Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on how political parties are formed
Essay on how political parties are formed
The rise of political parties
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on how political parties are formed
Political parties have been in a declining state in recent political evolution and has provoked numerous discussions/arguments whether the political parties have been indeed in such a state or whether they have been simply restructuring their organisational and/or ideological principles to withstand certain challenges. Several theories were introduced/developed in the recent years so as to distinguish the “ideal” behavioural type of political party development. The most renowned “ideal” party types are the cadre party type, the mass party type (Duverger, 1954) and the catch-all party type (Kirchheimer, 1966). Nevertheless, a recent theory regarding party types proposed initially by Richard Katz and Peter Mair (1995) was the “Cartel Party” which also drew a lot of academic interest. The “Cartel Party” is a new model of political party development suggested by Richard Katz & Peter Mair (1995) as the last decades the electoral support and partisanship levels have been decreasing substantially, while voter volatility increased; thus political parties began to seek state subsidies and other much needed resources directly through the state, in order to secure “control” of the electoral rules, subsidies from the state and the media as well. Concomitantly, political parties allegedly employ their domination power to even “control” which new political parties may join the “cartel”, and which are left out of the equation. However, this new prospect within the political parties’ mechanism, ultimately alters their organisational and ideological principles, thus in this way give rise to the so-called “Cartel Parties”. In short, the theory of Cartelisation over the political parties suggested by Katz & Mair propose that political parties progre...
... middle of paper ...
...al parties are indeed increasingly state-dependent and are even more dependent on public funding since it is a fact that voter-participation is declining, thus they need to exploit any benefits that can be attained to their favour. The oligopolistic notion is sought after by many units within societies, including political parties, but I believe that due to the “control” practiced by the respective institutions in each social sector, it is difficult to promote it (oligopoly) unless these institutions “allow” it to evolve which then would form not only Cartel Parties, but a state-wide cartelisation.
Works Cited
Ashton, Matthew Boyd. An Exploration and Critique of Katz and Mair's Cartel Party Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel_party_theory http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/13410/the-katz-mair-koole-debate-about-cartel-parties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel
In his depiction of the political parties, Rauch proclaims “there no longer is any such thing as a party leader. There are only individual actors, pursuing their own political interest and ideological missions willy-nilly.” Rauch points out, that political parties rely on the institutions that support and fund their political efforts. This comes in the form of financial backing for campaigns, support for important policy issues, and help to maintain the social hierarchy found within political parties. Rauch expresses his concern, that when political actors begin to take matters into their own hands, we begin to see rogues acting in their own
There are two ways to get rid of the causes of factions, or political parties. The first way of removing these causes is to destroy the liberty essential to their existence. The second way to get rid of the causes is to give everyone the exact same o...
There has been much speculation whether political parties have become too strong in American politics and if that is a good or bad thing. My belief is that political party power in the United States is just about right where I believe that there are some instances where political parties have been in situations where they have too much power and instances where it is moderate. First off, political parties are crucial to our democratic government because it is composed of a group of people that the constituents elect to represent their issues or achieve a common goal. Being part of a group that shares your common interests or goals is more powerful than tackling an issue by your self. It gives you more voice and power in government. Also, political
In conclusion, it is for sure that the competitive party systems give a plenty of advantages in case of the improvements in the political, economic and civic welfares. But the modern party competition is not based solely on the ideology competition in many states, particularly in those developed countries with the long-standing democracies (USA, UK, most European countries). The facts in support of this argument are next: the changing proportion of mass-cadre parties, globalization, the increasing role of mass media, the domination of the middle class. In this essay the definition of the party, party systems was provided. The arguments for the main conclusion were represented and discussed in detail what resulted in the aforementioned conclusion.
Though he is aware that these parties are likely to grow, he advises that “wise people” (Washington, 1796) will discourage it. He cautions that in promoting political parties the danger arises of one party seeking the upper hand and that it ignites animosity at the expense of the public.
In the 1790s, soon after the ratification of the Constitution, political parties were nonexistent in the USA because President Washington feared they would drive the country apart. However, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, with their rivalling mental models, could not help but spark the division of the United States into the Democratic-Republican and Federalist parties. These parties, the Democratic-Republican wanting a small, local government system and the Federalist wanting a strong, powerful government system, turned citizens against one another and eventually led to the inimical Democratic and Republican parties of today. Hence, the formation of the original political parties in the United States is very significant. Political
system produces conflicts between the Congress and the President and promotes very outdated beliefs that stem from the Constitution. A vast majority of the American population has the stern belief that the Constitution does not need to be changed in any way, shape, or form. This belief, however, is keeping the country from progressing along with other countries around the world. These single parties are holding control of multiple branches of government at once and monopolizing the power during their respective terms. The government “faces an incapacity to govern since each party works as a majority party” and believes there is no reason for innovation (Dulio & Thurber, 2000). The two parties are seemingly always clashing about one thing or the other, making it difficult for things to get accomplished, and proves the thesis correct that the two-party system is ineffective for a growing country.
In discussing the problems surrounding the issue of factionalism in American society, James Madison concluded in Federalist #10, "The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects." (Federalist Papers 1999, 75) In many ways, the nature of American politics has revolved around this question since our country's birth. What is the relationship between parties and government? Should the party serve as an intermediary between the populace and government, and how should a government respond to disparate ideas espoused by the factions inherent to a free society. This paper will discuss the political evolution that has revolved around this question, examining different "regimes" and how they attempted to reconcile the relationship between power and the corresponding role of the people. Beginning with the Federalists themselves, we will trace this evolution until we reach the contemporary period, where we find a political climate described as "interest-group liberalism." Eventually this paper will seek to determine which has been the most beneficial, and which is ultimately preferable.
The breakdown of the second party system was also a reason for the outbreak of the Civil War. In the early 1850’s the Whig party disintegrated, the second party system collapsed and the Republican Party emerged to challenge the Democrats. Southern Revisionists have argued that the collapse of the Union had been preceded by the collapse of the 2nd party system and that the Whig disappeared only to re-emerge as the new Republican party in 1854 supported by nativist Know-Nothing votes. They have also argued that politicians created this tension on purpose to advance their careers, but by doing so they made the 2nd party system collapse. However recent historians, such as Hugh Tulloch, contradict this view by arguing that there is no one single
The Two Party System of UK It has often been said that the United Kingdom possesses a two party political system. However, any balanced argument on this issue must take into account both the differing perspectives from which this subject can be viewed and the time period which is being evaluated. The two party theory is not universally accepted and many people argue that the UK can best be described as a multi party, dominant party or even a two and a half or three party system, depending on how the subject is approached. The most commonly held view is that Britain is a two party system.
The pluralistic scholar David Truman notes that “the proliferation of political interest groups [is] a natural and largely benign consequence of economic development” (Kernell 2000, 429). That is, as American economic development increases, in the form of industry, trade, and technology, factions are produced in order to protect special interests. Factions have a large platform on which to find support from various political parties, committees, subcommittees, and the courts, as well as federal, state, and local governments (Kernell 2000, 429).
Today, political parties can be seen throughout everyday life, prevalent in various activities such as watching television, or seeing signs beside the road while driving. These everyday occurrences make the knowledge of political parties commonly known, especially as the two opposing political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. Republican and Democrats have existed for numerous years, predominantly due to pure tradition, and the comfort of the ideas each party presents. For years, the existence of two political parties has dominated the elections of the president, and lower offices such as mayor, or the House of Representatives. Fundamentally, this tradition continues from the very emergence of political parties during the election of 1796, principally between Federalist John Adams and Anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson. Prior to this election people unanimously conformed to the ideas of one man, George Washington, and therefore did not require the need for political parties.1 However, following his presidency the public was divided with opposing opinions, each arguing the best methods to regulate the country. Ultimately, the emergence of different opinions regarding the future of the United States involving the economy, foreign relations, ‘the masses,’ and the interpretation of the Constitution, led to the two political parties of the 1790s and the critical election of 1800.
. The constitutional heritage of former regimes, in which public resources have been widely utilized to obtain sustenance of backing networks causing the complication of administrative processing, influences the political landscape of the state after democratization (Gee, 2015, p. 42). Different types of backing and clientelism prevail across the political system and administrative procedures, as proved by yielding and acquisition operations being frequently adjusted on the basis of individual relations. Moreover, the elevating level of dependency on costs for political crusades has developed opportunities for political corruption and state seizure, especially at the local level (Strachan, 2014a, p. 12). Thus, the facts demonstrate that elevated levels of costs of political crusades and campaigns stimulate lawmakers and members of councils of provincial and district
... fallen out of favour with the people. It has been demonstrated that the fall in support for traditional parties has not had any negative impact on the previously smaller parties. Membership statistics also indicate the rapid decline in traditional parties, again highlighting that the electorate's demands may be better addressed in other ways. A more clarified picture now remains of the political landscape in relation to the terminal decline of traditional parties, and as to the British political system as a whole. Many points can be taken from this, but the one thing that should be noted is that the decline of the traditional parties may not be such an issue as previously presumed. This may be the people asking for change, thus in order to gain the support they once had, the traditional parties must begin to take note, or else face many unprosperous years ahead.
A definition of a political party is not a dogma and can vary widely. According to Elmer Eric Schattschneider, “a political party is first of all an organized attempt to get power. Power is here defined as control of the government. That is the objective of party organization. The fact that the party aims at control of the government as a whole distinguishes it from pressure groups” (Schattschneider, 1942, p. 35). At the same time Giovanny Sartori describes party as: “any political group identified by an official label that presents it at elections, and is capable of placing through election… candidates for public office” (Sartori, 1976, p. 63). A “responsible” political party is an organized group of people sharing the same ideology, similar opinions and viewpoints, united by common values and goals and