Presents a brilliant, persuasive case that American political parties, so often dismissed as immature or ineffective compared with their European counterparts, are in fact old and durable political organizations, serving well the needs of a pluralistic society. What chiefly distinguishes this work is the inclusion of considerable material on American parties in a comparative context to the analysis of British, Scandinavian, European, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand political parties.
Regulating Political Parties provides a novel and valuable contribution to the existing literature on political parties by discussing the various dimensions of party law and regulation, in Europe and other regions of the world. By bringing together international experts from the disciplines of law and political science, this volume addresses from an interdisciplinary and comparative point of view what has long been a notable lacuna in the study of political parties.
The low level of representative power and political parties in Lithuanian public opinion inspired this analysisof political parties, as organizations using basic knowledge of management science. Understanding that voters areconsumers of political party's activities result, programs for election campaigns are considered as a main product ofpolitical parties' activity basing on the most popular contemporary understanding of political party. Basing on thefundamentals of management science a strategy of state development and persons prepared to implement thatstrategy in representative and governmental institutions are considered as a more valuable product of party activitiesin the article. Acquiring the power to govern a state for long enough period, when more than half of citizensparticipating in elections are oriented towards short term goals is considered as a paradox of democracy. Creationand popularizing a philosophy of political party, forming a field of main values in the state's life, serving as a basisfor strategy and short time election programs is considered as a mission of political parties in contemporaryLithuania enabling to overcome the paradox of democracy.
In this book the author proposes that parties are indispensable to modern politics and that the absence of parties suggests that a system is governed by a traditional elite which has yet to come to terms with the modern world. Without them it would be impossible to legitimize modern systems, to engage the loyalty and support of the citizens. The alternative to party rule is either aristocracy or violent repression. In all systems the party widens the area from which political leaders are recruited and is thus a 'democratising' if not necessarily a 'liberalising' force.
"This book analyses parties beyond the national borders and their increasing institutionalization abroad, in order to understand their development, their organisational specificities, their functions, and their impact on the party system and national politics at home. With 12 contrasted case studies, it comparatively addresses a wide range of perspectives on political parties abroad and lays the foundation for a framework of analysis of political parties abroad, contributing to a better understanding of transnationalism and long-distance democracy. The generalisation of overseas voting and the development of representative institutions for emigrants has transformed the civic and political links between states and their diaspora. This has also created new opportunities for political parties, with the task to reach out to citizens living abroad, mobilize them for elections, and even organize their representation at home. This book represents the first in-depth study of an emerging phenomenon. This book will be of key interest to scholars and students of political parties/party politics, immigration, and more broadly to democracy studies and comparative politics"--
AbstractFor more than four decades the analysis of party organizations in the European democracies has been completely separated from analyses of American party structures. The first part of this article examines how and why such a separation was to emerge in the aftermath of Duverger's and Epstein's path-breaking original work. It then goes on to outline how an analytic framework might be developed so that more wide-ranging comparative studies of party organizations in democratic regimes can be undertaken in future. Only with such research can the limitations of 'exceptionalist' and 'regionalist' explanations of party structure development and change be overcome.
"This book investigates the creation of the first truly nationalized party organizations in the United States in the late nineteenth century, an innovation that reversed the parties' traditional privileging of state and local interests in nominating campaigns and the conduct of national campaigns. Between 1880 and 1896, party elites crafted a defense of these national organizations that charted the theoretical parameters of American party development into the twentieth century. With empowered national committees and a new understanding of the parties' role in the political system, national party leaders dominated American politics in new ways, renewed the parties' legitimacy in an increasingly pluralistic and nationalized political environment, and thus maintained their relevance throughout the twentieth century. The new organizations particularly served the interests of presidents and presidential candidates, and the little-studied presidencies of the late nineteenth century demonstrate the first stirrings of modern presidential party leadership"--Provided by publisher
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
If a country has no developed political party system, it is not really a democracy. And the development of political parties in Russia has a long way to go. The only branch of government in which parties play an influential role is in the State Duma (the lower house of parliament) -- not in the Federation Council (the upper house) or the executive branch. Addressing the question of why parties have developed so little elsewhere, it is argued that they are weak because the most powerful politicians choose to make them so. This institutional arrangement suits their purposes to control what happens in government from the top. Tracing the origins of this situation reveals that they lie in Russian history & culture, predating the Soviet period. Another impediment to party development is the scale of socioeconomic change in Russia. Socioeconomic cleavages were important to party development in Western Europe, with liberal & conservative parties representing different sectors of the population. However, there is reason for optimism for the future. While Putin enjoys solid support from the people, other major political actors do not; if Putin should cease to identify with Unified Russia, the majority party's future is uncertain. Also, a 2002 law passed by both houses & the president requires regional parliaments to be proportional in terms of political party representation. This will lead to party development at the regional level, which conceivably could spread upward. Tables. J. Stanton
