linz, juan - democratic political

8/13/2019 Linz, Juan - Democratic Political

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/linz-juan-democratic-political 1/15

Democratic Political Parties: Recognizing

Contradictory Principles and Perception

Juan Linz *

http://img.kb.dk/tidsskriftdk/pdf/spso/spso_ns-PDF/spso_ns_0023_95881.pdf

pdf genereret den : 26-1-2006



Democratic Political Parties: Recognizing

Contradictory Principles and Perception

Linz

1994lherc wu in Uppsala a symposium On lkmocraey , Victory and

Crisis a ~ d I hO e lhe feelinlllhal in SOme ways we are lhinkinll more about

lhe crisis lhan we wcre a few years allO. Why is Ihis so? As 10 lhe viclory,

lhere are forlunately no alternal;ves to democracy presently appealing 10people, as lhere were in Ihe 19201 and 19301: communism, fascism, aUlhori.

larian corporalivi,m, and so on. Thcre is ~ o polilical system ahernalive 10

democracy, but lhal do not mcan lhal we can ill lore the problems of

modern democracies in much of lhe world. I have the f..,ling lhat in

addilion to Ihe lwo dimensions ROben Dabl ha, presenled so welllhere is a

prior onc lhal i. in .omc way. missing. A dimcn.ion lhal in Weslern

advanced dcmocralic liberal societie, we are n01 queSlioninll, which is lbc

most imporlanl one, and lhal is Ibal democracy is a method 10 go, ern a

Slale. If lhere is nO s,atc lbcre can be no polilieal democracy. If lhere is no

loyally, commilmem or obedicnce 10 a Slale, wilb all its elements and whal

il means, thal is, the capaeily 10 make rules binding for all lhe peoplc

lhroughoul a lerritory and 10 achieve fair implementalion of lbose rules

and a monopoly of lollilimale force. you cannOl have democralic processes,

You cannol imroduc<: democracy in Likria, Somalia or lhe Congo, and il

is nol working in Colombia, par ofwhose terrilory is dominaled by various

armed groups lhal are nol subdued by the slale but cannot win a civil war

and do nOl really aim 0 ,ake over the power of Ihe whole ,tale.

So, lbc que. .ion of lhe Iellilimacy of lhe .la e i. a fundamental pr r 10democracy, ThaI Iegilimaey i. qucstioned in a multinational stalc in which

lhe idea is lbal ,he sl e should be a Mlion stale, bul many of lhose who are

nOl pan Oflhe dominan, nalion do nO re<:ollnizc that slate. Unlil thi, issueis confron ed, democralic processes I o ill k challcnlled. is lloverniug astale lhal is lbc ~ r p o > of democracy, Now if lbe slatc is conlcsted, ,hal

will no doubl alfeel lhe qualily ofdemocracy.

In lhc paSl ,he people who added .djcelivc, 10 Mmocracy ~ organic .

·basic , people·s , tutelary - wcre lhc anti·dcmocralS. non.Mmocr.lS. who

• oo Un,. l><f . Y. U. i....,;ty. PO l o 2m10l. N , 11. ,, .

06llQ·g>6l.liSll,



wanted to share in the Jura of democracy in .ome way. They Ihought theywere developing their country toward democraq that the wal an alter_

nali form of democracy. Today, those lerms have disappeared from OUr

vocabulary but we ha.e efeeli,.., democracies , illiberal democracies ,

plebiscitarian democracies panial democracies in part o country but n01

the whole country; we have electoral democracies in which eleclions t a ~ epIa but an the other freedoms and conditions for democracy do not c_.ist.

And, indeed, some of U eolieagues. particularly David Collicr, espeeially

in one ..ry iml Oflant article with Robert A d c o c ~ entitled Democracy andDichotomies , try 10 ,ee democracy on a continuum from the mo,t totali_tarian rule to lhe mo,t ideal d<mocracy, 1 think we have to retain a clear

nOlion of when wc are dcaling with a democracy and when wC are nol.Belarus is not a democracy. The Russian Federation, maybe at the center,

funclion, as a pooTly w o r ~ i n g democracy. In the case of many of therepublic> and units of the Russian Federation, with 89_90 percent ote forthe ineumbentl, you onder whether tbey are democratically ruled, So let usbe ,..,ry c1car .bout whcre lhere is a failure of democracy. Let us call u<h

regimeleleclOTalauthorilarian reiimes. Lel Ul eaU them by name, thal mayindicate a process of liberalization, tran ition or Iransformation. But ulti_

mately power does not come from the will of tbe people at <cgular intervals

in these countries, Another dimension of democracy is pro I. pore io ern-

ment. When } ou e rulers extendiOi Iheir mandate for en or eiiht } earsby a plcbiscite, you must wonder about their democratic commitment.

Secondly, we aSlume that go.ernment has the cal city to g , ern effect·ively within the territory of the country: to collect taxes, pay civil rvants,

cnforce the decisions of the courts, and so on, If tho e c1ements do not exi t,w. are not dealing with democracies. In many ca , wben we t a l ~ about

dilsatisfaction wilh democracy, for instance in Colombia. arC we ,allyt a l ~ i n g about dissati.faclion with democracy or arc lVe t a l ~ i n g about dissatiSfaction with systems that are non·democratic? Moreo -er it is importantto distinguish lransformations in a non-democratic direction _ faiied trans_itions and di.torted tran itionl - from the failu , and crileS dcri,-cd from

tbe quality of the society in queSlion_ People ha.. . e_.peetations. and go,·ern·menlS promi to do mueh mOre than they actually can do, lid tberefore

the quality of a democracy is judged by lhe quality of the societ) and we,hould be ,-ery careful in m ~ i n that di.tinction. Thcre are rulers who arc

bending tbe democrmic proceu in an authoritarian din:etion and wc do nOt

havc the conceplUa]illltion of the... new forms of authorilarianism. The new

lion-democratic rulers are not going to do what Hitler and the B o l s h e i ~Revolutionarie. did (I y that they do not agr < with our Weste , type of

d e m o c r a c ~ but tbey are adapling il io some w·ay•. In .ddiliol1. then: i

ehaocraey , and no government and no statc, Wc should more attcntionto sU<h situation,.

253



Pelirical Per in Seme Cenrradic ;e 1S h ~ i r Structural R e l ~ and

Wey Is P ~ r c t i t d

h .hould be dear - and this was the point ofmy introduction -that we must

distinguish non_democracies from reasonably institutionalized democratic

states, governed by leaders commil1ed to respe<:t democratic-liberal rules.

In addition we must separate - at least analytically - the problems Faced bydemocratic institutions (even generated by them) from those derived From

social, economic and cuhural d.velopment, in far that thos. probl.ms ar<not directly the mult of political prottsses - probkms that in th . short

(and even medium) run are not amenable to solution by democratic

governments.TherefOr< I shall focus only on democratic regime, and a few problem,

Fac.d by d.mocratic institutions, particularly political parties - problemsthat should be the object of research, Our knowledge may help politicians

to understand such problems .nd even to explain them to the citizens.

Democracy involve' contradictory principle< and some of the dissati,fac

tion to which ProfeS Ot Dahl refer, is, in a way. structurally inher<nt indemocracy. We hO e data On how people prefer democracy to any other

form of government and are comrnilted 10 it and do n01 question the legi

timacy of democratic institutions as institutions, but also on how they

qucstion their p c r f o r m a n ~ c theit e m ~ a ~ y their incumbents. This isperfectly legitimate. The,e is an analogy in the history of the Church, people

belie ed in the churches but were very convinced that some popes and many

priests wer< ery sinful. The di'tinction between the charisma of the officeand the qualities of the individ al were essential elements of the ehutch

institution as it de eloped From the Middle Agcs, The charisma of the office,

the authority of the president as president, coexim with the vcry negative

opinion that many people ma)' ha e about the particular incumbent. The

two things should nOt be confused. That is why sometimes when data in

Latin Amer;ca show that the ating of a president has gone down from 70percent to 20 percent (which is likely ;n presidential systems For various

rcasons), the)' conclude that democracy is in crisi'. We should be careful

about extrapolating from the incumbent's perfonnoncc to the institution.

Let me toke the cemrol institution of modern democracies - politicalpart;e We find general agreement that politic.1 parties are essent;alto a

democracy; that there should be more than one party, and that the parties

ore in principle the instrument by wbich to participate in the political

process. Without partie' there can be no democracy. In Spain. For instance,

69 percent agree, IS.7 percent di,agree, only IS percent bolicve that parties

do not serve fot anything. As m a n ~ as 74 pe .. . t agree thal parties are

necessary lO defend the idcas and interests of different social groups. Wehave survey data From not only thC Lat;nobl romClcr but also the BrUSlt-

'



Simon 1991 survey ofE. . tern Europe showing the ,am. pan.rn. 1101..' .

in alllhose counlri•• w. find that tho,e lhal beli.' . in democracy a. p f.r.

able, who beli.v. lhal parlie, are nee .....ry. ,lill to a very large eXlcnt have.'ery lillle or no confidence in politi.al partie•. BUllh. diffe...nce, belweenlhos. who prefer a democralic .yslem and lhos. who prefer an authorilarian

sy'tem in lhei r confidence inpoliIical pari it. i, n01 aI' ays lh aIgreat.In 1997 lhe Lalinobarom.l. . found lhal 62 percent of Lalin

A m . r i c a n ~ agreed that without political parties th.re can be no democracy.bUl only 2 ~ percent had 'much' or ',ome' confidence in parties, 34 percenth.d 'linle' confidence, and 33 percent had none. A, w. might e.pecl. lher.

are ,ignificant diff....nce' belween coUnltit Wilh 81 percent in CO,ta Rica.79 percenl in Uruguay. 75 perc.nt in Argentina and 67 pcrcent in Chile

con.id.ring panie necessary. Th. mo l .. .gati'·e respons•• - beli.fs lhal

democracy can fUlIC1ion wilhoUl polilical parlie. - are found in Ecuador (48percent). V.nezuela (43 perc.nl), Colombia (42 perttnl) and Paraguay (39

perc.nl), four democracies Ihal have rec.ntly .xperience< . . riou' cri,e•.Howc....r, w• •hould nOle lhat thcre are CQuntri., in which people beli. . . . inthe n.cd for panie. but ha.'e liltle or no confidence in part i.,. On. example

Tal>l<l. :<<<mi'j' for nie, in. D< ca,y ,o d T,. in r rtie,

C nti<ko« i pol;,;col , ,;.;1 ;'00 1 politic.1

o. Y< ·PO ;'; ,Io< ,<,n b< f Mm ~ i t .C<HO '''' no< <m,. ><}' roe;, le.I i<> - Lilt' ,-A'l',n1;<U oh . . . • c a , i l

<>k>ml>i.l

•M, .,

o. •<>ico

PO . • 'u, ,y < ',. . o

0. . ROe. 1 :;'1,.,<1 ,

....1. 0 •1<>tt<l .,

•

ic ,....

....m. 0 Ame',,' w, ..' odd<d '01<'1><. f O 'm h' . .. .. ',om• . ,, ,n. of ,0< .m.1I umr<>f l; J · m , , ~ .

5< .. .. I.o ,_,,,,,,,, <r 1 1.



T.ble ConIid<D<.;n P o ~ , i < . , Pan; .mons Tho>< Ito Coo>ide, D< Ky or Au'oo,;·, . , ; . , Rule Pr<ferable

Too . . . . . . . . . .

D. ,. A - N> . , ,

~ ,.. ,.. ,..'''''''''' p,f<,, ,, - LOn. ,- - li1LI< - - ,-s .; > ,

,:Ill 1 10 ) '...., 1 ....\ ) , . . ;..

..... ) , ) 01;.; ,,,m) ''''1 m m

111160) _ lm l )

1111 '1

> II 1Ol

)01111)

. , 010)

400l11l

u Jl ,,)

).111 1

-

,

, ll)

,

, ) ...,. . ., .ll) • 1'01lI')

-, M D' Ilow . . . . . . . . . . ...... 1>< ; ,'i<o,. 10< •. . •• , , , ~ .- ,Q w........ 1_.. , , , , , ._ , •• ,. _ , ,,,,,,,,,,,,. _ lOb i< . . 01

0 .. .-01, n.. oX<.< ,, , . . . . an ..,,,,,, ,,;,,, .... . . io ><t 11». , ,.. , . , F. . . ,.._ . . , no , . . , ;, H. . . . . . . <ni, ,. .1. . ,1. . . . . . . . . . ; ,he ,,,. . ,, bo' ; ,he , , , ,

s-ne ....';. ... ' ,1990. T. . . . . . .;,,<I ........il.l>I<.,. M. • .....,.

i. Argentina. when: a .ery large proponion con.ider partie. nece. .ary bUlonly 29 percent ha.e 'much' or .om. IrUll, 32 perc.nt ha.e Iiul. tru,t and

35 perCMI ha' nOne. Only in Uruguay do w-e find a congruenl $lrong bolicfin thc neces,ity ofpanies and a high le ,,1 of confidence (45 percent 'much'or 'mme', 34 percenl 'Iinle' and 17 percent none).

V.n lucla i. an .xample of a country in cri.i. whett: democracy ha

perhap$ disappeared; among thos. who wett: d.mocnm 12 percent hadmuch or Some confidence in panics, 25 pcrCenl had l;lIle confidcnc. and 61

percem had none. Among those who thoughl thal under some circum

stance. an authoritarian $yllcm i. bou. . for a country, 9 percent had muchOr SOme confldence, 20 perc.nt had li1l1. conf'dcnce and 70 percent hadnone; not a dramatic difference. A difference in the de.irability of demo

cracy is not delermined by the confidence or lack of confidence in political

parli••. If v w'ere to con< rllCl a scale from the L..atinobaromel. . the mo,tfavorablc COUnlry would be Uruguay, where only 24 percent of thedemocrats had no confidence in parlie., Spain i. included in the .urvey, wjth

21 percent among the democrats having no confidence.W. can demonstra c the low Itu l in political parlio. compared with oth. .

institutions in Latin America (L..atinobarom er 1997) by giving .ome example, from three countrie, wjth now able dcmocracic< and from twowith un.table dcmocracie•. In all flve countrie, people not surpri,ingly ru, tth . church more, ov. . 70 perccnl, .xcept in .ecularizcd Uruguay (57



pe ,enl) and Argemina (59 percem). More unexpecled is the Iru l in lhearmed fo ,e. in Ecuador (71 percem). Venezuela (63 percem). but

particularly in Chile (4S pereenl). Uruguay (43 pe=nt) and Arsenlina (34pereenl), Only in Uruguay are the parties mOre trusted (45 pereenl). ,,-hilein Argemina and Chile - in spite of lhe tragie role pla}'ed by the armed

for.e, - lhe parties are le aU led (29 pe=nl and 35 pereem). The gapbetw••n lhe trusl in parli., in Ecuador (16 percent) and V. uela (21

pereenl) and the lru l in the arm.d forees (r<sptCliwly 71 pere.nt and 63

pe ,enl). could nOt be morc lening and worrisome. In four crlhc eountri

lelevi,;on is lrusled by more Ihan 50 per.em and only in Uruguay thelru,1 in parties (45 percem) and TV (46 percenl) malched. The church.

armed force' and TV ar< probably peree;vtd by a signif..ant number of

re,pondcnts as non·partisan. serving the people as a ,,-hole (although lhis is

far from Irue for the armed f o= and TV). whereas parl;es arc en a.divisi e and power eking.

The combinalion of the belief lhal democracy r.quir<s politieal partiesand Iow Irust in parlies waS also found in nine counlrks of C.mral

Ea'tern Europe (BrU5Zt Simon 1991). Agreemem wilh the ,tatemem 'Weneed political parties if wc want dcmocratic d eloprnent' ranged from 95pe,«nt in Ilulgaria 10 82 perttnt in lh. Ukraine. Thequcstion on trust ,, a<: In ordcr to gCI .he.d, people nctd 10 h.ve confidence and 0 fcel that Iheycan tru$ ,hem ,I,·es and othe . To what dcgree do } OU Ihink you can IrusIlhe following 10lally, to a certa;n poinl, little or not at allT, The respondems

were given 14 in ilulions and groups including political parlie Thc maxi·mum saying 'lol.lIy' for panies was 6 perttnl and Ihcrdor< we ha,-e addedlhose saying 'Iolally' and 10 • eenain point : Ihe an,we range from amaximum of 36 percent in Bulgaria to a low of 6 percent in ESlon;a. The

010 1 negative, 'nOl at all'. ranged from 25 perecnl in Slo,'eni. to 49 percentin Poland, Again wc fLnd a 'triking conl'.SI Wilh confLdence in Ihe mediaand the greater trust in lh. army. e,cepl in E S l o n i ~ and Lithuania.

Now. why i, lhere Ihis lack of confidence in i>Olilical p a r t e ~ W. reall)'do not know much aboul part i.,. W. know a lot abouI parlY systems. We

know a 1 1 aboUl IYpes of political pa, I. Wc know who -OleS fo parlies,bUI ,,-. know very liltle aholll whal people reall}' e.\peel from parties and

how they SC e Ihe funclion of panics in a democracy. W. conlradictor)'pereeplion,. Tho e contradictory perceptions arc pparenll) nOI link.dwilh Left/Righl positioning or wilh oling for one parly or another, as Ican how with Some Sp,,,,ish data. Indeed. ,on,. of thO C opinion, .re

exactly the ne irrespeeliveof which 1 'r1y people '-ole for.For inS1ance, one of the Ihemes lh.l wc nnd ;nll,. literat re. Ihe public

debate and the newspapers is lh l pan ..... arc all the same: 'lhey arc nOI

rcally very dilTerenl·. On the olher hand. we find lbe opinion Ih,1t Ihe parties

ereale dilTerenc belwee people w-hich lI'ere ot realll' Ihere. BOlh r l n ~



•

1~ ' i : < l ~ : 2 : < l ; ; ,,

,h

,, ; ; ; : ; : : : ~ : < l : l : : ; : : : :

I LI .. ; ; l ; ;; ; I :::: ,,

•,• ; l l ; ' $ : : ; ~ f ; ~ : : : n ;, ,

h ~ : a ; ; ; ~ ; O : : : : o i 1 :

p

, ••

) l ~ : < 1 : i ' ~ : . : .

H, ,r

H,

; ; : ~ : : O ~ ; ; : : ; ; l l * ; ; : l ; l•

., : ~,

, •> •, ,•,• ~ ~ . ~ . ~• , · - 8 ~

1, ~ . . < - ~ : ~ ~, ~ . o = E > ., ~ v J i B ~ ~ B :



T o b l e ~ . A. . .... by Party VOl«l r. . io 1'1%. '0 'loo Qu«li '' ' Do V . A ~ n V,,,, M,.,h.AJ'<'. Di. .r- . n; J«< V y ,00: s , , ' , ho P . C,i,,,i« Eo,h Otho,V,,,, l>Io in R. .li'y 1 h<y ,of< All 'loo So. . .?

Voo ,l ,

R<> .. T ,.I =, C;U

~ O oAv« ,,.,h 11.1 16.5 14.3 11.6 10,1 ,

41.2 4).2 4).2 41.1 lH l l . ~ l2.l

Di 2'-5 21.4 28.0

16.)

.0Di ~ 'y , , , , ,

,

,k •• n . U U . 1),6 10,), . , m

1<01 Tb<>« •. . ror 'Mr p, ;'•. b1,nk. do ' ,. . .mbe,. 0,0, 00 paro)' ,.d.r< lDch'<ledio 'h< ,,,'',.

Soon- : c.n,,.,ti< lo ,. .' ip,;oo Soo;,,16p<>, (C1S). S,..: , )2 -'. Ap<ill9'Jl.IU ~ I,q_i<,d. Uoid.>; PSOE ~ P.rtHl SQci,I; . Obf<,,, E.paliol (soo.I; P,nyl; pp ~P. i<Io Pop_I (C ,,,.coo. .,,,,,i,·, Pa ,); P ~ V ~ Pa i<Io l< ,i .li,,, V'I«> { B o ~1<. .; , l i P a r t y ~ C;U ~ Conv<f ncia; Un , (Co ,ni Pa y).

thal paTties are (he source of disunity and fttlings lhal lhey Taise a falsecon. .n,u, in wciely are ery wide,pread, 11 is nalUrallhal when we deal

Wilh Ihe calch-all parli Ihey 'hould be perceived a. undifferem;aled. Thi'

i, (he case when we deal wilh parrie, (ha( no longer represenl any norrew

social basi$, kepI e1cctorales, buI apP allO all VO(erS, wi(h par(iC$lha' have

no mong ideological models likelho. .

in Ihe 1921» and 1931»: Ihe Nazilhe Communi. . . and lheir democralic opponenn. They ~ r l a i n l y were nol

lhe . .me. We miGhl have preferred lhat lhey had bttn more alike lhan lhoseparl;'s, which rep senled totally differenl visions of OCiely. at e ,n (h,

kind of part;'. Ihal ,xi$ttd after lhe Second World War, Think ofpo$l-warhaly. lhe world of Ihe Don Camillo mO ie where wilhin one ,'ill.ge IheCalhohcs played in one ,occer le.m .n< Ihe Communists in anolhtt am the

whole .ociely was fraGmenled along parly ideologieal lines. We have 10thal kindof world, which I think i. a good thing.

The competition belween moderatc calch·.lI p.nies aspiring 10 go\wn

li,fie, some of lhe ba$ic aspi lion. ofdemocralic cilizen' but .1.0 genet

ale , a number of dysfunclion, Ihat reft t negativ,ly on parl;'•. h ha .eliminaled the ideological and social polariutlion lhal w.s so dCSltllCtive inlhe int,r·,,'ar year$. and il h facilil'led .llernalion of governmenlS wilh

con.iderable conlinuilY in policie. and a dimale of consen,u Thi' cet·

lainly i. valued by many cili2trt$ diSlurbed by the polenli.1 di isi 'neu of

democratic politic$.

Th,re are. howev , n,gali con quen s. I'Ortmt»1 is 'hc feeling ,h.,

pan;' arc all alike, Iha Ihere are no real i uc,. Ihal il make' no ditr.rencowhich i. in power, and lh'refore lh.l polilics i. only a compclilion for



power among polilicians unresponsi. e 10 society and ils cleavages. Thereare al,o indirocI, somewhat undesirable oonsequenc.s: .ompetilion focus<cs

on pe

onalitie, and from this arise, Ih. lemptation 10 engage in negaliveeampa gnmg.A good e ~ m p l e of such critical opinions abouI parties is Ih . significant

number of vol..... who agree wilh lhe stalemenl _ or steroolype _ Ihal

parlie, only serve 10 divide Ihe people . Among Ihe Spanish population 4.5percent agree strongly and 31.6 percrnl agree with this stat.ment, wilh43.2 percent disagreeing, 9,3 percent di,agreeing strongly and 11.5 percentha_ing no opinion. AI Ihe same lim., a ,ignifieant number agree wilh the

statemenl ,ha, parties erilieiz. each other a 101 but in reali,y ,hey are allthe same - 15 percent agree slrongly, 45.2 percent agree, 25.5 percentdisagree and 4.7 percent disagree strongly. One would think thalthe partie,

on lbe e reme lbe more Ideological parli.s, would feel Ihis way aboutparties on. mighl more .a,ily characterize as ealeh·alL In Spain we can leSI

this assumption only on Ihe ~ f l wilh the _ol.rs of IU (lzqui.rda Uni< aj.Contr.ry 10 expectalion, th . proportions agreeing (strongly agreeing 11.6

pe ,ent, agreeing 41.8 percent, dIsagreeing 34.9 percent and strongly

disagreeing 7.4 pereenl) are nOllhal ditTerenl, except perhaps in th. slighllylarger number recognizing ditTerences belw.en parti.s.

R.cent Spanish surv.y data. after an election Ihal IrolO a .hange of Iheparty in pow.r. refiect Ihis feeling thal parlies are all the sam. , This

opinion i. not that of alienated non·vole ..... nor of supportersof anli.system

parlies.bUI

belongs10

equal proporlionsof

the majorityof

Ihe vol..... forth . two major parties. th. socialist PSOE (Partido Socialisl. Obr.ro

Espafiol) and lhe ccnter--cons.rvali. e pp (Partido Popular). i, nol .asy toinlerpr.1 Ihe an,,, er, bUI il probably r.flects Ih. lukewarm ideological

eonfliel, ealeh·all appeals. and moderale policy ditTerences wilhin a limiledrange that eharaclerize democralic polities in stable W.st.rn democracie,. may. how.ver, fieet somelhing else. Ihal partie, in a stable democracy,

although presenting dilferenl polio; ., do as parties share ,, ain commoncharaCleriSllcs.

Anoth.r major Ihem. is Ihal Ihc pa ies are too disciplined and Ihat lherci, 100 much unanimily within Ihe parties. In the parliamentary democracies

this Ih. r.quirement for vote< of confiMnee and stabilily of gov.rnm.nt,We would ha.·c 10 go back to earlier parliam.nlary po]ilics ,b.n parties did

nol preelude an open debatc and vo e by separaling issues on which lhereis a vole ofconfid.oce and issues on which Ih.re is freedom 10 vol. by Ihe

parliamenlarian Sir Ralf DahrcnJorf. in a recenl arlicle. TraurigeParlamenle , in a German newspaper. writes about lhe changing rok ofparliam.nlarian, and ho , parliamem ha, been OS as an arena for r.al

debale. There arc a signiflCanl number of people in dcmocracies. forin tance in Spain 36 pereenl, ,ho grce with Ihc slatem.nt In Ihe partie,



T.bI< S ui,od<l QCVo rllT Sf>O.;.h P,,,i<. o ~ ~ n l P. y [};s<ipl;n< ,, 1....,,,,.<1<0«QCP> di ........,;.... I ~

Vo ror

= 00 p:-;v

D i > c i ~ l < _3,_ 41.l 3l.9 _1,9 41 1

It>d< o« 35,6 3J,9 49.2 . 41.2

.•.••.•. ll.O 24,6 1..- IJ.O 11.1

126.0

there i. tOO much unanimity , The intere ting thing is that 36 percent of

Conservative, and 34 per<:ent of Soda lim say 0. Therc i. thereforcagreemenl aeross parlies. Thi. reflect an image not of one party but ofpanies in general.

There is abo a perccption of exces,ive disc;pline. On the other hand. as

soon , there are debates in a pany in which there is di,agreement belw«n

various leader., the media immediately say that this party i. 001 capable

of go,..rning because they are nol uniled, lhey cannol gct lheir acl 10

gelber . The , ,ull is Ihal Ihe vOlcn; punish parl;es in which there is aconsiderable amount of conftiel. Now, you cannot ha e il both ways.

Should members of parliament follow the direclives of Ihe parlY or shouldthey followlheir own criteria?

One mighl Ihink Ihal parly discipline would be considered more im_porlanl by ole on the Left associated with lhe more ;<I<ological p.rlies,those linked to a lradition of mass-membership parlies, than by voters On

the Right. 11te responses of Spanish voters do nOI fit that hypolhcsis. It is

po<sible that, givcn lhe anticentripetaltendencic. of the Spanish electorateand the catch_all character of all major parlies. our hY[>Olhcsis would nolhold. Thc fact is that the df<:lOrale of.1l Spanish parlie, splils almost lhesame way on the question of pony discipline. The national , crage was )4, I

percent favoring pany discipline and 48.3 percent saying that tbe deputiesshould follow their own crileria, with 67 percent witboul an opinion. Whatis signif ,anl is lh.l H,4 percent of PSOE , olers and 37.6 percenl of pp

voters Opl for parly discipline, wilh, respecli dy, 46.9 percent and 47.7 per_cent favor;ng the in<l<pendence of MPs. Only among lhe oters for lhcCalal.n CiU and the Basque PNV were those favorablc 10 parI) disciplincslightly more numerous (42.1 per lll and 40.9 percent. rcspecl; -el} ). allhough the number expecling an independcnl allilUdo among CiU was al,o

higher.A glaring e,ample of the ambivalence of OtcrS aOO 1 parlie, is pro, ideJ

by lhe re ponses to the followinl - qu tion ( ked by lbc eIS, Ccnlra deIn e ligacioncs Sociologicas. Study 2240, April 1997),

261



Think of lwo ~ r s o n s arguing about political panies in Spain. I wouldlike you 10 lell me w ilh which of IIteSC opinions e,pressed by themyou agree more. (1) In (inside of) lhe parlie, Iltere should be grealer

unily. (2) [n lhe parlie, tltere is loo mucb unanimily.

Among all rc.pondents 40.4 percent agr«d with the fim Slatemenl and36.8 percent wilh lhe second, while 21.1 percent did nol know and 1.7 percent did nOl answcr. Whal is more striking is that lite socialisl voters(PSOE) divided 44.7 percent versus 35.2 percenl and the conse 'alive VOter.(PP) di.idcd 45.0 peTcent ersuS 34.7 ~ r e n l Non-volers were more likelynot lo have an opinion (27.9 percent). but when Ihey had one they ,phtagain, allhough a rew more reh Ihat there wa, too much unanimhy (33.1

perttnt versus 37.1 percent). With the media alternately highlighting tlte

internal tension, and imposed unanimily, w can see how aCroSS parly line'people are likely, ror opposile ' 'ons, lo be critical of panies.

Thcre i ' another kind of con51anl disagreement inherent in parties. We

want politicians who have experience, who know tlte issues, who know how10 work together, and they should be dedicated full-time to lheir publicdUlies. Moroover, they .hould give up a11their conneclions wilh privatebusin their professions and whatever else. MP, should cease involvement in any other activity, In Spain 58 percent say 0 and 27 percentsay no, Among sociali.ls the figures are 58 percenl versus 26 percent, and

among conservati e. 58.5 per nt and 27 percent.We h...e on the one hand lhe image and crilicism of the professionahz

ation of politic' in a society thaI, parado,(ically. values profe ionalizalionhighly. The politician. then, should be an amateur, bul an amateur whospends the whole day in eomminee., who spends time participating in tltem..,tings of lhe executive of the parly, who has \0 campaign nol only in litenational election, but in every regional election in a fedoral country, whohas to attend to hi, Or her conSlituent' .nd who has to be active in p.,ty

matters. Such a politician cannot, in modern life, do what the parliament.r

ian' did in the nineteemh century. They were duetors or medical plOfes Oin Ihe morning, went to lhe ho,pital did their rounds, maybe taught aleClure, and wel C distinguished scientists, and then in tlte aflernoon, for a

short period of the ye.r, sal in parliament. dcbatcdthe major issues of thecountry and contributed sometimes to the making of legi.lalion. Thi, ideal

is impossible in the modern world. We do nOl like profe.,ors who comeback afler f,ve yea in politics; even lhe three_year leave for public serviceis not very much liked by the universities.

There i . di greemenl among eilizen. aboul the professionali tion of

politicians, reflected in lhe de<ire on the one hand for eontinuity and efficaeyand experience and on the other hand for term limilS, Who ,anti to go intopolilies for five y r., just le.lOing the ropes. and never run again for that



nOOO

o>>SUA>u

,

·uAP1AulOpQ$AOpUOA>U

,1Ww1V ·pO1 A

uOOU01

,O101U'qoS·w1AO

(USOUdJ

'UC<w

J

WPwUAC

-OUnOUUOUOUw

·UOAJ1

AUSOOpO<O OqwUqJ

'UWWUUoSXU

lUUO1

'uUWAw

tOOV'SUP,U1Ww111w>OquO WS1UO1q

'quJOOSUU

'hX>O1U1UWOWUwUV'0OO>h

A0W

'$U>SWUUWW U>O

'SdOOU1

UUwUPU1

;UO1AO O'OOQ'ww1QU>1



preference, an opinion about a candidate andlor a pany available to all<iti.,.n•. with ronsequence. for tbe politician. which require th.m la tah

im.rest in th. '·Ol . . .· conc.rn.?The ,I oga n'The0nlycu re for the faHingsofdemocracy is 100 re < emocracy'

i, profoundly mi,leading.Thi, is so because in lOO socicties, except perhapstbe Unit.d Stat.s. it can be lramlat.d into 'more pr.sence and power forpolitical parties', A largely apathetic, fundam.ntally privatiz.d. som.tim.s

o , C r w o r ~ . d <itizenry will leave the filling of the many position, opened by

'democratization' on all ~ i n d s of exccutive Or advisory boards (of public

in.titulions or corporations, .,, ing. b n ~ s unive itie., tbe mass m.dia.•te.) to those nominat.d by th. parties and will vOle for lh.m (if they car. todo so) following lll<ir party affinities. The worrisome question is then: towhat extent do the par tie' have penple of inokpenrleJltt. qualifICation and

mOtivalion to take Over those function.?The re.ult i.pa'/;lOero:;o and oftenopportuniti•• for corruption. It would be interestinl to study the halian.V.nezuelanandAustrian cris.sofparty democracy from this perspective.

We need to understand much better how the <tructure of political pattiesand their functions in modern democracies lead SOme people to be critical

irrespecti' of ,'hich party tll<y vote for. It is not lhal they t h i n ~ 111< oth.r

party is wrong. Parties in g.ncral, , .n their own party, are seen as wrong

on various dimension,. Half of the population recl onc way, half anothcr.and this .xplains SOme of the dissatisfaclion and distrust of part; •. lt alsohelps la explain why the institutions in society which are not d.mocratic.

lih the monarchy. army••le.. are lruste<:l. Even in Latin America. after allthat ha . happened in ,omc eountrie tll< army i . l ru ted more. perhapsbecause it is not such a complex institution as a party in a democracy.

Anoth.r qu.stion about which we know , .ry little is how lhe image of

parti. . - and politicians - across lhe board. and Ihe problems derived fromthe nature of party polilics and parliamentary life, affeel the vocatinn of

politics. We lI<ar journalistic a<XOuntS of distinguished politicians leavingpolitic,. of people . . ying they would never con.id. . going into politics, butwe do not know how widespread .uch feelings are and , .n less how they

affecl the recruitmenl of party polilicians and MPs. Do the ncgative image.the full-time demands of political activity, thc ntt<, tQ gi,'e up one'$ pro_

fessional carccr or business. the ,ubjc<:tion to party discipline limiting lhefr ••dom to di.sem, and so on. affecl th. d.eision to go into polilics or to .tay

in politics?

NOTE

I I to h>nk 'ila,dol C >l;1I0 lhe Di of h C<nlro do In . l i p , Soc;

l b c ~ r , ; cl in. in I CIS ,m . , •• , Q io , r e ~ t 10 ,, , p.p,,,.ndm.ki .. . .• ;1,1>1, < of I . .bul io ,. I .m.1>o . . . rw \0 M. . l4 - I ) ~ lor I , l>.li.obo ,.. . « r , m.kinJ •••;I.bl< hor ,00 labl<, I «1 ,,,«1.

r : I,,,ny. ,loo: r<>p ,,,;bilhy r , I , ;n,,,,,f <1' Ik , km;' , .loft<



REFERENCESBn,<nt. L I. , S, IWI. C ~ of 11< I. ,., l S ~ J of 11< 1 .Ii,kol C.I . .

r J ; i < ~ 1 OJ J; . ...... 0 1<. . 10 C ,,,.looJ .s ,E urop< J ,inr 11< T ,,,, ,,,

0< 1><,, ,1990-1991, BU<l.pe ,CoIJ D, A<I«I<1<, R, 19'i\l.·D<<l'l<I<r .nd 0;. . A P<.t '' '; ' ' AI'l'f h ,, ,

CJ>o);c M CMC<plf. A ,I ~ .I1 o/i/,,,,1 5<-......, 2, S)1..j;l.D<1p<j , I.. M. i •. A . l OUt<. 1', 1993. 'p.,1>m, ' y OpiniOn Nblic. on E , . .....

CIS, C n o de Im'eo,ip:ion<. SociolOsk ·. 0.,; _,,A I, , 19, 5ll-LD i > m o n ~ . L, 19'i\l. o ~ ~ 0<)'.T .-.I C bIida . Bal,i ,. .. John, Ilopl;;n,

Uoi ,,,i yH, n;. A <4 1997, ,',Vim. . NiC,i,; . C.m\>ri<4< Cambri<lJ< Uoh mity

The Future of Democracy: Reasons forPessimism, but Also Some Optimism

/\rend Lijphan

The Third '-eTJeWm e

in the late 1990< there was con,id.rably le optimi'm aboul the fUlur. ofdemocracy than at Ihe beginning of the decade. The third wave of d.mo·

cral;zalion. id.nlified by Samuel P, Huntinglon (1991), Slarled with the

democral;c revolmion in POrlugal; il spread 10 Lalin America;n Ihe 1980s:

and il culminated in the early 1990s 'ilh lhe rollaps<: of the Sovicl Union.

The mid 1990s saw the beginning of lhe Ihird 'rev.rse wav.'. 'imilar to lhe

lwo rounler-d.mocralic r.ver. . wav. . Ihal rollowed the nrsl and ,,ond

wavc, or d.mocratizalion .arli.r in lhe lwenlieth < ,ntur)'. from 19:12 10

1942 and rrom 1958 to 1975 (Huminlllon 1991, 16).

Panicularly slriking has been Ihe rise of whal are often called 'illiberal'

or mer.ly 'e1ecloral' democraci•• , lhal is. eounlri Ihal do hO e more or

le,. free elections by univ.r ,1 ,uffrage bUl thOl lack ,,, ,e orm ,1 or theolher requiremenl, ofdemocracy. like lhe freedom to form and join organ·

izalions, free<lom of expression, and rair coml 'lilion among political oh. . ·

nOli (Dahl 1971. 31. Thc, arc Iypically counlri. . lhol lh. Freodom

House Survey Team (1998) c1a in in il ' 'partl}' f....· calClIory, in belwe.n

Ihe cal.goric, of 'rr ,,' and 'nOl fr.... StlCh illibeml or . loeloral 'demo

crades' Or•. of course, nol really d.mocratic,

linz, juan - democratic political

Documents