Interest articulation

Interest articulation is a way for members of a society to express their needs to a system of
government.[1] It can range from personal contact with government ofcials to the development
of interest groups (e.g. trade unions, professional associations, religious groups) who act in the
interest of larger groups of people. Interest articulation can have diferent efects in diferent types
of government and can include both legal (i.e.: lobbying, peaceful protest, phone calls and letters
to policymakers) and illegal activities (e.g. assassination, riots). Interest articulation leads
to interest aggregation.
The types of interest groups, as identifed by Gabriel Almond, are:[1]
Anomic Groups
generally spontaneous groups with a collective response to a particular frustration[1]
Nonassociational Groups
rarely well organized and their activity is dependent upon the issue at hand. They difer
from Anomic groups in that they are usually similar to one another and have a common
identity.
Institutional Groups
mostly formal and have some other political or social function in addition to the particular
interest.
Associational Groups
formed explicitedly to represent an issue of a particular group.
The Theoretical Approach to
Interest Articulation
The first things we need to do are to define the term interest articulation
and to put the concept into an appropriate theoretical perspective
Definition:
Interest articulation is the process through which individuals
make demands upon the political system.
Theoretical Perspective:
The Systems Perspective:
What does the term system mean?
What are its components?
How is it utilied in political science?
What are the processes which all
political systems share in common?
!"lmond and Powell#

Who are the actors?
What roles do they play in each of the processes?
$an we match up the processes identified %y "lmond and Powell
with the appropriate parts of &aston's systems paradigm?
Question to Consider:
(ne of the ma)or goals of any political system is sta%ility* with the additional
long term prospect of +systems maintenance+. Therefore one of the critical
,uestions for every political system is what type of interest articulation
process will +fit+ with the nature of the social system- Thus* we also need to
understand the notion of political culture-
Interest Articulation As Linkage
Interest articulation is* in part* a%out the politics of everyday life. How people
make demands upon their government seems like a rudimentary fact to us %ut is
part of a larger process of political development. Indeed* what people +,uarrel
a%out+ is a key to understanding any country. The demands on any political
system can %e small !+fi. my potholes-+# or great !+change the distri%ution of
resources in society-+. If government does a good )o% of processing demands
then there is generally system sta%ility and !long/term# +systems maintenance+.
The interest articulation process is thus a%out +linking+ people to the political
system.
In societies which are generally deemed to %e democratic* the role of the citien
is often viewed from one of two perspectives:
1) the pluralist view conte!porar" de!ocrac")
essentially sees democracy as +institutionall arrangements+
a +democratic+ system is one that has:
electoral mechanisms
via%le* competing parties
minimal participation
Pluralists !Schumpeter* 0ahl* etc.# often talk a%out the dangers of participation
to them voting is meant to %e a check on leaders
1# participator" de!ocrac" classical de!ocrac")
stresses the role that participation plays in the development of character
sees participation as the key to the transformation of people from
individual !private# to citien !pu%lic#
$arole Pateman* a noted political theorist argues that participation must %e
more than the protective ad)unct to the institutional arrangements of democratic
systems. She makes three key arguments:
2# political participation has a psychological effect on those who participate
since %y making decisions* citiens develop a sense of responsi%ility for
individual* social* and political action
1# collective decisions are more easily accepted than individual decisions.
Since most decisions are +trade offs+ if one has participated in the decision
they are more likely to see the relationship %etween the %enefit gain
and the sacrifice made
3# participation increases the feelings of community and a sense of
integration in the community//a sense of identity and group consciousness.
Thus* for classical or participatory theorists* the key function of participation
is educational !creating citiens#* not instrumental !regime sta%ility#
Thus* classical or participatory theorists argue that plural theorists have
fundamentally revised and altered the normative significance of democracy---
In part* they argue that representative democracy is really not democracy
Questions to Consider:
Which view of democracy do you think is most important?
Should democracy %e a%out +institutional arrangements+ or a%out +educating
citiens+?
0o you see the two ideas as mutually e.clusive?
Interest Articulation in A!erica
Pro%a%ly one of the key primary documents to %e e.plored in any analysis of
the theoretical place of interest articulation in the "merican political system is
4adison's 5ederalist 26.
In this document* 4adison argues that human %eings are* %y nature* self/
interested and if government does not allow individuals to pursue their self/
interests* they take away one's political freedom.
4adison thought that individuals would %an together to pursue their common
interests. These groups or factions were a threat to popular government.
4adison argued that people were more likely to try to oppress each other than
they were to cooperate for the common good. What then was the cure for the
mischief of faction+?
To 4adison's mind it was a repu%lican or representative government- In this
system* interests would check each other so that no one group would dominate-
7overnment would thus %e a synthesier of the competing interests in society.
Was 4adison thus the first plural theorist?
In the study of "merican interest articulation* we thus need to add the notion
of interest group to our list of ma)or actors in the interest articulation process-
Questions to Consider:
What do you think of 4adison's argument? "re the seeds of political conflict
sown in human nature? "re interest groups? political parties? election? the
actors8 vehicles through which self/interest should %e pursued?
$ontrast the definitions of parties e.plored in the ne.t section-
It is now time to e.plore definitions of the ma)or actors in the interest
articulation process-
Parties and Part" #"ste!s
In almost every political system* one finds political parties and thus finds a
+party system+. There can %e anything from one to multiple parties and the
parties can differ dramatically in different political systems. In part* the num%er
and type of parties is influenced8 shaped %y cultural8 sociological and
institutional factors.
9oted &nglish philosopher &dmund :urke once defined a political party as:
+Party is a %ody of men united for promoting %y their )oint endeavors the
national interest upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed+
Political scientist ;eon &pstein defines party as:
any group* however loosely organied* seeking to elect governmental
officeholders under a given la%el.
7ittleson* $onway and 5eigert in Parties and Politics in America define party
as:
" comple. 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 organiation* and pu%lic officeholders or
those am%itious for pu%lic office. "ll these elements may have conflicting
interests and foci
Political Scientist "lan Ware has defined the term party as:
+" political party is an institution that !a# seeks influence in the state* often %y
attempting to occupy positions in government< and !%# usually consists of more
than a single interest in the society and so to some degree attempts to
+aggregate interests+.
Questions to Consider:
What do you see as the common thread!s# running through these four
definitions? the differences?
"re parties )ust another vehicle for the pursuit of self/interest? or are they
meant to %e something more? different?
Ware argues that there are key features of political parties:
2# parties are institutions that %ring together people for the purpose of
e.ercising power within the state
//the goal of some parties may %e to %ring a%out the ultimate dissolution of the
e.isting state
//as a tactic to achieve this o%)ective a party may choose to engage in some
activities and not others !ie.* contest elections %ut not form a government#
//some entities which call themselves parties are )ust created to ridicule politics*
such as the =hinoceros Party in $anada and the 4onster =aving ;ooney Party
in :ritain
1# Parties seek to use legitimate means to achieve their ends
3# When they can contest elections* most parties do
># Parties are institutions that seek to represent more than a single* narrow
intertest in society
?# Parties are groupings of people with similar %eliefs* attitudes* and values.
"ccording to Ware* the advantages of this definition of party are:
2# it focuses attention on the centrality of the state as the o%)ect of party
activity<
1# it recognies that for many* %ut not all parties* being in government is an
important means of e.ercising influence<
3# it is applica%le to parties other than those in liberal democratic regimes<
># it makes it possi%le to distinguish parties from pressure groups while
recogniing that in particular cases the distinction may not always %e a clear
one< and
?# it avoids the potentially misleading assertion that parties are necessarily
united by shared principles or opinions.
$Part" #"ste!s$
In any political system we can also e.plore the +totality+ of political parties and
the function!s# they play in the political system.
Political scientists have tended to concentrate on two ,uestions when e.ploring
party systems:
2# what notion should %e utilied in e.ploring their development and their
differences?
1# how responsive is the +party system+ to change are they?

When e.ploring the notion of the development8 differences in +party systems+*
most political scientists have focused upon one of three approaches:

1) sociological factors
this approach argues that parties develop in any political system
in response to the social phenomena which dominate a society
if class is a dominant factor* then class/%ased parties will %e discovered
if regionalism is important* then regional parties will %e discovered

%) institutional fatcors
this approach argues that the institutional setting in which politics
takes place is the key to the development of political parties
things such as the nature of representation* electoral rules* etc. are the keys
to the develoment of party systems
unit rule* regularity* plurality in @.S.
proportional representation

&) co!petition factors
this approach argues that the key to e.ploring any political systems'
party system is to e.amine the nature of competition among the parties
in part* this approach is an offshoot of the institutional approach
however* it argues that nothing other than the num%er of via%le*
competing parties really matters
In the de%ate over responsiveness the ,uestion is often asked:
0o the parties reflect the dimensions of conflict in a society?
"s conflict changes* does party system change?
Parties, Political
I PARTY UNITSJoseph A. Schlesinger
bibliography
II PARTY SYSTEMSHarry Eckstein
bibliography
I PARTY UNITS
The term political parties emerged in the nineteenth centry !ith the de"elopment o#
representati"e instittions and the e$pansion o# the s##rage in Erope and the United States% It
designated organi&ations !hose goal !as the captre o# pblic o##ice in electoral competition !ith
one or more other parties% Sbse'ently the term party !as e$tended to inclde political
organi&ations not engaged in electoral competition( minor parties !hich had no realistic
e$pectations o# gaining o##ice throgh appeals to the electorate) re"oltionary organi&ations
see*ing to abolish competiti"e elections) and the go"erning grops in totalitarian states%
Party theory
The e$pansion o# the term party to inclde organi&ations !ith "arying goals has reslted in the
scarcity o# "iable party theory% Apart #rom the pioneering !or*s o# +strogors*ii ,-./01 and Michels
,-.--1) there e$ist mostly descripti"e stdies o# parties in indi"idal contries ,e%g%) Nemann
-.231% The most ambitios attempt to carry party theory #or!ard has been that o# Marice
4"erger ,-.2-1% 5t 4"erger ses a historically determinist #rame!or* !hich ma*es the mass
membership party the ine"itable prodct o# ni"ersal s##rage and renders archaic many e$isting
and seemingly drable electoral parties% In contrast) this discssion !ill #ocs pon the political
organi&ation !hich acti"ely and e##ecti"ely engages in the competition #or electi"e o##ice% This
emphasis ma*es it possible to resol"e at least one isse !hich has hampered the de"elopment o#
party theory( the #nction o# the party !ithin the political system%
+ne conse'ence o# the indiscriminate se o# the term party has been preoccpation !ith the
party6s #nctions and goals% The literatre on political parties is replete !ith classi#ications o#
parties according to their goals% The most common distinction is that bet!een the mass7based
party) !hich is ideological) doctrinaire) programmatic) or isse7oriented) and the cadre or
bro*erage party) !hich is pragmatic and patronage7oriented% Althogh there is no logical barrier to
mass7based parties6 being programmatic or cadre parties6 being doctrinaire) the distinction
persists becase the 'estion o# the #nction o# the party is #ndamental( is the party the
instrment o# its membership) or is it a pblic agency) primarily responsi"e to the electorate8
The perception o# the party as the instrment o# its membership is characteristic mostly o#
Eropean !ritings and has led to an emphasis on party strctre% The classic e$ample is the
!or* o# Michels) !ho #ormlated the iron la! o# oligarchy to e$plain the trimph o# the leaders6
ambitions #or o##ice o"er the membership6s re"oltionary goals% Michels6 iron la! is the prodct
o# his preoccpation !ith the 9erman Social 4emocratic party and his disdain#l neglect o# the
party system in !hich that organi&ation de"eloped% In 4"erger6s !or* the acceptance o# the
party as the tool o# its members is basic to the conclsion that the entire electorate !ill ine"itably
be incorporated into parties) thereby rendering the restricted cadre party archaic% 5t 4"erger6s
strctral scheme is constrcted at the e$pense o# "iable cadre parties) notably the American
parties and the Radical party o# the :rench Third Repblic%
Perception o# the party as primarily responsi"e to the electorate has been mostly a prodct o# the
Anglo7Sa$on tradition% This perception has sometimes reslted in concern only !ith the total
pictre o# party competition% Althogh Mc;en&ie6s stdy o# 5ritish parties ,-.221 does e$amine
strctre in relation to the parties6 o##ice goals) Schmpeter ,-.<01 and 4o!ns ,-.2=1 ignore the
internal !or*ings o# the party and concentrate on its place in a competiti"e system% Most
American !riting abot parties is ambi"alent% Althogh there is acceptance o# the o##ice7see*ing
de#inition o# party) and the importance o# party interplay) there is also the persistent longing to
ma*e the party6s #nction ser"ice to its membership% As a reslt) discssions o# American parties
are o#ten #ragmentary and con#ined to descriptions and criticisms o# local machines and #ormal
instittions%
The o##ice7see*ing de#inition o# party allo!s s to recogni&e that in a competiti"e system the
#ndamental isse o# the party6s #nction is a matter o# "ale >dgment and a constant sorce o#
organi&ational tension !ithin parties% As comple$ organi&ations dealing !ith matters o#
importance) ma>or political parties attract participants !ith a "ariety o# moti"es% Some are
interested in pblic policy? others en>oy the social li#e o# the party? still others participate becase
they are ambitios #or o##ice or #or the re!ards that come #rom association !ith pblic o##icials%
@hile these moti"es need be neither e$clsi"e nor con#licting) the tension bet!een policy
interests and o##ice interests !ithin a political organi&ation is increased !ithin a competiti"e
system% In a competiti"e system a party ma$imi&es its chances #or o##ice by o##ering policy
concessions to marginal "oters and parties% @hat distingishes the competiti"e political party
#rom other #orms o# political organi&ation) there#ore) is that the 'estion o# electoral tactics is e"er
present% The competiti"e party need not al!ays ma*e decisions in tactical terms) and errors in
tactics are al!ays possible% 5t o"er the long rn) i# the party is to remain an e##ecti"e competitor)
the goal o# o##ice mst be the crcial #actor in the party6s decisions%
5y choosing the o##ice7see*ing de#inition o# party) there#ore) !e are able to distingish the party
#rom other #orms o# political organi&ations% The policy goals o# parties change% The problem !hich
has !orried obser"ers o# parties since +strogors*ii and Michels is not the re>ection o# o##ice
becase o# principle bt the nseemly prsit o# o##ice at all costs% The !eight o# the e"idence
indicates that the goal o# o##ice dominates in all parties !hose e$pectations o# o##ice are high% In
e"ery Eropean contry !here socialist parties ha"e achie"ed a realistic chance at o##ice)
socialist doctrine has been tempered% Ao!e"er) the e$tent to !hich the American :ederalists and
@higs !ere predominantly o##icesee*ing organi&ations is e"idenced by the speed o# their
disappearance once they lost their chance at o##ice%
:or prposes o# analysis) the ma>or implication o# the o##ice7see*ing de#inition o# party is that the
party mst be "ie!ed in relation to the o##ices !hich it see*s to captre% In other !ords) basic to
the nderstanding o# political parties is the a!areness o# the strctre o# political opportnities
!ithin a gi"en political system( the pblic o##ices a"ailable? the rles) #ormal and in#ormal) #or their
attainment? and the attitdes o# politicians and "oters to!ard these o##ices% A re"oltionary
organi&ation !hich re>ects e$isting instittions) a social clb) a debating society) a pressre or
propaganda grop !ith independent goals) can all be stdied as discrete entities% 5t political
parties compete to control a process !hich they did not establish and !hich cold go on !ithot
them% Parties recrit leaders) edcate the electorate) and e"en organi&e go"ernments? bt the
state organi&es elections% There#ore) e"erything o# interest abot a political partyBits
organi&ation) its leaders) its policies) its income) and its capacity to attract "otersBis a##ected by
the strctre o# political opportnities !ithin a gi"en state%
To assert that party organi&ation re#lects the strctre o# political opportnities is not to deny that
parties in trn a##ect the opportnity strctre% Certainly the de"elopments !hich too* place in
5ritish party organi&ation at the end o# the nineteenth centry greatly trans#ormed the process o#
becoming prime minister% In the United States) parties early captred the Electoral College) !hich
!as to choose the president% At the same time) the di##erences bet!een American and 5ritish
parties re#lect the di##erent methods by !hich the t!o contries choose their chie# e$ecti"es%
Clearly) parties and instittions a##ect each other%
It has been #ashionable) since the ad"ent o# Mar$) @eber) and :red) to re>ect instittional
e$planations o# the natre and acti"ities o# parties) in #a"or o# social) cltral) or psychological
e$planations ,e%g%) Trman -.221% Recently) ho!e"er) some stdents o# parties ha"e conclded
that instittions are not epiphenomena bt critical "ariables ,e%g%) Epstein -.3<? Dipset in
+strogors*ii) -.3< edition1%
The present discssion treats parties as responses to the !ays states strctre the opportnities
#or electi"e o##ice% This approach is especially se#l becase the strctre o# opportnities
pro"ides a #rame!or* #or the comparati"e analysis o# parties and party systems% It enables s to
compare the relati"e standings o# parties as o##ice7see*ing organi&ations) in their o!n contries
and across national bondaries%
Party organization
The basic party nit is the ncles) or the organi&ation aimed at captring a single o##ice% The
broader strctre o# the party emerges #rom the relations among nclei% Electoral nuclei de"elop
!ithin the constitencies o# electi"e o##ices% Governmental nuclei #orm arond those o##ices !hich
poplarly elected o##icials #ill #rom among themsel"es) as in the selection o# legislati"e leaders or
o# the e$ecti"e in parliamentary systems% The nclei o# a party are not necessarily discrete)
either in personnel or in other resorces% :or prposes o# analysis) ho!e"er) !e shall e$amine
the basic nits #irst and then the relationships among them%
It is important to note that the de"elopment o# a ncles rests pon the e$pectation that it !ill be
able to captre o##iceBi# not immediately) then in the #oreseeable #tre% Seldom are a party6s
chances #or o##ice e"enly di"ided among all its nclei% A party !ill ha"e some sa#e constitencies)
some !here it competes) and others !here it has no chance at all to !in elections% Indeed) a
party6s drability !ill depend in great part pon sa#e constitencies) !hich assre some continity
in o##ice regardless o# the party6s general electoral #ortnes%
At the same time) parties o#ten rn candidates in constitencies !here they ha"e no hopes o#
!inning o##ice? bt !e mst clearly distingish these e##orts #rom the party acti"ities% The ma>or
5ritish parties contest many hopeless constitencies) in part to pro"ide training and trial rns #or
candidates !ho hope to ad"ance to more #a"orable constitencies) and in part to accommodate
the national character o# 5ritish elections) !hich means that the campaign in one constitency
may !ell a##ect the reslts else!here% In the United States dring the period o# 4emocratic
dominance o# the Soth) the Repblican party maintained a net!or* o# organi&ations !hich dre!
#ederal patronage and e$erted in#lence !ithin the national nominating con"ention% 5t this
net!or* !as in e##ect an appendage o# the presidential ncles% Sch e##orts do not in themsel"es
constitte party nclei? they are signi#icant only in relation to the organi&ations !hich ha"e a
chance to !in o##ice%
Cooperation among party nclei is determined at least minimally by the strctre o# political
opportnities) !hich gi"es sbstance to the party6s goals% The American and the 5ritish political
systems present t!o "ery di##erent opportnity strctres and allo! s to obser"e the "arying
impact o# the opportnity strctre pon party organi&ation% The American presidential system)
!hich operates !ithin the #ederal #rame!or* and tili&es the poplarly elected bicameral
legislatre) encorages party nclei to act independently% In the United States thosands o#
o##icials are nominated and elected) many on di##erent occasions% E"en !hen and !here the
potential electorate is the same) di##erent o##ices can attract sbstantially di##erent nmbers o#
"oters% @hile there is little pressre #or nclear cooperation to control the independently elected
e$ecti"e) sch pressre does e$ist in the legislatre) !here positions o# leadership can be
captred by mltinclear action%
In contrast) the 5ritish strctre o# opportnities imposes tighter relationships among party nclei%
The 5ritish parliamentary system pro"ides #or a single poplarly elected chamber) all o# !hose
members are elected together at a time determined by the dominant party leader% The electoral
nclei in trn de#ine the go"ernmental ncles% In sch a system the strctre o# political
opportnities encorages mltinclear cooperation and party cohesion%
At the same time) !ithin each political system the re#inements o# the opportnity strctre modi#y
its general impact pon party organi&ation% 5eyond the nmber o# o##ices in the opportnity
strctre) there is the arrangement or hierarchy o# o##ices% In the United States) the #ederal
system pro"ides no long7range career otlets #or state o##icials% :or the ambitios state go"ernor
there is only the national senate or the presidency and its srronding administrati"e o##ices%
Ths) the American #ederal system pro"ides a restraint pon the independence o# state party
nclei as !ell as pressre #or cooperation bet!een the state nclei and the nclei #or national
o##ice% The Canadian #ederal system) on the other hand) pro"ides #or miniatre parliaments in its
pro"inces) !hich ma*e long7range careers possible #or pro"incial leaders% In trn) indigenos
pro"incial parties !hich ha"e little hope o# de"eloping into national organi&ations are able to
#lorish% The Social Credit party in Alberta is a good e$ample%
In addition to the arrangement o# o##ices) the opportnity strctre imposes pon the party the
procedres !hich it mst #ollo! to achie"e o##ice% In the United States the pro"isions #or
nmeros independent elections encorage the independence o# party nclei% 5t there are also
pro"isions #or the sharing o# electorates !hich #acilitate mltinclear cooperation% Presidential
candidates share the ballot !ith a host o# other candidates #or o##ice? go"ernors and senators
#re'ently rn #or o##ice at the same time? and United States representati"es) along !ith lesser
state o##icials) appeal to the sbelectorates o# the higher o##icials% These arrangements ma*e
possible the coat7tail e##ect) the possibility that the candidate #or one o##ice !ill in#lence the "ote
#or other o##ices? they thereby create pressre #or party nclei to consider the acti"ities and the
candidates o# other nclei% +n the other hand) in parliamentary systems !hich se the single7
member district and a"oid shared electorates) the basis #or nclear independence e$ists) as) #or
instance) in the :rench Third Repblic%
@ithin parliamentary systems) ho!e"er) the similar beha"ior and attitdes o# di##erent electorates
can e$ert pressre #or cooperation among nclei% 4espite the ma>or ad"ances in or *no!ledge
o# electoral beha"ior) the impact o# the party pon the "oter remains largely n*no!n% England
appears to ha"e a disciplined electorate) recepti"e to party acti"ity% Sch an electorate
encorages ma$imm nclear cooperation by ma*ing possible the electoral destrction o# a
recalcitrant leader !ho has been denied his party6s nomination% American and :rench electorates
are rarely !illing to beha"e in this manner% The Con"erse74pe$ stdy ,-.301 sho!s that
American "oters identi#y !ith a party more closely than do :rench "oters) bt aggregate American
election reslts sho! that in any gi"en election enogh "oters !ill split their ballots to allo!
"ictories to both parties !ithin the same constitency%
Undobtedly the reasons #or !hich "oters spport parties ha"e important organi&ational
conse'ences% The reasons are sally comple$ and inclde ethnic) religios) social) economic)
ideological) and geographical #actors in a "ariety o# combinations ,Al#ord -.3E1% @ithin a party)
shi#ting "oter spport can prodce #actions or clsters o# nclei contending !ith each other
becase their electoral bases are di"ergent% In the :rench :orth Repblic the rising social and
economic stats o# the Radical "oter broght the ne! Radical leaders into con#lict !ith Radicals
o# the Third Repblic) !ho !ished to retain the party6s pre!ar doctrinal concern #or the people%
In the United States the geographic spport o# the Soth #or the 4emocratic party has
increasingly cased con#lict !ith those !ho spport the party #or economic and social reasons
else!here%
Another sorce o# organi&ational tension !ithin parties is pro"ided by the party system) or the
competiti"e relationship o# parties) and by the modi#ications !hich the strctre o# opportnities
imposes pon the party system% Party systems "ary in the nmber o# parties !hich ha"e a
chance at o##ice% 4epending pon the strctre o# opportnities) party systems "ary also in the
distribtion o# the chances #or o##ice among party nclei% More than one party mst ha"e a chance
at o##ice in order #or the party system to be competiti"e% Yet the chances do not ha"e to be) and
o#ten are not) e'ally distribted) e"en !hen there are only t!o real competitors% Prior to -.E0 the
American Repblican party !on most national elections? since -.E0 the 4emocrats ha"e been
the dominant national party%
:rom the standpoint o# nclear cooperation) the ne"en distribtion o# strength among nclei
a##ects the #lo! o# organi&ational resorces and cases tension !ithin the party% @e ha"e
assmed that party nclei !ill e$ist only arond those o##ices #or !hich there is the chance o#
"ictory% 5t e"en #or these o##ices the party6s chances can range #rom per#ect to dobt#l%
4i##erences in electoral strength !ill prodce nclear organi&ations !ith di##erent needs and
resorces% The nclear organi&ations !ith the strongest electoral spport are li*ely to be in the
best position to command the other resorces o# organi&ation) money) and personnel% At the
same time) they are nder the least pressre to compete !ith other parties #or "otes% The nclei
most sb>ect to electoral pressres are those !hich #ace the strongest competition% 9i"en the
"aried electoral needs o# its nclei) a party may !ell #ind itsel# !ith t!o or more nclei or nclear
clsters #raming di##erent appeals to the "oters%
+# corse) a party is sb>ect to additional tensions arising #rom its needs dring the go"ernmental
phase% The needs o# the go"ernmental ncles may !ell con#lict !ith the needs o# the electoral
nclei% In go"ernment by coalition the #ate o# competitors !ho are also allies becomes the
concern o# the go"ernmental ncles and imposes #rther strains pon the electoral nclei o# the
dominant party%
Party activity
The strctre o# political opportnities determines not only the e$tent o# party organi&ation bt
also its 'ality or content% +##ices #oster nclear organi&ation) and electoral procedres and
practices pro"o*e nclear cooperation or dissension% Another conse'ence o# the close
relationship bet!een party organi&ation and the strctre o# opportnities is that the limits o# party
acti"ity are nclear% Imbedded in the electoral and go"ernmental process) the party in its acti"ities
is o#ten indistingishable #rom "oters and pressre grops) on the one hand) and #rom
go"ernment) on the other% In the search #or o##ice) parties go otside their ran*s #or leaders? they
accept an occasional "ote as the basis #or party identi#ication? they allo! go"ernment breacrats
rather than the party program to de#ine party policy%
In describing the content o# party acti"ity) there#ore) it is more se#l to employ the concept o#
contribtion to the party organi&ation than the concept o# membership% The term membership
connotes an n!arranted clarity in the bondaries bet!een the party and its en"ironment)
!hereas) as has >st been noted) e"en sch critical contribtions to the maintenance o# the
organi&ation as "oting) recritment o# candidates) and e"en candidacy itsel# may come #rom
indi"idals not readily identi#iable as #ormal members% Concei"ing o# party leadership)
recritment) money) and commnications as contribtions to party organi&ation enables s to as*
not only !ho ma*es them bt also to #ocs on the #lo! o# contribtions #rom one ncles to
another% Ths) it is the trans#er o# contribtions !hich creates the mltinclear party%
Leadership
In party organi&ation) leadership is a contribtion o# #irst importance% The #lctating) ephemeral)
and largely "olntary character o# most contribtions to party acti"ity ma*es it most se#l #or
someone to mo"e people to participate) to ma*e agreements !ith other leaders) and to bring
together the materials o# party combat%
Yet in parties) more than in any other type o# #ormal organi&ation) the o##icial lines o# athority are
sspect) and there is al!ays implicit the 'estion o# !ho is the real leader% This is tre in great
part becase a political party is a leader7prodcing organi&ation) and the ambitios men attracted
to parties #ind it ad"antageos at least to seem to be playing a ma>or role% I# the real party leader
is o#ten di##iclt to locate) it is becase many competitors #or leadership ha"e a sta*e in *eeping it
so%
The contribtion o# leadership is also di##iclt to assign becase there are t!o broad categories o#
party leaders) !hich in #act may or may not merge% There are the pblic leaders) men !ho also
represent the party as its candidates #or pblic o##ice) and there are the associational leaders)
men !hose o##ice is limited to the party organi&ation% +#ten) bt by no means al!ays) there is no
sharp distinction in personnel bet!een the t!o categories? men mo"e #rom one to the other or
hold both pblic and party o##ice concrrently%
The di##iclties #or analysis presented by these o"erlapping categories pertain especially to the
American system% In American parties there is no #ormal hierarchy o# athority or delineation o#
#nctions% The committees) chairmen) and con"entions !hich range #rom the locality to the nation
ha"e no consistent athoritati"e relation to each other or to the parties6 o##iceholders and
nominees% At the same time) the actal conditions #or o##ice7holding in the United States)
nmeros pblic o##ices !ith a high rate o# trno"er) #a"or the distinction in leadership% This
sitation contrasts !ith that o# the parliamentary system) !here the a"ailability to the party o#
sa#e pblic o##ices or seats almost al!ays assres the merger o# both categories o# leaders%
Ths) !hate"er the original sorce o# the party leader6s strength) organi&ation !or* or
o##iceholding) party and pblic leadership easily combine and pro"ide the necessary continity in
an organi&ation !here most acti"ity is transitory% FSeeDeadership) article onPolitical Aspects%G
Recruitment and nomination
The ma>or tas* #acing the leaders o# the nclear organi&ation is the choice o# its candidate #or
o##ice% @ho contribtes to this tas*) and ho! is it accomplished8 There are t!o aspects to the
process% +ne is the recritmentBand discoragementBo# candidates #or the nomination% The
second is the choice o# the nominee #rom among the acti"e see*ers% The latter aspect is more
o"ert and is normally srronded by rles o# procedre !hich ser"e to ma*e the nomination
athoritati"e% 5t the recritment process is e'ally critical in de#ining the choices !hich can be
made !ithin the party%
Althogh there are a #e! empirical stdies o# the recritment process) those !hich e$ist place the
brden o# the tas* !ith the aspirants themsel"es% There is little e"idence #rom !hich to con>re
the pictre o# an organi&ation acti"ely see*ing candidates% Stdies o# candidates #or lesser
o##ices) sch as the state legislatres o# the United States ,@ahl*e et al% -.301) sho! relati"ely
#e! !ho percei"e themsel"es as recrited by party organi&ations% A high proportion o# politicians
come #rom #amilies !ith acti"e political e$perience% Party organi&ations gi"e e"idence o# acti"ely
recriting candidates #or o##ices !here there is little e$pectation o# "ictory) bt !hen the
nomination is o# "ale) the nclear organi&ation normally responds to choices presented to it by
men acti"ely see*ing the nomination) !ho ad"ance along "arios career lines% FSeePolitical
recritment and careers%G
The opportnity strctre) there#ore) in de#ining the paths o# ad"ancement) has mch to do !ith
the recritment o# party candidates% The loosely ordered American system pro"ides mltiple lines
o# ad"ancement) so that parties ha"e di"erse sorces #or candidates% Parliamentary systems) on
the other hand) channel most recritment throgh legislati"e o##ices%
The contribtion o# nomination) !hich #ollo!s recritment) to party organi&ation is e'ally
comple$ and o#ten obscre% In the United States) re#orms sch as the con"ention and the direct
primary ha"e clari#ied some aspects) bt some decisi"e acti"ity still ta*es place in pri"ate% Mch
o# the organi&ational acti"ity in a nomination consists o# discoraging other men6s ambitions and)
i# the organi&ation is to scceed at the polls) tying their ambitions to those o# the candidate%
There#ore) the nomination ideally combines a ma$imm o# discoragement o# all bt one o# the
ambitios !ith a minimm o# pblic disgrace #or the others%
The discoragement process ta*es place !ithin a set o# rles according to !hich one man gains
the designation nominee o# the party% In a stabili&ed party system) captre o# this label is
important) and the state #re'ently acts to assre that only candidates selected according to the
rles can appear in the general election nder that label% This does not pre"ent o##icesee*ers)
ho!e"er) #rom organi&ing their o!n campaigns to captre the label% As !ith recritment)
nomination is less a case o# an organi&ation6s selecting candidates according to 'ali#ications
than it is o# pro"iding the #rame!or* !ithin !hich they contest #or the nomination%
The actal choice o# a candidate may in"ol"e nmeros indi"idals) and) althogh parties
normally establish their o!n procedres #or nominations) the state may inter"ene% In the United
States the direct primary imposes pon the party ma$imm participation in the nominating
process% This imposition can prodce irrational conse'ences #or the party) #or there is no
assrance that the primary "oter is imbed !ith the o##icesee*ing dri"e !hich !or*s in #a"or o#
the most e##ecti"e electoral candidate% As a reslt) pre7primary con"entions ha"e de"eloped in
se"eral American states as a means o# controlling the nomination% Party con"entions are) in #act)
among the most common methods o# nomination% They are sally made p o# delegates
apportioned according to party membership% In Nor!ay the state inter"enes in the con"ention
process by paying the e$penses o# the nominating con"entions i# they #ollo! prescribed methods
,Halen I ;at& -.3<1% Nominations by party cacs or by constitency committee are also
common%
@hether or not the state plays a role) the ability to control a nomination is one o# the #e!
obser"able tests o# strength !ithin a party% As a reslt) party leaders sally a"oid ta*ing the test
nless #orced to) or i# they do) they see* to spport a certain !inner% The problem is particlarly
germane to the delicate relationship bet!een the nclei #or higher o##ices and lesser o##ices% :or
this reason) open inter"ention by party leaders in the nomination contests #or lesser o##ices is
rare% E"en in the disciplined 5ritish parties) control o# constitency nominations by the central
o##ice is #ar less than has been assmed by those !ho !old in#er discipline as radiating #rom the
center ,Ranney -.321% Althogh empirical stdies o# nominating procedres are rare) the
e"idence seems to be that constitency nclei are in control in most systems%
@hate"er the contribtion to nomination) !hether it be the discoragement o# ambitions or their
open de#eat) it is dys#nctional i# it lea"es the nominee too !ea* to !in the general election% Ths)
althogh not all o# the actors may be so moti"ated) all o# the candidates !ho do hold o##ice
ambitions !ill be nder a common restraint at least not to oppose) and pre#erably to spport) the
nominee% The most e##ecti"e control the party has is the de#eated candidate6s o!n hope #or
pre#erment% It is pecliar to party organi&ation that at one and the same time it encorages men to
open con#lict and then #orces them to crb animosity to achie"e a sbse'ent goal% Mch o# the
t!o7#acedness o# political acti"ity as it appears to e$ternal obser"ers comes #rom this inherent
characteristic o# nclear organi&ation% That brying the hatchet is not easy is e"ident #rom the
#re'ency !ith !hich it #ails or) i# done) is done grdgingly% Still) the constant process o# personal
ad"ancement throgh organi&ed con#lict either repels or !eeds ot personalities incapable o#
sstaining the tension% In his earlier !or*) Dass!ell ,-.<J1 emphasi&ed the dominance o# po!er
dri"es in the personalities o# political leaders% More recently) he has come to note that sch
persons do not rise to the top in democracies ,Dass!ell -.2<? see also Dane -.2.) pp% -0<7-0J1%
The pre po!er see*er) as distinct #rom the man !ith o##ice ambitions !ho sees o##ice as
instrmental to other goals) can probably #ind more satis#actory otlets in areas other than
politics% An important aspect o# the contribtion o# nomination is that sel#7interest mst control
itsel# and create cooperation ot o# !hat might be the most di"isi"e and corroding o# ambitions)
the dri"e #or political po!er% FSeePersonality) Political%G
Issue formulation
+nce the nclear organi&ation chooses its candidate) it mst see* spport #or reasons other than
its po!er dri"es% Althogh it is *no!n that the "oters6 response to parties in"ol"es mch more
than a choice bet!een policy stances) there is a good deal o# isse content in electoral decisions)
and to scceed) a party mst de"ise a program or plat#orm% The position o# the party as seen by
both its leaders and the "oters is only partially co"ered by the #ormal plat#orm% There#ore) one
mst as* !ho contribtes the isses% To a great e$tent) the process o# leader selection decides
the policies #or !hich the party !ill stand% 5t beyond the party leader there are leading citi&ens)
specialists in pblic a##airs) scholars) and >ornalists on !hom the party can call #or contribtions
in de"ising policy%
The intellectals6 #nction) ho!e"er) is se"erely limited by the !ay in !hich competiti"e go"erning
parties are #orced to de"ise policy% A party in control o# go"ernment mst ma*e choices) bt its
range o# alternati"es is sally narro!% The party is restricted by time) internal di##erences) the
administrati"e apparats o# go"ernment) and other rele"ant elements o# the political system)
inclding #oreign relations% A drastic re#ormlation o# pblic policy) there#ore) re'ires either
massi"e continos spport or the elimination o# the competiti"e rles% +ther!ise) the party in
go"ernment #inds its position de#ined largely by the !ay it responds to isses !hich arise dring
its tenre% Ths) the #ormlators o# the party6s position mst consist largely o# its elected leaders
and its administrati"e corps% Althogh parties ot o# po!er presmably ha"e greater #reedom in
de#ining their stands) they also mst respond to the go"ernment and to the isses as they arise)
and allo! pblic o##icials the ma>or role%
Parties !hich go"ern in coalitions) ho!e"er) can more easily de"elop a re#ined ideological
position than can parties !hich mst go"ern alone% The e$tent to !hich a party can be held
responsible #or go"ernment a##ects its ability to retain or to de#ine a stand independent o# the
go"ernment% In coalitions !here the go"erning responsibility is shared or obscre) parties can
go"ern and retain a doctrine !hich has little relation to the go"erning e$perience%
Communication
As in any organi&ation) commnication is critical to all aspects o# party acti"ity% Hery little)
ho!e"er) is *no!n abot this contribtion% Aistorically) ne!spapers !ere closely associated !ith
the gro!th o# parties) and party ne!spapers are still common) especially in Erope% 5t there
ha"e also de"eloped independent ne!s media !hich collect and disseminate in#ormation "ital to
the party% :or e$ample) pblic opinion polls pro"ide in#ormation on "oter attitdes #ar more reliable
than the reports o# party !or*ers? yet more o#ten than not) the polls are condcted and reported
by media otside the party6s control% An important party acti"ity) there#ore) consists o# a##ecting the
in#ormation !hich independent ne!s media report% FSeeCommnication) Political%G
Technical services
The nclear organi&ation can se many technical contribtions% Periodic contact !ith the
electorate) 'ite apart #rom testing their sentiment) is se#l in *eeping trac* o# the party6s
spporters% E"ery campaign creates a srge o# possible tas*s #or !hich "olnteers mst be
recrited% Each party a##air) rally) or co##ee hor in"ol"es bringing together as many people as
possible to gi"e the appearance that the party en>oys poplar spport% +n election day itsel#)
there are many things !hich an organi&ation can do to ma*e sre that the committed "oter gets
to the polls and has his "ote tallied% The 5ritish parties ha"e career sta##s !hich assign
pro#essional agents to constitencies? in this sense the agent is independent o# the candidate%
Characteristically) in American parties technical contribtions are made by small permanent sta##s
!hich blossom dring the campaign% Sch pro#essional sta## members e$hibit no tendency to
de"elop a sense o# direction independent o# party leaders% They gain in#lence in their relations
!ith associational or pblic leaders o# the party) not as a separate breacracy%
Money
Since se#l ser"ices are by no means all "olntary) money is a prime contribtion to the nclear
organi&ation% Money represents instant organi&ation by helping to satis#y the periodic need to
e$pand acti"ities rapidly% The acti"e ncles) there#ore) pts mch e##ort into gathering money%
Money may come in small amonts #rom many people% In addition to pro"iding #nds) the small
contribtion also ser"es to rein#orce poplar identi#ication !ith the party% The small contribtion
may also be sed to clari#y party membership !hen it is reglari&ed in the #orm o# des% This
procedre is common in Eropean parties and is not n*no!n in ma>or American state
organi&ations) e%g%) in @isconsin and Michigan% :ear o# the corrpting in#lence o# money has led
to the #ormlation o# legal restraints in se"eral contries on the amont and sorces o# money) as
!ell as on the amonts that can be spent in a campaign% Ne"ertheless) the conse'ences o#
money) either in directing party policy or in a##ecting elections) are hard to e"alate% FSeepolitical
#inancing%G
Party effectiveness
It is di##iclt to assess the impact o# any o# the connecti"e contribtions pon the #ate o# the
political party or the otcome o# the electoral process% The e##ects o# the acti"ities o# parties are
srronded by an e"en higher le"el o# ncertainty than those o# other organi&ations% The only test
o# e##ecti"eness is !hether or not a party !ins o##ice% 5t it is seldom clear !hether "ictory or
de#eat is de to the party6s decisions) the decisions o# its opponents) or e"en to the decision o#
some #oreign go"ernment o"er !hich the party can ha"e no possible means o# control%
Ne"ertheless) as long as a party remains a "iable competitor !ithin the party system) it attracts
resorces% Any party !ith a reasonable chance at o##ice !ill attract those !ith an interest in o##ice%
The greater the e$pectations o# "ictory) the more attracti"e the party becomes to indi"idals and
to interest grops concerned !ith the actions o# go"ernment% Ths) dominant parties o#ten
become holding companies #or competing political #actions and interest grops? the Indian
Congress party) the Israeli Mapai) and the 4emocratic party in the American Soth are good
e$amples%
+n the other hand) parties !hose chances #or o##ice are small tend to attract those !hose goals
are not the goal o# o##ice% The disa##ected or grops !hose limited ob>ecti"es can be attained
throgh the in#lence o# a minor organi&ation gra"itate to!ard minority parties% Indeed) the ma>or
danger to minority parties is their attraction #or participants !ho ha"e a "ested interest in
preser"ing a party6s minority stats% In order #or a political organi&ation to become or to remain a
tre political party) it mst respond or adapt to the strctre o# political opportnities%
Koseph A% Schlesinger
nternational Encyclopedia o# the Social Sciences L -.3J L Copyrig