Pressure Groups

A group seeking to influence government policy or business activity to secure the

interests of their members and supporters.

Types

Single Cause

Focus on a particular issue:

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) attempt to reduce smoking and

encourage a whole society response against smoking

RSPB Seeking to promote welfare, care and protection of birds

London Cycling Campaign seeking to promote use of cycles in London and

the provision of safe cycle lanes and routes

Multi-Cause

Focus attention on a wider range of issues often under a generalised heading

e.g. the environment

Trade Unions seek to influence policy in relation to workers pensions,

insurance, salary, maternity, equal opportunities, discrimination, etc.

Friends of the Earth seek to influence decision making on wide range of

environmental issues

RAC seek to influence policy in relation to motor transport petrol taxes,

road use, congestion charging, car safety, car insurance, repair and
maintenance, fuel efficiency, purchase and sale, etc.

Protective

Seeking to protect the interest of members:

AA Automobile Association car owners

RICS Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

CBI (formerly known as the Confederation of British Industry) represents

interest of business leaders and entrepreneurs

Promotional

Seeking to promote issues of interest to its members and supporters in

relation to the particular topic

Greenpeace seeks to promote environmental issues

Football Supporters' Federation promoting issues relating to football

supporters crowd control, ticketing, stadium access, safety, etc.

Voluntary Euthanasia Society promoting the rights of individuals to end

their lives

Types of Action

Direct

Illegal Direct Action

Lobbying

Protest

Boycotts

Civil disobedience e.g. causing obstruction sit ins, lie downs, making
noises, etc.

Illegal Direct Action

Terrorism intimidation of workers or owners/management of a business, for

example

Violence bombings, shootings, threats, attacks

Criminal damage damage to property, releasing animals into the wild

Animal Liberation Front

Lobbying

Parliament seeking interviews and discussions with ministers in parliament

to secure their support

Companies making contact with companies to make them aware of

concerns, e.g. at Board level

Local Government contacting local councillors

Legal system contacting judges, legal representatives, etc.

Indirect

Publicity

Leaflets/adverts

Petitions

Providing research

Influence

Influence

Success determined by the extent to which the group can capture the
popular imagination and keep the issue alive while it is still relevant

Contacts with media, politicians, etc. are crucial to get the issue into the
public domain

Reputation of the group as reliable and having integrity may be important in

its success but the reputation could be a bad one, e.g. Animal Liberation
Front

Effects

Successful campaigns can lead to legal and ethical changes in business

practice e.g.

The increasing practice of environmental audits by businesses

The movement to the use of synthetic fur in the fashion industry

The compulsory use of seat belts

The decrease in the use of CFCs

Response of Business

Response of Business

Business might:

Accept the arguments and change its practice

Present its own arguments on the issue

Take legal redress

Seek to publicise its image and what it is doing to counter the damage
pressure groups could cause

Criticisms

Pressure Groups can be criticised if:

They appear too powerful

They are powerful enough to represent minority interests at the

expense of the majority

They focus on their own agenda at the expense of wider issues

They take direct action that breaks the law

Political parties, lecture 1 of 3

Definitions of parties

Edmund Burke:

Alan Ware (p. 5):

"A body of men (sic) united for promoting by their joint endeavours
the national interest upon some particular principle in which they are
all agreed

an institution that (a) seeks influence in a state by attempting to

occupy positions in government and (b) usually consists of more than
a single interest in society and so to some extent attempts to
aggregate interests

Giovanni Sartori:

"Any political group identified by an official label that presents at

elections, and is capable of placing through elections, candidates for
election to public office

Party systems

A party system is the range of political parties in a given political system.

Usually, but not necessarily, a country.

A party system is characterised by:

1. The number of (relevant) parties
2. The political and ideological nature of these parties
3. How they interact and compete with each other

The study of party systems is

more or less synonymous with Italian political scientist Giovanni Sartori

His book Parties and Party Systems from 1976 is a classic and will remain
so for generations to come

Even though not everybody agrees with everything said by Sartori, his
analytical framework will continue to dominate our thinking about party
systems for generations to come

Ware identifies

four main variables in the classification of party systems:

1. The extent to which parties penetrate society;

2. The ideologies of the parties;
3. The stance of the parties towards the legitimacy of the regime;
4. The number of parties in the system
Parties penetration of society

The ties between voters and parties, such as:

Party identification

Party membership

The links between parties and civil society

The relevance of parties to the lives of citizens

Lack of penetration can lead to greater instability and voter volatility

Hence can make it easier for new parties to break through

Ideologies of parties

Parties are often divided into families

These families can be based on different criteria, but the most favoured
criterion is ideology

Klaus von Beyme (1985) identifies nine party families: Liberal/Radical,

Socialist/ Labour; Conservative; Communist; Christian Democratic; Agrarian;
Regional/ethnic; Extreme Right; Ecologist

The character of a party system depends to a great extent on its ideological

composition

Parties stance towards regime

Are there any anti-system parties?

If so, how many and how big?

Anti-system parties can be extreme left, extreme right, regionalist/separatist,

ethnic, religious, et c.

Anti-system parties are sometimes, but by no means always, violent or

revolutionary

The number of parties

When classifying party systems, only relevant parties are counted

The relevance of a party depends on:

a) Its government, or coalition, potential: At least sometimes, the party
must be needed, on its own or with others, to form a government
b) Its blackmail potential: The partys existence affects the behaviour of,
and competition between, the parties under a)

It is the last

of the four criteria, i.e. the number of relevant parties that is the most
commonly used and discussed.

In Britain, for example, much of the debate has been about whether the party
system is two-party or not, and comparisons have been made with more
clear-cut multiparty systems

Indeed, the numerical criterion is central in Sartoris approach

Main types of party systems:

(One-party and hegemonic party systems)

Predominant party systems:

Two-party systems:

The same party always in government; no other party has a realistic

chance

Two parties share, or alternate in, power

Multi-party systems:

More than two relevant parties:

Limited multipartism (3-5 parties)

Extreme multipartism (>5 parties)

Atomized systems (very extreme multipartism)

Two approaches when

classifying party systems according to number parties:

Not taking size of parties into account:

Predominant party, two-party, 3-5 party >5 party systems

Taking size of parties into account:

Predominant party, two-party, two-and-a-half-party, 1 big and several

smaller parties; 2 big and several smaller parties; several small parties
of roughly even size

Sartoris classification of party systems has

two main dimensions:

The number of parties, called fragmentation. The more parties, the more
fragmented the party system (Sartori here takes number as well as size into
account)

The ideological distance between the parties, called polarisation. The

further apart the parties are, the more polarised the system (Sartori focuses
heavily on the traditional socio-economic left-right dimension)

Party competition in

in polarised systems, competition is driven by centrifugal forces, where

parties are driven further apart

In systems with smaller ideological distance between parties, party

competition is driven by centripetal forces, where parties are driven further
apart

Fragmentation and polarisation

are two dimensions that give party systems their character

They can be combined into a graph (see Ware p. 169)

with fragmentation along one axis

and polarisation along the other axis

Examples

Low fragmentation, low polarisation:

Two-partism. GB?

High fragmentation, high polarisation:

High fragmentation, low polarisation:

Polarised multipartism. Belgium? Chile 70s?

Segmented multipartism. Few clear examples

Low fragmentation, high polarisation:

Unusual. Exceptions: NZ pre 1995? Britain 1970s, 80s?

GOVT 312: Political Parties and Campaigns

Lecture 2:
Americas Two-Party System
How to Count Parties?

Do they win votes? What percent?

Do they win office? What percent?

Do they coordinate with other parties?

Are they internally fractured?

Why Two Parties in U.S?

Structural Explanations

Behavioral Explanations

Cultural Explanations

Structural Explanations

Duvergers Law holds that single-member districts with plurality elections

tend to produce two-party systems. Why?

Geographically concentrated minor parties can win elections, like the

Quebecois Party in Canada, or the Scottish and Wales Parties in
England.

Other election laws favor two parties: Electoral College, ballot access, and
campaign finance

Behavioral Explanations

If voters know that minor parties have no chance, they will choose among the
two parties candidates likely to win.

Quality candidates join parties that are likely to offer them a chance at
victory.

Cultural Explanations

U.S. politics takes on a Dualist nature. In its history, politics have

traditionally pitted business and agrarian interests against one another

American politics are centrist, leaving no room for minor parties.

Benefits of Two Parties

Legitimacy through majority approval

Accountability and effective governance

Centrist politics

National unity?

U.S. Party Systems

1. The first party system (1788-1828): Federalists vs. Democratic-Republican
Party.

The Federalists were in favor of strong national government to foster an

business environment.

D-R favored states rights and agrarian interests.

In 1816, the Federalists died out, and we had an era of one-party government
known as the Era of Good Feeling. D-R

In 1828, Andrew Jackson mobilized outside the elite power structure in

Washington and was elected president. Soon after, The modern Democratic
Party was born out of this new movement.

2. The second party system 1828-1860 Democratic-Republicans vs. Whigs

Whigs were a party born out of the split of the D-R. Favored property owners,
businesses, and anti-immigrants

The Whigs were internally split on the issue of slavery. This split culminated
in the election of Lincoln as the nominee of the new Republican Party.

3. Third party system (1860-1898) Democrats vs. Republicans

Democrats emerged from the Civil War as the dominant political party in the
South, and would remain so until following the embracing of Civil Rights by
the Democrats in the 1960s.

During the third party system, there was close competition between the two
political parties. In fact, during this period, two Republicans (Hayes and
Harrison) won the Electoral College with less than the popular vote of the
Democrat.

4. Fourth party system (1898-1932) Democrats vs. Republicans

The fourth party system was born out of the Populist movement, a loose
collection of third parties that challenged the two existing parties on issues of
concern to farmers, the most important being Free Silver. The Democrats
co-opted the Populists by running their presidential nominee, William
Jennings Bryan, in 1896. Bryan lost to McKinley, which ushered in an era of
Republican dominance.

5. Fifth party system (1932-1960) Democrats vs. Republicans

The fifth party system began with the election of FDR in 1932, and his New
Deal plan to pull the country out of the Great Depression. It formed a
Democratic coalition that could not last the racist South with poor and
minorities.

6. Sixth party system (1960-present) Democrats vs. Republicans

The sixth party system began during the era of the Civil Rights movement,
Vietnam, and Watergate. People began to distrust the political parties, and
the number of people registering and identifying themselves as independents
grew.

Where we are now: the reemergence of parties?

Lesson: State Competition

The overall competition of the political parties at the national level belies the
lack of competition at the state level.

Generally, with the decline of the Solid South there has been an overall
increasing trend of competition at the state level. Still, there are
uncompetitive states (Hershey, p.29)

Little competition in congressional elections.

Political parties compete for the marketplace of ideas in the electorate. Since
the two parties are near parity, and need to form a majority, third parties can

have a impact on the policy platforms parties adopt, much greater than their
size would otherwise indicate.