Date post: | 29-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | bathsheba-murphy |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Swiss politics and political institutions:
5. Party system and parties
Prof. Dr. Andreas Ladner
iMPA 2013
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Module 1
1. Society and History
2. Federalism and Municipalities
3. Government and Parliament
4. Direct Democracy
5. Party system and Parties
6. What about the citizens?
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Party systems
= a set of one (?) two or more parties.
(see China, US and CH)
There is more about a party system than the
number of parties!
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
How to explain the existence of party systems?
Institutional theories
Historic theories on crises and transformation
Theories of modernization
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Lipset/Rokkan (1967):two revolutions and four cleavages
national and industrial
revolution:
Centre – Periphery,
State – Church,
Owner – Worker,
Industry - Land
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
The four cleavages
Centre – Periphery: The division between elites in the urban areas, and those in more outlying areas. (Liberals – Christian Democrats)
State – Church: A division between religious and secular voters. (Liberals – Christian Democrats)
Owner – Worker - A class cleavage, causing the formation of parties of the left and parties of the right. Sometimes it is argued that this cleavage represents a conflict between the rich and poor. (Liberals – Social Democrats)
Land – Industry - Continued state exercise of control over tariffs (customs) against freedom of control for industrial enterprise. (Liberals – Swiss People’s Party)
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Remember? Cross-cutting Cleavages
French speaking,Catholics,poor
German speaking, protestants, rich
F
G
rich
rich
poor
poor
cath.
cath.
prot.
prot.
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Frozen Party System – These:
"... the party systems of the 1960's reflect, with a few
but significant exceptions the cleavage structures of
the 1920's. This is a crucial characteristics of Western
competitive politics in the age of "high mass
consumption": the party alternatives, and in
remarkably many cases the party organizations, are
older than the majorities of the national electorates.”
(Lipset/Rokkan 1967: 50)
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Kirchheimer (1965: 32) suggest a slightly different concept: the catch-all party
Ideology and cleavages lose their importance
Party leaders become more important
Party members become less important
The party is mainly interested in votes
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Characteristics of party systems
Number of parties
Volatility
Type of parties
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
„Effective number of parties “
Laakso/Taagepera (1979) :
pi is the percentage of votes of a party.
p
1 N n
1i
2i
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
The fragmentation of the Swiss party system compared
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
1903
1907
1911
1915
1919
1923
1927
1931
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983
1987
1991
1995
1999
2003
2007
CH Moyenne Europe
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
„Volatility“
Pedersen (1979) :
n is the number of parties, vit is the percentage of votes of party i at time t and vi(t+1) the percentage of votes of party i at time t + 1. .
n
1i
1
2 TV tiit vv
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Increasing volatility
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
19
03
19
07
19
11
19
15
19
19
19
23
19
27
19
31
19
35
19
39
19
43
19
47
19
51
19
55
19
59
19
63
19
67
19
71
19
75
19
79
19
83
19
87
19
91
19
95
19
99
20
03
20
07
kantonale Parteiensysteme nationales Parteiensystem
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
What kind of parties? The big parties 1919 – 2007
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.01919
1922
1925
1928
1931
1935
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983
1987
1991
1995
1999
2003
2007
FDP CVP SPS SVP GPS
28.9 %
19.5 %
15.8 %
14.6 %
9.6 %
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
What kind of parties? The small parties
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.019
19
1922
1925
1928
1931
1935
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983
1987
1991
1995
1999
2003
2007
LPS PdA GPS FPS LdU SD
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Swiss parties
Union Démocratique du Centre UDC
Parti radical-démocratique PRD
Parti démocrate-chrétien PDC
Parti socialiste PS
Les verts PES
Alliance verte AVes (membre PES)
Alliance de gauche AdG
Démocrates Suisses DS
Grünliberale Zürich GLP
Lega dei Ticinesi
Parti chrétien-social PCS
Parti évangélique suisse PEV
Parti libéral PLS
Parti suisse du Travail PST
Alternative Zoug
Union Démocratique Fédérale UDF
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Four „older“ ones and a rather „new“ party
Social Democrats: Social security, solidarity, openness, environment
Radicals: knowledge, openness, fairness, growth, against bureaucracy
Christian Democrats: attractive business location, family, social security
Swiss People‘s Party: Against European integration, against immigration, lower tax burden
Greens: climate protection, reorganisation of the economy along more environmental lines, the strengthening of social institution and an active policy of peace
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
The emergence of the Swiss parties
Organisations of the citizens entitled to vote („Children of the popular
rights“)
Bottom-up: first organisation in the cantons
National party organisation
– Social Democrats (1888)
– Liberal Party (1894)
– Christian Democrats (1912)
– Swiss People’s Party (1936)
– Greens (1983)
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Party organisations
Rather weak and small. Parties belong to the civil society.
– No constitutional recognition (Art. 137, since 2000)
– Interest groups (and social movements) play an important role; consultation process opens the decision making process, direct democracy
– Weak national party organisation, limited resources, low number of professional staff, heterogenous
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Party members 1997-2007
CH 1997 2007 % Social Democrats 37'818 34'730 -8.2Greens 5'031 6'145 22.1
Christian Democrats 73'911 59'664 -19.3Libeals 87'297 65'925 -24.5Swiss People's Party 59'880 67'412 12.6
Effective members
Quelle: Gunzinger 2008
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Average membership fees (in sFr.)
40
82
56
46
25
77
128
71
54
73
115
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
PS PRD
UD
C
PDC
PES
PEV
PLS
UD
F
AE
PCS
Total
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Internal funding cantonal parties (percentages)
1997 2007
Liberals 71 57
Christian Democrats 75 66
Sw iss People's Party 85 82
Social Democrats 93 87
Greens 77 69
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Number of professional staff (national parties)
Vgl. Seminararbeit von Michael Bühler 2006
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Ideological heterogeneityP
art
ei
FDP
CVP
SVP
SP
GPS
Links-rechts-Skala
10987654321
34
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Candates National Election: Social Democrats and Swiss People‘ s Party
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Candidates: Liberals, Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, Swiss People‘s Party, Green liberals, Greens
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Political Differences among the MPs of the different Parties
| ©IDHEAP – [email protected] | | 19/04/23 |
Seven policy dimensions and 28 questions
Wirtschaftliche Liberalisierung = economic liberalization
Restriktive Finanzpolitik = restrictive financial policy
Justiz und Innere Sicherheit = law and order
Restriktive Einwanderungspolitik = restrictive immigration
policy
Umweltschutz = pro environment
Ausbau des Sozialstaates = pro welfare state
Liberale Gesellschaft = liberal society