Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Theory building in the area of political parties thus far has been severely con-
strained by what could be called a ‘transformation bias’. Most existing party
models are elaborated in the West European context and reflect models of
party change rather than models of party organization per se. The ‘catch-all
party’ (Kirchheimer 1966) and the ‘electoral-professional party’ (Panebianco
1988), for example, are both models signalling a process of transformation with
the classic mass party as explicit point of reference, while the more recent
‘cartel party’ (Katz & Mair 1995) likewise builds on previously existing types
of party organization. As Katz and Mair (1995: 6) assert, ‘the development of
the parties in western democracies has been reflective of a dialectical process
in which each party type generates a reaction which stimulates further devel-
opment, thus leading to yet another type of party, and to another set of reac-
tions and so on’. Logically, therefore, existing party models reflect this process
of party change, in which each model takes a previously existing one as point
of departure. While of some heuristic value, these models are difficult to apply
to the newer democracies.
Although the contemporary literature on political parties has made signif-
icant progress with regard to elaboration of models of party adaptation and
change, it has failed to confront the challenge of developing theories of party
formation that can also be applied to cases other than the Western European
parties of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. LaPalombara and
Weiner’s (1966: 12) assertion made almost forty years ago, namely that
‘[g]reater theorizing is needed [. . .], because Duverger’s attempts to trace the
early development of parties to the emergence of parliaments and electoral
systems [can] hardly be applied to most of the developing areas’, also has a
clear relevance for parties that have been established recently in democratiz-
ing Southern and Eastern Europe. In order to contribute to theory building
on political parties, however, it is imperative to avoid the transformation bias
that is inevitably associated with existing West European models of party.
What is needed is a theoretical framework that differentiates between
processes of party formation, on the one hand, and patterns of party devel-
opment, on the other.
In theory, there are, broadly speaking, at least three possible scenarios of
party formation and party development. These can be distinguished on the
basis of the relevance of the external environment at the moment of party cre-
ation, on the one hand, and the extent to which external factors, or rather inter-
nal dynamics, condition further party development, on the other. In the first
hypothetical scenario, the external environment of a party would be largely
exogenous to both party formation and development. In this case, parties
party A
party B
party C
t1 t2 t3 t4
Time
Figure 1. Life-cycle scenario.
party A
party B
party C
t1 t2 t3 t4
Time
Figure 2. Generation effect.
party A
party B
party C
t1 t2 t3 t4
Time
Figure 3. Period effect.
the strategies of parties are shaped by both the institutional context and the
historical setting in which they operate (cf. Aldrich 1995). The environment in
which the party begins to operate is primarily responsible for the type of party
that emerges. Moreover, the changing environment is often, as Katz and Mair
(1995: 18) suggest, the ultimate source of party change. In other words, while
strategies of party formation and change might be contingent and subject to
choice, contingency is also subject to structural constraints (see Karl 1990).
Thus no study of party formation can afford to ignore the wider context in
which parties first emerge. The following sections will analyze in more detail
how the context of party formation has shaped the opportunities and con-
straints for strategies of political mobilization and organization in some of the
‘third wave’ democracies in Southern and East-Central Europe.1
Since they were often not created as the agents of a defined segment of society,
the social basis of party politics had to be created after the transition to democ-
racy. Hence the answer of Minister Syryjczyk of the Mazowiecki Government
in Poland to the question of whom he represented: “I represent subjects that
do not yet exist” (quoted in Staniszkis 1991: 184). Because parties lacked a
‘natural constituency’ and an ‘electorate of belonging’, they would not provide
the political articulation of pre-defined segments of the electorate. The lack of
partisan identities or stable party preferences in the unaligned electorates,
moreover, compelled the recently created parties to make a strategic choice
for expansive electoral mobilization rather than partisan mobilization. While
mass parties in the old democracies generally started out as organizations of
society demanding participation, parties in the new democracies were faced
with the challenge of enticing citizens who already have rights of participation
to exercise those rights.
The relatively time-consuming and labour-intensive strategy of partisan
mobilization by which parties create a structural and permanent anchoring of
the party within society through an active recruitment of members and the
expansion of the organization on the ground is usually only chosen when no
other feasible options are available (Kalyvas 1996). Parties in new democra-
cies were rather inclined to turn to the electorate at large, which, assisted by
the availability of modern mass media, was generally perceived as the most
effective strategy for creating alignments with the electorate and enhancing
the chances for party survival. Indeed, electoral, rather than partisan, mobi-
lization was also the strategy that began to be preferred increasingly in the
West. As it was famously articulated by Kirchheimer (1966: 184), parties
during the postwar years were ‘[a]bandoning attempts at the intellectual and
moral encadrement of the masses [and] turning more fully to the electoral
scene, trying to exchange effectiveness in depth for a wider audience and more
immediate electoral success’. As will be discussed at greater length below, the
context of party formation in recent cases of democratization provided few
incentives for the prioritizing of organizationally penetrative, as opposed to
electoralist, strategies.
Although most parties in the newer democracies formally adopted the model
of the party as a membership organization, thus seemingly taking their cue
from their older West European counterparts in which party structures are
based on formal membership registration and a network of local branches, the
notion of an active and committed rank-and-file typical of the classic West
recruitment function, these parties reveal a generally poor sense of party and
show a primary concern for electoral mobilization rather than seeing the party
as a platform of membership participation or as a channel for the political inte-
gration of society. In the words of Bálint Magyar (1992), a former Minister of
Culture and Education in Hungary and, since 1998, president of the Free
Democrats (SZDSZ), the model of party as a membership organization should
be relegated as a primitive and old-fashioned phenomenon while the ideal
organizational structure of a political party should be one designed primarily
to attract the largest number of voters. Such a conception of party organiza-
tion contrasts sharply with the continuing interest in many of the West Euro-
pean parties in maintaining a large membership or preserving a strong
membership organization (e.g., Scarrow 1996).
Given this general attitude towards the membership, it is perhaps not sur-
prising that the levels of party affiliation in new democracies are generally
quite low and that parties in new democracies are characterized by relatively
weak partisan linkages with society. This can be seen from Table 1, which
reports the overall levels of party membership for two of the democracies in
southern Europe (Portugal and Spain) and two of the more recently estab-
lished democracies in East-Central Europe (Hungary and the Czech Repub-
lic), as well as the level of party membership as a percentage of the national
electorate (the M/E ratio). The evidence clearly shows that parties in these
newly established democracies do not engage citizens the way their counter-
parts in the longer established democracies once did (see Katz et al. 1992).
They also fall below the mean of almost 5 per cent recorded for European
democracies in the late 1990s and early 2000 (Mair & Biezen 2001).
A diachronic analysis of the membership levels furthermore reveals that
the membership organizations are unlikely to expand substantially beyond
their presently limited size. In fact, Hungary and Portugal have seen party
membership decline slightly in the last ten and twenty years, respectively. The
Czech Republic has recorded an even more substantial decline, with mem-
bership levels being reduced by more than half since the transition to democ-
racy. This can be largely attributed to the massive, and in fact quite predictable,
decline in the membership of the former ruling Communist Party (KS Č, now
KS ČM) and, although to a lesser extent, to that of the former satellite Chris-
tian Democratic Party (KDU- ČSL). Although the relatively large member-
ship organizations of some of the older parties may reflect a certain degree of
organizational inertia, the erosion of their memberships suggests that they are
gradually losing their organizational hold on society. Ultimately, therefore, this
type of partisan linkage with society will lose much of its relevance.
Spain is one of the few new democracies where party membership in rela-
tion to the electorate has increased significantly with time. Between 1980 and
Portugal
PCP 187,018 163,506 131,504 -29.7
PS 105,537 69,351 100,000 -5.2
PSD 38,128 137,931 75,000 +96.7
CDS/PP 6,732 26,801 40,000 +494.2
Total 337,415 397,589 346,504 +2.7
M/E 4.87 4.95 3.99 -18.1
Spain
PCE 160,000 44,775 26,253 -83.6
IU 57,303 70,000 +22.2
PSOE 97,356 262,854 410,000 +321.1
AP/PP 56,319 284,323 601,731 +968.4
UCD 136,106 - - -
Total 449,781 649,255 1,107,984 +146.3
M/E 1.68 2.19 3.35 +99.4
Hungary
MSZP 59,000 39,000 -33.9
SZDSZ 24,000 16,000 -33.3
MDF 33,800 23,000 -32.0
KDNP 3,500 10,000 +185.7
FKGP 40,000 60,000 +50.0
FIDESZ-MPP 5,000 15,600 +212.0
Total 165,300 163,600 -1.0
M/E 2.11 2.03 -3.8
Czech Republic
KS ČM 354,549 136,516 -61.5
ČSSD 13,000 13,000 0.0
KDU- ČSL 100,000 62,000 -38.0
ODS 22,000 22,000 0.0
Total 489,549 236,516 -52.3
M/E 6.33 2.91 -54.0
Notes: sources of income (percentage of total income); a election campaigns only; b excluding election campaigns.
Sources: see Biezen 2003.
on the theory and practice of party formation and adaptation 163
with the state, therefore, these Southern and East-Central European parties
clearly reflect the tendency observed by Katz and Mair (1995) for Western
Europe, by which state subventions become a principal resource for parties
in a modern democracy and by which parties increasingly become part of
the state apparatus rather than the being the representative agents of civil
society. Even though the advent of public subsidies may imply that other
sources of income have become entirely irrelevant (cf. Pierre et al. 2000), the
relevance of state subventions is extraordinary and may indeed, as Katz (2002:
115) has argued ‘represent a fundamental change in the character of the party,
furthering its transformation from a private association into a semi-public
entity’.
While the introduction of public funding in Western Europe contributed
significantly to parties’ shifting orientation from society towards the state, in
the newer democracies the linkage with the state came immediately in the
wake of democratization, resulting in no such shift occurring and leaving
parties entrenched in the state from the very outset. The parties’ early finan-
cial dependence on the state also appears to have removed a key incentive to
establish a more structural financial linkage with civil society. Notwithstand-
ing its continuing importance for some of the older parties, the membership
organization has generally lost virtually all relevance in financial terms. In the
four recently established democracies analyzed here, the share of membership
fees to the total party income, on average, amounts to between 5 and 10 per
cent. This figure again stands out in sharp contrast to parties in the older West
European democracies, where, despite a distinct decline from the beginning
of the 1950s onwards, almost 30 per cent of income still originated from mem-
bership fees by the late 1980s (Krouwel 1999: 76). Hence, parties in both East-
Central and Southern Europe present unequivocal evidence of the pace by
which tendencies observed for the long-established democracies tend to be
reinforced in the context of a new democracy.
The extensive availability of and dependence on public funds has not only
created strong party–state linkages, but also further centralized the locus of
power within the party (cf. Nassmacher 1989; Panebianco 1988). More specif-
ically, increasing dependence on the state as the predominant financier
coupled with the allocation of state subventions to the party central office has
resulted in a corresponding concentration of power within the party. Hence,
in terms of internal organizational dynamics, the extreme financial depen-
dence on the state has further encouraged the oligarchization of parties.
Parties in new democracies, therefore, are primarily elitist organizations,
although ones in which the locus of power is to be found within the extra-
parliamentary executive rather than in the party in public office (see below).
Socialist Party (PSOE), the party leadership retains such a strong role in the
selection of candidates that the extent to which the primaries have actually
increased the influence of the membership is questionable (Hopkin 2001).
The predominant position of the party leaderships is further encouraged
by two factors that derive from the wider context in which these parties
operate – namely the small and weakly institutionalized membership organi-
zations and the pervasiveness of television. More specifically, the combined
impact of both these factors has contributed significantly to a highly person-
alized style of politics (Pasquino 2001). While a high degree of personaliza-
tion is virtually inevitable in a context where the identity of many of the newly
created parties has yet to crystallize beyond the personal appeal of the party
leader (cf. Sartori 1968), the persistent weakness of the party organizations
has enabled party leaders to continue to monopolize the public image of their
parties beyond the early stages of the transition.
The predominance of the party leaderships is reflected in highly personal-
ized networks around the party presidents and in the fact that personalist
features tend to dominate internal party conflicts. Indeed, a high level of intra-
party instability encouraged by the particular political style of the party leader
is typical for new parties in a new democracy.6 This stands in sharp contrast to
the established liberal democracies, where the number of splits and mergers
has generally been relatively limited (Mair 1990), and further underlines the
weaker party loyalties and lower levels of party institutionalization in newer
democracies. The personalization of party politics is further suggested by pres-
identialized party structures that are often codified in the party statutes by the
formal institutionalization of the party presidency as a ‘unipersonal’ and priv-
ileged party office with decision-making authority in key areas.
In many parties, selection of the members of the party executive, control
over the party apparatus, employment of party personnel, financial manage-
ment of the party or selection of candidates for public office largely hinge upon
the authority of the party leader, to the point that their party organizations
can be classified as ‘presidential-authoritarian’ or as ‘president-oriented oli-
garchies’ (Machos 1999). More generally, the prevailing model of party orga-
nization in the new democracies is hierarchical and top-down, with little room
for a membership organization of any importance, with a predominant party
leadership and a tendency towards personalization. A illustrative example in
this respect is provided by the radical transformation of the former youth
movement FIDESZ (now FIDESZ-MPP) in Hungary from a collegial to a
personal leadership with extensive prerogatives, and from a grassroots move-
ment to an ‘extremely oligarchic’ and highly professionalized party structure
designed for winning office (Balász & Enyedi 1996). This represents a shift
towards what symbolizes the predominant leadership style and type of party
Conclusion
While they differ from their contemporary counterparts in the older democ-
racies with respect to the balance of power between the party in public office
and the party executive, in many other respects parties in the new democra-
cies analyzed in detail here provide a model by which the organizational styles
that characterize parties in contemporary West Europe are even more force-
fully present. This can be seen from the weak partisan and strong electoral
Acknowledgments
An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the
American Political Science Association in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 2003.
Attendance at the conference was supported by a travel grant from the British
Academy, which is gratefully acknowledged. I would like to thank the panel
participants, the two anonymous referees as well as Giovanni Capoccia,
Jeremy Jennings, Petr Kopeck y¢ and Peter Mair for their valuable comments.
The usual disclaimer applies.
Notes
1. This research is part of a larger comparative analysis on party formation and organiza-
tional development in the new democracies of Southern and East-Central Europe (see
Biezen 2003), from which, unless otherwise indicated, the empirical evidence presented
here is drawn.
2. This figure excludes parties with some degree of organizational continuity, such as the
Czech KS ČM and KDU- ČSL, which have preserved a notable legacy in the form of a
relatively sizeable organization on the ground.
3. Including only parties for which time-series data are available.
4. In some cases, the sale of party property (particularly real estate) may account for part
of their ‘other’ sources of income. In the early 1990s, for example, the Hungarian Demo-
cratic Forum (MDF) and FIDESZ were involved in the illicit sales of their party head-
quarters, which had been donated state property to newly emerging parties at the time
of the transition.
5. For the Portuguese case, it should be noted that the figures presented here refer to elec-
tion campaigns only and that the dependence on public money for the financing of the
routine operational activities of political parties is, with the exception of the Communist
Party, equivalent to that of their Spanish counterparts (see Biezen 2000a). Furthermore,
even for the financing of elections, the role of the state in Portugal appears to be of
increasing importance. A comparison of the 1995 and 2002 elections clearly shows an
increase in importance of state subventions (from 10 to 46.1%), while private contribu-
tions declined from 50.1 to 26.4%.
6. Unlike relatively familiar Southern European cases such as the disintegration of the
Spanish UCD only a few years after its creation (see Hopkin 1999), examples of party
ruptures in East-Central Europe in which the person of the party leader played an impor-
tant, if not crucial role, are relatively ill-documented. However, examples are neither
less infrequent nor insignificant, and include the collapse and ultimate disappearance
from the parliamentary scene of the Hungarian Christian Democrats (KDNP), the virtual
breakdown of the Hungarian Democratic Forum (MDF), the schism within the Czech
Civic Democratic Party (ODS) that resulted in the establishment of the Freedom
Union (US), or the disputes that continue to plague the Hungarian Smallholder’s Party
(FKGP).
References
Aldrich, J.H. (1995). Why parties? The origin and transformation of political parties in
America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Andeweg, R.B. (1996). Elite-mass linkages in Europe: Legitimacy crisis or party crisis? In
J. Hayward (ed.), Elitism, populism and European politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.
143–163.
Balász, M. & Enyedi, Z. (1996). Hungarian case studies: The Alliance of Free Democrats
and the Alliance of Young Democrats. In P.G. Lewis (ed.), Party structure and organi-
zation in East-Central Europe. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, pp. 43–65.
Bartolini, S. (2000). The political mobilization of the European left, 1860–1980: The class
cleavage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bartolini, S. & Mair, P. (2001). Challenges to contemporary political parties. In L. Diamond
& R. Gunther (eds), Political parties and democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University, pp. 327–343.
Beyme, K. von (1996). Party leadership and change in party systems: Towards a postmod-
ern party state. Government and Opposition 31(2): 135–159.
Biezen, I. van (1998). Building party organisations and the relevance of past models: The
communist and socialist parties in Spain and Portugal. West European Politics 21(2):
32–62.
Biezen, I. van (2000a). Party financing in new democracies: Spain and Portugal. Party Poli-
tics 6(3): 329–342.
Biezen, I. van (2000b). On the internal balance of party power: Party organizations in new
democracies. Party Politics 6(4): 395–417.
Biezen, I. van (2003). Political parties in new democracies: Party organization in Southern
and East-Central Europe. London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bowler, S., Farrell, D.M. & Katz, R.S. (1999). Party cohesion, party discipline and parlia-
ments. In S. Bowler, D.M. Farrell & R.S. Katz (eds), Party discipline and parliamentary
government. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, pp. 3–22.
Castillo, P. del (1989). Financing of Spanish political parties. In H.E. Alexander (ed.), Com-
parative political finance in the 1980s. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.
172–199.
Coppedge, M. (2001). Political Darwinism in Latin America’s lost decade. In L. Diamond
& R. Gunther (eds), Political parties and democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University, pp. 173–205.
Daalder, H. (2001). The rise of parties in Western democracies. In L. Diamond & R. Gunther
(eds), Political parties and democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, pp.
40–51.
Dalton, R.J. & Wattenberg, M.P. (eds) (2000). Parties without partisans: Political change in
advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deschouwer, K. (1994). The decline of consociationalism and the reluctant modernization
of Belgian mass parties. In R.S. Katz & P. Mair (eds), How parties organize: Change and
adaptation in party organizations in Western democracies. London: Sage, pp. 80–108.
Diamandouros, P.N. & Gunther, R. (eds) (2001). Parties, politics and democracy in the new
Southern Europe. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Diamond, L. & Gunther, R. (eds) (2001). Political parties and democracy. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Enyedi, Z. (1996). Organizing a subcultural party in Eastern Europe: The case of the
Hungarian Christian Democrats. Party Politics 2(3): 377–396.
Epstein, L. (1980). Political parties in Western democracies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Books.
Gallagher, M. (1988). Conclusion. In M. Gallagher & M. Marsh (eds), Candidate selection
in comparative perspective: The secret garden of politics. London: Sage, pp. 236–283.
Gillespie, R. (1990). The break-up of the ‘socialist family’: Party-union relations in Spain,
1982–1989. West European Politics 13(1): 47–62.
Gunther, R., Montero, J.R. & Linz, J.J. (eds) (2002). Political parties: Old concepts and new
challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harmel, R. (2002). Explaining organizational change: Competing explanations? In K.R.
Luther & F. Müller-Rommel (eds), Political challenges in the new Europe: Political and
analytical challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 119–142.
Harmel, R. & Svåsand, L. (1993). Party leadership and party institutionalisation: Three
phases of development. West European Politics 16(2): 67–88.
Heidar, K. & Koole, R. (eds) (2000). Parliamentary party groups in European democracies.
London: Routledge.
Hopkin, J. (1999). Party formation and democratic transition in Spain: The creation and col-
lapse of the Union of the Democratic Centre. London: Macmillan.
Hopkin, J. (2001). Bringing the members back in? Democratising candidate selection in
Britain and Spain. Party Politics 7(3): 343–361.
Horváth, T.H. (ed.) (2000). Decentralization: Experiments and reforms. Budapest: Open
Society Institute.
Ikstens, J. et al. (2002). Political finance in Central Eastern Europe: An interim report. Öster-
reichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 1: 21–39.
Kalyvas, S. (1996). The rise of Christian Democracy in Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer-
sity Press.
Karl, T. (1990). Dilemmas of democratization in Latin America. Comparative Politics 23(1):
1–21.
Katz, R.S. (1990). Party as linkage: A vestigial function? European Journal of Political
Research 18(2): 143–161.
Katz, R.S. (2002). The internal life of parties. In K.R. Luther & F. Müller-Rommel (eds),
Political challenges in the new Europe: Political and analytical challenges. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 87–118.
Katz, R.S. & Mair, P. (1993). The evolution of party organizations in Europe: Three faces of
party organization. American Review of Politics 14: 593–617.
Katz, R.S. & Mair, P. (1995). Changing models of party organization and party democracy:
The emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics 1(1): 5–28.
Katz, R.S. et al. (1992). The membership of political parties in European democracies,
1960–1990. European Journal of Political Research 22: 329–345.
Kirchheimer, O. (1966). The transformation of West European party systems. In J. LaPalom-
bara & M. Weiner (eds), Political parties and political development. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, pp. 177–200.
Kitschelt, H. (2001). Divergent paths of postcommunist democracies. In L. Diamond & R.
Gunther (eds), Political parties and democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity, pp. 299–323.
Kopecky¢ , P. (1995). Developing party organizations in East-Central Europe: What type of
party is likely to emerge? Party Politics 1(4): 515–534.
Address for correspondence: Ingrid van Biezen, Department of Political Science and Inter-
national Studies, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
Tel.: +44 121 414 8225; Fax: +44 121 414 3496; E-mail: i.c.vanbiezen@bham.ac.uk