Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T11:39:51.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Democratic Partisanship: From Theoretical Ideal to Empirical Standard

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2017

LISE ESTHER HERMAN
LISE ESTHER HERMAN*
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
*
Lise Esther Herman is Teaching Fellow in Political Science, Sciences Po Paris, 28, rue des Saints-Pères, 75007 Paris. The bulk of the research for this article was completed while a PhD Candidate at the London School of Economics and Political Science. (lise.herman@sciencespo.fr)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years, a number of scholars have taken parties and partisanship as objects of normative theorizing. They posit partisanship as a fundamentally democratic practice and develop a model of what partisans can do at their best to contribute to liberal democracy. However, the standards the literature puts forth remain insufficiently specified to serve as empirical benchmarks. This article further conceptualizes this model of democratic partisanship and offers a theoretical framework within which to empirically evaluate the democratic merits of partisan discourses. It establishes a series of indicators for assessing the extent to which partisan discourse displays two main qualities: cohesiveness and respect for political pluralism. The article then discusses the implications of using this theoretical framework as a basis for empirical studies and shows how the model can thereby benefit both political scientists and theorists.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 111 , Issue 4 , November 2017 , pp. 738 - 754
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I thank Russell Muirhead for encouraging me to write this article in the first place, as well as Jonathan White, Abby Innes, Elise Rouméas, Jean-Paul Herman, and James Muldoon for their useful comments at different steps of the process. A previous version of the article benefited from presentation at the 2016 Association for Social and Political Philosophy (ASPP) General Conference. I also gratefully acknowledge the excellent comments received from four anonymous reviewers and the APSR co-editors.

References

REFERENCES

Adam, Silke, and Maier, Michaela. 2010. “Personalization of Politics: A Critical Review and Agenda for Research.” In Communication yearbook 34, ed. Salmon, Charles. London: Routledge, 213–57.Google Scholar
Allern, Elin H., and Pedersen, Karina. 2007. “The Impact of Party Organisational Changes on Democracy.” West European Politics 30 (1): 68–92. doi: 10.1080/01402380601019688.Google Scholar
American Political Science Association. 1950. “Towards a More Responsible Two-Party Government.” The American Political Science Review 44 (3): 1–96. doi: 10.2307/1950999.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Iyengar, Shanto. 1995. Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Iyengar, Shanto, Simon, Adam, and Valentino, Nicholas. 1994. “Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?” The American Political Science Review 88 (4): 829–38.Google Scholar
Bevir, Mark, and Rhodes, R. A. W.. 2010. The State as Cultural Practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Chris J., and Invernizzi, Carlo Accetti. 2015. “Populism and Technocracy: Opposites or Complements?” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.Google Scholar
Bonotti, Matteo. 2011. “Conceptualising Political Parties: A Normative Framework.” Politics 31 (1): 19–26.Google Scholar
Bonotti, Matteo. 2012. “Partisanship and Political Obligation.” Politics 32 (3): 153–61.Google Scholar
Bonotti, Matteo. 2014. “Partisanship and Public Reason.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 17 (3): 314–31. doi: 10.1080/13698230.2014.886381.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund. 1990 [1770].“Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents.” In Select Works of Edmund Burke, eds. Payne, E. J.. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Casal Bértoa, Fernando, and Mair, Peter. 2010. “Two Decades on: How Institutionalized are the Post-Communist Party Systems?.” EUI Working Article 3.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 2010. “Theories of Political Justification.” Philosophy Compass 5 (11): 893–903. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00344.x.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James. 2007. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies.” American Political Science Review 101 (101): 637–55.Google Scholar
Crouch, Colin. 2004. Post-democracy, Themes for the 21st century. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Daalder, Hans. 2002. “Parties: Denied, Dismissed, or Redundant? A Critique.” In Political Parties Old Concepts and New Challenges, eds. Gunther, Richard, Montero, José R. and Linz, Juan J.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert Alan. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory, Charles R. Walgreen Foundation Lectures. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell J., Flanagan, Scott C., Beck, Paul Allen, and Alt, James E., eds. 1984. Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies : Realignment or Dealignment? Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell J., and Wattenberg, Martin P.. 2000. Parties Without Partisans : Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, Comparative Politics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Leon, Cedric, Desai, Manali, and Tuğal, Cihan, eds. 2015. Building Blocs: How Parties Organize Society. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Della Porta, Donatella, and Rucht, Dieter. 2013. Meeting Democracy: Power and Deliberation in Global Justice Movements. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Della Porta, Donatella, and Tarrow, Sidney G., eds. 2004. Transnational Protest and Global Activism, People, Passions, and Power. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Disch, Lisa. 2011. “Toward a Mobilization Conception of Democratic Representation.” American Political Science Review 105 (01): 100–14.Google Scholar
Dovi, Suzanne Lynn. 2007. The Good Representative. Malden MA: Blackwell Pub.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects.” American Political Science Review 98 (4): 671–86.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S., and Holmes, Leslie. 2002. Post-Communist Democratization: Political Discourses Across Thirteen Countries, Theories of Institutional Design. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eckstein, Harry. 1961. A Theory of Stable Democracy. Princeton: Center of International Studies.Google Scholar
Enyedi, Zsolt. 2005. “The Role of Agency in Cleavage Formation.” European Journal of Political Research 44: 697–720.Google Scholar
Evans, Geoffrey, and Tilley, James. 2012. “How Parties Shape Class Politics: Explaining the Decline of the Class Basis of Party Support.” British Journal of Political Science 42 (01): 137–61. doi: 10.1017/S0007123411000202.Google Scholar
Foa, Roberto Stefan, and Mounk, Yascha. 2016. “The Democratic Disconnect.” Journal of Democracy 27 (3): 5–17.Google Scholar
Freeze, Kent E., and Kitschelt, Herbert. 2010. “Programmatic Party System Structuration: Developing and Comparing Cross-National and Cross-Party Measures with a New Global Data Set.” APSA 2010 Annual Meeting Article.Google Scholar
Fung, Archon. 2012. “Continuous Institutional Innovation and the Pragmatic Conception of Democracy.” Polity 44 (4): 609–24. doi: 10.1057/pol.2012.17.Google Scholar
Fung, Archon, and Wright, Erik Olin, eds. 2003. Deepening Democracy, Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Galston, William A. 2002. Liberal Pluralism: The Implications of Value Pluralism for Political Theory and Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Galston, William A. 2005. The Practice of Liberal Pluralism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Galston, William A. 2013. “The Common Good: Theoretical Content, Practical Utility.” Dædalus 142 (2): 9–14.Google Scholar
Gamson, William A. 1992. Talking Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, John, and Yesnowitz, Joshua. 2006. “A Normative Turn in Political Science?” Polity 38 (1): 101–33. doi: 10.2307/3877092.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2008. “The Place of Parties.” In Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice After the Deliberative Turn, ed. Goodin, Robert E.. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis F.. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge Mass: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis F.. 2010. “The Mindsets of Political Compromise.” Perspectives on Politics 8 (4): 1125–43.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis F.. 2012. The Spirit of Compromise : Why Governing Demands it and Campaigning Undermines it. Oxford, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A., and Taylor, Rosemary C. R.. 1996. “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms.” Political Studies 44 (5): 936–57.Google Scholar
Haughton, Tim, and Fisher, Sharon. 2008. “From the Politics of State-Building To Programmatic Politics.” Party Politics 14 (4): 435–54. doi: 10.1177/1354068808090254.Google Scholar
Hay, Colin. 2007. Why We Hate Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heidar, Knut. 2006. “Party Membership and Participation.” In Handbook of Party Politics, eds. Katz, Richard S. and Crotty, William J.. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Herman, Lise E. 2016. “Re-evaluating the Post-Communist Success Story: Party Elite Loyalty, Citizen Mobilization and the Erosion of Hungarian Democracy.” European Political Science Review 8 (2): 251–84.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Richard. 1969. The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780–1840. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kateb, George. 1981. “The Moral Distinctiveness of Representative Democracy.” Ethics 91 (3): 357–74.Google Scholar
Katz, Richard S. 2006. “Party in Democratic Theory.” In Handbook of Party Politics, eds. Katz, Richard S. and Crotty, William J.. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Katz, Richard S., and Mair, Peter. 2009. “The Cartel Party Thesis: A Restatement.” Perspectives on Politics 7 (4): 753–66.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 2006. “Parties and Political intermediation.” In The Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology, eds. Nash, Kate and Scott, Alan. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 2010. “The Comparative Analysis of Electoral and Partisan Politics: A Comment on a Special Issue of West European Politics.” West European Politics 33 (3): 659–72.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert, Markowski, Radoslaw, Mansfeldova, Zdenka, and Toka, Gabor. 1999. Post-Communist Party Systems: Competition, Representation, and Inter-Party Cooperation. ed. Kitschelt, Herbert, Cambridge studies in comparative politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert, and Smyth, Regina. 2002. “Programmatic Party Cohesion in Emerging Postcommunist Democracies: Russia in Comparative Context.” Comparative Political Studies 35 (10): 1228–56. doi: 10.1177/001041402237949.Google Scholar
Lefort, Claude. 1988. Democracy and Political Theory. Cambridge: Polity in association with Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mair, Peter. 2003. “Political Parties and Democracy: What Sort of Future.” Central European Political Science Review 4 (13): 6–20.Google Scholar
Mair, Peter. 2006. “Ruling the Void? The Hollowing of Western Democracy.” New Left Review 42: 25–51.Google Scholar
Mair, Peter. 2013. “Smaghi versus the Parties: Representative Government and Institutional constraints.” In Politics in the Age of Austerity, eds. Schäfer, Armin and Streeck, Wolfgang. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” The American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515–28.Google Scholar
Marlière, Philippe. 2007. La mémoire socialiste 1905–2007, Sociologie du souvenir politique en milieu partisan. Paris: L'Harmattan.Google Scholar
May, John D. 1973. “Opinion Structure of Political Parties: The Special Law of Curvilinear Disparity.” Political Studies 21: 135–51.Google Scholar
Miller, William, White, Stephen, and Heywood, Paul. 1997. Values and Political Change in Postcommunist Europe. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 2000. The Democratic Paradox. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Muirhead, Russell. 2006. “A Defense of Party Spirit.” Perspectives on Politics 4 (4): 713–27.Google Scholar
Muirhead, Russell. 2014. The Promise of Party in a Polarized Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Muirhead, Russell, and Rosenblum, Nancy L.. 2006. “Political Liberalism vs. “The Great Game of Politics”: The Politics of Political Liberalism.” Perspectives on Politics 4 (01): 99–108.Google Scholar
Muirhead, Russell, and Rosenblum, Nancy L.. 2012. “The partisan connection.” The Circuit 38: 99–112.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa, ed. 1999. Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 2002. Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 2007 [1970].“Recent Theories of Democracy and the ‘Classical Myth’.” In Democracy: Critical Concepts in Political Science, ed. Saward, Michael. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Plattner, Marc F., and Diamond, Larry Jay, eds. 1996. The Global Resurgence of Democracy. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Poguntke, Thomas. 2002. “Party Organizational Linkage: Parties without Firm Social Roots?” In Political Parties in the New Europe: Political and Analytical Challenges, eds. Luther, Kurt Richard and Müller-Rommel, Ferdinand. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 1999. “Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense.” In Democracy's Value, eds. Shapiro, Ian and Hacker-Cordón, Casiano. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rokkan, Stein, and Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1967. Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives , International Yearbook of Political Behavior Research. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Romer, Dan, Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Cappella, Joseph N.. 2000. “Does Attack Advertising Affect Turnout?” In Everything you think you know about Politics – and why you're Wrong, eds. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Rosenblum, Nancy L., ed. 1989. Liberalism and the Moral Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenblum, Nancy L. 1998. Membership and Morals: The Personal Uses of Pluralism in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenblum, Nancy L. 2008. On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenblum, Nancy L. 2014. “Partisanship and Independence: The Peculiar Moralism of American Politics.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 17 (3): 267–88. doi: 10.1080/13698230.2014.886385.Google Scholar
Ryn, Claes G. 1978. Democracy and the Ethical Life: A Philosophy of Politics and Community. Baton Rouge: Baton Rouge : Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Saldaña, Johnny. 2013. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 2nd ed. London, UK: SAGE.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 2005 [1976]. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. ed. Mair, Peter. Colchester: ECPR Classics. Original edition, 1976.Google Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2009. “Authorisation and Authenticity: Representation and the Unelected.” Journal of Political Philosophy 17 (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2010. The Representative Claim. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scarrow, Susan E. 2006. “The Nineteenth-Century Origins of Modern Political Parties.” In Handbook of Party Politics, eds. Katz, Richard S. and Crotty, William J., 228–38. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, Elmer Eric. 2009 [1942]. Party Government, American Government in Action Series. New Brunswick: Transaction publishers.Google Scholar
Schmitter, Philippe C., and Karl, Terry Lynn. 1991. “What Democracy Is . . . and Is Not.” Journal Of Democracy 2 (3): 75–88.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph Alois. 1956 [1942]. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 2002. “Problems, Methods, and Theories in the Study of Politics, or What is Wrong with Political Science and what to do about it.” Political Theory 30 (4): 596–619.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian, and Green, Donald. 1994. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sikk, Allan. 2005. “How unstable? Volatility and the Genuinely New Parties in Eastern Europe.” European Journal of Political Research 44: 391–412.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 1973. “The Empirical Theorists of Democracy and Their Critics: A Plague on Both Their Houses.” Political Theory 1 (3): 287–306. doi: 10.2307/190588.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., and Theriault, Sean M.. 2004. “The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing.” In Studies in Public Opinion, eds. Saris, Willem E. and Sniderman, Paul M., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 133–65.Google Scholar
Steiner, Jürg, Bächtiger, André, Spörndli, Markus, and Steenbergen, Marco R.. 2004. Deliberative Politics in Action: Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse, Theories of Institutional Design. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Teorell, Jan. 1999. “A Deliberative Defence of Intra-Party Democracy.” Party Politics 5 (3): 363–82. doi: 10.1177/1354068899005003006.Google Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2000. “Representation as Advocacy: A Study of Democratic Deliberation.” Political Theory 28 (6): 758–86.Google Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2006. Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
van Biezen, Ingrid, and Saward, Michael. 2008. “Democratic Theorists and Party Scholars: Why They Don't Talk to Each Other, and Why They Should.” Perspectives of Politics 6 (1): 21–35.Google Scholar
van Biezen, Ingrid, and Poguntke, Thomas. 2014. “The Decline of Membership-Based Politics.” Party Politics 20 (2): 205–16. doi: 10.1177/1354068813519969.Google Scholar
van Haute, Emilie. 2011. “Party Membership: An Under-Studied Mode of Political Participation.” In Party Membership in Europe: Exploration into the Anthills of Party Politics, ed. van Haute, Emilie. Brussels: Éditions de l'Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
van Haute, Emilie, and Carty, R. Kenneth. 2012. “Ideological Misfits: A Distinctive Class of Party Members.” Party Politics 18 (6): 885–95. doi: 10.1177/1354068810395058.Google Scholar
Vassalo, Francesca, and Wilcox, Clyde. 2006. “Party as a Carrier of Ideas.” In Handbook of Party Politics, eds. Katz, Richard S. and Crotty, William J.. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 2002. “What Can Democratic Participation Mean Today?” Political Theory 30 (5): 677–701.Google Scholar
Weltman, David, and Billig, Michael. 2001. “The Political Psychology of Contemporary Anti-Politics: A Discursive Approach to the End-of-Ideology Era.” Political Psychology 22 (2): 367–82.Google Scholar
White, Jonathan. 2011. Political Allegiance After European Integration. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
White, Jonathan. 2014. “Transnational Partisanship: Idea and Practice.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 17 (3): 377–400. doi: 10.1080/13698230.2014.886386.Google Scholar
White, Jonathan. 2015. “The Party in Time.” British Journal of Political Science: 1–18. doi: 10.1017/S0007123415000265.Google Scholar
White, Jonathan, and Ypi, Léa. 2010. “Rethinking the Modern Prince: Partisanship and the Democratic Ethos.” Political Studies 58 (4): 809–28.Google Scholar
White, Jonathan, and Ypi, Léa. 2011. “On Partisan Political Justification.” American Political Science Review 105 (02): 381–96.Google Scholar
White, Jonathan, and Ypi, Léa. 2016. The Meaning of Partisanship. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolkenstein, Fabio. 2015. “A Deliberative Model of Intra-Party Democracy.” Journal of Political Philosophy 24 (3): 297–320. doi: 10.1111/jopp.12064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolkenstein, Fabio. 2016. “Deliberative Democracy within Political Parties.” PhD diss, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.