Content area
Full text
Articles
The division of power within political parties is a theme that has captivated scholars for generations. Whether writing about the mass, cadre, catch-all, electoral professional or cartel model, students of parties have focused on questions relating to intraparty democracy (Duverger 1954; Katz and Mair 1995; Kirchheimer 1966; Michels 1911; Panebianco 1988).
The significance of these questions derives from the importance of parties in contemporary democratic practice. As Schattschneider long ago observed, 'political parties created democracy' and that 'modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of the parties' (1942: 1). Thus, while parties are often thought to be in decline (Mair and van Biezen 2001; Whiteley 2011), they continue to dominate the electoral and governmental landscape. With parties playing such a central role, it is natural that attention is turned inside the parties to examine who has influence in the decisions they take (Cross and Katz 2013).
Scholars have often identified a hierarchical tendency within parties. An 'iron law of oligarchy' is seen to apply as parties become increasingly elite-dominated, particularly as they get closer to positions of power (Michels 1911). Studies of party members in many countries find that rank-and-file memberships believe their parties are elite-dominated and that members have too little influence (Young 2013). In addition, some have suggested that advances in communication technology and the widespread availability of targeted databases reduce a party's dependence on its grassroots (see, for example, Wilkinson 2015: 441). Nonetheless, recent work by Scarrow (2014) and Cross and Gauja (2014a), among others, suggests that parties remain dependent on their members and supporters to help fulfil many of the tasks assigned to them. Within this context, much recent party scholarship examines the internal power relationships between the different faces of the party organization (for example, Helms 2014). As has long been the case, the challenge for parties continues to be the successful management of a structure that both provides a meaningful role for their members and allows central party officials sufficient authority to unify the party around a consistent brand while allowing for efficient administration and electoral campaigning (Carty 2004).
While some have suggested that oligarchy is an inevitable outcome, others have claimed that 'stratarchy' presents an alternative form of organization allowing for shared authority between both a party's...