The ‘cartel party’ concept proposed by Richard S. Katz and Peter Mair in Party Politics provoked a debate between the authors and Ruud Koole. In this paper I will redraw and assess this debate concluding with some own remarks.
In their piece Katz & Mair challenge the predominance of the ‘mass party’ or ‘catch-all party’-models in the literature on political parties. The contemporary problems in applying these models are usually being interpreted as a ‘decline of party’. In contrast to that, Katz & Mair propose a new model, the so-called cartel party as an ideal type towards party organization is developing. To illustrate this, the authors draw evolutionary stages of party development underlining in particular the relative position of parties in front of state and civil society and the reflection of that relationship in the inner-party organization, their finances, and the underlying concept of democracy.
Table of Contents
1. THE CONCEPT OF THE ‘CARTEL PARTY’
A) THE EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH
B) FEATURES OF THE CARTEL PARTY
2. CRITICISM AND REJOINDER
C) STATE AND SOCIETY
D) THE PARTY SYSTEM
E) THE INDIVIDUAL PARTY
F) THE EVOLUTIONARY ASPECT
3. COMMENTS AND ASSESSMENT
4. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Objectives & Core Themes
The primary objective of this essay is to critically evaluate the debate between Richard S. Katz, Peter Mair, and Ruud Koole regarding the "cartel party" model. The analysis explores whether this model serves as an adequate ideal type for contemporary political party development, focusing on the interplay between parties, the state, and civil society.
- The theoretical evolution of party organization from cadre to cartel models.
- The structural relationship between parties and the state versus civil society.
- Critiques of the cartel party model, particularly concerning party competition and inner-party autonomy.
- The broader implications of state financing and professionalization on democratic stability.
Excerpt from the Book
Features of the cartel party
The development of parties in the last decades increasingly matches the Schumpeterian or Downsian model of democracy with parties being driven by a self-interest of enjoying the premium of staying or getting into power. These political entrepreneurs gain their mandate from an electorate whose task is not to choose policies but leaders as brokers of pluralist interests of society. Governing became possible in shifting coalitions. Not mobilization but skillful campaigning determined electoral outcomes also with the spread of the mass media. Consequently the parties increasingly intermingled with the state and tried to manipulate it in their self-interest. Democracy becomes a service provided by the state and the incorporated parties to civil society which loses its controlling and balancing function while party programs increasingly converge.
With the parties moving away from civil society and into the state participation no longer plays a decisive role. Mass civil engagement shifts towards single-issue groups. For their costly campaigns the parties need to tap new financial sources which they easily find in the state. Also privileged access to the media is secured this way. Losing elections is no longer decisive with regards to policies (which were converging anyway) but for the survival of a party and its access to crucial state financing on which it increasingly depends for the lack of a large external base. In awareness of their dependence on the state the major contemporary established parties increasingly collude in sharing the resources for their collective survival which at the same time in a cartel-like manner bars newcomers from entering the system. Competition is rather limited and the costs of defeat are being lowered by the state, which provides for all parties.
Summary of Chapters
1. THE CONCEPT OF THE ‘CARTEL PARTY’: Introduces the model proposed by Katz & Mair, which argues that political parties are evolving into cartels that rely heavily on state resources rather than mass membership.
2. CRITICISM AND REJOINDER: Examines Ruud Koole’s critique of the cartel model, focusing on the alleged distance between state and society and the systemic nature of party competition, followed by the authors' counterarguments.
3. COMMENTS AND ASSESSMENT: Provides a critical assessment of the debate, noting that while the cartel model is a useful conceptual tool, it lacks sufficient empirical grounding to fully challenge traditional models.
4. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lists the academic sources and theoretical works cited throughout the essay.
Keywords
Cartel party, Katz and Mair, Ruud Koole, party organization, state subvention, elite parties, catch-all parties, electoral competition, civil society, democratic theory, stratarchy, professionalization, party system.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this essay?
The essay explores the scholarly debate between Katz & Mair and Ruud Koole concerning the emergence of the "cartel party" as a modern ideal type for political organization.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Key themes include the shift from mass membership parties to state-reliant parties, the erosion of party-society links, and the impact of professionalization on party behavior.
What is the main research question or objective?
The objective is to assess the validity of the cartel party model as a reflection of how political parties exercise power and interact with the state in contemporary democracies.
Which methodology is employed?
The paper utilizes a comparative conceptual analysis, evaluating theoretical claims against critical commentary and established political science literature.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section covers the evolutionary stages of parties, the relationship between society and the state, internal party structure, and the systemic effects of state funding on competition.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The work is defined by terms such as cartel party, state subvention, party competition, democratic theory, and the shifting relationship between parties and civil society.
How does Koole challenge the concept of the cartel party?
Koole argues that the cartel model overstates the "conspiracy" of established parties and neglects the ongoing importance of diverse interest groups and independent media in modern democracies.
What conclusion does the author draw regarding the cartel model?
The author concludes that while the model provides valuable insights, it remains conceptually "sloppy" and requires more rigorous empirical research to confirm its status as a definitive new ideal type.
- Quote paper
- Maximilian Spinner (Author), 2002, The Katz & Mair - Koole Debate about 'Cartel Parties', Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/13410
