Despite their manifest flaws, political parties improve democracy and it is implausible that it could be successful without them

Political parties are the gatekeeper to almost all democratic policies and offices. But they are often dismissed for only being interested in votes and not voters’ actual opinions. Citizens have become less partisan in the last decades. Perhaps it is time to get rid of them. Would we be better off without them? Not according to Ann-Kristin Kölln, who argues that parties are not strictly necessary but it is implausible that representative democracy could be successful without them

Not all parties lose members but those that do are older and more institutionalised

Party membership is often cited as uniformly in decline across European democracies. However, this might be an untenable statement as a look at annual party-level data of 47 parties in six European countries between 1960-2010 reveals. Ann-Kristin Kölln argues that almost a quarter of the parties have not been losing members and that membership decline can be explained by a party’s level of institutionalisation. The more consolidated parties are, the fewer members they have. Only few differences between party families are observable

How internal disagreements affect the success of political parties: evidence from Sweden

While political parties generally try and present a united front to the electorate, there can often be a significant gap between the policies supported by a party’s membership and the party leadership. Based on survey evidence in Sweden, Ann-Kristin Kölln and Jonathan Polk assess how these differences can affect the ability of parties to fight elections and how researchers can better understand the nature of intraparty conflict

What explains the dynamics of citizens’ satisfaction with democracy? An integrated framework for panel data

Literature on political support broadly offers three micro-level models: socio-economic status, democratic process evaluations, and political performance evaluations explain people's differences in satisfaction with democracy. While tests show that these explanations complement each other, we do not know how. We combine for the first time all three models into one common longitudinal framework by explicitly considering aspects of time. We argue that relatively stable factors, such as socio-economic status, only explain general levels, whereas more time-sensitive factors, such as evaluations, explain differences between citizens at specific points in time. The results of latent growth curve modelling applied to nine-wave panel data support our general hypothesis of a common longitudinal framework. These results also show that economic evaluations play a prominent role as do some (but not all) electoral results. The findings have theoretical and methodological implications, and they offer a new perspective on the meaning of ’satisfaction with democracy’

Moderation and competence: How a party’s ideological position shapes its valence reputation

We combine several strands of research from electoral behaviour and party politics to suggest that ideological moderation will boost a party’s perceived competence. Less radical parties are seen as readier to compromise, more realistic about what can be achieved, and less prone to simplistic solutions. The results of conjoint experiments with party profiles show that, while an ideological leaning carries no cost, any appreciably left- or right-wing position eroded a party’s perceived competence among a representative sample of around 2,000 British citizens. This effect holds when controlling for respondents’ ideological proximity to the party in question, and looks to operate through all three of the proposed mechanisms suggested above – especially willingness to compromise. These findings have important implications both for party strategy and for voting research, highlighting a key channel through which ideological moderation yields electoral gains

Editorial

Among the many headlines that followed the 2018 midterm elections in the United States, one stood out as very good news for political representation: the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Irrespective of one’s political leanings – Republican or Democrat – it is an extraordinary achievement for a 29-year-old woman and daughter to a Puerto Rican to be elected into the House of Representatives. Against a predominantly old, male, and white sitting Congress, her election means a step towards better representation of certain demographics in American policy-making processes. Ocasio-Cortez represents a minority around the world, as young-(er) people are notoriously underrepresented in political parties and trade unions – in fact, in political decision-making processes writ large. And this despite the fact that a 29-year-old will have to live a lot longer with the intended and unintended consequences of political decisions taken in 2018. In other words, while younger people are disproportionately affected by political decisions, they are at the same time heavily underrepresented in organisations and processes leading to the decisions. The first prize of the Intergenerational Justice Prize 2017/18 was awarded to Mona Lena Krook and Mary K. Nugent who contribute to this debate by arguing that lowering the eligibility age to run for office leads to better representation of the youngest and next-youngest cohorts in parliament. Drawing on data from 144 countries and 192 parliaments, they first show that the average “waiting period” for citizens – defined as the difference between the legal voting age and the legal age for holding office – is 5.3 years. By combining these data with MPs’ ages from around the world, they are able to show a strong correlation between eligibility age and MPs’ ages. In their words, the results show that “the average impact of reducing the minimum age to stand for office from 25 to 18 would be to increase the proportion of MPs under 45 by over 5 percentage points”. Based on literature on women and young people in politics, the authors attribute these effects to the mobilising character of a lower age requirement. It allows citizens to compete in elections at a younger age and this increases the probability of younger people being represented in parliament. Aksel Sundström and Daniel Stockemer, also among the winners of the Intergenerational Justice Prize 2017/18, take a closer look at the age of parliamentarians and investigate which political parties can help to foster the election of young parliamentarians, and to what extent. After all, political parties act as gatekeepers because they are in control of the list of candidates running for election. Drawing on theories of party politics, the authors argue for five different factors that could possibly explain the share of young MPs: the age of the party leader, the age of the party, the size of party support, the party’s ideology, and the party’s formal recruitment procedure for candidates. In other words, the authors theorise that having a young network, a large outreach, and an ideology or organisational structure that attracts the young should increase a party’s share of young MPs. To test their hypotheses, the authors use data on over 6,000 Members of the European Parliament ever elected and match them with information on party characteristics. Rather surprisingly, their various statistical models show no noteworthy effect of any of the party characteristics on the representation of young MPs in the European Parliament, 1979-2019. Only parties with a more libertarian ideology, as opposed to an authoritarian ideology, are predicted to have somewhat younger MEPs. But the effects are small. This suggests that, irrespective of their individual features, there are hardly any noteworthy differences between parties’ ability to promote the election of young MPs. It follows that other parties may want to adopt other means to accomplish a better representation of the young; the authors’ suggestion of applying youth quotas within parties provides one potential avenue. In the final article by the winners of this year’s Intergenerational Justice Prize, Thomas Tozer discusses the potential of quotas in his normative contribution on the representation of the young. He makes a case for the normative desirability of “descriptive representation” of the young within political parties and trade unions. Specifically, he argues that democracy requires the promoting of substantive equality and people’s substantive interests and that descriptive representation of the young can achieve both. This is because the young have unique concerns that are significant and because their concerns might be affected by representatives’ behaviour. Quotas that require parties and trade unions to enrol a certain share of young members, Tozer argues, might be an option but not ideal because people choose to become members of such organisations. As an alternative, he proposes the creation of incentives for young people to join parties and trade unions, such as free membership. In the book review section, Emily Ford assesses Richard Katz and Peter Mair’s Democracy and the Cartelization of Political Parties (2018, OUP). The book’s central argument is that parties are developing or have already developed into cartels, driven by a desire to maintain their position in the face of declining political participation. They limit political competition between them and try to deter new party entry. Ford’s review overall is positive and she recommends the book to scholars and students as a discussion of the social pressures that parties are exposed to and how they are coping with them. In a second book review, Anna Braam writes about Ian Gough’s Heat, Greed and Human Need. Climate Change, Capitalism and Sustainable Wellbeing (2017, Edward Elgar), a recent study which suggests three steps for countries to accomplish staying below a 1.5°C rise above pre-industrial temperatures: eco-efficient production, changing patterns of consumption, and a reduction of absolute consumption. According to Braam, the book’s interdisciplinary approach – drawing on economic, ecological, political and social aspects of climate change – is convincing, and the book’s argument is credible, especially regarding the rich countries. Ann-Kristin Kölln (Guest editor, Aarhus University, Denmark) Antony Mason (IF) Maria Lenk (FRFG) Jörg Tremmel (University of Tübingen) Markus Rutsche (University of St. Gallen

How Do Different Sources of Partisanship Influence Government Accountability in Europe?

The possibility of holding representatives to account through regular elections is one of the cornerstones of representative democracy. The precise role of partisanship in doing this has not been extensively examined. Using survey data from Europe (2002–2012), we show that partisanship can weaken or strengthen accountability, depending on its sources. If it is an affective-psychological attitude, as the Michigan school suggests, then it weakens accountability because it acts as a perceptual screen. If, however, it is a calculation of party performance which is constantly updated by citizens, then it strengthens accountability. The findings suggest that partisanship in Europe has been quite responsive to performance over the ten-year period. Instead of acting as a screen that inhibits accountability, partisanship appears rooted in calculations of party performance and so enhances accountability. However, the effects are asymmetric with left-leaning partisans more sensitive to the performance of their governments than right-leaning partisans

Svenska partimedlemsundersökningen 2015, fullständigt dataset

In the early part of 2015, the party secretaries of six of the eight Swedish Riksdag parties (plus the Feminist Initiative as the only other Swedish party represented in the European Parliament) agreed to take part in an online survey of their memberships, which would be administered through the Laboratory of Opinion Research (LORE) at the University of Gothenburg. In May, these party secretaries distributed individualized links to an otherwise identical web-survey to their members via email. All parties, except for the Social Democrats, sent out the survey to the entire membership list. The Social Democrats sent the survey to a large randomly drawn sample from their membership list. When it was closed on July 3, a total of 10,392 Swedish party members had completed the survey. Purpose: The purpose of the Swedish party membership survey is to allow researchers to investigate much more specific and rich questions about party members in Sweden. The survey questions are grouped into six modules: socio-demographic, general political attitudes, reasons for and extent of enrolment, position within the party, activism, and perception of role and attitudes towards membership. The questions were developed in consultation with the Members and Activists of Political Parties (MAPP) research group in order to facilitate cross-national comparisons. In the early part of 2015, the party secretaries of six of the eight Swedish Riksdag parties (plus the Feminist Initiative as the only other Swedish party represented in the European Parliament) agreed to take part in an online survey of their memberships, which would be administered through the Laboratory of Opinion Research (LORE) at the University of Gothenburg. In May, these party secretaries distributed individualized links to an otherwise identical web-survey to their members via email. All parties, except for the Social Democrats, sent out the survey to the entire membership list. The Social Democrats sent the survey to a large randomly drawn sample from their membership list. When it was closed on July 3, a total of 10,392 Swedish party members had completed the survey. The purpose of the Swedish party membership survey is to allow researchers to investigate much more specific and rich questions about party members in Sweden. The survey questions are grouped into six modules: socio-demographic, general political attitudes, reasons for and extent of enrolment, position within the party, activism, and perception of role and attitudes towards membership. The questions were developed in consultation with the Members and Activists of Political Parties (MAPP) research group in order to facilitate cross-national comparisons.I början av 2015 sa partisekreterarna i sex av de svenska riksdagspartierna (plus Feministiskt Initiativ, som är det enda icke-riksdagspartiet representerat i Europaparlamentet) ja till att vara med och genomföra en nätbaserad enkät bland sina partimedlemmar. Undersökningen administrerades av Laboratory of Opinion Research (LORE) vid Göteborgs Universitet. I maj 2015 distribuerade partisekreterarna i respektive parti en personlig länk till sina medlemmar. Länken gick till en i övrigt identisk enkät. Alla partier utom Socialdemokraterna skickade enkäten till samtliga sina registrerade medlemmar. Socialdemokraterna skickade istället enkäten till ett stort, slumpmässigt urval av sina medlemmar. När enkäten stängde den 3 juli hade totalt 10.392 partimedlemmar svarat. Syfte: Syftet med den svenska partimedlemsundersökningen var att generera unik data som kommer att låta forskare undersöka svenskt partimedlemskap på nya sätt, med specifika frågor om medlemskap ställda till just partimedlemmar. Undersökningens frågor var grupperade i sex moduler: socio-demografi, allmänna politiska attitydfrågor, skäl till och längd av medlemskapet, position inom partiet, aktivism och uppfattningar om och attityder till medlemmarnas roll i partiet. Frågorna utvecklades i samarbete med forskargruppen Members and Activists of Political Parties (MAPP) för att möjliggöra jämförelser mellan länder. I början av 2015 sa partisekreterarna i sex av de svenska riksdagspartierna (plus Feministiskt Initiativ, som är det enda icke-riksdagspartiet representerat i Europaparlamentet) ja till att vara med och genomföra en nätbaserad enkät bland sina partimedlemmar. Undersökningen administrerades av Laboratory of Opinion Research (LORE) vid Göteborgs Universitet. I maj 2015 distribuerade partisekreterarna i respektive parti en personlig länk till sina medlemmar. Länken gick till en i övrigt identisk enkät. Alla partier utom Socialdemokraterna skickade enkäten till samtliga sina registrerade medlemmar. Socialdemokraterna skickade istället enkäten till ett stort, slumpmässigt urval av sina medlemmar. När enkäten stängde den 3 juli hade totalt 10.392 partimedlemmar svarat. Den syftet av svenska partimedlemsundersökningen var att genererat unik data som kommer att låta forskare undersöka svenskt partimedlemskap på nya sätt, med specifika frågor om medlemskap ställda till just partimedlemmar. Undersökningens frågor var grupperade i sex moduler: socio-demografi, allmänna politiska attitydfrågor, skäl till och längd av medlemskapet, position inom partiet, aktivism och uppfattningar om och attityder till medlemmarnas roll i partiet. Frågorna utvecklades i samarbete med forskargruppen Members and Activists of Political Parties (MAPP) för att möjliggöra jämförelser mellan länder

The value of political parties to representative democracy

Political parties play a major role in democratic processes around the world. Recent empirical research suggests that parties are increasingly less important to citizens. Simultaneously, classic and contemporary theories of representative democracy specifically still minimally incorporate accounts of party benefit. This article attempts to reconcile normative political theory on democratic representation with party politics literature. It evaluates party democracy’s value in comparison with its next best theoretical alternative – pluralist democracy with individual representatives – along two different paths. It argues that parties are not flawless, but party democracy is preferable over pluralist democracy. Parties increase predictability and the transparency of policy outcomes. This, in turn, facilitates better accountability between voters and their representatives. In addition, parties save politics from becoming a dispersed and even possibly a contradictory set of action

Party membership in Europe: Testing party-level explanations of decline

Research on party membership development commonly reports figures aggregated to the country level and/or using only a few time-points. While these choices may be appropriate for certain research questions, they nevertheless hide major differences between parties and conceal short-term fluctuations. Additionally, they are inappropriate for studying individual party trajectories. This is necessary, however, to better describe and ultimately explain the phenomenon of membership decline. The article analyses in total 1653 observations across 47 parties in six western European countries between 1960 and 2010 to test hypotheses pertaining to individual party membership development. Using multilevel modelling and time-series analyses, the results show what aggregated data with few time-points cannot: membership decline is by far not a universal phenomenon. Additionally, membership decline appears to be part of a party’s life-cycle. The more consolidated parties are, the fewer members they have. Few differences between party families are observable