http://ppq.sagepub.com/Party Politics

http://ppq.sagepub.com/content/5/1/5The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/1354068899005001001

1999 5: 5Party PoliticsNathan Yanai

Why Do Political Parties Survive? : An Analytical Discussion  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

Political Organizations and Parties Section of the American Political Science Association

can be found at:Party PoliticsAdditional services and information for     

  http://ppq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://ppq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://ppq.sagepub.com/content/5/1/5.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Jan 1, 1999Version of Record >>

at Institute of Marine Biology of Crete (IMBC) on February 22, 2012ppq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

from the SAGE Social Science Collections. All Rights Reserved.

PARTY POLITICS VOL 5. No.1 pp. 5-17

Copyright © 1999 SAGE Publications London· Thousand Oaks • New Delhi

WHY DO POLITICAL PARTIES SURVIVE? An Analytical Discussion

Nathan Yanai

ABSTRACT

This article examines the reasons for the survival of the political party as an institution despite its COnstant change - in many cases its decline - as an organization and its loss of social and political roles. Parties have emerged and survived in every political regime that claimed its legiti­macy, in full or in part, from the concepts of consent and representation. The party developed its unique and routine institutional role, however, only within the democratic regime. Parties regularly manage -legitimize and partially organize - two regular sources of democratic instability: competitive elections and the factionalization of the legislature (and, possibly, the government). There has been no institutional challenge to

this specialized role of the political party, which has proved to be uniquely capable of reconciling the basic conflict between equality and representation. The extent to which the party can survive is thus conditional on its success in making the representative regime not only operative but legitimate. The progressive development of a communi­cative society may eventually test, though not necessarily put an end to, the viability of the political party and its specialized role under new conditions.

KEY W 0 R D S _ party definition _ party future _ party role _ party survival _

representative democracy

The continued concern with the issue of party decline l prompts an intrigu­ing question, derived from an opposite angle of inquiry: why do political parties survive? Any attempt to answer this requires an examination of the specialized and critical role of the modern party as well as of its particular relationship with the representative system of government.

The political party, like any other social institution, represents the merger of an organization with a system of roles. The institution of the party at its peak (viz. the historical European labour parties) was defined by Duverger

1354-0688(199901)5:1;5-17;006644

at Institute of Marine Biology of Crete (IMBC) on February 22, 2012ppq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

PARTY POLITICS 5(1)

(1963: xv) as 'a community with a particular structure', and his typology of parties was based on organizational criteria. The different model of Ameri­can parties produced an alternative focus - on the electoral role of the party. This focus led to the descriptive definition of 'a catch-all party' (Kirchheimer, 1966), a near contradiction in terms that, nevertheless, neatly defined a different mode of operation displayed by political parties. The new con­dition reflected the decline of the traditional sources of party legitimacy -ideology and community - and the rise in importance of those emanating from the routine, institutionalized role of the political party in a represen­tative democracy.

Current research and theoretical discussion have focused attention on party transformation and the continued emergence of new party types that are based on either structure or role: the electoral-professional party (Panebianco, 1988: 262-74), the linkage party (Lawson, 1988), the cleav­age party (Seiler, 1986), the cartel party (Katz and Mair, 1995) and the inter­est party (Yishai, 1994). In its structural and functional variations, the political party reveals its adaptability, enabling it to fulfil a broad range of social and political roles. Role expansion, however, has not been a condition for the continued existence of the party; nor is it the case that only the insti­tution of the party is exclusively capable of fulfilling all the roles assumed by individual political parties. Other organizations (pressure groups, inter­est groups) partake in mediating between the citizen and the state, in giving expression to a social cleavage or in representing particular interests and issues. The constant change of some of the party roles and the emergence of 'alternative organizations' support these assumptions. They also support the argument that discussions of party decline relate primarily to changing party roles and structure or to party types rather than to the existence of the party itself. The modern political party is no longer necessarily 'a group ... pro­fessing the same political doctrine'2 or just an organization seeking to seize power. Rather, the modern party maintains a regular, indispensable systemic role in the organization and legitimation of the electoral process and the formation of government in representative regimes. In non-democratic regimes, the political party is a very strong organization because it is backed by the coercive power of the state, which it serves as the chief mobilizing and supervisory agency. It may still be considered underdeveloped under these regimes because it is denied the full opportunity to fulfil its modern institutional role.

Parties regularly manage two routine sources of democratic instability: competitive elections and the factionalization of the legislature (and poss­ibly of the government). In doing so, they help to reconcile the basic con­ceptual clash, inherent in a representative democracy, between equality and representation. Elections validate, though only intermittently, the legal sov­ereignty of the people. At the same time, they hopelessly violate the prin­ciple of equality. They provide satisfaction - representation in the legislature and in the government - to only a (large or small) segment of the voting

6

at Institute of Marine Biology of Crete (IMBC) on February 22, 2012ppq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

YANAI: WHY DO POLITICAL PARTIES SURVIVE?

community, and they do not annul the basic inequality between the status of the voters and that of their elected officials. This circumstance adds a critical problem of legitimacy to the already-complex organizational problem of representation. To deal adequately with both requires the ser­vices of a special institution - the political party. The party's survival, in turn, is conditioned on its success in making the representative regime not only operative but legitimate. Thus, the future of the modern party may be viewed as being tied to that of the representative regime. Institutionally, they stand - and may fall or change - together.

The Unique Role of the Party in the Representative Regime

Political parties have emerged and survived in every regime that claimed its legitimacy, in full or in part, from the concepts of consent and represen­tation. Liberal democracies have generated a multi-party regime, whereas totalitarian regimes, which manufactured guided consent, have recognized the legitimacy and permitted the existence of only a single party. Parties acquired varied functions inside and outside the realm of politics. They have even been capable of surviving the loss of functions and powers. An extreme example of the latter is the partial loss of jurisdiction over party nominations to state legislatures, which established the primary-election laws in the USA. The following definition attempts to identify the essential elements of the modern political party as a special political institution of the representative regime. The modern party is a voluntary association, whose declared aim is to be represented in and to lead the institutions of government in a given state or political community. To this end, the party regularly engages in ful­filling three critical functions:

1 nominating candidates for public office; 2 adopting statements of public policy, primarily in an election platform; 3 mobilizing support for each of the above - candidates (public officials)

and policies.

All the elements of this core definition and, especially, the linkages among them, are vital for the maintenance of the unique systemic role of the party and its very existence as a political organization. They distinguish the politi­cal party from its two prime institutional competitors - the interest group and the non-electoral political movement. The party need not be an entirely voluntary association, but it must preserve at least a fictitious claim of being such. It must also be officially separated from the structure of government, even when it fulfils the role of a 'semi-state agency' (Katz and Mair, 1995: 16), in order to legitimize and, to some extent, organize the regime. Hence, even totalitarian regimes claim that the single ruling party is a voluntary association. A declared intent is, moreover, critically important in defining

7

at Institute of Marine Biology of Crete (IMBC) on February 22, 2012ppq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

PARTY POLITICS 5(1)

the overall aim of the party. Other organizations may develop a will to lead the institutions of government and rule the state; however, only the party can openly and continuously attempt to pursue and justify such a goal, and to organize legitimately to meet the responsibilities attendant on this pursuit.

An interest group may claim with impunity the responsibility for a specific governmental authority. It cannot, however, claim responsibility for the overall running of a government without negating the group's own purpose; it certainly cannot hope to gain public legitimacy for such a claim on the basis of its platform promoting an exclusive interest.

Parties mayor may not develop an ambitious programme to revolution­ize the conditions of society and the economy or to change the form of government. They mayor may not acquire new, additional roles inside or outside politics. They are bound to become anaemic and to lose their via­bility, however, if they abandon their claim to lead the institutions of govern­ment or if they consistently fail to be represented in them. On the other hand, the very adoption of this claim may be initially sufficient to validate the institutional existence of a party even before its actual participation in an election. Parties do not have 'legal control over the personnel and the policy of the government' (Coleman and Rosberg, 1964: 2). Such a defi­nition contradicts the legal conditions of western democracies. Parties submit or endorse candidates. However, the legal mandate acquired in the election belongs not to the party but to the elected representatives. The party may attempt to direct its sponsored candidates following their election to public office. It may even penalize them on matters relating to the party itself. It does not, however, possess any legal power over the mandate placed in their hands by the voters. This is still true in a pure system of proportional representation and list-type elections, in which the vote is for a party rather than individual candidates.

Other organized groups may also try to nominate candidates and run them for public office. If they choose to do so on a regular basis, they would have to develop the other elements of the core definition and become, in fact, political parties. The main reason for this assumption, beyond the dys­functional impacts on the capacity to perform the regular duties of such an alternative organization, has to do with the basic problem of legitimacy which lingers in the background of every democratic election. The under­lying question that must be answered in some fashion in order to legitimize the role of both the party and the entire representative regime is: why should the sovereignty of all be placed in the custody of only a few? The sequen­tial, and more painful, question is: why should 'he', 'she' or 'they', and not 'I' or 'we', be chosen for this elevated, possibly gratifying assignment? The latter is a troubling, though quite often mute question reflecting a condition that cannot be fully redressed because of the very nature of representation. The question must, then, be either marginalized or superseded by an answer­able question; and the democratic society must be compensated for the irre­dressible character of this condition.

8

at Institute of Marine Biology of Crete (IMBC) on February 22, 2012ppq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

YANAI: WHY DO POLITICAL PARTIES SURVIVE?

In a free and open society, the question is marginalized through a process of indoctrination in regard to the legitimacy of the representative regime and its equation with democracy as a whole; i.e. by the claim that this form is the only feasible realization of democracy. The question is continuously super­seded by salient and more answerable questions relating to issues of public policy ('what is to be done with the authority of the government'?), govern­mental performance ('how is public trust being kept'?) and personalities ('who deserves to be a custodian of the people's sovereignty'?). The demo­cratic society is compensated for the transfer of authority by utility, ritual and entertainment; more specifically, by turning the government into a responsive service agency, transforming the choice of candidates and the elec­tion of public officials into a democratic ritual, and making political compe­tition itself a major public concern and a popular form of entertainment.

Most public institutions take part in some fashion in producing a response to the overall problem of legitimacy of the representative regime. The politi­cal party, however, plays a special and pivotal role in this process. More­over, the very existence of the political party and the fulfilment of its special role in the periodic reorganization of the representative regime (elections and the formation of government) convert the unresolved problem of con­ceptuallegitimacy (the clash between equality and representation) into the more manageable problem of institutional legitimacy (how do the parties and the institutions of government each perform their duties?).

The party manages and legitimizes elections as an orderly act of transition from a condition of universal sovereignty to custodial representation in a given state by fulfilling three tasks. First, it produces a process of nomi­nation, which reduces the number of potential candidates for public office from the multitude of those eligible - almost the entire adult citizenry - to a selected few. Second, it supports the nominated individual candidates with a collective claim of legitimacy. Third, it offers voters a cognitive basis for the electoral choice of parties and candidates. The more open and demo­cratic the nominating process and the more acceptable its outcome, the more legitimate is the role of the party in this 'process of reduction'. The party itself does not necessarily produce leaders. It provides, however, a major training ground and a launching pad for leadership, a long list of role models for leadership, a tradition of collective political action and an accumulation of publicly registered ideas.

At the end of the nominating process, the party supplies its sponsored candidates with two essential properties: (1) an association with a recog­nized party tradition and legacy and (2) a collective statement of public policy, most notably the party platform. Tradition and legacy help to stifle the underlying issue of party legitimacy by carrying with them an implicit assumption concerning its overall resolution in the past. The leaders of a new party, in the absence of a legitimating past, must either produce or respond to a collective sense of urgency that, in turn, might legitimize a call among a sizable group of voters for a new mode of political participation.

9

at Institute of Marine Biology of Crete (IMBC) on February 22, 2012ppq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

PARTY POLITICS 5(1)

The party platform is still a key legitimating instrument despite its non­binding legal status and declining public standing. The very existence of a party platform, which might be reduced to a platform-making ritual, and the mere claim of having one serve vital functions. They carry the legiti­mating claim that politics and elections constitute a competition not only of people but of ideas and policies. The platform-making process invites pres­sures to support the particularistic demands of various groups, but it also generates pressures to place and evaluate these demands within a more general framework of collective public interest. The inconclusive, non­binding status of the party platform does not hinder its importance and cen­trality. It reflects the voluntary nature of the political party, its separation from the institutions of the state, and the requirements of coalition-type politics. Indeed, a party platform cannot constitute a binding legal docu­ment without impinging on party members' freedom of dissent, without encroaching upon the authority of the elected governing institutions of the state, without preventing parties from cooperating in the legislature and the government, and without blocking the possible emergence of a broader political agreement. Polity and politics are served in this case by a clear case of constructive ambiguity. The party must announce a commitment to its platform, since the document represents an effort to draft an authoritative interpretation of the party's common creed, which then provides the legiti­mate basis for its collective appeal to the voters. Once elected, however, former party candidates have to reconcile their party allegiance with the legal mandate to represent an entire civic constituency. Although not as compelling as it is being presented here, the party platform is still helpful in shaping the orientation of party candidates, directing the expectations of the electorate, and structuring at least the initial steps of elected public officials. The platform-making process itself plays a prime role in re-creating the party. Even in a state of internal party conflict, it constitutes a legitimizing and unifying ritual; even while accepting change, it renews the claim for the continuity of the party's legacy. A party platform may not be the only state­ment of public policy issued by the party, but it is the major one. Other state­ments, which are the products of standing party bodies, extend and reinforce the critical role of the party platform in legitimizing and building support for the party, its policies, and its leadership.

Withstanding Institutional Challenge by Other Organizations

The party has successfully maintained its special political role in legitimiz­ing and organizing the electoral process and in forming a government in a representative democracy. No other organization has claimed this role, and no other way has been found to operate this regime. Other organizations, like ad-hoc candidate-support groups and Political Action Committees, have

10

at Institute of Marine Biology of Crete (IMBC) on February 22, 2012ppq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

YANAI: WHY DO POLITICAL PARTIES SURVIVE?

become involved in the electoral process but they have not claimed or assumed the critical role of the party in this process.

The non-electoral political movement, primarily the protest movement, has challenged one of the possible though not exclusive roles of the party in rallying mass support for a single issue of public policy. Despite its periodic success in various democracies, the issue-orientated protest movement has remained in need of a political party to carry its message to the voters and to convert its demands into government policy. (Cases in point include the 1968 French student protest movement, the US civil rights and anti-war movements and the Israeli anti-war 'Peace Now' movement.) The call for political action on the narrow basis of a single, usually transient, public issue has contradictory implications: it polarizes the general society while requir­ing a higher degree of unity and solidarity among those who support it. Both implications place the institution of the protest movement apart from that of the political party. The party acquires the capacity to compromise; the protest movement is built on its denial. The party is structured and social­ized to maintain inhibited policy conflict and to survive personal compe­tition. The protest movement cannot withstand any of those without undermining its capacity to promote an uncompromising idea or policy position at the expense of all other issues and political concerns.

Like the interest group, the protest movement is preceded by a 'shared attitude' (Truman, 1971: 511); in the latter case, by a radical yet simple posi­tion on a single issue of public policy. The party may originate in a similar way. Almost from the beginning, however, it is faced with the need to widen its concern and compromise its position in order both to enhance its appeal and to manage external and internal conflicts. The veteran party carries an historical legacy, which in time tends to become amorphous, and an organiz­ational continuity, which is achieved at the cost of some capitulation to the requirements of pluralism and competition. Unlike the party, the protest movement is not under public pressure to form sovereign, decision-making bodies and to abide by democratic procedures, since it does not seek full public legitimacy as an organization but primarily as a public cause. For all these reasons, only the environmental protest movement, which represents an issue of a permanent nature, successfully transformed itself into a politi­cal party in several democracies and managed to widen its political agenda and organize for electoral politics (Schoonmaker, 1988: 41-75).

The interest group has learned to coexist with the party while continu­ously trying to manipulate it to its ends. The politicization of a large, highly mobilized, mass interest group - the trade union - led to its association with a party, rather than to its becoming one.3 The British unions participated in the formation of the Labour Party rather than assuming the role of a politi­cal party themselves. Association between the two organizations (union and party) rather than a merger underscored their individual roles, despite their common class-orientated ideology.

Both the party and the interest group form expectations and make

11

at Institute of Marine Biology of Crete (IMBC) on February 22, 2012ppq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

PARTY POLITICS 5(1)

demands in their relations with the governing institutions of the state. The party openly aspires to lead these institutions or, at least, to participate in them; the interest group, to control or influence policies affecting its own specific interests. The latter intention, however, may tempt an interest group to tryon occasion to run candidates for public office, especially under the inviting proportional representation system of election. The party, in seeking maximal support, is not inclined to limit the categories of its membership; the potential membership of the interest group is well defined and restricted. The definition of a party as a voluntary organization is imperative to its very functioning; such a definition does not have the same critical importance in the operation of an interest group, which in fact is less voluntary because of possible legal constraints and economic pressures. Parties may choose to support specific interests in their statements of public policy or even be com­pletely identified with an interest group (Yishai, 1994). The primary insti­tutional interest of major parties, however, is to build a broad coalition of voters in order to improve the chances of their gaining a leading position in the institutions of government. That interest may run contrary to the adop­tion of exclusive group demands, unless they fall within the more inclusive realm of human and civil rights. The success of interest groups in creating a direct link with governmental agencies has relieved the party of some of the pressure to represent particularistic economic interests or even to engage actively in their aggregation. Similarly, the success of protest movements in taking upon themselves the struggle in polarizing issues in democratic societies has freed the party to adopt less binding, more pragmatic positions. Both developments enable the party to follow a more inclusive electoral approach and to seek out voters wherever they may be found.

Role and Organization: The Challenge of the Nominating Primary

If one rules out its coercive forms, the political party as an organization has varied in strength from a highly organized institution, with a large and loyal membership, strong self-identification, fully developed internal bodies and intensive party activity, to an electoral party having the minimal level of organization required for the performance of its limited, specialized role.4

The general difference between the two opposite types of party organization relates to the institutionalized level of mobilization and participation. Politi­cal participation is not routinely built into citizens' social and personal cal­endars in a manner similar to education or religion. Politics, when not a vocation, is based on voluntary and irregular participation. The new assertive style of citizen politics (Dalton, 1988: 5-9) is not necessarily chan­nelled through the party. The political party does not have to provide a regular or full programme of participatory events other than those emanat­ing from elections. This basic condition hinders the party's capacity for

12

at Institute of Marine Biology of Crete (IMBC) on February 22, 2012ppq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

YANAI: WHY DO POLITICAL PARTIES SURVIVE?

continuous, effective mobilization, unless it acquires a special ideological mission and/or successfully develops some useful social and non-electoral political roles. Europe's mass labour parties have linked themselves to a well-defined community, which was ordained by party ideology to inherit the state and to serve as the basis of an alternative society. At their peak, these parties expanded their social roles and effectively overcame the inher­ent institutional weaknesses of the political party. An all-embracing social ideology rationalized the call for political mobilization; mobilization legit­imized the development of a strong permanent organization; and that, in turn, institutionalized a permanent state of mobilization.

Political parties in the USA never developed an ideologically defined com­munity base (as distinguished from anticipated group voting). They did not develop national sovereign bodies other than the presidential nominating convention and the congressional caucus. The convention, which convenes only every 4 years, does not delegate its authority to an interim body as in the alternative case of a fully developed party organization. The national committees of the American political parties are merely service institutions with certain organizational powers while the Congressional Caucus does not fill the parties' institutional void. The members of the caucus derive their mandate, as in every system of district election, directly from the people -a circumstance that takes on greater significance in the absence of sovereign standing party bodies, the lack of a tradition of unifying radical social ide­ologies, and the absence of a strong, permanent association with com­munity-based organizations (most noticeably, trade unions). It is no wonder that the caucus has largely confined its authority to procedural matters relat­ing to the work of Congress. Despite their weak, incomplete organization, the American national political parties (the presidential parties and the con­gressional parties) have still managed consistently to generate a level of organization that is adequate for the continued performance of their special, limited political role.

The nominating primary, which was instituted first as an anti-party measure, curtailed the authority and the function of party bodies (Over­acker, 1926; Davis, 1967). The primaries posed a direct threat to the party itself, since they created the procedural option of organizing the entire elec­tion process without political parties. The fact that this option has never been seriously considered or debated up to now should direct our attention to the legitimating role of the party, not only to its organizational role. Despite its erosive impact on the authority of party bodies, the nominating primary may be viewed as an effective form of adaptation by the institution of the political party to the changing conditions of mass democracy. Accord­ing to this interpretation, the political parties sacrificed the strength of party bodies for the sake of democratic legitimization and participation. The weakness of American political parties and their precarious legitimacy as part of the American political heritage (Katz and Kolodny, 1994: 26-7) opened the door to the emergence of the protest movement, which at the

13

at Institute of Marine Biology of Crete (IMBC) on February 22, 2012ppq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

PARTY POLITICS 5(1)

outset (the progressive movement) produced the nominating primary and much later (the civil rights and the anti-war movements) contributed to its maturing as the major nominating instrument for the president. By com­parison, a more conducive environment for the development of political parties and a historic tradition of institutionally strong parties have delayed and curtailed the adoption of the nominating primary. Nevertheless, pres­sures for democratization brought about some measure of change in this regard in the European parties (Mair, 1994: 15). An increased number of parties have already adopted a certain form of the direct selection of party leaders and candidates (Arian and Shamir, 1993; Bille, 1994: 143-4; Deschouwer, 1944: 87-93; Koole, 1994: 294; Sundberg, 1994: 164-5; Webb, 1994: 111).

The Future of the Party

The persistence of the institution of the political party hinges on three con­ditions: (1) the continuation of a special and viable political systemic func­tion; (2) the maintenance of a critical level of organization needed to fulfil that function; and (3) a sufficient capacity to adapt to changing rules, atti­tudes and circumstances. So far, the political party has demonstrated its capacity to meet these conditions, although some of the new parties have failed to institutionalize and remain ephemera 15 (Rose and Mackie, 1988: 535-9). The modern party has become a vital constituent of the representa­tive system of government, which became fully developed only upon the acceptance of the principles of democracy and equality before the law. The progressive development of a communicative-type society, however, may eventually test the continued viability of the political party under new con­ditions. In a fully developed communicative society, the commonly available technological advances in the area of communication will match, for the first time in human history, the requirements for the implementation of the almost-forgotten principle of direct democracy in large, diversified societies. The availability of technological means does not necessarily guarantee their full, immediate use in the realm of politics. They will, however, create the necessary conditions for the emergence of a challenge to the traditional roles both of the institutions of government (the legislature and the executive) and those of the political party. Nevertheless, the future of the party is not necess­arily bleak. In the aftermath of the exhaustive ideological battles of the 20th century, it is reasonable to assume that, unlike Rousseau's rejection of div­ision and partisan groupings in the search for the general will, a modern version of direct democracy or a new mixed form of direct and representa­tive democracy will be based on the enhanced recognition of individual rights, rather than the pursuit of an ideal collective purpose, and on a greater legitimacy given to diversity and adversity, rather than their negation.

If a complete state of civil anarchy can be ruled out, then the application

14

at Institute of Marine Biology of Crete (IMBC) on February 22, 2012ppq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

YANAI: WHY DO POLITICAL PARTIES SURVIVE?

of the concept of direct democracy in modern society may include the following options:

• a maximal option - the abolition of all institutions of representation, the expansion of the merit system of the civil service over the executive, and the representation of all major policy choices for the decision of the people;

• a minimal option - the subjecting of major decisions by the legislature and the executive to the final approval of the people.

In the maximal option, the party may become an association of people who hold a common idea and turn into a pressure group. In the minimal option, the party will maintain its regular role in organizing and legitimiz­ing the electoral process and the formation of government. It may also, however, assume the role of a pressure group in structuring the contest over issues brought for decision by a referendum. In sum, parties will still pre­serve a permanent systemic role as special institutions as long as society con­tinues to maintain some form of popular competition for political leadership in conjunction with a contest of ideas.

Competition in all spheres of the public domain has become an impor­tant part of the dominant culture in the western world. It draws its legiti­macy from three sources:

1 as an exercise of individual rights; 2 as a source of 'added value' serving as a catalyst for economic prosperity,

intellectual development, scientific progress and better political choices; 3 as a source of gratification, turning competition itself into a compelling

form of public recreation and entertainment.

Competition as an independent variable is fully manifested in the world of sports. There is something to be learned from the high degree of partisan­ship that sports constantly produce, not necessarily for material gain and certainly not for the prominence of ideas. The supporters' passion does not tend to subside when a transfer of players to other teams occurs because of money or other considerations.

Political competition is significantly different from that of the sporting world because of the added contest of ideas. The rules of competition also differ, as politics does not necessarily produce a conclusive outcome; it does not always have strict rules enforced by neutral officials; it is not limited to a given time or spatial unit; and the prizes are not always known in advance. Nevertheless, it is no longer possible to discuss politics without taking cog­nizance of the independent social role of competition itself. From this prob­lematic but still partially constructive comparison, it may be concluded that politics as a specialized field of social competition will always require the service of political parties to legitimately produce the competing teams. In doing so, political parties contribute to the legitimacy of political compe­tition itself despite the uneven distribution of political prizes, most notably the position of leadership in government.

15

at Institute of Marine Biology of Crete (IMBC) on February 22, 2012ppq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

PARTY POLITICS 5(1)

Notes

1 The study of this issue has not produced either a uniform or consistent answer (see, for example, Webb, 1995).

2 This general definition, authored by Benjamin Constant, is quoted by Maurice Duverger (1963: xiv).

3 A brief, unique experiment was made during the initial development of the Israeli Labour Movement to merge the party with all other labour institutions into a single communal association (Achdut Ha'avoda, 1919-20). The experiment failed, forcing a new recognition of the legitimate existence of the political party and the formation of a multi-party labour federation - the Histadrut (see Gorni, 1973; Shapiro, 1975).

4 This organizational dichotomy is compatible with Duverger's (1963) early distinc­tion between mass and cadre parties and with Panebianco's distinction between the integration (mass-bureaucratic) party and the electoral-professional party (1988: 273). For a discussion of the issue of party institutionalization see Panebianco (1988: 49-68).

5 Of the parties created in proportional representation systems, 60% succeeded in becoming institutionalized, whereas only 48% of the parties created in 'first-past­the-post' plurality systems succeeded in doing so (Rose and Mackie, 1988: 535).

References

Arian, Asher and Michal Shamir (1993) 'Two Reversals in Israeli Politics: Why 1992 was not 1977', Electoral Studies 4: 315-4l.

Bille, Lars (1994) 'Denmark: The Decline of the Membership Party?', in Katz and Mair (eds), pp. 134-57.

Coleman, James S. and C. G. Rosberg (1969) Political Parties and National Inte­gration in Tropical Africa. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Press.

Dalton, Russell J. (1988) Citizen Politics in Western Democracies. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

Davis, James W. (1967) Presidential Primaries: Road to the White House. New York: Crowell.

Deschouwer, Kris (1994) 'The Decline of Consociationalism and the Reluctant Modernization of Belgian Mass Parties', in Katz and Mair (eds), pp. 80-108.

Duverger, Maurice (1963) Political Parties. New York: Wiley. Gorni, Joseph (1973) Achdut Haavoda 1919-1930. Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz

Hameuchad [in Hebrew]. Katz, Richard S. and Kolodny, Robin (1994) 'Party Organization as an Empty Vessel:

Parties in American Politics', in Katz and Mair (eds), pp. 23-50. Katz, Richard S. and Peter Mair, eds (1994) How Parties Organize. London: Sage. Katz, Richard S. and Peter Mair (1995) 'Changing Models of Party Organization

and Party Democracy', Party Politics 1: 5-28. Kirchheimer, Otto (1966) 'The Transformation of the Western European Party

Systems', in Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Weiner (eds) Political Parties and Political Development, pp. 177-200. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Koole, Ruud A. (1994) 'The Vulnerability of the Modern Cadre Party in Nether­lands', in Katz and Mair (eds), pp. 278-303.

16

at Institute of Marine Biology of Crete (IMBC) on February 22, 2012ppq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

YANAI: WHY DO POLITICAL PARTIES SURVIVE?

Lawson, Kay (1988) 'When Linkage Fails', in Kay Lawson and Peter H. Merkl (eds), pp.13-38.

Lawson, Kay and Peter H. Merkl, eds (1988) When Parties Fail: Emerging Alterna­tive Organizations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mair, Peter (1994) 'Party Organizations: From Civil Society to the State', in Katz and Mair (eds), pp. 1-22.

Overacker, Louise (1926) The Presidential Primary. New York: Macmillan. Panebianco, Angelo (1988) Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Rose, Richard and Thomas T. Mackie (1988) 'Do Parties Persist or Fail? The Big

Trade-off Facing Organizations', in Lawson and Merkl (eds), pp. 533-60. Schoonmaker, Donald (1988) 'The Challenge of the Greens to the West German

Party System', in Lawson and Merkl (eds), pp. 41-75. Seiler, D. (1986) De la comparison des partis politiques. Paris: Economica. Shapiro, Yonathan (1975) The Organization of Power. Tel-Aviv: Am-Oved [in

Hebrew]. Sundberg, Jan (1994) 'Finland: Nationalized Parties, Professionalized Organiz­

ations', in Katz and Mair (eds), pp. 158-84. Truman, David (1971) The Governmental Process. New York: Knopf. Webb, Paul D. (1995) 'Are British Political Parties in Decline?' Party Politics 3:

299-322. Webb, Paul D. (1994) 'Party Organizational Change in Britain: The Iron Law of

Centralization?', in Katz and Mair (eds), pp. 109-34. Yishai, Yael (1994) 'Interest Parties: The Thin Line Between Groups and Parties in

Israeli Electoral Process', in Kay Lawson (ed.) How Political Parties Work, pp. 197-225. Westport, CT: Praeger.

NATHAN YANAI is a Professor in the Departments of Political Science and Israeli Studies at Haifa University. He is the author of several books on Israeli politics and also 'The Political Affair: A Framework for a Comparative Discussion', Compara­tive Politics 2 (1990): 185-98 and the section on Israel in Frank Tachau, ed. (1994) Political Parties of the Middle East and North Africa (1994). ADDRESS: Department of Political Science, Haifa University, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel. [email:Nathan@research.haifa.ac.il]

Paper submitted 15 June 1997; accepted for publication 29 October 1997.

17

at Institute of Marine Biology of Crete (IMBC) on February 22, 2012ppq.sagepub.comDownloaded from