What causes the substantial differences in party membership and activism around the world, and the contrasts between Finland and France, Austria and Britain, not to speak of those between India and the Philippines, Uruguay and the Ukraine? As discussed in the Introduction, the process of societal modernization and the design of political institutions can be expected to influence patterns of party membership at the national level, while mobilizing agencies, social structure, and cultural attitudes are likely to prove important at the individual level.

Which Countries Have Mass Membership Parties?

National-level Models

We have already established that levels of societal modernization and human development have an important impact on patterns of electoral turnout around the world. For similar reasons, they can be expected to influence the number of people who choose to work for parties, with declining mass membership expected in the transition from developing to industrialized and postindustrial societies, despite the spread of democracy worldwide.

Theories of campaign modernization discussed earlier offer the most plausible reasons for this hypothesis. Poorer developing societies, such as India and the Dominican Republic, are characterized by low levels of literacy and minimal access to newspapers and television, so that traditional election campaigns in these countries are still based heavily upon forms of direct personal communication, such as traditional rallies, local get-out-the-vote drives, visual symbols and colorful posters, and door-to-door canvassing. In traditional campaigns, although radio remains an important form of broad-casting, party leaders need a volunteer army of helpers, neighbors, and local associations in order to contact voters and mobilize support through personal channels and social networks.