Advertisement

Acta Politica

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 167–183 | Cite as

Does intra-party democracy affect levels of trust in parties? The cases of Belgium and Israel

  • Yael Shomer
  • Gert-Jan Put
  • Einat Gedalya-Lavy
Original Article

Abstract

Previous research has shown a steady decline of citizen’s political trust and growing skepticism towards key institutions of representative democracy. Political parties, which perform the crucial role of linking citizens to the political system, are in the eye of the storm: citizens are generally more distrusting towards parties than other social and political institutions. The relevant literature mentions that parties often implement intra-party democratization to remedy party distrust. This article examines whether democratic candidate selection processes actually affect party trust among voters. The analysis is based on the cases of Belgium and Israel, where politicians made a strong case for intra-party democracy in recent history. The results indicate that, while inclusive selectorates indeed increase trust levels, decentralization decreases trust towards parties in both countries.

Keywords

Candidate selection Trust in parties Belgium Israel 

Notes

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Supplementary material

41269_2017_44_MOESM1_ESM.docx (296 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 296 kb)

References

  1. Bawn, K. 1993. The logic of institutional preferences: German electoral law as a social choice outcome. American Journal of Political Science 37 (4): 965–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benedetto, G., and S. Hix. 2007. The rejected, the ejected, and the dejected: Explaining government rebels in the 2001-2005 British House of Commons. Comparative Political Studies 40 (7): 755–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernardi, L., G. Sandri, and A. Seddone. 2016. Challenges of political participation and intra-party democracy: Bittersweet symphony from party membership and primary elections in Italy. Acta Politica Google Scholar
  4. Boix, C. 1999. Setting the rules of the game: The choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies. American Political Science Review 93 (3): 609–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cain, B., R.J. Dalton, and S. Scarrow (eds.). 2003. Democracy Transformed? The Expansion of Citizen Access in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Catterberg, G., and A. Moreno. 2005. The individual bases of political trust: Trends in new and established democracies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 18 (1): 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Channel 7. 2011. MK Ben-Ari: Only open primaries will restore the public’s trust. Chanel 7 report, 14 June, http://news.xoox.co.il/item_648777.htm. Accessed 5 May 2015.
  8. Cross, W. 1996. Direct election of provincial party leaders in Canada, 1985–1995: The end of the leadership convention? Canadian Journal of Political Science 29 (2): 295–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dalton, R.J. 1999. Political support in advanced industrial democracies. In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance, ed. P. Norris, 57–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dalton, R.J., and M. Wattenberg (eds.). 2000. Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dalton, R.J. 2004. Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dalton, R.J., and S.A. Weldon. 2005. Public images of political parties: A necessary evil? West European Politics 28 (5): 931–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Luca, M., M.P. Jones, and M.I. Tula. 2002. Back rooms or ballot boxes? Candidate nomination in Argentina. Comparative Political Studies 35 (4): 413–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Devos, C., and T. Verstraete. 2002. Valsheid in geschrifte? Over kieshervorming en inspraak. Samenleving en Politiek 10 (9): 4–12.Google Scholar
  15. Duverger, M. 1951. Les Partis Politiques. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar
  16. Easton, D. 1965. A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Gilliland, S.W. 1993. The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review 18 (4): 694–734.Google Scholar
  18. Greene, Z.D., and M. Haber. 2015. The consequences of appearing divided: An analysis of party evaluations and vote choice. Electoral Studies 37: 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harmel, R., and K. Janda. 1994. An integrated theory of party goals and party change. Journal f Theoretical Politics 6 (3): 259–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hazan, R.Y. 2002. Candidate Selection. In Comparing Democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting, ed. L. LeDuc, R.G. Niemi, and P. Norris, 108–126. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Hazan, R.Y., and G. Rahat. 2010. Democracy within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods and their Political Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hix, S. 2002. Parliamentary behavior with two principals: Preferences, parties, and voting in the European Parliament. American Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 688–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huang, M.H., Y.T. Chang, and Y.H. Chu. 2008. Identifying sources of democratic legitimacy: A multilevel analysis. Electoral Studies 27 (1): 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Katz, R.S. 2013. Should we believe that improved intra-party democracy would arrest party decline? In The Challenges of Intra-Party Democracy, eds. W.P. Cross and R.S. Katz. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kernell, G. 2013. Political party organizations, civic representation, and participation. In Representation: Elections and Beyond, ed. J.H. Nagel, and R.M. Smith, 114–136. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  27. Klingemann, H.D. 1999. Mapping political support in the 1990s: A global analysis. In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance, ed. P. Norris, 31–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lev, H. 2015. The New Likudniks Against Changing the System Chanel 7, April 26, http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/297250.
  29. Linde, J., and J. Ekman. 2003. Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics. European Journal of Political Research 42 (3): 391–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lundell, K. 2004. Determinants of candidate selection: The degree of centralization in comparative perspective. Party Politics 10 (1): 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matland, R.E., and D.T. Studlar. 1996. The contagion of women candidates in single member district and proportional representation electoral systems: Canada and Norway. The Journal of Politics 58 (3): 707–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller, A.H., and O. Listhaug. 1990. Political parties and confidence in government: A comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States. British Journal of Political Science 20 (3): 357–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller, A.H., and O. Listhaug. 1999. Political performance and institutional trust. In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government, ed. P. Norris, 204–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mishler, W., and R. Rose. 2005. What are the political consequences of trust? A test of cultural and institutional theories in Russia. Comparative Political Studies 38 (9): 1050–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mishler, W., and R. Rose. 2001. What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies 34 (1): 30–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Newton, K., and P. Norris. 2000. Confidence in public institutions: Faith, culture, or performance? In Disaffected Democracies: What's Troubling the Trilateral Countries, eds. S.J. Pharr and R.D. Putnam, 52–73. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Norris, P. (ed.). 1999. Critical Citizens: Global confidence in Democratic Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Norris, P. 2004. Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. O’brien, D.Z., and Y. Shomer. 2013. A cross-national analysis of party switching. Legislative Studies Quarterly 39 (1): 111–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pennings, P., and R.Y. Hazan. 2001. Democratizing candidate selection causes and consequences. Party Politics 7 (3): 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pilet, J.B., and W. Cross (eds.). 2014. The Selection of Political Party Leaders in Contemporary Parliamentary Democracies: A Comparative Study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Put, G.J. 2015. Determinants of geographical representation on candidate lists in flexible-list systems: Lessons from the Belgian case. Politics 36 (2): 180–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rahat, G., and R.Y. Hazan. 2001. Candidate selection methods: An analytical framework. Party Politics 7 (3): 297–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ryan, A.M., and R.E. Ployhart. 2000. Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management 26 (3): 565–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sandri, G., and A. Amjahad. 2015. Party membership and Intra-party democracy: How do members react to organizational change within political parties? The case of Belgium. The Open Journal of Sociopolitical Studies 8 (1): 190–214.Google Scholar
  46. Scarrow, S.E. 2005. Political Parties and Democracy in Theoretical and Practical Perspectives: Implementing Intra-Party Democracy Washington DC: National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.Google Scholar
  47. Scarrow, S.E. 1999. Parties and the expansion of direct democracy: Who benefits? Party Politics 5 (3): 341–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shapira, A., O. Kenig, and R. Itzkovitch-Malka. 2010. Intra-party democracy: theory and practice in Israel’s party law. Working paper by the Israel Democracy Institute.Google Scholar
  49. Shomer, Y. 2009. Candidate selection procedures, seniority, and vote-seeking behavior. Comparative Political Studies 42 (7): 945–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shomer, Y. 2014. What affects candidate selection processes? A cross-national examination. Party Politics 20 (4): 533–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shomer, Y., Put, G.J., and Gedalya-Lavy, E. (2016) Intra-Party Politics and Public Opinion: How Candidate Selection Processes Affect Citizens’ Satisfaction with Democracy. Political Behavior 38 (3): 509–534.Google Scholar
  52. Sieberer, U. 2006. Party unity in parliamentary democracies: A comparative analysis. The Journal of Legislative Studies 12 (2): 150–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scarrow, S.E., P. Webb, and D.M. Farrell. 2000. From social integration to electoral contestation: The changing distribution of power within political parties. In Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, ed. R.J. Dalton, and M.P. Wattenberg, 129–153. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Slomczynski, K.M., and K. Janicka. 2009. Structural determinants of trust in public institutions: Cross-national differentiation. International Journal of Sociology 39 (1): 8–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tavits, M. 2012. Organizing for success: Party organizational strength and electoral performance in Postcommunist Europe. The Journal of Politics 74 (1): 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Biezen, I., P. Mair, and T. Poguntke. 2012. Going, going,… gone? The decline of party membership in contemporary Europe. European Journal of Political Research 51 (1): 24–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van der Brug, W. 2004. Issue ownership and party choice. Electoral Studies 23 (2): 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van der Meer, T. 2010. In what we trust? A multi-level study into trust in parliament as an evaluation of state characteristics. International Review of Administrative Sciences 76 (3): 517–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van der Meer, T., and P. Dekker. 2011. Trustworthy States, Trusting Citizens? A multilevel study into objective and subjective determinants of political trust. In Political Trust. Why Context Matters, ed. S. Zmerli, and M. Hooghe, 95–116. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  60. Van Haute, E., and A. Gauja. 2015. Party Members and Activists. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Vegetti, F. 2014. From political conflict to partisan evaluations: How citizens assess party ideology and competence in polarized elecitons. Electoral Studies 35: 230–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Verleden, F. 2013. De toegang tot de parlementaire elite. Politieke rekrutering en lijstvorming in België in historisch perspectief. Paper Presented at the Dutch-Belgian Politicologenetmaal, Ghent, 30-31 May.Google Scholar
  63. Verter, Y. (1997). Likud Ministers are Angry: Netanyahu Deceived Us. Haaretz November 12, http://old.haaretz.co.il/arch/objects/pages/ArchPrintArticpel.jhtml.

Copyright information

© CCBY 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceTel-Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Public Governance InstituteUniversity of LeuvenLouvainBelgium

Personalised recommendations