Any mistake or sth interesting on the image?
SOCIAL
CLEAVAGES
AND POLITICAL
PARTIES
TUĞÇE ERÇETİN
How do you define
Are voters rational political parties’
or emotional? responsibilities
towards citizens?
What are the main
responsibilities of
political parties?
Sartori: Location of candidates
What makes a sth via elections
as a political party?
Should we accept
all as political
LaPalombra: Controlling state
parties? What are mechanism
the criteria for a
political party? Downs: Collaboration to achieve
objectives
Political recruitment and governance
Interest articulation and aggregation
Functions…
Political participation
Political communication
CLEAVAGES…. (and origins)
¡ Lipset and Rokkan (Party Systems and Voter Alignments, 1967)
¡ National Revolution and Industrial Revolution
Post-industrial
Center-periphery Urban-rural cleavage
revolution: post-
cleavage Workers-employees
materialist values and
State-church cleavage cleavage
globalization
¡ Center-periphery cleavage:
¡ Dominant national culture, bureaucracy, and the unifying power of the state (center)
¡ Local or regional communities in resistance to standardization (periphery)
¡ State-church cleavage:
¡ Liberal and secularized state
¡ The church and conservative forces – Ex.ç Catholic parties, Christian Democrat Parties
¡ Rural-urban cleavage:
¡ Protectionalism to shield domestic products from the threats of imports (rural segment)
¡ Free market and liberalism to increase exports (urban)
Workers-employees cleavage:
Class cleavage
¡ Duverger: two-party system and multi-party
system
¡ Sartori: single party system (hegemonic,
Party systens dominant, real single), two-party system, multi
party system (limited plurali, extreme plural),
(the atomized multi party system
morphology of ¡ Duverger’s law: electoral formula à party
systems
party systems –
¡ Majoritarian electoral system – two-party system //
forms) proportional representation system – multi-party
system
¡ Majoritarian – winner takesl all – elimination of
smaller parties – strategic voting for larger parties
¡ PR – proportionally distributed seats, non-elimination
of smaller parties (chance)
¡ Sartori: effective party number
¡ Potentiality (in coalition and blackmailing)
¡ Fragmentation & ideological polarization
¡ Number of parties competing & size of
Dozens of parties
parties??? ¡ Size: power ß voting share and seats
¡ Numerical and qualitative
¡ Effective number of parties
¡ Votes and seats
¡ Ex: [Link]
Maximize… control…
Proximity theory – selection of
candidates and positions on
ideological spectrum
Rational choice model? Gives an explanation why parties
make their programs and
ideologies more vague à
Centripetal competition and
dealignment: voters’ distribution
dealignment (the loosening of
voters' ties to parties) How do political
on the left-right axis determines
Downs: political parties – rational
actors and determine their
programs depending on the
the direction of [Link]
left-right to the center to capture
the median voter
parties act?
electorate’s preferences (????) Convergin on center and
moderation
Centrifugal competition: moving
towards extremes instead of Polarization
converging on the center.
Bell-shaped distribution (voters) à converging on the center (parties)
¡ Rational actors
¡ Parties – wider segments
¡ Voters – proximity – from most to least preference (spatial How do political
representation)
parties act?
¡ Centripetal competition – bell-shaped distribution
¡ Rise of popülist parties or radical popülist parties
¡ Mainstrem parties – influenced by radical parties ???
Wider ideological background: the SVP (Swiss Peoples’ Party), the Austrian FPÖ, the Italian MSI (Italian Social
Movement), the Northern League…. Etc.
Spatial competition theories – voters’ choices
filling the void is costly for mainstream, credibility issue in the process. A novel competitor politicize an issue and resonate in
relation to the voters’ preferences, SO new parties are likely to be electorally successful – at least visible!
“Own people first” (just an example)
¡ Anti-pluralist – unique national characteristics
¡ cultural extinction
¡ xenophobic discourse à anti-immigration à
scapegoating
¡ «Invasion of migrants»
¡ Justification of anti-migration through
securitization:
¡ Threat to ethnonational identity - Harm unity
¡ Criminality
¡ Unemployment
¡ Overburden / abusers of the generosity
¡ One large party with a majority
¡ Competition but no party received enough votes to come
close to 50%
¡ Usage control of the state to reward supporters
¡ Duverger’s comment – functional for democracy or
Dominant – dictatorship?
¡ Conitnuous and direct tie
single party ¡ Loyalty and Access
systems ¡ Informers
¡ Sweden, Social democrativ workers’ party (1945-1998)
¡ Mexico, Industrial Revolutionary Party
¡ Governing without partners
¡ Domination of two parties
¡ Major party and more seats = government
¡ Competition of major parties
Two-party ¡ Comparable sizes and equal chances of winning elections – 2
large parties
systems ¡ Marginal smaller parties
¡ Ex: The United States
¡ Duvergers differentiates the UK and the US
¡ Alternation is frequent
¡ Several parties achieve significant representation in
parliamentbecoming a serious contender in a governing
coalition
¡ Denmark: the Social Democratic Party, the Social Liberal
Party, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party
Multi party ¡ Sartori’s proposal: limited pluralism and extreme pluralism
systems ¡ Limited pluralism (moderate multiparty systems) = moderate (3
or 4) – no salient ideological difference – compeititon in the
center
¡ Centripetal competition – converging towards the center
¡ Extreme pluralism (polarized multiparty systems): more then 5
– highlhy polarized competition – extremes on the political
spectrum – 2 distinct camps
¡ Atomized party systems:high number of parties and impact of
smaller parties
¡ Cadre or elite parties:
¡ Arise within parliament and local councils (traditional cadre of elites leads the
party), limited right to vote = earliest modern parties – formulation by the MPs
¡ Elected ß networks or clienteles
Models of party ¡ No party central Office
organization –
¡ Organized around a committee and winning elections (aim) (not tranformation the
society as mass parties
Active in electoral periods
types of party.
¡
¡ National interest
… ¡ Mass parties:
¡ Transformation of the society
Organizational ¡ Elections =vehicle
Outside of parliaments
structures of
¡
¡ Strong mass orahanization and large number of registered members
political parties ¡
¡
Previour isolation in representaiton of certain segment = mass integration parties
Active beyond elections – members and spreading the ideology – active
differ…. ¡
participation
Interest of a group – core leaders in the bgeinning – political resource =numbers /
membership payments – vehicle for excluded ones
¡ Orgabization with hierarchy structured from local branches to the center
¡ Preexisting organizations
¡ Catch all parties:
¡ Kircheimer’s typology à political professionals and media consultants
¡ More votes, softened ideology, widened scope (not like workers’ party)
¡ More flexible in appealing – slogans for better future – peasants, workers,
employees…. Not a class-based party
¡ Organizational frame: party leader = prominent – mass communication channeles
Models of party ¡ Not active membership – leader-based loyalty
organization ¡
¡
Not members in determiantion of policies – advisers, polling companies etc.
Clashes of interests
¡ Social democrat parties, European Christian parties
¡ Cartel parties:
¡ Mair and Katz
¡ Closer affiliation with states
¡ State resources ß patronage
¡ Niche parties:
¡ Monopolization
¡ Kingmaker?
¡ Outside of the mainstream
Models of party ¡ Issue-oriented: animal rights, regionala utonomy, migration
¡ Green parties, UKIP (radical right)
organization
¡ Contagion effect
¡ [Link]
¡ Business firm parties:
¡ Challenger to the establishment
¡ Forza Italia - Berlusconi
«Class struggle is fundamental; labor is the
highest value»
«We promise justice, development, and
peace for everyone. We are the party of
the 85 million»
«We prioritize the future of the planet
and stopping ecological collapse»
In your opinion, which one is closer to
power? Which one has stricter rules?
Which one would you vote for?