Party Transformations in European Democracies

André Krouwel

• Publisher: SUNY Press
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781438444833
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Partidos políticos

Political parties regularly change and adapt in response to ever-changing circumstances. Until now these changes have frequently prompted both scholars and the media to suggest a whole new type of political party, and over time the number of models and types has proliferated to the point of confusion, contradiction, and a loss of explanatory power. In this sophisticated yet accessible study, André Krouwel rejects this mélange of models as inadequate. He utilizes a wide range of data sources to analyze the ideological, organizational, and electoral change undergone by more than one hundred European parties in fifteen different countries, from Scandinavia to the Iberian Peninsula, between 1945 and 2010. The result is one of the most comprehensive empirically grounded studies to date of the genesis, development, and transformation of political parties in advanced democratic states.

ONE

PARTY MODELS

This chapter describes existing party models and shows how the numerous models can be clustered into five general party types. All models that we group in these five clusters basically describe the same type of political party.

ELITE AND CADRE PARTIES

One of the first scholars to describe a political party was Edmund Burke, who, writing in 1770, defined a party as a group of parliamentary representatives who agreed to cooperate upon certain principles. These first political parties emerged in proto-democratic systems, with suffrage limited to a small, privileged class of the more propertied male population. An extra-parliamentary party organization was practically nonexistent and the coordination between its members, a small elite from the middle and upper classes, was loosely structured. Wolinetz (2002, 140) describes this type of party as closed caucuses of prominent individuals. Distinguishing between internally and externally created parties, Duverger (1954) characterized these first parties by their origins in groups of parliamentary representatives (see also Kirchheimer 1954b). According to Duverger, a small cadre of individuals with high socioeconomic status, who have only weak links with their electorate, commonly leads these internally created elite parties. Clearly, the defining characteristic of elite parties on the electoral dimension is the high status of their members, who already had obtained politically powerful positions before the advent of an extra-parliamentary party organization.

The emergence of these “modern” extra-parliamentary parties, under the influence of the extension of the suffrage, was analyzed by Mosei Ostrogorski (1903). He compared these elite parties in Britain and the United States and, the latter having a more extended electorate, concluded that power became increasingly concentrated in local party “machines” that aimed at winning elections through an extensive system of patronage and clientelism.

At the organizational level, elite parties have basically two layers: in the constituencies and in parliament (Ostrogorski 1903, VIII–IX; Duverger 1954, XXIV; Katz and Mair 2002, 114). The extra-parliamentary party is weakly articulated or even absent and each constituency is able to provide its own resources, so that central authority and control are weak. Katz and Mair (2002, 115) argue that the elite party is basically an agglomeration of local parties consisting of “a small core of individuals with independent and personal access to resources able to place either one of their number or their surrogate in Parliament as their representative” (see also Ostrogorski 1903, i). Such a picture of the elite party organization is also sketched by Duverger (1954, 1–2, 62–67) who characterized the caucus party by its local and embryonic organizational structures, which were exclusively aimed at recruiting candidates and campaigning for them during the election period. For Duverger, the early cadre parties were merely “agencies of electoral coordination for groups of local notables with broadly similar views but a deep aversion to such vulgar notions as membership dues or party discipline” (see Knapp, 2002: 107). In a similar vein, Neumann (1956) identified the earliest political parties as parties of individual representation, which are characteristic of a society with a restricted political domain and only a limited degree of participation. They articulate the demands of specific social groups and at the organizational level their “membership activity is, for all practical purposes, limited to balloting, and the party organization (if existent at all) is dormant between election periods. Its main function is the selection of representatives, who, once chosen, are possessed of an absolute ‘free mandate’ and are in every respect responsible only to their own consciences” (Neumann 1956, 404).

The various authors do not say much on the ideological character of elite parties, but although the different groups of parliamentarians may have held “widely diverging views” of what the national interest was (Katz 1996, 116), competition between parties was relatively limited and centrist (Wildavski 1959, 313). Since all elite parties consisted of members of the higher echelons of society and only represented a limited section of the population, political conflict centered on the extent of unification and centralization of the state, the level of local autonomy, and the level of state intervention in the economic process (primarily taxes and tariffs). Mostly, such elite parties are associated with conservative and liberal outlooks in life.

MASS PARTIES

Whereas political power preceded the formation of the elite party, the mass party is the mirror image in that the formation of the extra-parliamentary organization preceded the acquisition of political power. Typically, mass parties are externally created and mobilize specific segments of the electorate that have previously been excluded from the political process (Duverger 1954; Kirchheimer 1966). These parties have been typified by Neumann (1956) as parties of social integration, as they have sought to integrate these excluded social groups into the body politic. Since they aim at a radical redistribution of social, economic, and political power, mass parties demand a strong commitment from their members, encapsulating them into an extensive extra-parliamentary party organization that provides a wide range of services via a dense network of ancillary organizations. In the words of Neumann (1956, 404):

Modern parties have steadily enlarged their scope and power within the political community and have consequently changed their own functions and character. In place of a party of individual representation, our contemporary society increasingly shows a party of social integration…. It demands not only permanent dues-paying membership (which may be found to a smaller extent within the loose party of representation too) but, above all, an increasing influence over all the spheres of the individual's daily life.

The ideological and organizational character of mass parties is influenced by their aim to represent and mobilize a particular and clearly defined social, religious, or ethnic segment of society, as well as their extra-parliamentary origin. In order to organize a politically excluded group, mass parties need a coherent vision of a better and different world and the ability to communicate it in a compelling manner. As Panebianco (1988, 264) pointed out, the stress is on ideology, and “believers” play a central role within the organization. Paradoxically, these “parties of the excluded” attempt to integrate their followers by insulating them from possible counter pressures (Katz 1996, 118). This insulation is achieved by a distinct ideology that is engrained in the minds of the members through propaganda, the party press, and party-organized activities in all spheres of life (Neumann 1956: 405). Ancillary organizations are created in the fields of education, labor, housing, sports, banking, insurance, and so on, so that all social, economic, and cultural activities of the party's supporters are consistent with its ideology. The ideological vision of a better world becomes visible and materializes within this social niche. Needless to say, the ideologies of these mass parties differ from the already powerful groups, but they also differ from the various ideologies of other mass parties. The result is fierce and principled competition among parties. Thus, among mass parties themselves there is substantial variance in ideology and (consequently) in organization.

Highlighting these differences, Duverger (1954: 63–71) distinguishes between branch-based mass parties and cell-based devotee parties, the latter being more totalitarian in ideology and organization. This distinction is also found in Neumann, who separates the party of social integration from the party of total integration. A party of total integration is “all-inclusive” and “demands the citizen's total surrender. It denies not only the relative freedom of choice among the voters and followers but also any possibility of coalition and compromise among parties. It can perceive nothing but total seizure and exercise of power, undisputed acceptance of the party line, and monolithic rule” (Neumann 1956: 405). Lenin (1902: 464–65) envisaged such parties as a small and cohesive group of professional and totally committed revolutionaries who lead huge masses of uncritical followers.

The mass party can also be found in a religious variant, the denominational mass party (Kirchheimer 1957a: 437; 1966), which Kirchheimer differentiated from the totalitarian party and the democratic mass party (Kirchheimer 1954b). Both the denominational and the democratic mass party try to appeal to a maximum of voters to take over the administration and carry into effect a definite program (Kirchheimer 1954b). They are, however, still limited in their appeal and only aim at mobilizing a specific social class or religious group. According to Gunther and Diamond (2003: 180–83), the mass party can also be found in nationalistic and fundamentalist variants, which are more proto-hegemonic in their ideology and tend toward a militia type of organization.

In terms of organization, all mass parties share the characteristic of extensive and centralized bureaucracy at the national level. The democratic variants of mass parties are characterized by an elected and representative collegial leadership, often combined with formal powers for a national congress with representatives from the membership (Wolinetz 2002, 146). Formally, mass parties are democratic organizations, but the ideological rigidity and the internal processes of training and recruiting members of the elite (through extensive socialization in the local branches and the internal educational system) make real competitive elections unlikely. Observing one of the first mass parties, Michels (1912) noted the bureaucratic rationalization within mass parties in which a small and unrepresentative elite gains control over the resources and means of communication. Michels thought that in any large organization power concentrated in the hands of an oligarchy is inevitable. “It is organization which gives birth to the dominion of the elected over the electors, of the mandateries over the mandators, of the delegates over the delegators. Who says organization, says oligarchy” (Michels 1962, 365). Inevitable or not, mass parties tend to be hierarchical in their structure, as all activities of the ancillary organizations and local party branches are coordinated by the extra-parliamentary leadership. In contrast to the elite parties, in which local caucuses voluntarily form a national organization, the central office of the mass party has a top-down approach. Local branches and cells are founded and coordinated from the center in order to increase the level of societal penetration of the party. Characteristic of mass party development is the establishment of an extra-parliamentary office that takes precedence over the party's public office. As a consequence, the party in public office is controlled, disciplined, and supervised from the extra-parliamentary leadership. All representatives are considered to have received the same mandate (Katz 1996, 118). The party in public office is simply instrumental to the implementation of the party's ideology (Katz and Mair 2002, 118). These strong vertical organizational ties (Panebianco 1988, 264) are needed to amass and pool resources at the central level of the extra-parliamentary party (Katz and Mair 2002, 117). The mass party derives its name from the mass of members that form the core of the organization. High membership levels and the extent of involvement and participation by members in inner-party activities and electoral campaigning are part of the defining characteristics of mass parties (Ware 1985; 1987; 1996). Beyond the voluntary work members do for the party, they are also the main source of income. Membership fees are used to finance the central bureaucracy and the campaigning activities of the mass party. Other sources of income for mass parties derive from the activities of the ancillary organizations and their own party press.

ELECTORAL CATCH-ALL PARTIES

Mass parties in Europe have been successful in integrating their followers in the body politic and in replacing their ancillary organizations with full-blown welfare states at the national level. Coupled with high levels of economic growth, the maturation of welfare states has resulted in the emergence of a substantial new middle class made up of skilled manual workers, white-collar workers, and civil servants. Their interests have converged and become indistinguishable from those of the traditional middle classes. According to Kirchheimer (1966), such diminished social polarization went hand in hand with diminished political polarization as the doctrines of mass parties slowly became interchangeable. Ideologically, mass parties gradually transformed into programmatically bland catch-all parties and this process culminated into a waning of principled opposition and a reduction of politics to the mere management of the state (Krouwel 1999; 2003). Kirchheimer distinguished the catch-all party from the Weltanschauungs-party, and argued that the modern catch-all party was now forced to think more in terms of profit and loss than of electoral support and policy (Wolinetz 2002, 145–46). He asserted that political parties had been reduced “to a rationally conceived vehicle of interest-representation” (Kirchheimer 1957b, 314–15). Although catch-all parties still functioned as intermediaries between elements of formerly united groups, the working class only continued to accept these parties because they promised to give priority to their material claims, not because of their social vision. Catch-all parties were reluctant to perform the role of opposition, as this would seriously diminish their success in realizing group claims. This transition from the ideologically oriented mass party to the interest group–oriented catch-all party is indicative of the erosion of principled opposition.

Kirchheimer's development of the catch-all thesis is a good example of how erratically theory-generating processes operate concerning party transformation. Kirchheimer formulated his catch-all thesis on the basis of only a limited number of observations, in particular the German Sozialistische Partei Deutschlands and Christlich-Demokratische Union, the British Labour Party, the Italian Democrazia Cristiana, and the French Union pour la Nouvelle République (Kirchheimer 1966). He hypothesized that the catch-all development witnessed in these cases was likely to be prevalent in many European countries and would lead to a more or less generalized transformati on of party systems. Kirchheimer was also fairly categorical in identifying the properties of this new party—including its ideological, organizational, and electoral dimensions—which is why there still remains substantial confusion in the contemporary literature regarding precisely what a catch-all party is and precisely which parties can genuinely be regarded as catch-all (see Dittrich 1983; Wolinetz 1979; 1991; 2002; Schmidt 1985; 1989; Smith 1989; Krouwel 1999).

As early as 1954, in an analysis of the West German political system, Kirchheimer first introduced the concept of the catch-all party (Kirchheimer 1954a, 317–18). Over more than a decade the somewhat loosely specified notion of the catch-all party was continuously altered (Kirchheimer 1957a, 437; 1957b, 314; 1959a, 270 and 274; 1961b, 256; 1966a, 185). None of Kirchheimer's essays develops an exact definition of this new type of political party and at no time did he ever provide a clear and coherent set of indicators as to what precisely constituted a catch-all party. Confusingly, the catch-all party is sometimes referred to as the “catch-all people's party” (Kirchheimer 1966a, 190), other times as the “catch-all mass party” (Kirchheimer 1954a, 250; Kirchheimer 1966a, 191), the “conservative catch-all party” (Kirchheimer 1954a, 250), the “Christian type of catch-all people's parties” (Kirchheimer 1959a, 270), and, in still another version, as the “personal loyalty variant of the catch-all party” (Kirchheimer, 1966a, 187). Indeed, twelve years after its first introduction, Kirchheimer had still only formulated a very cursory definition of the catch-all transformation, a process which he then conceived as involving five related elements:

a) drastic reduction of the party's ideological baggage…. b) Further strengthening of top leadership groups, whose actions and omissions are now judged from the viewpoint of their contribution t...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Illustrations
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Chapter 1. Party Models
• Chapter 2. Measuring Party Change
• Chapter 3. On the Origin of Species
• Chapter 4. Electoral Transformation of Parties
• Chapter 5. Ideological Transformation of Parties
• Chapter 6. Organizational Transformation of European Parties
• Chapter 7. Cartel Failure and Populist Success
• Appendix 1. West European Political Parties Included in this Study
• Appendix 2. Variable List
• Appendix 3. New Parties in Europe
• References