Hoorcollege 6: The social origins of parties: cleavages Flashcards
(35 cards)
Two approaches to classifying party systems
- Traditional comparative approach: aims to categorise party systems into distinct classes or types, for example two-party systems. Using this approach, party systems barely change, because a change of party system involves the case moving from one category to the other. The conditions for this to happen are very strict, so it rarely happens.
- The other approach doesn’t use classification, but uses continuous numeric variables to ‘summarise’ or ‘define’ the party system. These variables are almost always based on a calculation of the number and relative size of the parties present in the system. With this approach, differences in party systems are a matter of degree rather than of kind, so party system change is a continuous phenomenon. It does not specify, however, what kind of change is happening.
When does a party system change?
When there is a change in the structure of competition.
How can party competition change
- Change in the prevailing pattern of alternation in government
- The extent to which the governing alternatives in the system prove stable or consistent over time, or whether they involve innovative alternatives.
- The question of who governs and to which extent is the access to government open to a wide range of parties or limited to a smaller subset of established governing parties.
Party system
Parties as parts of a whole and that they get their identity from their relationships with other parties, also debate that it is related to cleavages (bottom-up). Party systems as systems of competition.
Cleavages
From the demand side. Basis of political mobilisation. Deep structural divides that persists through time and through generations (class, ethnicity, religion). It’s different from an issue. Give structure to the party systems.
How are cleavages different than an issue?
Issue can be absorbed into a larger structure. Larger cleavages can embody larger issues within it.
Three components to cleavages
- They have to have an objective reality
- A subjective identification
- Have to be institutionalised or politically mobilised
Objective reality cleavages
There has to be an objective problem (grievance) or division in society. Individuals who would like the church to play less of a role in society vs individuals who want the church to continue to play a role in society.
Subjective identification cleavages
Individuals have to be aware of this division. It has meaning or relevance to them.
Cleavages have to be institutionalised or politically mobilised
There has to be an institutionalisation of the cleavage → political party, union or social movement. Gets institutionalised because it gets mobilised.
Treshold for a cleavage is quite high. It is important for this to happen because a cleavage has to structure the system.
Four sets of cleavages that are the basis of our party systems
- Church-state
- Centre-periphery
- Urban-rural
- Worker-owner
These came out of the national and industrial revolution
National revolution
How states become states
Cleavages that the national revolution has created
- Church-state
- Centre-periphery
How was the church-state cleavage created
As states become states (1600s-1800s), it is about power and centralisation. Authority who tries to centralise their power, has to do with survival (states become the dominant form). Fight over power with the church. In catholic countries this emerges into a cleavage because in society there is a resistance to this centralisation.
How was the centre-periphery cleavage created
Battle between small princes and other people in power, through force and marriage centralisation happens. Some states have capacity to do this (military, coercion, taxes), in others less and here is where the cleavage emerges (think of Spain and Catalonia). More variation between states.
Cleavages that the industrial revolution has created
- Urban-rural
- Worker-owner
How was the urban-rural cleavage created?
Tension between the urban and the rural (early industrialisation), as production moves to the city and an economy emerges here, a division emerges between the city and countryside. This becomes more uniform, more universal.
How was the worker-owner cleavage created?
At heart of the industrialisation, in all countries. Factory workers moving to the cities and working vs the ones who own the means of production.
Four cleavages form four party systems
- Left-right (UK, worker-owner)
- Left-right with overlapping religious cleavages (GR, NL, IT): Christian democrats, workers and business men. Vote for religious party, so overlapping of religion.
- Left-right with overlapping regional cleavages (SP): Regional identity. Opposing parties, but same on regional side so it trumps worker-owner cleavage.
- Left-right with larger farmer-liberal versions (Scandinavia)
Same thing, urban-rural. Small agrarian parties.
Worker-owner creates similarity while the others create difference between party systems.
Why is worker-owner the dominant cleavage in UK?
This is because of early industrialisation/land owning classes absorbed as productive/church divide resolved internalised.
Do these cleavages still hold?
No on one hand, because new cleavages are emerging. It does explain persisting cleavages.
1970s rise of post-material values consequence for cleavages
Cleavages started to dissolve because of rise of post material values. Voting becomes issue based. Rise of new cleavages.
Society changes in 1970s
- Rise of the welfare state → whole new form of employment and a new middle class (teachers, doctors, bureaucrats etc.)
- Women started to work more.
- Nature of working class starts to change (what kind of work you do/money you make).
- Process of secularisation.
- More young people going to university (huge impact).
- Globalisation.
Party system changes 1970s
Old party identities start to become weaker, class begins to change and starts to become more fragmented. However, the whole system isn’t completely abandoned. Working class still tend to vote social dem and religious christian dem. This support is however not exclusive anymore, and this class becomes smaller. Old system fizzles out, doesn’t disappear. There is de-aligment: voters become more volatile