Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Week 7: Political Parties & Democracy (Veenendaal: Size and Culture as…
Week 7: Political Parties & Democracy
Riegner & Stacey
: Democracy without political parties?
4 democratic functions of political parties
Stability: Party discipline shapes how politicians vote in parliament (according to party line)
Accountability: provides an effective structure for the opposition to organise --> united front --> increases capacity for collective action --> act as check and balance
Represention: represent and aggregate citizens' interests in policy
Competition: establish structure for peaceful political competition (democratic rights of opposition)
3 main risks of political parties
May serve as vehicles for small elites and their interests
Party fractionalisation can lead to instability and breakdown of govt
Can be instruments of fractionalisation (polarisation between parties in a bid to differentiate themselves, or get votes along controversial social cleavages)
Lipset: The indispensability of political parties
Democracy needs to allow for regular constitutional opportunities to change leaders, as well as a mechanism that allows a large part of the population to influence policy
Political parties help to establish democratic norms and rules: conflict and cooperation between parties create norms of tolerance and institutionalisation of democratic rights
Veenendaal:
Size and Culture as factors for the functioning of democracy without political parties in Palau
Palau has a small population of less than 100,000
Culture: their history influences their social cleavages: they organise around clan (villages) lines, leaders run as independents and represent their clan
Constitution does ban parties but doesn't mention parties either
Village elders help to control and monitor political elites (check and balance function)
Clans as a substitute organisation method to political parties
people vote along clan lines as well ---> bigger clan bigger political clout
people expect leaders from their own clan to give them benefits --> patronage politics and clientelism --> not a very rosy picture of democracy
Levitsky & Cameron
: breakdown of party system in Peru led to breakdown of democracy
What happened in Peru
Fujimori established an anti-democratic regime following a self-coup --> broke down the existing party system by promoting personalistic politics and making political parties ineffective --> parties became mere vehicles for politicians
Because of this, the opposition failed to defeat Fujimori and his regime
Political parties seen as electorally ineffective --> weak parties --> harder for opposition to act collectively to defeat him --> easier for Fujimori to "divide and conquer" to either buy off opposition or use the secret police to defeat them
Without political parties to provide a long term vision, Politicians focused on short term electoral gains --> Political parties unable to provide accountability (check and balance)
Why parties matter in a democracy
For voters: provide information shortcuts: voters can look at party labels to quickly understand what a politician belonging to that party stands for
For politicians: Allow them to plan for the long term and solve coordination problems: parties exist beyond 1 election and on a national level --> need to encompass broader interests to appeal to more, and need to have a long term priorities
Avenue for political recruitment: guard against political amateurs who are inexperienced and do not respect the system from coming to power <-> but on the other hand limits political office to those who already have a strong political background (eg family, social ties)
Avenue for political socialisation: experienced party politicians pass on democratic practices of negotiation, compromise and coalition building
Governability: Bridge between executive and legislature: parties make it easier for coalition building and negotiation in times of gridlock (easier to negotiate based on party position, than with many individual politicians), reduce the number of veto players (rebecca)
Democratic stability: help to protect the interests of the socioeconomic elite (and other interest groups) so that they don't use undemocratic means to get their voices heard/advance their interests
Horizontal accountability: organised opposition (e.g shadow cabinet) is a more effective check and balance than independents, able to scrutinise every issue
Conclusion: political parties were created to advance the interests of politicians and not for the effective functioning of democracy. When the 2 coincide, democratic goods will be provided by parties. If not they will be underprovided.