|
Definitions
It is now time to explore
definitions of the major actors in the interest articulation process!
Parties and Party Systems
In almost every political system, one finds political parties and thus
finds a "party system". There can be anything from one to multiple
parties and the parties can differ dramatically in different political
systems. In part, the number and type of parties is influenced/ shaped by
cultural/ sociological and institutional factors.
Philosopher Edmund
Burke once defined a political party as:
"... a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavors the
national interest upon some particular principle in which they are all
agreed"
(note the concept of "the national
interest")
Political scientist Leon Epstein defines
party as:
"...any group, however loosely organized, seeking to elect governmental
officeholders under a given label".
(note
the emphasis upon elected office)
Gittleson, Conway and Feigert in Parties
and Politics in America define party as:
"A complex system under minimal legal regulation with respect to the
nominating and election process and composed of three distinct yet related
elements: a part of the electorate, an organization, and public officeholders
or those ambitious for public office. All these elements may have conflicting
interests and foci".
(note
the attempt to identify varying elements of parties)
Alan
Ware in Political Parties and Party Systems has defined
the term party as:
"... an institution that (a) seeks influence in the state, often by
attempting to occupy positions in government; and (b) usually consists of
more than a single interest in the society and so to some degree attempts to
"aggregate interests".
(note
the emphasis on aggregating interests)
Giovanni Sartori
states:
"A party is any group that
presents at elections, and is capable of placing through elections,
candidates for public office".
(note the electoral emphasis -- does the party have to have
a viable chance of winning?)
Ware Definition (page 5):
A political party is an institution that
(a) seeks influence in a state,
often by attempting to occupy positions in government; and
(b) usually consists of more than a single interest in the society and
so to some degree attempts to “aggregate interests”
Two problems with this view:
1) emphasizes a range of views
which encourages disagreement which challenges the view of parties as “organized
opinion”; and
2) some
parties are formed around a charismatic leader, not a specific set of
interests thus party as organized opinion is again challenged.
Maisel defines party as:
"...organizations, however
loosely organized, that (1) have, for a period of time, run candidates for
office; (2) have earned the support of a significant following in the
electorate for those candidates because of their allegiance to the
organization, and (3) must be taken into account by other similar competing
organizations".
(note
the emphasis on viability through time/ significant following/ must be taken
seriously)
Maisel
admits his definition is restrictive.
Why?
1) Many parties in the US
don't last very long.
Anderson, Perot attempts
2) What is the definition
of a significant following?
2%,
5%, 10%, 20%
3) What does "taken
seriously" mean?
Canadian parties weblink
|
Questions
to Consider:
What do you see as the common thread(s) running through these
definitions? the differences?
Are parties just another vehicle for the pursuit of self-interest? or are they meant to be something more? different?
|
Ware argues that there are key features of political parties:
1) parties are institutions that bring together
people for the purpose of exercising power within the state
--the goal of some parties may be to bring about the ultimate dissolution of
the existing state
--as a tactic to achieve this objective a party may choose to engage in some
activities and not others (ie., contest elections
but not form a government)
--some entities which call themselves parties are just created to ridicule
politics, such as the Rhinoceros Party in Canada and the Monster Raving Looney Party in Britain
2) Parties seek to use legitimate means to achieve their ends
3) When they can contest elections, most parties do
4) Parties are institutions that seek to represent more than a single, narrow
interest in society
5) Parties are groupings of people with similar
beliefs, attitudes, and values.
According to Ware, the advantages of this
definition of party are:
1) it focuses attention on the centrality of the state as the object
of party activity;
2) it recognizes that for many, but not all parties, being in government
is an important means of exercising influence;
3) it is applicable to parties other than those in liberal democratic
regimes;
4) it makes it possible to distinguish parties from pressure groups
while recognizing that in particular cases the distinction may not always be
a clear one; and
5) it avoids the potentially misleading assertion that parties are
necessarily united by shared principles or opinions.
|
For next class, read:
Blondel: "Types of Party Systems"
There will be a quiz on the reading
|
|