Suchergebnisse

ObjectiveWe address whether intraparty democracy conditions political parties' responsiveness to rival parties' policy shifts.MethodWe estimate parameters of a spatial econometric model of parties' policy positions in 11 established democracies.ResultsInternally democratic parties respond to shifts in rival parties' policies, and internally undemocratic parties do not respond to rival parties' policy shifts.ConclusionWe argue that this occurs because intraparty deliberation provides a channel through which rival parties influence their competitors' policies. Because rank‐and‐file party members are influenced by deliberative processes more than party leaders—and the policy goals of internally democratic parties' policies are heavily influenced by their party members—deliberative processes lead democratic parties to respond to shifts in rival parties' policy positions. This work has important implications for our understanding of parties' election strategies, intraparty politics, and how policies diffuse between parties competing in the same election.

This article focuses on Korean parties to address the following gaps in the literature on party member activism: First, little attention has been paid to party members in non-Western democracies. Second, it is unclear how intraparty democracy is related to member activism. Unlike most industrialized democracies, South Korea has recently seen a notable growth in party membership. However, dues-paying remains the exception rather than the rule in the major parties, while the opposite is true for the minor, leftist parties. Using data from party member surveys, I examine the determinants of member activism across three Korean parties, focusing on the effect of members' evaluations of the internal democracy of their party. I argue that dues-paying has risen as a new form of activism as democracy has been consolidated, and present evidence for a paradox of intra-party democracy that members positively evaluating internal democracy of their party remain less active.

Intra-party democracy entails different meanings. In particular when we consider democratic candidate selection processes, one may think about various elements contributing to the democratic character of the list constitution. By means of a content analysis, this paper aims at contrasting definitions given to intra-party democracy in terms of candidate selection by on the one hand scholars and on the other by political actors. The analysis draws on in-depth interviews with key party actors conducted in the run-up to the 2014 elections in Belgium i.e. during the process of candidate selection. Eleven parties are covered in this paper. Findings confirm that the main dimensions of a democratic candidate selection process are the selectorates, the procedures and the outcome. Nevertheless, the inclusiveness does not appear to be as important as presented in the literature. Overall the paper contributes to the ongoing debate about what intraparty democracy means.

Intra-party democracy entails different meanings. In particular when we consider democratic candidate selection processes, one may think about various elements contributing to the democratic character of the list constitution. By means of a content analysis, this paper aims at contrasting definitions given to intra-party democracy in terms of candidate selection by on the one hand scholars and on the other by political actors. The analysis draws on in-depth interviews with key party actors conducted in the run-up to the 2014 elections in Belgium i.e. during the process of candidate selection. Eleven parties are covered in this paper. Findings confirm that the main dimensions of a democratic candidate selection process are the selectorates, the procedures and the outcome. Nevertheless, the inclusiveness does not appear to be as important as presented in the literature. Overall the paper contributes to the ongoing debate about what intraparty democracy means.

Intra-party democracy entails different meanings. In particular when we consider democratic candidate selection processes, one may think about various elements contributing to the democratic character of the list constitution. By means of a content analysis, this paper aims at contrasting definitions given to intra-party democracy in terms of candidate selection by on the one hand scholars and on the other by political actors. The analysis draws on in-depth interviews with key party actors conducted in the run-up to the 2014 elections in Belgium i.e. during the process of candidate selection. Eleven parties are covered in this paper. Findings confirm that the main dimensions of a democratic candidate selection process are the selectorates, the procedures and the outcome. Nevertheless, the inclusiveness does not appear to be as important as presented in the literature. Overall the paper contributes to the ongoing debate about what intraparty democracy means.

Intra-party democracy entails different meanings. In particular when we consider democratic candidate selection processes, one may think about various elements contributing to the democratic character of the list constitution. By means of a content analysis, this paper aims at contrasting definitions given to intra-party democracy in terms of candidate selection by on the one hand scholars and on the other by political actors. The analysis draws on in-depth interviews with key party actors conducted in the run-up to the 2014 elections in Belgium i.e. during the process of candidate selection. Eleven parties are covered in this paper. Findings confirm that the main dimensions of a democratic candidate selection process are the selectorates, the procedures and the outcome. Nevertheless, the inclusiveness does not appear to be as important as presented in the literature. Overall the paper contributes to the ongoing debate about what intraparty democracy means.

Leaders and activists in most Western political parties, appreciating Schattschneider's adage1 that parties are controlled by those who control nominations to public offices, jealously guard their right to choose parliamentary candidates. They realize that candidates play a crucial role in shaping voters' images of the parties as well as in formulating the party policies. Not surprisingly, candidates are usually recruited through rather oligarchical procedures. Extra-parliamentary party leaders normally pick the nominees in closed private meetings and then submit their choices to rank-and-file party members and/or delegates who nearly always grant their approval. Such procedures reduce the role of party members to one of docile acquiescence, and completely exclude party voters.

In the postcommunist period, political parties in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) had to convincingly demonstrate that they are a vital part of a functioning democratic society. Well-developed intraparty democracy (IPD) is one way of accomplishing this. By asking what factors are relevant to an explanation of IPD formation, we present an analytical framework in which the formation of IPD can be investigated and explore the patterns of IPD and their determinants. We draw on a newly constructed data set based on standardized content analysis, including 129 party statutes from 14 major political parties from Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia between 1989 and 2011. Relying on unit fixed-effects regression approaches, our analyses suggest that especially imperatives related to party origin and Europeanization have important implications for the formation of IPD within CEE parties.

Intraparty democracy is considered an important feature of former rebel movements' adaptation to democracy more generally. What conditions intraparty democracy in former rebel parties? This article traces internal debates about and organizational adaptation to intraparty democracy in Partai Aceh (Indonesia) and Fretilin (East Timor), paying specific attention to the interaction between party leaderships and the wider rebel organization. Leaning on theories of party change and organization, the article finds that even in the presence of formal procedures that prescribe inclusive decision-making, the nature and persistence of decentralized wartime command structures and relative strength and dependence on these networks limits intraparty democracy.