Medicine, Science & Technology


of 26
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  0 ECPR Joint Sessions of WorkshopsUniversity of Antwerp, Belgium10 - 15 April 2012 PRIMARIES AND POLITICAL PARTIES IN EUROPEA PROPOSAL FOR A TAILORED ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK Giulia Sandri (University of Oxford)Antonella Seddone (University of Cagliari)Work in progress (there is no point in quoting this version)  1 1. Parties’ rationales for externalizing candidate and leader selection procedures Most recent literature that analyzes parties from an organizational perspective focuses often on theconcepts of intra-party democracy and party organizational democratization (Scarrow, 1999; Scarrow andKittilson, 2003; LeDuc, Niemi and Norris, 2002; Bosco and Morlino, 2007). Le Duc (2001) and Rahat andHazan (2007) underline that the most used instrument for implementing this ‘democratization’ process isthe enhancement of the inclusiveness of the methods for candidate and party leadership selection. Theactors endowed with candidate and leader selection powers are the central actors in the functioning of theparty according to many authors (Gallagher and Marsh 1988, Marsh 1993; Massari, 2004; Hazan and Rahat,2010). At the moment, the most inclusive method identified by the literature for selecting candidates forelections or the party leader is represented by party primaries, i.e. internal direct elections by partymembers and (sometimes) supporters and voters (Cross and Blais, 2008 and 2009; Kenig, 2009). Althoughthe literature on primaries is quite extensive, especially concerning the development of this instrumentwithin the US political system (see, for example, Ranney, 1972; Norrander, 1989; Palmer, 1997; Morton andGerber, 1998; Hopkin, 2001; Ware, 2002; Cohen et al., 2008) the analysis of the implementation of primaryelections outside the US and in particular within the European context is not equally developed (Heidar andSaglie, 2003; Valbruzzi, 2005; Lisi, 2009; Wauters, 2009; Pasquino and Venturino, 2009 and 2010; De Lucaand Venturino, 2010, Seddone and Venturino, 2011). Nevertheless, this instrument has been adopted byparties active in several European countries such as, for example, Finland, Denmark, France, Spain, Greeceand Italy (Laurent and Dolez, 2007; Lisi, 2009; Kenig, 2009; Mavrogordatos, 2005).In particular, with regard to the European (or non-US) political context, the main dimension of primarypolitics to be taken into account according to tailored analytical frameworks is the one dealing with partyorganizational structures and particularly party membership role. Literature on party politics generallyargues that primaries represent a further step in the organizational evolution of political parties. Followingthe analysis proposed by Katz and Mair (1993, 1994; 1995; 2002; 2009) we can easily see how parties haveprogressively and strategically reduced the size of the “party on the ground”. The party in public office hastaken over the organizational role of mass membership. Political parties seem to find new legitimacy in theparticipation in government rather than in social integration and encapsulation of voters and activists: theresult is a shift in the mobilizing dynamic of intra-party politics. In this perspective, party organizationalchanges such as internal democratization processes and the adoption of primary elections are oftenanalyzed in relation to the evolution of party model and in particular of the model of mass party theorizedby Neumann (1956) and Duverger (1961). Trying to attract the median voter (Downs, 1956), political partiesare argued now to target their political message for all the electorate, adopting thus a catch-all approach(Kirchheimer, 1966). The old organizational structures, rooted in the grass-roots membership andideologically distinctive, have been replaced by this new logic in the mobilization of party supporters. Theseevolutions are often though to interact with (an in some cases explain) parties’ organizational shiftstowards (at least apparent) greater internal democracy. At any rate, when studying the explanatory factorsand the potential consequences of the adoption of primary elections by European parties, it appears ratherrelevant to take into account previous literature on party models and party organizational transformations.Moreover, other political dynamics, which to some extent are also specific to the European context, mightplay a role in the analysis of the main dimensions primary politics. The processes of party personalizationand professionalization in communication strategies have been long described by party politics literatureand are argued to have replaced party ideological strength in its role of main instrument of interparty  2competition (Panebianco, 1982; Poguntke and Webb, 2005). These new tools for mobilizing voters mayallow to attract new quotas of the electoral market, but do not guarantee a loyal and stable electoralsupport (Dalton and Wattenberg, 2000), thus affecting negatively the transformation of voters into activists(Raniolo, 2004; 2006). If we take into account the growing evidence on the generalized decline of partymembership and of election turnout in Western Europe (Scarrow, 2000; Scarrow, 1996), it seems that thisnew approach to electoral and party mobilization might not be as effective as it was intended to be interms of outcomes of the new mobilizing strategies it entails (Mair and van Biezen, 2001; Mair, van Biezenand Poguntke, 2011). Furthermore, the increasing spread of anti-party and anti-politics feelings amongcitizens and voters, as well as the decline in the levels of political trust witnessed recently in manyadvanced democracies, seem to strengthen the idea of the emergence and gradual deepening of the gapbetween parties and their supporters (Bardi, 1996; Poguntke, 1996; Poguntke and Scarrow, 1996; Scarrow,1996; Dalton, 2008).Furthermore, primary elections are a recurrent theme in the debate about internal democracy, parties andtheir organizational changes (Mair, 1994; Katz and Mair, 1995; Scarrow, 1999; Seyd, 1999; Katz, 2001;Ware, 2002; Bolleyer, 2011). Especially within North American literature, there seem to be on this issue adeeply rooted prejudice (Ranney, 1972; May, 1973). The idea is that primaries could lead parties to anorganizational and possibly electoral decline because they are thought to entail a gradual weakening of thecontrol exerted by the party leadership on the recruitment procedures and on the organizationalboundaries of parties, as well as to strengthen internal divisions and the autonomy of candidates fromparty central bodies (Hopkin, 2001). Indeed, if candidates are selected by a wider electorate, they will beresponsive to this larger selectorate and not to the party (Ware, 2002). But then, in the European (orrather, non-US) context, the literature recently noticed an increasingly extensive and strategic use of thisinstrument for selecting candidates or party leaders. On the basis of this empirical fact, increasing scholarlyattention has been paid to the phenomenon and several explorative analyses of the political economy of candidate and leadership selection rules have been recently developed (Hazan, 1997; Le Duc, 2001; Hopkin,2001; Pennings and Hazan, 2001; Rahat and Hazan, 2006; Kenig, 2009). In the last decades Europeanparties have adopted a wide range of different types of internal elections and party politics scholars arecurrently attempting to understand and conceptualize both the causes and the consequences of suchorganizational changes.In fact, primary elections for choosing party leaders and candidates are becoming usual events forEuropean parties. Although apparently foreign to European political culture and party systems, open (to allvoters) primaries for selecting party leaders and candidates to elected offices have been increasingly usedby European parties in the last decade (Kenig, 2009; Cross and Blais, 2012a). Moreover, closed primaries(also called the “One Member One Vote” system) have been adopted by parties in many Western andEastern European countries since the 1970s. Straying from the srcinal model of US primaries, where thedirect primaries have been used for more than two centuries (Ranney, 1972; Palmer, 1997; Cohen et al.,2008), European parties have re-adapted primaries to their needs. This adaptation process is mainly due tothe different role played by parties in the national party systems within the European context and it is alsorelated to the different challenges that parties have to face in the contemporary European societies. Theorganizational nature of parties in Europe is very far from the one existing in the US. The very concept of party membership, so crucial in the study of primary elections, has a completely different meaning in theUS and the European political context (Stone, Rapoport and Schneider, 2004; Heidar, 2006). The linkagebetween voters, parties and representatives is developed on the basis of significantly different dynamics inthe two contexts.  3Moreover, the effects of the adoption of primary elections on parties’ electoral dynamics are also highlycontested within the US literature on the subject. In fact, the question that arises here concerns theelectoral gain in promoting primaries. Literature on primaries is controversial on the issue of the electoralappeal of candidates selected through primary elections. If the literature is quite varied on the trade-off between the openness and inclusiveness of the candidate selection process and the electability of thesecandidates, the question of the negative impact in electoral terms of these inclusive internal elections is stillunder discussion. The differences in the ideological positions of the general electorate and the selectoratemobilized by primaries (Kaufmann et al., 2005; Norrander, 1989) are generally thought to explain theargued negative effects in electoral terms. In this perspective, the results of primaries in terms of participation could be difficult to be valued by the general electorate (Adams and Merrill, 2008). Otherstudies focus the attention on the negative stance and the aggressive discourse of primary campaigns. Themutual de-legitimization between primary candidates could disclose and emphasize internal conflicts andunsolved rivalries (Djupe and Peterson, 2002; Haines and Rhine, 1998; Peterson and Djupe 2005). Finally,other stances on this issue refer to the concept of divisiveness (Atkeson, 1998; Bernstein, 1977; Born, 1981;Hacker, 1965; Hogan, 2003; Johnson et al., 2010; Kenney, 1988; Kenney and Rice, 1984; Makse and Sokhey,2010; Piereson and Smith, 1975; Ware, 1979; Wichowsky and Niebler, 2010). The idea is that divisiveness inprimary elections could demotivate party members and supporters. In fact the high level of competitiveness could affect the electoral choices of loser candidate’s supporters leading to their electoraldefection.In terms of party image, primary elections can be considered as a tool used by parties in order tocompensate the loss of legitimacy towards the electorate, to regain political credibility and to attract newsupporters. Thus, parties are thought to provide more internal decision-making power to their grass-rootsmembers and supporters as an incentive to their own membership to mobilize internally and to present apublic image of being open and ‘democratic’ (Mair, 1994, Seyd, 1999; Scarrow, 1999; Scarrow, Webb andFarrell, 2000). Primaries represent a new pattern in the relationship between parties and their supporters.On the one hand, the adoption of internal direct elections contributes to incentive the internal mobilizationof members already enrolled in the party, proposing new activist proceedings that in some way couldrepresent a re-edition of the traditional mobilizing strategies of mass-based parties. On the other hand,primaries provide new opportunities for participation to those citizens less inclined to intra-party,traditional activism. In fact, the open and inclusive character of this instrument incentive new typologies of political participation, which do not require any formal affiliation to the party, but instead develop anintermittent participatory behaviour that concerning in particular voters interested by cognitivemobilization (Dalton 2008). In this perspective of political economy of leadership and candidate selectionmethods, primaries are considered mainly as a tool used and promoted by parties with the specific goal of building a new relationship with supporters that is subsequent to their own catch-all electoral strategies.These two main dimensions of primary politics outlined here and concerning the internal and externalconsequences of such instruments, still need to be systematically and theoretically addressed within theEuropean contexts. Hazan and Rahat (2007 and 2010) describe four dimensions for evaluating thefunctioning of leader and candidate selection methods: participation, representation, competition andresponsiveness. Even though the literature on the political consequence of leadership and candidateselection processes outside the US is quite varied (Obler, 1974; Rapoport, Abramowitz and McGlennon,1986; Hazan, 1996; Rahat and Sher-Hadar, 1999; Meirowitz, 2005; Cermel, 2007; Maravall, 2008; Hazan,2002; Barnea and Rahat, 2007; Rahat et al., 2008, Rahat, 2009; Kenig, 2009), it is also highly fragmented,while cross-national and comparative studies have been developed only very recently. Moreover, the  4analyses of candidate and leader selection methods and other intra-party elections have been generallylimited to a description of the current and previous situations (Faucher-King and Treille, 2003; Heidar andSaglie, 2003; Seyd and Whiteley, 2004) or to an evaluation of the influence that the party on the groundscan exert through these processes (Scarrow, 1999; Wauters, 2003).The aim of this paper is thus to launch a scholarly debate on the most pertinent way for approaching theanalysis of primary elections within the European political context. We attempt at providing an exploratoryanalytical framework for documenting and evaluating the impact of primary elections on political parties.Given the new relevance of this organizational and political instrument within European party politics, itappears rather crucial to find appropriate analytical tools for understanding its functioning and itsconsequences. The classic literature and theoretical approaches to the study of primaries has beenelaborated on the basis of the American experience. Given the significance of the difference between thestructures of European countries’ political systems and those present in the US, we need to elaborate newanalytical schemes that stemming from the classical US theoretical and empirical models could be adaptedto the European electoral, party and political context in the most effective way. In this paper, we will thustry to propose a few operationalization reflections, hoping to stimulate a scholarly debate on the subject.Our aim is to understand which are the main changes triggered by the adoption of these inclusiveprocedures for selecting leaders and candidates, both in terms of external (electoral) and internal(organizational) dynamics.In fact, the literature is often conflicting with regard to the organizational and electoral changes entailed bythe adoption of primary elections, especially open ones. For instance, on the one hand some scholars haveunderlined the political shortcomings with regards to internal cohesion that may be associated to theintroduction of this instrument for selecting leaders and candidates: primary voters are usually consideredto be more ideologically extreme than the general electorate and this might entail significant consequencesin terms of candidates electability in general elections (Key 1956; Lengle 1981; Polsby 1983; Colomer 2002).On the other hand, other studies pointed out the fact that (open) primaries could negatively affect thecandidate loyalty to the party, because his/her nomination is legitimated outside the party, directly byprimary voters (Hopkins 2001). Then again, other scholars argue that primaries allow party centralleadership bypassing the control of middle-level elites and local organizers and thus tend to increase theirautonomy and their power (Katz and Mair, 1993 and 1995). Conversely, some studies argue that thedifferences between the selectorate and the electorate in terms of ideological positions are not thatrelevant (Geer 1988; Kaufmann et al. 2003) and that candidates selected through primary elections actuallydo not tend adopt extremist platforms, because they aim at preserving their ideological loyalty to the party(King 1999; Hansolabehere et al. 2001).
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!