Interest Aggregation and Political
Parties
Comparative Politics
Chapter 5
• Interest aggregation – the activity where the
political demands of people and groups are
combined into policy programs. Political skills
and resources are used to accomplish this:
– Votes
– Campaign funds
– Political offices
– Media access
– Armed force
Personal Interest Aggregation
• Patron-client networks – do something nice
for your ‘clients’ (supporters) and they will
take care of you (keep you in office)
– Feudalism – Lord and the serfs
– Boss Tweed – NY political machine
– Richard Daley, Sr. – Chicago political machine
– President of U.S. – Cabinet, Executive Office, Joint
Chiefs of Staff, etc.
• Problem with this is that it usually means the
political system it’s in is static – hard to change
– U.S. – corrupt politics
– Asia – family oriented
– Middle East – Tribal/religious orientation
– Europe – ethnically oriented (especially eastern
Europe)
Institutional Interest
• As societies have modernized, the patron-client
system has evolved into a larger network
• Patron-client is the nucleus and this small
network spreads out to connect with larger, more
powerful/influential networks
• This larger connection goes back to the
Association Groups from the previous chapter.
• The bureaucracy negotiates with interest groups
to get policy made and implemented
Competitive Party Systems and
Interest Aggregation
• Political parties – groups or organizations that
seek to place candidates in office under their
label.
• In the competitive system, political parties
tend to try to gain electoral support
• In other words, the political parties will try to
win the support of the various “social”
subgroups in order to get their candidate in
office
• Elections
– One of the few ways diverse groups of people can
express their varying interests equally and
comprehensively
• Parties generally keep their promises once they are
elected
• Liberals tend to increase government involvement in
daily lives
• Conservatives tend to slow down, or decrease the
government involvement in daily lives
• Radical changes that are promised by a party
before it comes into power is sometimes not
possible as quickly and easily as they promised
once they achieve the power.
– Even though voters may have supported the concept
of change, they may not have realized the
consequences involved in such change, thus slowing
down the implementation
– Also, the parties who are not currently ‘in power’ also
still have a say in the policy making process and may
still impede the progress/change of the party in power
• Elections don’t always provide interest
aggregation, sometimes, it’s just a social thing
– Communist countries only allowing one candidate
on the ballot, but making everyone vote
• Electoral Systems determine
– Who can vote
– How they vote
– How the votes are counted
• Single-member District
– Plurality – you don’t need a majority (51%) to win,
you just need the most votes
• Common in the U.S. in many local elections
• Not valid in national and some state level postitions
– Majority Runoff/Double Ballot
• 1st voting narrows down the candidates
• 2nd voting gets a winner with a majority
• Exceptions can occur if a candidate gets the required
majority (51%) in the 1st voting
• Proportional Representation
– The country is divided into large districts and each
district gets to elect a lot of representatives
(sometimes 20-30)
• The people vote for their favorite candidates
• The parties whose candidates receive a minimum
percentage of votes get to send their winners to the
legislature. If a party doesn’t get the minimum, then
they may have some aspects of their people
unrepresented
• Primary Elections
– Parties offer their top candidates and let the
voters choose who will run for office against the
candidates from the other parties
• Closed-list proportional representation
– Elected officials choose from their top and the
voters have no say about who their candidates
might be
• Open-list
– Voters do get to make choices of their favorites
from a list of candidates. Those with the most
votes may get to run
• Patterns of Electoral Competition
– Duverger’s Law – there is a systemiatic relationship
between electoral systems and party systems
• Plurality single-member districts tend to create two-party
systems
• Proportional representation generates multi-party systems
• How does this happen?
– Mechanical effect – the way that different electoral systems
convert votes into seats
– Psychological effect voters and candidates anticipate the
mechanical effect
» Voters may not throw support behind candidates they feel
are hopeless
» Voting for the next best option or the one that will cause the
‘least damage’ is called strategic voting
– Down’s Median Voter Result
• Political parties will try to modify their stand on various
issues to win the support of the median voter
• Two-party systems have a convergence to the center to
try to win these median voters
– In the U.S. there are Republicans who flirt with the left and
Democrats who flirt with the right.
• Competitive Parties in Government
– It helps get policies passed if a party wins the
majority in the legislative and has control of the
executive.
• This works better in single party districts
• In pluralities, a party may win control without the
majority of the support because of how the seats are
distributed to the winner.
– Great Britain under Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair had less
than 50% of the popular vote but them and their party got
control.
– Sometimes, parties will combine to gain control
» The recent elections in Britain that brought David
Cameron in as Prime Minister
• Aggregation of Interests when coalitions form has
costs and benefits
– The elite determine gov’t policy, and the people feel
left out
• Voters are often discourage by this because they feel their
vote doesn’t count
– When there is a coalition, sometimes the interests of
a minority party can be used in negotiations, getting
them a policy they may want but might not have
gotten had a party gained a clear majority
• Cooperation and Conflict in Competitive Party
Systems
– Majoritarian two-party systems
• Dominated by two parties (U.S.)
• Have two dominant parties and election laws usually create
legislative majorities for one of them (Britain)
– Majority coalition systems
• Parties form preelectoral coalitions so that voters know
which parties will attempt to work together for form the
policies (Germany & France)
– Multiparty systems
• Election laws can party systems that virtually ensure that no
single party wins a legislative majority and no traditional of
preelection coalitions
• Party antagonism/polarization
– Consensual party system
• The parties commanding most of the legislative seats are not
to far apart on policies and have a reasonable amount of
trust in each other and in the political system
– Conflictual party system
• The legislature is dominated by parties that are far apart on
issues or are antagonistic toward each other and the political
system
– Consociational/Accomodative system
• Party systems in which political leaders are able to bridge
the intense differences between antagonistic voters through
power-sharing, broad coalitions, and decentralization of
sensitive decisions to the separate social groups (Christians
and Muslims in Lebanon)
Authoritarian Party Systems
• Aggregation takes place
– Within the party
– In interactions with
•
•
•
•
•
Business groups
Unions
Landowners
Institutional groups in the bureaucracy
Military
• Elections are sham to make people think they
are included
• Exclusive Governing Parties
– Totalitarian
•
•
•
•
•
One party
Top-down control of society
No opposition parties or interest groups
Legitimacy is provided by clear ideology
Failed Totalitarian governments
– USSR
– Eastern Europe
• Working totalitarian governments
– North Korea
– Cuba
• China – mixed and confusing
– Government no longer controls the economy
– Government still prohibits mass organization against it’s
legitimacy
– Demise of totalitarianism
• Greed for power distorts original ideology
• Limited government ability to control society
• Loss of confidence in Communism
• Inclusive Governing Parties
– Ethnic and tribal authoritarian
• Usually succeed because they are inclusive
– Recognize autonomy of
» Social
» Cultural
» Economic groups
– Bargain with these groups instead of controlling and remaking
them
– Examples:
» Kenya
» Tanzania
– Authoritarian Corporatist Systems
• Allow formation of interest groups
– Groups bargain with each other
– Groups bargain with the government
• Do not allow political resources directly to the people
• They sometimes allow opposition parties if they are no real
threat to the control
• Electoral Authoritarianism
– Façade of democracy that doesn’t really challenge the gov’t
» Some political opposition
» Independent media
» Social Organizations
– Example: Mexican PRI
– These governments often are born in the fight
against colonialism and begin to dissipate after
the leaders die or retire
• Memories of struggle for independence fade
• Ideology weakens
• Worldwide spread of democracy causes people to
question the legitimacy of a single party.
Military & Interest Aggregation
• Military Government
– When civilian governments cannot control society,
the military often gets control by default
– Military has a monopoly on coercive actions to
maintain control of society
– After the military takes over
• May support a tyrant
• May try to use their power to further controlling party
ideology
– When the military has taken over they sometimes try to
set up a bureaucratic version of authoritarian corporatism
• Link organized groups with them (the military as the final say in
arbitration)
– Major limitations of military interest aggregation
• Their internal structure is not designed for interest aggregation
• They are not set up for
–
–
–
–
Aggregation of internal differences
Building compromises
Mobilizing popular support
Communications with social groups outside of the military
– Military control is often linked with other institutions and
may withdraw from control once another, more stable
government is established
Trends in Interest Aggregation
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Not Free
50%
Partially Free
40%
Free
30%
20%
10%
0%
1978
1988-1989
1997-1998
2005-2006
– 1980s we saw the trend toward democracy in
Eastern Europe
– 1990s African nations began to move toward
democracy
– After 2005-2006, we have seen a move toward
democracy in the Middle East
• Algeria
• Tunisia
• Egypt
Significance of Interest Aggregation
• Successful public policy depends on effective
interest aggregation
– Narrow policy options so citizen demands are
converted into a few policy alternatives
• May eliminate some policies in the process
• Competitive Party Systems narrow down and
combine policy preferences by through elections
– Voters support the party that has their preferences
– Unpopular preferences are then eliminated by the
majority
• Noncompetitive Party Systems, military gov’ts
and monarchies aggregation can determine
policy
– Authoritarian and military governments may just
decide the program
– Legislative assemblies, military councils or party
politburos may have to negotiate policies
• How well a government aggregates is the final
determining factor in it’s adaptability and stability