Suchergebnisse

First published in 1989, Party Ideology in Britain presents an approach to the study of British politics which is distinctive in its focus on political ideas, rather than on the more familiar organizational basis of party politics. It sets out to explore what the major political traditions in Britain stand for, both in terms of general ideas and in relation to key policy areas. The contributors examine the nature of political ideology in Britain in the period since 1945, as revealed by the party system, and discuss the way in which general ideological positions have been related to policy and practice. Each of the major national party traditions is examined, showing how contemporary party thinkers have sought to apply and adapt the historic principles of their parties in the face of social change, economic problems and international developments. This book will be of interest to students of political science and history.

We know a lot about the essence of the ideology factor in parties' trajectories but remarkably little of how and why this is expressed and translated into the theoretical building blocks that rationalize it. This article takes up this forgotten issue, attempts to locate the concept of party ideology development, clarify its usefulness in the understanding of the relationship between parties and ideologies, outline an effective measurement process and, in doing so, shed light on avenues of research in the comparative study of party politics that so far remain unutilized. The main argument is that although party ideology development has evaded scholarly attention, it remains a germane concept through which we can further disentangle forms of ideological expression. Systematically integrating the development of ideology into the study of party politics can add to our corpus of knowledge about how and why parties adapt and differ between them and can have implications for democratic theory. Adapted from the source document.

L'analyse quantitative comparée des idéologies des partis politiquesDivers chercheurs ont proposé toute une variété de schémas d'analyse des partis politiques. Ces typologies tiennent compte de variables certes essentielles, telles l'organisation, les fonctions, la structure du membership, le support social, le centre de l'intérêt qu'on trouve dans le parti… selon des combinaisons et des échelles variables, mais l'idéologie du parti est toujours absente de ces modàles; si on en tient parfois compte, elle est traitée de façon plutôt impressionniste.Nous considérons ici l'idéologie comme une variable importante de comparaison. Sur cette base, nous tenterons de développer une méthodologieplus systématique pour différencier les partis politiques. Cette méthode se fonde empiriquement sur une analyse de contenu des programmes d'action politique (soit, en notre exemple, les programmes des partis provinciaux en lutte lors de l'élection générale de 1966 au Québec).Plusieurs facteurs peuvent certes déterminer l'idéologie d'un parti politique. Néanmoins, nous posons ici en postulat que la perception des objectifs sociaux, l'engagement et la position consécutive du parti, face aux principales questions débattues, sont définis de la façon la plus complète par son programme d'action politique.Cette méthode permet de mesurer précisément les différences et les similitudes entre ces idéologies. On pourra ainsi s'en servir comme base pour vérifier plusieurs de nos postulats traditionnels sur la parenté idéologique des partis, en divers systèmes politiques.

Political Science, like Leo Durocher, is not distinguished by an excessive concern with losers.Although the reasons are not difficult to fathom, theories of recruitment and representation which omit systematic examination of those who are rejected, in addition to, those selected, will only imperfectly comprehend the political conditions and consequences this process implies.This study, part of a broader cross-national examination of legislative recruitment, focuses on a largely-ignored but perennial figure among the ranks of American political losers: those candidates who challenge incumbents for seats in the House of Representatives.Few elective institutions in American political life have achieved the degree of stability which since the depression has characterized membership in the House. At no time since 1932 has the percentage of first-term members exceeded 26 percent and in the last 15 years, it has been rare when more than 15 percent of those incumbents who actively sought reelection were defeated. The 1964 election was considered a striking anomaly when "only" 80 percent of the membership returned to the 89th Congress. It is not an exaggeration to concede that, collectively, congressional challengers stand somewhere between the Harold Stassens and Norman Thomases of campaign history in their impressive disregard for the first objective of American major-party politics: winning.