1. Core Issues in Comparative Politics (PO233) Module Director: Dr. Renske Doorenspleet Associate Professor in Comparative Politics director Centre for Studies in Democratization Department of Politics and International Studies University of Warwick, UK www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/staff/doorenspleet/ www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/research/csd/ e-mail: renske.doorenspleet@warwick.ac.uk

2. Types of Democracies Consensus versus Majoritarian Systems (Lijphart 1999, see also week 11): Executive-parties dimension (how easy is it for one party to take control of the government?) 1.concentration of executive power (week 14) 2.dominance of executive (week 14) 3.two-party vs. multiparty system (week 12) 4. majoritarian electoral rules vs. PR (week 13) 5. types of interest groups Federal-unitary dimension

3. Content Lecture week 12 Parties and Party Systems A.Parties (read Katz 2008; Hague and Harrop 2007, Ch. 11) -Functions -Types -Challenges B. Party Systems (read Caramani 2008; Hague and Harrop 2007, Ch. 11) -Formation -Types C. Back to Lijphart (read literature week 11) D. Contents of seminar week 13

4. A. Political Parties (Functions) Different definitions by Michels (1911), Schumpeter (1950), Downs (1957), Huckshorn (1984), Schlesinger (1991) and Aldrich (1995).  see Katz 2008: 294-297 Functions: 1. Coordination: - With government - With society - Between government and society

5. A. Political Parties (Functions) Functions: 2. Contesting elections: - Providing candidates - Fund raising for candidates - Formulating policy positions

6. A. Political Parties (Functions) Functions: 3. Recruitment and selection: - Integrating new citizens (e.g. party youth movements) 4. Representation: - Social groupings - Ideological positions

7. A. Political Parties (Types) Types of parties: 1.Cadre or elite parties: -The earliest of “modern” parties– until rise of mass suffrage -Parliamentary origin -Highly restricted suffrage  no need for a party on the ground -Mobilizing of personal clientele -Minimal and local organizational structure -Elites are the only members and main resource base

8. A. Political Parties (Types) Types of parties (continued) (2)Mass parties: -2nd half of 19th century (mass suffrage till 1950s) -Extra-parliamentary origin -Representing a particular group or social class -Often built on pre-existing organizations (e.g. trade-unions) -Strategy of ‘encapsulation’ -Extensive organization (but… dominated by the party’s elite! cf. Michels’ “iron law of oligarchy”)

9. A. Political Parties (Types) Types of parties (continued) (3) Catch-all parties (Kirchheimer 1966): Developed from transformation of mass parties (1950s-now) characterized by: - Increasing role of professionals (compared to members) - Weaker ideological orientation - Strategy to appeal across group boundaries - Loosening connection between party and “its” interest organization

10. A. Political Parties (Types) Types of parties (continued) 4. Cartel parties (Katz and Mair 1995): Pressure on the catch-all model (1970s-now) led to four major changes compared to catch-all parties: - Agencies of the state rather than of society - Disempowering party activists - Further privileging professional expertise - Parties form a cartel to protect themselves from electoral risk and to get subventions from the state

11. A. Political Parties (Types) Types of parties (continued) (5)Anti-cartel parties: Frustration with mainstream parties Organized around an idea rather than a social grouping left-libertarian-, new right- or movement parties (6)Business-firm parties: Forza Italia as model for future parties? (7)Parties in the US: Share many features of cadre parties but candidate selection is run by state regulated primary elections (8) and… what about parties in new democracies???!!!

12. A. Political Parties (Challenges) Challenges of parties: -Increasing complexity of problems makes them less tractable -Declining party membership -More dependent from contributions of special interest groups -Problems and debates around financing political parties -Increasing role of competing interest organizations

13. B. Party Systems (Formation) A party system: sets of parties that interact, compete and cooperate with the aim to increase their power (& maximisation of votes) in controlling government Three factors determine this interaction: Which parties exist? How many parties exist? How do parties behave?

14. B. Party Systems (Formation) Two factors: National Revolution (early 19th century; restricted electorates) Industrial Revolution (late 19th century; suffrage extension) (See Chapter 13 Caramani) Revolutions  socio-economic and cultural conflicts Lipset and Rokkan (1967): - Concept of ‘cleavages’ - Cleavages  party families

15. B. Party Systems (Formation) Lipset and Rokkan (1967) distinguish four main cleavages. National Revolution induced two cleavages: 1) Centre-periphery cleavage  regionalist parties (e.g. Scottish National Party, the Swedish Party in Finland)

16. B. Party Systems (Formation) Cleavages of the National Revolution (continued): 2) State-church cleavage  conservative and religious parties (e.g. Christian Democratic Union, Swiss Catholic Party)

17. B. Party Systems (Formation) The Industrial revolution induced two further cleavages: (3) Rural-urban cleavage  agrarian and peasant parties (e.g. Australian County Party)

18. B. Party Systems (Formation) Cleavages of the industrial revolution (continued): (4) Workers-employers cleavage  workers and social-democratic parties (e.g. British Labour Party). (most important cleavage, characterizing the left-right alignment)

19. B. Party Systems (Formation) The Post industrial Revolution created two more recent cleavages: (5)Materialism-post-materialism cleavage (1960s/1970s):  social movements, and Green-Parties (6)The globalization cleavage  neo-populist protest parties right-winged and xenophobic (e.g. Front National in France) left-winged in Latin America

20. B. Party Systems (Formation) Some important notes: -Not all cleavages exist in all countries! - Homogenous (Britain) versus heterogeneous (e.g. Canada, Switzerland) constellations -Freezing-hypothesis (Lipset and Rokkan 1967) But… realignment (see previous slide)

21. B. Party Systems (Types) Types of democratic party systems: (1)Dominant-party systems: One party holds majority, no alternation of power, one-party government. E.g. India till 1974, Japan 1955-1993, Mexico till 2000, SAF since 1994, Sweden (2)Two-party systems: Two parties are sharing about 80% of votes, alternation of power, one-party government. E.g. Britain, New Zealand till 1998, USA

22. B. Party Systems (Types) Types of democratic party systems : (3) Multi-party systems: Several parties, different sizes, coalitions after elections, alternation through coalition changes, coalition government. E.g. Germany till 1989, Italy before 1994, the Netherlands, Switzerland etc. (3.1) Moderate multi-party systems (3.2) Polarized multi-party systems (4)Bipolar systems: Two large coalitions, balanced, electoral alliances, alternation between coalitions, coalition government. E.g. Germany since 1990 and Italy since 1994

23. C. Back to Lijphart Lijphart’s executive-parties dimension (how easy is it for one party to take control of the government?): Third element: two-party vs. multiparty system So… not political parties, but party systems Problem of dichotomy Problem of new democracies Link with types of electoral systems (Week 13)

24. D. Contents of Seminar week 13 Homework seminar week 13: 1) read the required literature of week 12 2) Choose one country and describe the following: - Types of Political Parties (and… describe the challenges) - Types of Party Systems (and… describe link between cleavage structure and party system) See www.electionworld.org/ and www.ipu.org/ and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ and links in module outlinewww.electionworld.org/www.ipu.org/ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ Prepare a presentation (around 5 minutes)