1. PARTY GOVERNMENT i: party organization
Readings: Duverger, Kirchheimer, Katz and Mair

2. Guiding Questions What are cadre parties?
Mass parties?
Catch-all parties?
Cartel parties?
How does party organization in Europe differ from the US?
How does party organization shape elections in European democracies? Politics in European democracies?

3. The Emergence of Political Parties: Pre 1890
Politics centered on connections to aristocracy.
Political office doled out as royal favors.
Difficult to conceive of modern political parties in this atmosphere.
No attempt to appeal to the masses.

4. The Emergence of Political Parties
By the 18th century, rule by royal prerogative is disappearing.
Eighteenth century politics centered on conceptions of suffrage based on property.
Limited electoral audiences did not require political platforms that appealed to mass audiences.
But groups developed within the legislature (i.e. internally created)
Why? To be able to make decisions.
Example: Tories vs. Liberals in the UK.

5. Cadre Parties (Pre 1890) Duverger (1954) Cadre parties
Constituency organizations relatively weak at this point.
Limited suffrage reduced the need for constituency organization.
Temporary electoral committees (or caucuses) would spring up around election time to promote candidates.
Connections are based not on quantity of members but on quality of connections.
Caucuses dissolved in between elections, so the constituency organizations are not permanent.

6. American Political Parties-Cadre
Framers opposed the idea of political parties (Federalist 10).
Aldrich 1995
Big ticket issues such as placing the capital, and financial disputes surrounding the Revolution were hotly debated with no resolution.
Formation of legislative factions useful to organize this debate.
Members owed position in both chambers to personal connections rather than mass support.
Cadre organization
US parties then begin to “look like” political parties in 1828.

7. The Emergence of the Mass Party
Duverger: 1954
Nascent political parties were a collection of caucuses roughly tied to parliamentary factions.
Initially, not predicated on ideology
As calls for suffrage expand, demands from movements from outside parliament (i.e. working classes) challenge elite dominance
Once cadre parties have to seek support within the electorate, parliamentary factions merge with constituency caucuses.
Cadre parties are the norm in a social context that emphasizes social rather than ideological connections.
Cadre parties are not as viable in an ideologically based political system.

8. The Era of Mass Parties (1890- approx. 1945)
Duverger 1954
Mass parties
Growth of working class movements pressured political elites to expand suffrage.
Working class organizations could not rely on legislative connections to express their demands.
These parties formed externally, drawing on mass support.
Caucus form of organization was not viable for these parties; branch organization more appropriate
Members would pay dues and become active in local branches of the party.

9. Contagion from the Left?
Quantity of members key.
Mass parties created cradle to grave organizations for their memberships; party organization always active.
Initially, mass parties were a function of the left
Great for mobilization.
Parties of the right began to adopt the branch style of organization in response.
Christian Democratic could draw on Catholic organizational strength.
Push for large membership rolls on both sides of the political debate begins the era of mass parties.
Clerical to confessional shift opened up voters for the Christian Democrats.

10. Cadre vs. Mass Parties Internally created Organized via caucuses
CADRE PARTIES
MASS PARTIES
Internally created
Organized via caucuses
Constituency organizations dissolved in between elections
Generally less ideologically charged.
Appeal to elites; “quality” of membership key.
Were predominantly liberal or conservative.
Externally created
Organized via branches
Constituency organizations permanently in place.
Generally more ideologically charged.
Appeal to masses; “quantity” of membership key.
Predominantly socialist/social democrat or Christian democrat.

11. American Political Parties-Mass
US never develops truly mass based parties per se; party funding never based on dues.
Epstein 1966:
US political parties remain funded by notables but attempt to appeal to masses.
Aldrich 1995:
Van Buren attempted to create a party “bigger than its individuals”.
Created mass based electoral mechanisms to win election in disparate regions; ideological vagueness suited party’s electoral goals.
Whigs follow suit; Whigs and Democrats compete to controls spoils of office.
Arguably collude to prevent the issue of slavery from coming to the forefront.

12. The Emergence of Catch All Parties
Kirchheimer 1966
Catch all parties:
1) Mass party in a post ideological state
2) Electoral success trumps ideology.
Major parties cooperate to forestall a rise in political extremism.
Socialist parties are finally brought into government.
As socialist parties enter government, class distinctions begin to wane.
Political parties begin to look for votes “outside their base” to gain political advantage.

13. The Emergence of Catch All Parties: 1945 to approx. 1970
Kirchheimer 1966
Strategy involves:
1) jettisoning “ideological baggage”
2) trumpeting efficiency of administration over ideological goals.
3) reducing the role of individual party member while boosting the role of the central party.
4) reducing emphasis on classe gardée to pull votes from other societal groupings.
5) creating channels within various interest groups to boost electoral support.
Only major parties can make this transition.
Not all parties will go this route.
Example: Niche parties

14. Contagion from the Right?
Epstein 1967
Catch all strategy facilitated by new communications and informational technology (i.e. TV).
TV reduces the emphasis on building mass membership bases.
Catch all parties need access to funds to buy advertising.
No problem for the middle class parties but tough for working class parties.
Parties seek to get the funds necessary to compete effectively.
Unions become key for parties of the left; business organizations for parties of the right.

15. Consequences of Catch All?
KIRCHHEIMER 1966
EPSTEIN 1967
Problematic.
Mass parties provide critical integration and expressive functions not provided by catch all parties.
Reduced focus on controversial legislation.
Catch all parties may lose their traditional supporters as a result.
Normal.
Allows parties to jettison more ideological components.
Political parties are free to compromise.
Parties can gain freedom from ideological activists or groups.

16. American Political Parties: Catch All
US political parties are typically viewed as cadre parties.
Mass parties never caught on in the US
Although both the Democrats and Republicans typically make “catch-all type” electoral appeals.
Aldrich 1995:
Suggests evidence of convergence until the 1970’s.
Highlights the role of supporters and activists to both major political parties.
Present era: seeing a return to ideological differentiation amongst the major parties.

17. Challenges for Catch-All Parties
Katz and Mair 2009
Catch all era created new pressures:
Weaker social ties to traditional groupings.
Left-right debate over more services vs. lower taxes/less regulation.
Parties’ ability to deliver was undercut by:
1) Moderation of class cleavage made appeals to class less beneficial for parties.
2) Campaigns shift towards greater professionalization (at greater costs).
3) Social welfare state no longer economically viable.
Requires cuts in services or increases in taxes to remain functional
4) Politics as a vocation
Response:
1) Depoliticize controversial issues/Delegate to non political entities.
Convergence
2) Use public funding to reduce the costs of defeat.

18. The Emergence of Cartel Parties
Katz and Mair 1997
Cadre:
State/society interpenetrated by elites; parties as cliques of notables.
Trustee form of representation.
Mass:
Extension of franchise push state and society apart; parties as intermediaries between the state and classes in civil society.
Delegate form of representation.

19. The Emergence of Cartel Parties (1970-present)
Katz and Mair 1997
Catch-All:
State and society separated as entry into government weakens ties between party and societal class groups.
Parties act as brokers between state and society which aggregate demands from society while justifying policies from the state.
Thus, parties are moving closer towards the state and further from society.
Entrepreneurial form of representation.
Contends that parties have become agents of the state.

20. Cartelization of Party Systems
Katz and Mair 1997
Characterized by “the interpenetration of party and state, and also by a pattern of inter- party collusion.”
1) Politics as a profession
Competition based on efficient stewardship.
2) Managed electoral competition
Shared sense of survival.
3) Campaign resources provided by the state
Campaign resources provided to parties “inside the state”
US/UK outliers on public financing of campaigns.
4) Greater rights to participation within party.
Has important implications for governance.

21. Conclusions: Consequences of Cartelization
Creates a relatively permanent set of “in” parties.
Campaign finance rules make participation by “out” parties difficult.
Range of issues considered “fair game” for debate is constrained.
Delegation to apolitical entities and norms of “legitimacy” constrain this debate.
Electoral results may not always be reflected in governing coalitions.
Feedback mechanisms weakened.
New demands increasingly voiced by interest groups rather than cartel parties.
May provide impetus for extreme parties.

22. Next Unit Theme: Party Government II: Political Parties and Ideology
Reading: Hay and Menon CH 12