Adrienne LeBas
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- September 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199546862
- eISBN:
- 9780191728594
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546862.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Democratization
Why do strong opposition party organizations emerge in some democratizing countries, while those in others remain weak or quickly fragment on ethnic lines? This book offers an explanation for why ...
More
Why do strong opposition party organizations emerge in some democratizing countries, while those in others remain weak or quickly fragment on ethnic lines? This book offers an explanation for why opposition parties vary in organizational form, cohesion, and mobilizational reach. The book draws upon an in-depth analysis of three countries in Anglophone Africa: Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Kenya. Though these countries share similar institutional frameworks, including electoral rules, party development has taken a different route in each. The explanation emphasizes the ways in which historical legacies interact with strategic choices to produce different trajectories of party development. In terms of the role of history, the book argues that strong opposition parties are more likely where authoritarian states relied on alliances with corporate actors like labor. In these contexts, ruling parties armed their allies, providing them with mobilizing structures and political resources that could later be used to challenge the state. Secondly, opposition parties are more likely to maintain their organizational cohesion and the commitment of activists when they use strategies and appeals that escalate conflict and reorient social boundaries around the lines of partisan affiliation. Polarization forges stronger parties, but it also increases the likelihood of violence and authoritarian retrenchment. The book provides an explanation of why democratization in the hybrid regimes of the late Third Wave may prove more conflictual and more protracted than earlier transitions to democracy.Less
Why do strong opposition party organizations emerge in some democratizing countries, while those in others remain weak or quickly fragment on ethnic lines? This book offers an explanation for why opposition parties vary in organizational form, cohesion, and mobilizational reach. The book draws upon an in-depth analysis of three countries in Anglophone Africa: Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Kenya. Though these countries share similar institutional frameworks, including electoral rules, party development has taken a different route in each. The explanation emphasizes the ways in which historical legacies interact with strategic choices to produce different trajectories of party development. In terms of the role of history, the book argues that strong opposition parties are more likely where authoritarian states relied on alliances with corporate actors like labor. In these contexts, ruling parties armed their allies, providing them with mobilizing structures and political resources that could later be used to challenge the state. Secondly, opposition parties are more likely to maintain their organizational cohesion and the commitment of activists when they use strategies and appeals that escalate conflict and reorient social boundaries around the lines of partisan affiliation. Polarization forges stronger parties, but it also increases the likelihood of violence and authoritarian retrenchment. The book provides an explanation of why democratization in the hybrid regimes of the late Third Wave may prove more conflictual and more protracted than earlier transitions to democracy.
Piero Ignazi
- Published in print:
- 2017
- Published Online:
- September 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780198735854
- eISBN:
- 9780191799815
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780198735854.003.0003
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics
Chapter 2 expands the analysis of the acceptance of parties by signalling the distinction between theoretical speculation and party politics ‘on the ground’. After the ideological and practical ...
More
Chapter 2 expands the analysis of the acceptance of parties by signalling the distinction between theoretical speculation and party politics ‘on the ground’. After the ideological and practical acceptance of parties in late eighteenth-century Britain, parties found their first operation on the ground in revolutionary France and the United States. Particular attention is devoted to the events of the French revolution where the Jacobin clubs set up, albeit for a very short period, the first ever nationwide, organized political party. In the nineteenth century the appearance of political parties was still regarded with suspicion and caution, and they were not yet fully endorsed even by liberal thinkers. The idea of partition and division was still held back by the advocacy of unity and uniformity. By the end of the nineteenth century parties had been ideologically tamed by the rise of the holist dominant value of the nation (France) and state (Germany, and to a lesser extent Italy).Less
Chapter 2 expands the analysis of the acceptance of parties by signalling the distinction between theoretical speculation and party politics ‘on the ground’. After the ideological and practical acceptance of parties in late eighteenth-century Britain, parties found their first operation on the ground in revolutionary France and the United States. Particular attention is devoted to the events of the French revolution where the Jacobin clubs set up, albeit for a very short period, the first ever nationwide, organized political party. In the nineteenth century the appearance of political parties was still regarded with suspicion and caution, and they were not yet fully endorsed even by liberal thinkers. The idea of partition and division was still held back by the advocacy of unity and uniformity. By the end of the nineteenth century parties had been ideologically tamed by the rise of the holist dominant value of the nation (France) and state (Germany, and to a lesser extent Italy).
Amel Ahmed
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- May 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780190846374
- eISBN:
- 9780190869595
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780190846374.003.0006
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, International Relations and Politics
Area-specific knowledge is indispensable for studying political development, but this can also lead to “blindspots” when conducting historical research if one’s horizons are limited to conventionally ...
More
Area-specific knowledge is indispensable for studying political development, but this can also lead to “blindspots” when conducting historical research if one’s horizons are limited to conventionally defined “areas.” Focusing on the 19th century, the author argues that the compartmentalization of the study of European and American political development has restricted our understanding of both. Particularly in struggles over democratization, pre-democratic elites in both regions saw their fates as linked and adopted similar strategies. In fact, one such strategy—the manipulation of electoral systems to limit working-class influence—was a mainstay of European politics, but first emerged in the American context. This finding illustrates the benefits of a comparative area studies (CAS) framework. A context-sensitive comparison of European and American political development offers a new perspective on the question of institutional endogeneity in Europe, while offering a new take on the question of “why no workers’ parties in the United States?”Less
Area-specific knowledge is indispensable for studying political development, but this can also lead to “blindspots” when conducting historical research if one’s horizons are limited to conventionally defined “areas.” Focusing on the 19th century, the author argues that the compartmentalization of the study of European and American political development has restricted our understanding of both. Particularly in struggles over democratization, pre-democratic elites in both regions saw their fates as linked and adopted similar strategies. In fact, one such strategy—the manipulation of electoral systems to limit working-class influence—was a mainstay of European politics, but first emerged in the American context. This finding illustrates the benefits of a comparative area studies (CAS) framework. A context-sensitive comparison of European and American political development offers a new perspective on the question of institutional endogeneity in Europe, while offering a new take on the question of “why no workers’ parties in the United States?”
