Political parties, origins, transformations and
future prospects
Lecture 1
We could identify parties according to different worldviews and families. We can
group them together based on their ideas, identity and worldviews
1. Liberal parties
2. Conservative parties
3. Christian democratic parties
4. Social democratic parties
the rise of neoconservatism (thatcher)
The rise of the third way (Tony Blair)
What is the future of mainstream parties?
Looking more sociological, we look at why people support political parties. We
look at cleavages (how do they explain voting behaviour)
Like why do the UK only have conservative vs labor; because of a
cleavage.
We look at the rise of the new left: new form of politics, more identity politics. It’s
also about populism, and about social movements and political parties: since the
1960s and the 1970s social movements have become increasingly important
Important general terms:
Embedded liberalism: begun around 50s and ended around 70s: idea of how
society was organized economically and politically in the post war period. We had
markets and capitalism, and these were about free trade and trade between
nations, but the idea is that they were embedded in a larger global system that
regulated markets. It was embedded in the context of regulation; a regulated
market economy. Idea was that the state itself needed to have more control
about what’s going on.
Post World War II economic and political arrangement that combined the
principles of a liberal market economy with a commitment to social welfare
and state intervention.
It allowed countries to pursue open, international trade while maintaining
the ability to manage their economies domestically
Acknowledged the benefits of a global economy but embedded these
within a framework that prioritized national policies to protect citizens from
the volatility of unfettered markets.
Post war compromise: happened during the same time. Centre left and right
parties right said okay we can have capitalism and market economy, but in return
we want a welfare state with protection and regulation. Left says okay, you can
have a market economy but we want our social system. So there was capitalism
with social rights.
Agreement between the left and the right over the social and political
arrangement
Right could have their market economy, left could have social protections
1
, Possible because of embedded liberalism
This led to the welfare state: we need to create a social system in which we
look out for the wellbeing of the citizens. The state should be active and regulate.
So states nationalized some industries.
A system in which the government assumes a primary role in ensuring the
economic and social well-being of its citizens
In a welfare state, the government provides various social services, such
as healthcare, education, unemployment benefits, pensions, and housing
assistance, to reduce poverty and inequality and support people through
economic ups and downs.
Then we get globalization (70s-80s); the system breaks down; deregulation of
markets. Globalization transforms societies and disadvantages liberalism.
Economic integration: reduction in trade barriers
Cultural exchange; globalization has facilitated the spread of cultural ideas,
media, and lifestyles, resulting in increased cultural diversity and
exchange
Technological advancements: innovations in digital communication and the
internet have accelerated the speed of globalization.
Migration and Labor Mobility: people have become more mobile, moving
across borders.
Lecture 2: Political parties and party models
Definitions of political parties:
A political party is an institution that (1) seeks to influence a state, often
by attempting to occupy positions in government, and (2) usually consists
of more than a single interest in society and so to some degree attempts to
‘aggregate interests’.
- Criticism: you have single-interest parties, some parties try to influence
societal sentiment and not the state
Any political group identified by an official label that presents at elections,
and is capable of placing through elections (free or non-free), candidates
for public office.
- Broader definition
A political party is an autonomous group of citizens whose purpose is to
make nominations and contest elections in the hope of gain control of
government power by capturing of public offices and the organisation of
the government.
- Focus on government
The bottom line is that parties have an organizing role; they are the link between
parliament, government, policy and citizens. This is linkage (vertical link, always
hierarchical). Political parties will influence the type of linkage we have; different
parties have different links with society. Like Wilders and party membership has
some kind of personalization, identification with the leader. Linkage is also about
within-party; how democratic are parties internally?
There is an assumption that we cannot have democracy without parties. Some
quotes:
2
, Parties are inevitable. No free country has been without them. No one has
shown how representative government could be worked without them.
They bring order out of chaos to a multitude of voters.
Modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of the parties.
Theories about political parties and democracy
Robert Dahl: one of the most important theorists of democracy
For him, true democracy is about direct representation.
His ideal was the Greek polis
His argument was that with the rise of the nation state, representation is
only possible via a representative democracy or representative form.
Polyarchy (really existing democracy) is about representative democracy.
You have to have mediated representation (by political parties) according
to his (highly idealized) idea about true democracy.
Nadia Urbinati
Party democracy is about mediation. Mediation between citizen and
representation.
- Contestation between parties over ideas, the common good etc.
Political parties are about contestations about ideas. You cant have
democracy without political parties because she believes that political
parties facilitate contestation between different kind of ideas. She thinks
its about pluralism; parties facilitate organized pluralism. Organizes
interests and allows us to contest ideas through parties.
In countries that have forced 2 party systems, contestation is limited.
Anthony Downs
Had a simple idea: social and political issues are complex
Most citizens do not have the time or knowledge to be fully informed
So political parties are information reducers
Political parties reduce information to digestible pieces
- Ideology
So he says political parties create order.
So
As we move to nation states parties represent (Dahl)
Parties simplify complexity (Downs) (through their ideologies)
Parties order the political landscape
Parties allow for political contestation
Not all agree with this standpoint, like David Van Reybrouck, who is perhaps
not per se against parties, but critical of elections.
His answer is: sortition: individuals are randomly chosen to represent
He thinks we should have a lottery system where citizens randomly will be called
into parliament outside of political parties. Idea is that representation should
happen beyond the idea of political parties. So he says we can have a democracy
without political representation.
So he says ideologies shouldn’t be an organizing principle.
3
, What do citizens think of political parties?
General public has an apprehensive
feeling towards parties. Individuals
tend to have even less trust in political
parties then other institutions
Here we see people feel parties are
necessary, even though they don’t
trust them.
Have we always hated parties?
Party means part, part of the whole, thus it was seen as division, or even
faction. So they were seen in a negative light
Madison and the founders of the American constitution; a lot of it was to
control political parties because they were seen as negative. We have this
idea that parties are important for democracy, but individuals are also
sceptical about political parties, which goes back into history.
But there was an evolution: from responsible government, to the building
up of parties
Democracy with parties
Katz and Main article
The argument is:
Democracy is not possible without parties.
The dominant form/type of party model you have is important for the type
of democracy you have
It is not about more or less parties, it’s about what types of parties we
have.
It is about linkage
- How do parties link with society and the electorate (personalized party
might be more of an audience democracy, in which the audience is
watching instead of participating).
But maybe even more importantly
- Parties organize cleavages (or they don’t)
- The type of party and its relation to the system is very important
How to assess the types of parties? We will focus on the party origins, the role of
the ideology, how the party organizes. This is a dialectical process; one produces
or brings about the other. So each new party type generates a reaction that
stimulates further development/new party types.
The late 19th century; 1880s
4
future prospects
Lecture 1
We could identify parties according to different worldviews and families. We can
group them together based on their ideas, identity and worldviews
1. Liberal parties
2. Conservative parties
3. Christian democratic parties
4. Social democratic parties
the rise of neoconservatism (thatcher)
The rise of the third way (Tony Blair)
What is the future of mainstream parties?
Looking more sociological, we look at why people support political parties. We
look at cleavages (how do they explain voting behaviour)
Like why do the UK only have conservative vs labor; because of a
cleavage.
We look at the rise of the new left: new form of politics, more identity politics. It’s
also about populism, and about social movements and political parties: since the
1960s and the 1970s social movements have become increasingly important
Important general terms:
Embedded liberalism: begun around 50s and ended around 70s: idea of how
society was organized economically and politically in the post war period. We had
markets and capitalism, and these were about free trade and trade between
nations, but the idea is that they were embedded in a larger global system that
regulated markets. It was embedded in the context of regulation; a regulated
market economy. Idea was that the state itself needed to have more control
about what’s going on.
Post World War II economic and political arrangement that combined the
principles of a liberal market economy with a commitment to social welfare
and state intervention.
It allowed countries to pursue open, international trade while maintaining
the ability to manage their economies domestically
Acknowledged the benefits of a global economy but embedded these
within a framework that prioritized national policies to protect citizens from
the volatility of unfettered markets.
Post war compromise: happened during the same time. Centre left and right
parties right said okay we can have capitalism and market economy, but in return
we want a welfare state with protection and regulation. Left says okay, you can
have a market economy but we want our social system. So there was capitalism
with social rights.
Agreement between the left and the right over the social and political
arrangement
Right could have their market economy, left could have social protections
1
, Possible because of embedded liberalism
This led to the welfare state: we need to create a social system in which we
look out for the wellbeing of the citizens. The state should be active and regulate.
So states nationalized some industries.
A system in which the government assumes a primary role in ensuring the
economic and social well-being of its citizens
In a welfare state, the government provides various social services, such
as healthcare, education, unemployment benefits, pensions, and housing
assistance, to reduce poverty and inequality and support people through
economic ups and downs.
Then we get globalization (70s-80s); the system breaks down; deregulation of
markets. Globalization transforms societies and disadvantages liberalism.
Economic integration: reduction in trade barriers
Cultural exchange; globalization has facilitated the spread of cultural ideas,
media, and lifestyles, resulting in increased cultural diversity and
exchange
Technological advancements: innovations in digital communication and the
internet have accelerated the speed of globalization.
Migration and Labor Mobility: people have become more mobile, moving
across borders.
Lecture 2: Political parties and party models
Definitions of political parties:
A political party is an institution that (1) seeks to influence a state, often
by attempting to occupy positions in government, and (2) usually consists
of more than a single interest in society and so to some degree attempts to
‘aggregate interests’.
- Criticism: you have single-interest parties, some parties try to influence
societal sentiment and not the state
Any political group identified by an official label that presents at elections,
and is capable of placing through elections (free or non-free), candidates
for public office.
- Broader definition
A political party is an autonomous group of citizens whose purpose is to
make nominations and contest elections in the hope of gain control of
government power by capturing of public offices and the organisation of
the government.
- Focus on government
The bottom line is that parties have an organizing role; they are the link between
parliament, government, policy and citizens. This is linkage (vertical link, always
hierarchical). Political parties will influence the type of linkage we have; different
parties have different links with society. Like Wilders and party membership has
some kind of personalization, identification with the leader. Linkage is also about
within-party; how democratic are parties internally?
There is an assumption that we cannot have democracy without parties. Some
quotes:
2
, Parties are inevitable. No free country has been without them. No one has
shown how representative government could be worked without them.
They bring order out of chaos to a multitude of voters.
Modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of the parties.
Theories about political parties and democracy
Robert Dahl: one of the most important theorists of democracy
For him, true democracy is about direct representation.
His ideal was the Greek polis
His argument was that with the rise of the nation state, representation is
only possible via a representative democracy or representative form.
Polyarchy (really existing democracy) is about representative democracy.
You have to have mediated representation (by political parties) according
to his (highly idealized) idea about true democracy.
Nadia Urbinati
Party democracy is about mediation. Mediation between citizen and
representation.
- Contestation between parties over ideas, the common good etc.
Political parties are about contestations about ideas. You cant have
democracy without political parties because she believes that political
parties facilitate contestation between different kind of ideas. She thinks
its about pluralism; parties facilitate organized pluralism. Organizes
interests and allows us to contest ideas through parties.
In countries that have forced 2 party systems, contestation is limited.
Anthony Downs
Had a simple idea: social and political issues are complex
Most citizens do not have the time or knowledge to be fully informed
So political parties are information reducers
Political parties reduce information to digestible pieces
- Ideology
So he says political parties create order.
So
As we move to nation states parties represent (Dahl)
Parties simplify complexity (Downs) (through their ideologies)
Parties order the political landscape
Parties allow for political contestation
Not all agree with this standpoint, like David Van Reybrouck, who is perhaps
not per se against parties, but critical of elections.
His answer is: sortition: individuals are randomly chosen to represent
He thinks we should have a lottery system where citizens randomly will be called
into parliament outside of political parties. Idea is that representation should
happen beyond the idea of political parties. So he says we can have a democracy
without political representation.
So he says ideologies shouldn’t be an organizing principle.
3
, What do citizens think of political parties?
General public has an apprehensive
feeling towards parties. Individuals
tend to have even less trust in political
parties then other institutions
Here we see people feel parties are
necessary, even though they don’t
trust them.
Have we always hated parties?
Party means part, part of the whole, thus it was seen as division, or even
faction. So they were seen in a negative light
Madison and the founders of the American constitution; a lot of it was to
control political parties because they were seen as negative. We have this
idea that parties are important for democracy, but individuals are also
sceptical about political parties, which goes back into history.
But there was an evolution: from responsible government, to the building
up of parties
Democracy with parties
Katz and Main article
The argument is:
Democracy is not possible without parties.
The dominant form/type of party model you have is important for the type
of democracy you have
It is not about more or less parties, it’s about what types of parties we
have.
It is about linkage
- How do parties link with society and the electorate (personalized party
might be more of an audience democracy, in which the audience is
watching instead of participating).
But maybe even more importantly
- Parties organize cleavages (or they don’t)
- The type of party and its relation to the system is very important
How to assess the types of parties? We will focus on the party origins, the role of
the ideology, how the party organizes. This is a dialectical process; one produces
or brings about the other. So each new party type generates a reaction that
stimulates further development/new party types.
The late 19th century; 1880s
4
