Abstract
This chapter aims to provide a review of how intraparty democracy and intraparty authoritarianism are explained so far. It first provides the definition, and second reviews the macro- and micro-level causes of these two power structures. Finally, the chapter evaluates the limitations of the literature in understanding intraparty authoritarianism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Ingrid van Biezen, “On the Internal Balance of Party Power: Party Organizations in New Democracies,” Party Politics 6 (2000): 395–418.
See Mair, “Party Organizations: From Civil Society to the State,” and Richard S. Katz, “The Problem of Candidate Selection and Models of Party Democracy,” Party Politics 7 (2001): 277–96.
Some classical studies that follow this argument are Michels, Political Paries; Duverger, Political Parties; Mosei Ostrogorski, Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties (New York: Macmillan, 1902);
Vilfredo Pareto, The Rise and Fall of the Elites: An Application of Theoretical Sociology (New York: Arno Press, 1979);
Max Weber, Economy and Society, trans. Guenther Roth et al. (New York: Bedminster Press, 1968).
James Jupp, Political Parties (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1968), 58; Katz, “The Problem of Candidate Selection,” 277.
See also Schattschneider, Party Government and Otto Kirchheimer, “The Transformation of the Western European Party Systems,” in Political Parties and Political Development, ed. Myron Weiner et al. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966).
See Lawrence LeDuc, “Democratizing Party Leadership Selection,” Party Politics 7 (2001): 323 and William Cross and Andre Blais, “Who Selects the Party Leader,” Party Politics (2011). Accessed February 10, 2011. doi:10.1177/1354068810382935
Meg Russell, Building New Labour: The Politics of Party Organisation (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
Anika Gauja, “The Pitfalls of Participatory Democracy: A Study of the Australian Democrats” GST,” Australian Journal of Political Science 40 (2005): 71–85.
Vicky Randall and Lars Svasand, “Party Institutionalization in New Democracies,” Party Politics 8 (2002): 10.
See Katz and Mair, “Changing Models of Party Organization”; Koole, “Cadre, Catch-All or Cartel?”; Kitschelt, “Citizens, Politicians, and Party Cartelization”; Katz, “The Problem of Candidate Selection;;”; Mark Blyth and Richard S. Katz, “From Catch-All Politics to Cartelization: The Political Economy of the Cartel Party,” West European Politics 28 (2005): 33–60;
Lars Bille, “Democratizing a Democratic Procedure: Myth or Reality?: Candidate Selection in Western European Parties, 1960–1990,” Party Politics 7 (2001): 363–380.
Russell J. Dalton, and Martin P. Wattenberg, eds., Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000);
Gunther and Diamond, “Species of Political Parties: A New Typology;” Richard Gunther, et al. eds., Political parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002);
Tomas Kostelecky, Political Parties After Communism: Developments in East-Central Europe (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002);
and Aleks Szczerbiak, Poles Together? The Emergence and Development of Political Parties in Post-Communist Poland (Budapest: Centra l European University, 2001).
Richard S. Katz and Peter Mair, “Party Organization, Party Democracy and the Emergence of the Cartel Party,” in Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations, ed. by Peter Mair (Oxford University Press, 1997), 93–119.
Duverger, Political Parties; Kirchheimer, “The Transformation of the Western European Party Systems”; Angelo Panebianco, Political Parties: Organization and Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); Katz and Mair, “Changing Models of Party Organization”; and Koole, “Cadre, Catch-All or Cartel?”
Andre Krouwell, “Party Models,” in Handbook of Political Parties, ed. by Richard S. Katz et Al. (London: Sage Publications, 2006), 253.
Sigmund Neumann, “Towards a Comparative Study of Political Parties,” in Modern Political Parties: Approaches to Comparative Politics, ed. by Sigmund Neumann (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1956), 395–421;
Galen A. Irwin, “The Netherlands,” in Western European Party Systems: Trends and Prospects, ed. By Peter H. Merkl (New York: Free Press, 1980), 170;
and Alexander De Grand, “Giolitti and the Socialists,” in Italian Socialism, ed. by Spencer M. Di Scala (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1996), 28.
Darcy K. Leach, “The Iron Law of What Again? Conceptualizing Oligarchy Across Organizational Forms,” Sociological Theory 23 (2005): 326.
R. Kenneth Carty and William Cross, “Can Stratarchically Organized Parties be Democratic? The Canadian Case,” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 16 (2006): 94.
Alan Ware, Political Parties: Electoral Change and Structural Response (New York: Basil Blackwell, 1987);
and Richard Gunther and Anthony Mughan, eds. Democracy and the Media: A Comparative Perspective (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press), 2000.
This is contrary to the argument of Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan, “Cleavage Structure, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction,” in Party Systems and Voter Alignments, ed. by Seymour Martin Lipset et al. (New York: Free Press, 1967), 1–64.
According to Dahl, there are two dimensions of democratization: Inclusiveness and public contestation: When both dimensions are low in degree, then the political system is considered to be a “closed domination”; vice versa is considered as “polyarchy.” When inclusiveness is high and public contestation is low, the system is an “inclusive domination” and vice versa is “competitive oligarchy.” For an evaluation of Dahl’s arguments, see Ingrid van Biezen, Political Parties in New Democracies: Party Organization in Southern and East-Central Europe (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).
Richard Gunther and Larry Diamond, “Species of Political Parties: A New Typology,” Party Politics 9 (2003): 168.
Alan Ware, Political Parties and Party Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 139; Gunther and Diamond, “Species of Political Parties: A New Typology,” 173.
Martin Shefter, Political Parties and the State: The American Historical Experience (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 26–27.
Daniel Verdier, “The Politics of Public Aid to Private Industry: The Role of Policy Networks,” Comparative Political Studies 28 (1995): 2–42.
Simona Piattonied., Clientelism, Interests, and Democratic Representation: The European Experience in Historical and Comparative Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
Ingrid van Biezen, “On the Theory and Practice of Party Formation and Adaptation in New Democracies,” European Journal of Political Research 44 (2005): 165.
Nicole Bolleyer, “Inside the Cartel Party: Party Organization in Government and Opposition,” Political Studies 57 (2009): 559–579.
Zsolt Enyedi and Lukas Linek, “Searching for the Right Organization: Ideology and Party Structure in East-Central Europe,” Party Politics 14 (2008): 457–458.
Duverger, Political Parties, xxxiv–xxxvi. This argument is empirically validated by Kenneth Janda and Desmond S. King, “Formalizing and Testing Duverger’s Theories on Political Parties,” Comparative Political Studies 18 (1985): 139–69.
Herbert Kitschelt and Anthony J. McGann, The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis (Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press, 1997);
Herbert Kitschelt, The Logics of Party Formation: Ecological Politics in Belgium and West Germany (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1989).
Frank L. Wilson, “The Center-Right at the End of the Century,” in The European Center-Right at the End of the Twentieth Century, ed. Frank L. Wilson (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998), 251.
For the analysis of the role of motivations and personality on power relations, see, for instance, Arnold A. Rogow and Harold D. Laswell, “The Definition of Corruption,” in Political Corruption: Readings in Comparative Analysis, ed. A.J. Heidenheimer (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winstan, 1970);
and Dean K. Simonton, Psychology, Science, and History: An Introduction to Historiometry (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991).
See Robert F. Bales, Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups (Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1950);
John K. Hemphill and Alvin E. Coons, “Development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire,” in Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, ed. Ralph M. Stogdill et al. (Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1957);
and Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961).
James M. Burns, Leadership (New York: Harper & Row, 1978).
Bernard M. Bass, Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations (New York: Free Press, 1985).
Jane M. Howell and Bruce J. Avolio, “Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, Loss of Control, and Support for Innovation,” Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (1993): 891–902;
Boas Shamir, Robert J. House, and Michael B. Arthur, “The Motivational Effects of Charismatic: A Self-Concept Based Theory,” Organizational Science 4 (1993): 577–594.
Kurt Lewin and Robert Lippitt, “An Experimental Approach to the Study of Autocracy and Democracy: A Preliminary Note,” Sociometry 1 (1938): 292–300.
Victor H. Vroom and Philip W. Yetton, Leadership and Decision-Making (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973).
This situation is an example for what Parsons calls “the combinatorial decision-making process” in which the structure of restricted resources matches the structure of the system of interest-demands. See Talcott Parsons, “Power and the Social System,” in Power, ed. Steven Lukes (New York University Press: New York, 1986), 101.
Copyright information
© 2011 Pelin Ayan Musil
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Musil, P.A. (2011). Existing Explanations on Intraparty Authoritarianism. In: Authoritarian Party Structures and Democratic Political Setting in Turkey. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137015853_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137015853_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-34100-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-01585-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)