Making representations: Modes and strategies of political parties

European Review

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 271-286

  Saward, Michael ^a  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEMOCRACY; PARTY POLITICS; POLITICAL THEORY; STRATEGIC APPROACH;

EID: 46649107099     PISSN: 10627987     EISSN: 14740575     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1062798708000252     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. One Dart of the present task is to bring key aspects of democratic theory - and especially reconceptualisations ot political representation - to bear on the analysis of political parties. Democratic theorists and students of political parties have all too often operated in mutual isolation, arguably to the detriment of the work of both. For an extended analysis of this mutual disregard, the reasons behind it, and some other ways in which it might be addressed, see I. van Biezen and M. Saward (2008) Democratic theorists and party scholars: Why they don't talk to each other, and why they should. Perspectives on Politics, 6(1), 21-35.
2. M. Saward (2008) Authorisation and authenticity: Representation and the unelected. The Journal of Political Philosophy, forthcoming.
3. A Saward (2006) The representative claim. Contemporary Political Theory, 5, 297-318.
4. I. van Biezen 2003 The place ot parties in contemporary democracies. West European Politics, 26, 171-184, p. 172.
5. P. Mair (2006) Riding the void? The hollowing ot western democracy. New Left Review, 42, 25-51, p. 45.
6. See the extensive analysis in B. Manin (1991) The Principles of Representative Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
7. The word 'statal' is unfamiliar to contemporary Anglo-Saxon ears. The OED defines it as 'Of or pertaining to a State (of the US or other federation), as distinguished from national'. I offer it rather as reffering to matters ot or pertaining to the state in the Weberian sense of that set of organisations that together claim the monopoly of legitimate force in a given tortitory. The term is used here rather than 'state' simply because it makes this ideal-type a grammatical equivalent ot the other two - popular and reflexive.
8. S. Bartolini and P. Mair (2001) Challenges to contemporary political parties. In: L. Diamond and R. Gunther (eds) Political Parties and Democracy (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press), pp. 327-344, p. 336.
9. I. van Biezen (2003) The place of parties in contemporary democracies. West European Politics, 26, 171-184, p. 182.
10. P. Mair (2006) Ruling the void? The hollowing of western democracy. New Left Review, 42, 25-51, p. 45.
11. R. F. Fenno, Jr. (2003) Home Style: House Members in Their Districts (New York: Longman). E. Goffman (1990) [1959] The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (London: Penguin).
12. See the discussion in R. S. Katz and P. Mair (1995) Changing models of party organisation and party democracy: The emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics, 1, 5-28.
13. P. C. Schmitter (2001) Parties are not what they once were, in L. Diamond and R. Gunther (eds) Political Parties and Democracy (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press).
14. For varied perspectives on deliberative democracy and accounts of the rise of this perspective in contemporary democratic theory, see J. S. Fishkin and P. Laslett (eds) (2003) Debating Deliberative Democracy (London: Blackwell);
15. M. Saward (ed.) (2000) Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, Representation and Association (London: Routledge).
16. P. Toynbee (2007) Brown's promises of people power open a Pandora's box. The Guardian, 4 September.
17. It is not clear, however, that this process results in states being less powerful, rather than differently powerful. See M. Saward (1997) In search of the hollow crown. In: P. Weller, H. Bakvis and R. A. W. Rhodes (eds) The Hollow Crown (London: Macmillan).
18. See for example J. Newman (ed.) (2005) Remaking Governance (Bristol: The Policy Press).
19. A loose periodisation is implied by the way in which I have presented the three modes of representation. A much fuller analysis might entertain the overarching idea that historical movements among these, and perhaps other, modes are pendular, that is (for example) that more societal modes (such as the popular and the reflexive, on a broad interpretation) tend to give way to more statal ones, and vice versa. Parties do seek to keep ahead of trends, and to seek competitive advantage in their representative claim-making in so doing. Naturally enough, they might look to cultivate their structures, and their images, in societal modes when state modes are both predominant and under pressure.
20. Cited in S. Bartolini and P. Mair (2001) Challenges to contemporary political parties. in: L. Diamond and R. Gunther (eds) Political Parties and Democracy (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press), pp. 327-344, p. 330.
21. See the analysis of Moir for comments on competitors to political parties with respect to representation. P. Mair (2006) Ruling the void? The hollowing of western democracy. New Left Review, 42, 25-51.
22. J. Derrida (2004) The last of the rogue states: The 'democracy to come'. South Atlantic Quarterly, 103, 323-341.
23. See C. Fieschi (2007) How British parties lost our favour. Parliamentary Affairs, 60, 143-152.
24. P.C. Schmitter (2001) Parties are not what they once were. in: L. Diamond and R. Gunther (eds) Political Parties and Democracy (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press).