often
they have also been through an apprenticeship before being nominated and many MPs have been
members of the party they represent in parliament for years (Müller, 2000). During this period they have
the possibility to influence the party program as well as being influenced by the discussions, culture and
legacy of their party (Kitschelt, 1994; Panebianco, 1988). During this political schooling MPs learn to see
themselves as party representatives and therefore they will tend to consider the preferences of the party
when making a political decision as an MP (for a Danish investigation of MPs’ representative norms see
Jensen, 1993).
Even if MPs have not been through a long and intense schooling within the party organization they may out
of more rationally based reasoning still end up taking the preferences of the party organization into
account when making decisions about a specific issue or proposal. The core of this argumentation is that
the behaviour of MPs is shaped by their wish to be reelected (Mayhew, 1974; Bowler, 2000). In order to be
reelected MPs first have to be re-nominated by their party (Katz, 2001). Therefore the personal career of an
MP depends on the support of his or her party organization. Besides the crucial candidacy, candidates often
also depend on the financial and political support of the organization and its activists in order to maximize
his chances of reelection. According to this model we may thus expect the MP to take the preferences of
the party organization into account because his future career depends on warm relations between him and
the organization.
There are therefore rational as well as emotional reasons for MPs to take the preferences of the party
organization into account when making decision in public office. The two models are not competing but
may supplement each other in our understanding of MPs’ behaviour. Both emotional as well as rational
3
motives may however vary across MPs, parties and time. In the following we focus on the potential
importance of societal changes over time.
Consequences of societal changes to party importance
Two fundamental developments have profoundly changed the political process in modern democracies: the
erosion of the class based society and the technological revolution in the media. Both of these changes also
influence the relationship between party organizations and their representatives. Overall the increasing
volatility has changed the logic of elections and thus also the behavior of MPs while the media have
changed the way political attitudes are formed and communicated.
From classes to individuals
Social classes primarily determined by socioeconomic factors have lost importance to politics in postindustrial societies (Dalton and Wattenberg, 2000: 11; Green-Pedersen, 2013: 23; Poguntke, 2004: 2).
Welfare states have increased social mobilization and developments in transportation and globalization
have increased geographical mobilization as well. This means that ties between well-defined communities such as the working-class, the bourgeoisie or different churches or local communities - and individuals have
weakened. This erosion between individual and classes manifest itself in the political system as declining
party identification (Dalton, 2000: 25-27), increased volatility (Drummond, 2006) and falling numbers of
party members (Scarrow, 2000; Katz, 2002: 102, Whiteley, 2011).
Voters that are less loyal and due to the educational revolution also generally better informed challenge
the way parties and candidates behave and interact. Aldrich argued according to the rational understanding
of the relationship between MPs and parties that politicians only turn to their party, when they believe this
will increase their chances of winning desired outcomes (1995: 24). As the class-based attitudinal
attachments to political parties decline and voters become more concerned with post-material issues the
benefit of listening to the party declines. Rather the candidate needs a personalized platform from which
he can appeal to voters who agree with his attitudes towards specific issues, his lifestyle, and potentially
also the way he look (Zittel & Gschwend, 2008; Lausten, 2013). This may result in candidate-centred politics
where the electoral success of the candidate as well as the party depends more on the personal qualities of
the candidate than on the party (Dalton, McAllister & Wattenberg, 2000: 49; McAllister, 2013).
Further the decreasing share of voters organized in parties make the party less legitimate in expressing the
interests of the party voters. Hence, the signals candidates get from the party organization will be less
valuable in terms of “knowing” the voters and winning elections (Poguntke, 2004: 4). Hence not only the
changes among the voters but also the consequences they have had for the party organizations may
according to the rational model decrease the importance of the party to the decisions of the MPs.
Not surprisingly MPs live in the same society as voters. This means that their political attitudes will also be
less influenced by group-based attachment or links to certain political parties. If candidates are still selected
among loyal and long term party members the importance of the societal changes to the sociological model
may be less significant. But if candidates are increasingly selected among party members who have not
been members for very long, the consequences are significant for the sociological explanation. If this is the
case, candidates were neither born nor trained to be e.g. Social Democrats. No systematic studies
investigate the party political past of MPs, so we have no systematic evidence to know if parties have
indeed begun to recruit candidates with less firm relations to the party organization. However, Mitchell and
4
Bradbury show that in the recruitment for the 2003 election in Scotland and Wales, parties were more
concerned with gender, ethnicity and age of the candidates (2004). This fits the description of a more
individualized and candidate-centred political system. If this trend is general parties may turn out to select
candidates who have not gone through the same training and socialization within the party and thus be less
likely to perceive of him- or herself as a party representative rather than an individual politician and
therefore less inclined to take the party into consideration when making political decisions.
The impact of the mass media
The second major societal change that influences the political parties is the development of the
communication technologies (Poguntke, 2004; Dalton and Wattenberg: 2000:11-12). A key function of
political parties is communication with the electorates (Sartori, 1976:68) and this is still an important task
of modern party. However, the communication has taken new forms and goes through different channels.
The importance of the mass media has increased and led some scholars talk about a mediatized political
process where politics is turned into show-biz and news stories are selected based on market
considerations of news value such as conflict, drama, scandals and personalization (Mazzoleni and Schultz,
1999: 250). A study of the agenda-setting power of the media in Belgium indeed shows an increase in the
influence of the media over time, which has made the scholars suggest that the behaviour of MPs is
increasingly influenced by a ‘media-logic’ (Vligenhart and Walgrave, 2010).
Due to the volatility and decreased party identification of the voters, voters may rely more on the
communication mediated by the mass media when forming their attitudes and making decisions about
voting behaviour. This does not necessarily mean that parties are unimportant for modern communication.
Indeed parties still constitute important cues in political communication (Slothuus, 2010). Rather the
developments of the mass media changes who is in control of the political communication within the party
and how dependent MPs are on the party organization when trying to catch the attention of the voters.
Both push and pull factors may result in MPs less dependent on the parties. First, the media may push for
more personalized angles to political news stories and ask for “high profile” politicians when
communicating party positions. As a consequence parties depend on representatives that have strong
profiles and are professional communicators. The success of the party to some extent comes to depend on
the personal qualities of the politicians rather than the other way around. Second, MPs may pull for more
independent communication using twitter or other social platforms to be in constant and personal contact
with their virtual followers. Using these new technologies and ways of communication makes MPs less
depend on the party organization as a channel for communication. As a general trend the communication
of the individual MP can now be detached from the party organization and the party as well as the MP may
benefit electorally from this. However, the extent to which parties use new internet communication
facilities may vary across parties, depending on how strongly vote-maximization motivate the dispositions
of the party (Römmele, 2003).
Especially, the development of the media has changes campaign circumstances. Rather than depending on
neighbourhood canvassing and direct contact activities which are very demanding in terms of activist
labour and enthusiasm. Candidates may run their campaigns primarily based on virtual contacts and adds
though the mass media (Dalton and Wattenberg, 2000: 12). Hence candidates come to depend less on the
organization for running professional and efficient campaigns. This is not to suggest that party
organizations are without importance. The campaign contributions may be one of the most important
5
contributions from the organization. However, the MPs will now increasingly ask for finances and
professional communication advisors rather than ideologically motivated activists ready to make events
and contact potential voters. As state subsidies get more important for the finances of political parties
relative to membership fees (Katz, 2011), the importance MPs ascribe to the organization between
elections when making political decisions can be expected to decline.
The developments in the communication technologies and the importance of the media in the political
process make the party organization less important to MPs as a communication channel. This development
can therefore also be expected to decrease the importance MPs ascribe to the party organization when
making political decisions since they to a lesser degree depend on the party for communicating with the
voters.
In sum societal changes in the form of developments from a class-based to a more individualized political
system where interests and attitudes are primarily communicated through mass media and also
increasingly through new internet based platforms will erode the sociological linkage between party
organizations and the representatives as well as the rational motivation for the representatives to take the
preferences of the party into account when making decisions. Therefore the importance MPs ascribe to the
party organization when making political decisions is expected to decline over time.
Research design
Studies of party organizations and their declining importance have most often been based on investigations
of 1) membership numbers (Scarrow, 2000; Tan, 1997), 2) formal structures in party statutes (Katz & Mair,
1995; Bille, 1997; Janda, 1980) and 3) members’ perception of party democracy (Pedersen, 2014; Bille &
Elklit, 2003). The general trend is that the absolute number of party members as well as the share of the
electorate organized in parties is in decline across many Western countries (Scarrow, 2000: 90). Studies of
formal structures find no clear tendency towards weaker party organizations (Pedersen, 2010; Bille, 1997).
The first results of the comparative project on party membership are also coming out and in Denmark they
suggest that party members are just as or even more keen on influencing party politics but experience less
responsiveness from the party leadership (Kosiara-Pedersen, 2014). However, in order to get a
comprehensive picture of the importance of the party organization we also need to learn about the
perceptions of the party representatives e.g. MPs.
In this study I investigate MPs perception of what is important, when the parliamentary party group take a
stand on a specific issue. The surveys were carried out as a part of a larger comparative Scandinavian
research project on interest groups1. The surveys were sent to all MPs represented in Folketinget in 1980,
2000 and 2008 and resulted in response rates of 59 %, 72 % and 78 % respectively. In all three surveys the
MPs was asked, which factors are important to decisions on political proposal in the parliamentary party
group. Following factors were listed in all three surveys: 1) Consideration of the party program, 2)
consideration of party unity, 3) wish to attract voters, 4) consideration for collaboration with other parties,
5) support of interest groups, and 6) opinion of experts. In 2000 and 2008 three additional factors have
been included in the list: 7) consideration of the party leadership, 8) wish for positive media coverage, and
9) wish for finding the best solution to the specific problem. In all three surveys, respondents were asked
1
The Danish data was kindly made avaible to me by Peter Munk Christiansen
6
to give their answer on a four point scale ranging from ‘matter a lot’ to ‘does not matter’. Table 1 provides
descriptive statistics for the nine factors.
TABLE 1
While all factors will be included in the descriptive analyses the focus is mainly on factors related to the
party organization. Here factor 1) consideration of the party program is the one most directly referring to
the extra-parliamentary organization. Most Danish party programs are formally decided upon by the party
congress and as such the party organization has a significant say regarding the content of the programs
(Kosiara-Pedersen & Pedersen, 2013). Factor 2) consideration of party unity will also be included in more
detailed analyses, but it is not possible to determine whether the respondents think of unity in the
parliamentary party groups or in the party as an organization. Therefore it is difficult to make clear
interpretations about this factor.
A major challenge in asking MPs about the importance of the party organization is that the mass party still
serves as an ideal and MPs may wish to align with this normative picture of the “good” party and therefore
tend to overstate the importance of the party. Similarly, democratic norms make it difficult for MPs to state
that they only care about the media and potential vote gains when taking political decisions. This means
that the data provide a conservative test of the potential declining importance of the party organization. It
also means that we are not able to know if the mean score for any factor show the “true” importance, but
we are able to show differences across time which is crucial to the investigation of the expected declining
importance of the party organization.
The data has a multilevel structure. Units of analyses are individuals representing different parties at three
different time points. The impact of party characteristics can be taken into account and thus isolate the
impact of time which is most important to this study. However, it is not possible to identify individuals
across the three surveys. In the survey from 1980 names and information about the background and
positions of the MPs are provided, the survey from 2000 provide names but not any background
information besides gender, the survey from 2008 neither provides names to identify the MPs nor any
background information besides gender. It is therefore not possible to take the impact of individual into
account. The conclusions we can draw will therefore be based on the assumption that the samples of MPs
in the three different years are not systematically different in relation to perceived importance of the party
organization. Certainly it would be preferable to be able to include factors on the individual level in the
analyses, but since all parties are represented in all surveys and the main structural explanations are
related to changes in the linkage between parties and their representatives in general, I find that the
possible influence of individual characteristics of the MPs is likely to be limited.
As a case Denmark resembles the developments common to all West European countries. The economic
classes have lost importance as a consequence of the development of the welfare state (Green-Pedersen,
2011; Poguntke, 2004). Since the 1960s the membership numbers have been in decline stabilizing around
1990s with five per cent of the electorate organized in political parties (Bille, 2003). Party identification has
actually been rather stable in Denmark though the share of strong party identifiers has decreased similarly
to many other countries (Dalton, 2004: 33). Danish parties have received public funding since 1987 and the
importance of membership fees to the financial situation of the parties has declined (Kosiara-Pedersen &
Pedersen, 2013: 71-72). The volatility of Danish voters peaked in the 1970s and has been rather stable
7
since the 1990s. It does not vary strongly from the pattern in other western countries (Dassonnevill &
Hooghe, 2011:33). The media structure has developed from a partly party controlled media system
consisting primarily of four newspapers related to the main political parties to and independent press
(Hjarvad, 1999). The mass media has gained importance for the political agenda (Elmelund-Præstekær &
Hopmann, 2013) and Danish politicians are aware of how important it is to access the media in order to
communicate with their voters (Hougaard, 2002). In sum Denmark looks similar to other western countries
in relation to the development of the parties and the changes in the class-structures and media technology.
The party discipline is high among Danish parties (Skjæveland, 2005), and former studies have shown that
Danish MPs primarily see themselves as party representatives (Jensen, 2004). There is no evidence
indicating that the link between parties and party representatives is less strong in Denmark than in other
countries. The results of these Danish analyses may therefore very well apply to other western countries.
The importance of party organization according to MPs
How parties make strategic decisions remains an open question (Katz, 2002). Many factors such as opinion
polls, ideology, behaviour of coalition partner or opponents may influence the decisions of parliamentary
groups as they decide on specific issues appearing on the agenda. Table 2 shows the nine factors included
in the survey and the share of MPs indicating that the different factors are very important (matters a lot) to
the decisions of the parliamentary party group across time. Since the variation across answers in every
factor is limited (see table 1) and because norms will induce MPs to ascribe importance to party programs, I
only report the share indicating high importance.
TABLE 2
The importance of the party program as well as consideration for party unity tends to decrease over time.
Whereas well over half (68 per cent) of all respondents found that the party program mattered a lot to the
decisions of the parliamentary party group in 1980 only 39 per cent found that this was the case in 2008.
The trend is the same for the importance of party unity even though it is weaker only changing from 41 per
cent to 21 per cent of all respondents finding party unity to be highly important for parliamentary party
group decisions. This certainly suggests that the party organization has lost importance to MPs.
It is, however, also noticeable that the party program and party unity are still the most important factors
among the listed factors. Media, experts and consideration for coalition formation with other parties do
not seem to have gained importance over time. The only factor that seems to be more important than
different considerations for the party is the search for the best possible solution to the problem. However,
it is difficult to interpret the meaning of this item since the evaluation of the ‘best’ solution often will be
based on ideological reasons stated in the party program or technical reasons perhaps presented by
experts or bureaucrats. Hence, it is difficult to disagree, that you search for the best solution even though
these solutions may be different from respondent to respondent.
The clear changes over time supporting the expectation of decreasing importance of the party organization
may depend on the set of parties represented in parliament or the changes may vary across parties. Table 3
shows the share of respondents who finds that considerations for the party program matters a lot to the
decisions of the parliamentary party group over time and across parties. The table includes nine different
parties plus a category of ‘others’ including parties with N less than five in all surveys. This primarily goes
8
for MPs not belonging to a party (especially former members of the Progress Party in 2000) and
representatives of the Fareo Islands and Greenland.
TABLE 3
For all parties – except for the Progress Party and the Justice Party only represented in 1980 – the share of
MPs finding the party program highly important for the decisions of the parliamentary party groups
decreases from 1980 to 2008. However, for some parties the trend is not linear. In 2000 a larger share of
MPs representing the Conservative Peoples’ Party and the Liberal Party finds that the party program is
highly important than in 1980. Especially the Liberals tend to be very concerned with the party program in
2000. These temporary bumps are difficult to account for. The Liberals (as well as the Conservatives) were
in opposition both in 1980 and in 2000. There has been a change of leadership within the parties which may
be important, but any systematic explanation is hard to establish.
For the three other parties represented in all three surveys (S, SL and SPP) the importance of the party
program decreases. For the Social Democrats and the Socialist Peoples’ Party the major change happens
from 1980 to 2000. 100 per cent of the responding MPs representing the Socialist Peoples’ Party in 1980
find that the party program is highly important to decisions of the parliamentary party group, whereas only
29 per cent find the party program highly important in 2000. It should be noted that this development
happens before the major changes the Socialist Peoples’ Party have gone through during the last ten years
as part of their office seeking strategy. Changes in MP perceptions thus occurred before formal changes in
the party organization. Among the Social Liberals the major changes happen from 2000 to 2008 where the
share of MPs finding the party program highly important decreases from 67 per cent to 20 per cent.
In sum the decreasing importance of the party program to the decisions of the parliamentary party group
occurs in all parties though the timing and degree of decrease vary across parties. In 1980 the party
program was most important to MPs representing the Socialist Party while in 2008 the party program is
most important for MPs representing the Danish Peoples Party, but overall the party program is less
important in 2008 than it was in 1980.
TABLE 4
Table 4 shows the share of MPs finding consideration of party unity to matter a lot to the decisions of the
parliamentary party groups across time and parties. The Conservatives stand out as the single party in
which an increasing share of MPs finds that consideration for party unity is highly important. Across all
other parties the share of MPs finding party unity highly important decreases from 1980 to 2008. As in the
case of the party program, some parties have the largest share of MPs ascribing high importance to party
unity in 2000 and then decreasing in 2008 to levels below the shares found in 1980. This is the case for the
Social Liberals and the Liberals. Among the Social Democrats we see a steady decrease in the importance of
consideration for party unity to the decisions of the parliamentary party group. Thus, besides the
Conservatives we also see a general decrease in the importance ascribed to consideration for party unity,
and similarly to consideration for the party program, the timing and amount of decrease varies across the
parties. The largest decrease among parties represented in all three surveys is found in the Socialist
Peoples’ Party (35 percentages points) the smallest is found among the Social Liberals (14 percentages
9
points). In 1980 as well as 2008 the largest share of MPs considering party unity as highly important is
found in the Social Democrats.
More factors may influence MPs perceptions of the importance of the party organization. Besides general
developments in society, circumstances within the parties as well as individual positions may influence how
MPs perceive the party organization. As mention earlier the data does not make it possible to control for
the impact of individual characteristics. It is however possible to control for the impact of party
characteristics. Table 5 shows the result of a multivariate ordered logistics regression including party
dummies and estimated based on cluster-robust standard errors where the clusters are defined by party.
As a test of robustness the model is also estimated with random effects of party characteristics. The
significant impact of time remains.
TABLE 5
The most important result in table 5 to the expectation of this paper is that the impact of time is significant
and the importance of the party organization decreases over time (higher values indicate less importance).
There is no statistical difference between party importance in 1980 and 2000, but the coefficients indicate
that the importance is declining. The decline is even bigger in 2008 which is significantly different from
1980 both regarding the importance of the party program as well as party unity. To give an impression of
the amount of change caused by changes over time table 6 and 7 reports the predicted probabilities for
every answer to the questions regarding the importance of the party program and party unity respectively
keeping all other variables at their mean.
TABLE 6 and 7
In 1980 (keeping all other known factors at their mean) the probability for MPs finding the party program
to matter a lot to the decisions of the parliamentary party group was 75 per cent. In 2008 it was only 33 per
cent. The probability decreases by remarkable 42 percentage point over time. The most likely outcome in
2008 is for the MPs to find that the party program matters some. As we found in the descriptive table 2
party programs have not lost their importance but the importance has declined substantially. The finding is
especially notable due to the expected normative tendency for MPs to wish to ascribe importance to the
party program considering the norms of party democracies.
The results regarding party unity are similar. The importance of party unity to parliamentary party group
decisions declines by 30 percentage point from 1980 to 2008 keeping all other variables at their mean.
Repeating my reservations regarding the interpretation of this factor it is difficult to determine whether
this relates to the unity of the parliamentary party group or the party in a broader sense. But in any case it
is remarkable that party unity which is taken to be highly important for electoral results as well as policy
and office gains tend to become less important for the decisions of parliamentary party groups according to
the MPs. Together the analyses regarding the changes in MPs perceptions of the importance of the party
program and party unity to the decisions of the parliamentary party groups support the expectation that
the party organization have lost importance in terms of regulating and controlling the behavior of party
representatives.
Before concluding it is worthwhile to take a look at the impact of the different control variables which may
direct us towards answers to other relevant questions regarding differences across parties. Parties tend to
10
be significantly different from each other in both models. Regarding perceived importance of the party
program the Danish Peoples’ Party stands out with MPs finding the party program significantly more
important than MPs from many other parties (Conservatives, Socialist Peoples’ Party, Liberals and Others).
MPs representing the Socialist Peoples’ Party and the Red-Green Alliance find the party program to be
more important to the decisions of the parliamentary party group than members representing the
Conservatives.
Based on the data available, we can only guess about the causes behind these differences. The Socialist
Peoples’ party as well as the Red-Green Alliance are both left-wing parties known to prioritize intra-party
democracy (Pedersen, 2010), this may explain the difference between these two parties and the
Conservatives which is one of the oldest parties in Danish politics originating from the elite party Højre
formed as a parliamentary party group, and still known to have very loose links between the party
organization and the representatives. The Danish Peoples’ Party is a relatively young party formed in 1996.
It is a splinter party formed based on disagreement and low party discipline in the Progress Party. Party
discipline has been very important to the formative years of the Danish Peoples’ Party (Pedersen &
Ringmose, 2005).
Regarding party unity we find the similar differences as described above but in addition to this – and as
evident from table 5 – the Social Democrats are also significantly different from more parties ascribing
greater importance to party unity. One possible explanation could be the legacy of being a party in
government. Since 1953 the Social Democrats have been in office 29 years. However, the Liberals is also an
important governing party and being in government does not seem to have any significant impact, though
the coefficient supports the interpretation that party unity is more important to parties in government.
Hence, the difference between Social Democrats and many of the other parties remains puzzling. In sum,
this discussion suggests that ideology and intra-party legacies may be important to MPs evaluation of the
importance of the party organization independently of the broader structural changes in society reducing
the importance of the party organization. Party organizations may still be of great importance, either
because MPs and members believe they ought to be or because specific circumstances increase the need
for organizational control.
Conclusion
This paper contributes to the long lasting debate about the potential crisis or development of political
parties in modern party democracies. The main contributions of the paper are to direct attention towards
the perceptions of the MPs and provide an analysis across time. The defining characteristic of a political
party is that it provides candidates for public offices through elections (Sartori, 1976). It is crucial for the
functioning of party democracy that parties not only provide candidates but also programmatic platforms
for these candidates which make it possible to hold the representatives accountable (Müller, 2000; Carey &
Reynolds, 2007). Since MPs often represent parties they have been members of and been trained in for
years and since their future careers depend on their party to reselect them there a good – rational as well
as sociological – reasons to expect them to take the preferences of the party into account when they act.
However, the erosion of the class-society leading to electoral volatility and decreasing memberships have
together with increasing importance of the mass media reduced the need for parties as channels of
communication, legitimacy and finances. This may lead to MPs less concerned with the party organization
implicating serious challenges to party democracy.
11
From 1980 to 2008 Danish MPs do indeed ascribe less importance to party program as well as party unity
when making decisions as a parliamentary group. The trend is not linear in all parties, but in aggregate the
party organization has lost importance. In 1980 there was 75 per cent chance that a MP would indicate that
the party program was very important to the decisions of the parliamentary party group. In 2008 there was
only 33 per cent chance that a MP would do the same. The party programs seem to have lost importance
for the decisions of the parliamentary party groups of Danish political parties. However, considerations of
the party do not seem to have lost importance in relation to other factors such as positive media attention,
vote-maximization or coalition possibilities. The party is still the single most important factor except for the
unspecified “best solution to the problem”. This may indicate a more technocratic approach to politics
among Danish MPs seeking out the “best” solution but it may also indicate a less predictable political
process with political issues on the agenda to which not many answers are given in overall party programs.
Instead MPs find guidance from very different channels and the decision-making process has become even
less transparent in terms of who is influential when and why.
12
References:
Bille, L. (1997) Partier i Forandring. En analyse af danske partiorganisationers udvikling 1960-1995, Odense:
Odense Universitetsforlag
Bille, L. (2000) ’A power centre in Danish politics’ in K. Heidar & R. Koole (eds.) Parliamentary Party Groups
in European Democracies. Political parties behind closed doors. London: Routledge, pp.130-144
Bille, L. (2003) Den danske partimodels forfald? I L. Bille & J. Elklit Partiernes medlemmer, Aarhus: Aarhus
Universitetsforlag, pp.9-27
Bille, L & J. Elklit (red) (2003) Partiernes medlemmer, Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag
Carey, J. & A. Reynolds (2007) Parties and accountable government in new democracies, Party Politics
13(2): 255-274
Dalton R. J. and M. P. Wattenberg (2000) Unthinkable Democracy: Political Change in Advanced Industrial
Democracies in R. J. Dalton and M. P. Wattenberg (eds.) Parties without Partisans. Political Change in
Advanced Industrial Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-18
Dalton R. J. (2000) The Decline of Party Identification in R. J. Dalton and M. P. Wattenberg (eds.) Parties
without Partisans. Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.
19-36
Dalton, R. J. (2004) Democratic Challenges. Democratic Choiches. The Erosion of Political Support in
Advanced Industrial Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Dassonneville, R. & M. Hooghe (2011) Mapping Electoral Volatility in Europe. An analysis of trend in
electoral volatility in European democracies since 1945, Paper presented at the 1st European Conference on
Comparative Electoral Research, Dec. 2011
Drummond, A. (2006) Electoral Volatility and Party Decline in Western Democracies: 1970-1995, Political
Studies, 54(3):628-647
Elmelund-Præstekær, C. & D. N. Hopmann (2013) Medierne i J. G. Christensen & J. Elklit (eds.) Det
demokratiske system, København: Hans Reitzels Forlag, pp. 215-245
Green-Pedersen C. (2011) Partier i nye tider. Den politiske dagsorden i Danmark, Aarhus:Aarhus
Universitetsforlag
Hjervad, S. (1999) Politik som mediemontage. Om mediernes forandring af den politiske kommunikation,
Goul Andersen et al. (eds.) Den demokratiske udfordring, København: Hans Reitzels Forlag
Hougaard, J. (2002) Politikeren på scenen, in F. S. Nielsen & I Sjørslev (eds.) Folkets repræsentanter. Et
antropologisk blik på Folketinget, Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag, pp. 63-85
Janda, K. (1980) Political Parties: A Cross-National Survey, New York: Free Press
13
Jensen, T. K. (2004) De folkevalgte. En analyse af folketingsmedlemmers sociale baggrund og
repræsentationsadfærd, Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag
Katz, R. (2001) The Problem of Candidate Selection and Models of Party Democracy, Party Politics, 7(3):277296
Katz, R. (2002)The Internal Life of Parties in K. R. Luther & F. Müller-Rommel (eds.) Political Parties in the
New Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 87-118
Katz, R. S. (2011) Political Parties in D. Caramani (ed.) Comparative Politics, 2nd edition, Oxford, Oxford
University Press, pp. 219-236
Kazee T. A. & M. C. Thornberry (1990) Where’s the Party? Congressional Candidate Recruitment and
American Party Organizations, The Western Political Quaterly 43(1): 61-80
Kosiara-Pedersen, K. & H. H. Pedersen (2013) Partier og partisystemer i J. G. Christensen & J. Elklit (red.) Det
demokratsike system, 3rd edition, pp. 47-70
Kosiara-Pedersen, K. (2013) Partimedlemmernes (forgæves?) forsøg på politisk indflydelse, unpublished
paper
Lausten, L. (2013) Decomposing the Relationship Between Candidates’ facial Appearance and Electoral
Success, Political Behaviour, forthcoming
Mazzolini, G. and W. Schultz (1999) “Mediatization” of Politics: A Challenge for Democracy? Political
Communication, 16(3): 247-261
McAllister, I (2013) The personalization of politics in Australia, Party Politics forthcoming
Mitchell, J. and. J. Bradbury (2004) Political Recruitment and the 2003 Scottish and Welsh Elections:
Candidate Selection, Positive Discrimination and Party Adaption, Representation, 40(4): 289-302
Müller, W. C. (2000) Political parties in parliamentary democracies: making delegation and accountability
work, European Journal of Political Research, 27(X): 309-333
Panebianco, A. (1988) Political parties: organization and power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Pedersen H.H. (2010a) Differences and Changes in Danish Party Organisations: Central Party Organisation
versus Parliamentary Party Group Power, Journal of Legislative Studies, 16(2): 233-250
Pedersen, H. H. (2010b) How Intra-Party Power Relations Affect the Coalition Behaviour of Political Parties,
Party Politics 16(6): 737-754
Poguntke, T. (2004) Do parties respond? Challenges to political parties and their consequences in K. Lawson
and T. Poguntke (eds.) How Political parties Respond. Interest aggregation revisited, London, new York:
Routledge, pp. 1-15
14
Römmele A. (2003) Political Parties, Party Communication and New Information and Communication
Technologies, Party Politics 9(1): 7-20
Scarrow, S. (2000) Parties without Members? Party organization in a Changing Electoral Environment in R. J.
Dalton and M. P. Wattenberg (eds.) Parties without Partisans. Political Change in Advanced Industrial
Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 79-101
Scarrow, S (ed.)(2002) Perspectives on Political parties. Classic Readings, New York: Palgrave
Scarrow, S. & B. Gezbor (2010) Declining memberships, changing members? European political party
members in a new era, Party Politics 16(5): 823-843
Schattschneider, E. E. (1942) Party Government: American Government in Action
Slothuss, R. (2010) When Can Political Parties Lead Public Opinion? Evidence from a Natural Experiment,
Political Communication, 27(2): 158-177
Tan, A. C. (1997) Party Change and Party membership Decline: An Exploratory Analysis, Party Politics, 3(3):
363-377
Vliegenthart, R. and S. Walgrave (2011) When the media matters for politics: Partisan moderators of the
mass media’s agenda-setting influence on parliament in Belgium, Party Politics 17(3): 321-324
Whiteley, P. F. (2011) Is the party over? The decline of party activism and membership across the
democratic world, Party Politics 17(1): 21-44
Zittel, T. & T. Gschwend (2008) Individualised Constituency Campaigns in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems:
Candidates in the 2005 German Elections, West European Politics 31(5): 978-1003
15
Table 1: Median and distance between the first and third quartile
What is important to the decisions of the
parliamentary party group? Considerations of:
Party program
Party unity
Expert evaluations
Vote-maximization
Coalition formation
Support of interest groups
Media attention (only 2000 and 2008)
Party leadership (only 2000 and 2008)
Search for the best solution (only 2000 and 2008)
Median
Matters a lot
Matters some
Matters some
Matters some
Matters some
Matters some
Matters some
Matters some
Matters a lot
Difference between first
and third quartile
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
N
334
325
324
326
329
325
229
231
234
Table 2 The importance of the party organization to the decisions of the parliamentary party group. Share of
MPs indication the following to very significant, per cent
What is important to the decisions of the parliamentary party
group? Considerations of:
Party program
Party unity
Party leadership
Vote-maximization
Coalition formation
Support of interest groups
Media attention
Expert evaluations
Search for the best solution
N
1980
2000
2008
68
41
16
9
3
10
96-101
54
37
21
14
14
10
17
12
81
124-131
39
21
14
16
8
4
15
7
49
102-103
Table 3 The importance of the party across parties. Share of MPs indicating that the party program is very
important to the position of the parliamentary group, per cent
Liberals
Conservatives
Social Liberals
Danish People’s Party
Social Democrats
Socialist People’s Party
Red Green Alliance
Progress Party
Justice Party
Others
N
1980
39 (N=13)
50 (N=12)
71 (N=7)
66 (N=35)
100 (N=9)
91 (N=11)
100 (N=5)
67 (N=9)
101
2000
63 (N=27)
55 (N=11)
67 (N=9)
86 (N=7)
49 (N=49)
29 (N=7)
75 (N=4)
38 (N=16)
130
2008
25 (N=20)
40 (N=5)
20 (N=5)
75 (N=12)
42 (N=33)
30 (N=20)
40 (N=5)
33 (N=3)
103
Change
-14
-10
-51
-11
-24
-70
-35
-34
334
16
Table 4 The importance of party unity across parties. Share of MPs indicating that party unity is very
important to the decisions of the parliamentary group, per cent
Liberals
Conservatives
Social Liberals
Danish People’s Party
Social Democrats
Socialist People’s Party
Red Green Alliance
Progress Party
Justice Party
Others
N
1980
39 (N=13)
18 (N=11)
14 (N=7)
64 (N=33)
50 (N=8)
40 (N=10)
20 (N=5)
11(N=9)
96
2000
46 (N=26)
18 (N=9)
44 (N=9)
57 (N=7)
43 (N=47)
0 (N=7)
50 (N=4)
20(N=15)
126
2008
5 (N=20)
40 (N=5)
0 (N=5)
33 (N=12)
36 (N=33)
15 (N=20)
0 (N=5)
0 (N=3)
103
Change
-34
+22
-14
-24
-28
-35
-50
-11
325
Table 5 Explaining the importance of party program and party unity across parties and time, ordered logistic
regression with party dummies
Importance of
Time
1980 (REF)
2000
2008
Party
Social Democrats (REF)
Liberals
Conservatives
Danish People’s Party
Socialist People’s Party
Social Liberals
Red-Green Alliance
Other parties
Controls
Party in government
Seats in parliament
Model
Adjusted R2
N
Party Program
***
Party Unity
***
0.679 (0.504)
1.312** (0.478)
***
0.356 (0.371)
1.039*** (0.142)
***
0.158 (0.560)
0.343 (1.404)
-1.628 (1.096)
0.065 (1.285)
-0.284 (1.926)
-0.552 (1.765)
-0.124 (1.897)
1.015** (0.330)
1.541* (0.699)
1.027* (0.582)
1.310* (0.647)
2.202* (1.143)
1.360 (0.969)
2.639** (0.933)
0.196 (0.522)
-0.002 (0.040)
-0.461 (0.623)
0.022 (0.025)
0.051
324
0.053
315
***p<0.001, **p<0.01, *p<0.1
17
Table 6 Changes in predicted probability of outcome values for the importance of the party program over
time, per cent
Party program
1980
2000
2008
Diff. 1980-2008
Probability for outcome category
Matters a lot
Matters some
Matters at little
75
24
44
51
33
59
-42
+35
Does not matter
1
4
5
+4
0
2
3
+3
Table 7 Changes in predicted probability of outcome values for the importance of the party unity over time,
per cent
Party unity
1980
2000
2008
Diff. 1980-2008
Probability for outcome category
Matters a lot
Matters some
Matters at little
Does not matter
49
47
3
0
28
63
9
0
19
67
14
1
-30
+20
+11
+1
18