Measuring Intra-Party Democracy

Berge, Benjamin von dem; Poguntke, Thomas; Obert, Peter; Tipei, Diana

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36033-6

Cited by 27 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Internally democratic parties feature large ‘selectorates’ in leadership elections (e.g., Bischof & Wagner, 2017; Ignazi, 2020; Lehrer, 2012; Schumacher et al., 2013; for overviews, see Borz & Janda, 2020; Poguntke et al., 2016) and broad participation of members in policy decisions (Schumacher & Giger, 2017; also von dem Berge et al., 2013). For example, parties may grant their members the right to elect the party leader, to choose candidates for general elections, or to hold referenda on coalition agreements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Populism and intra‐party democracy

Böhmelt

Ezrow

Lehrer

2022

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines how populism is linked to party organization and, specifically, intra-party democracy. Populism can be defined as an ideology (ideational perspective), which is characterized by anti-elitism, people-centrism and a discourse emphasizing a moral struggle between 'good people' and 'the elite'. On the other hand, there are leadership-focused definitions which see populism as a form of organization with personalistic control (a leadership perspective). With respect to party organization, focusing on the ideational perspective leads to the expectation that populist parties will be internally democratic, and the leadership approach will lead to the opposite expectation. Using the recently published Populism and Political Parties Expert Survey (POPPA) that develops party-specific populism scores, we examine more than 200 parties in 26 countries. The results highlight that populist parties gravitate toward personalized leaders and thus develop less democratic intra-party structures. This finding contributes to our understanding of populist parties and their organizations.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Populism and intra‐party democracy

Böhmelt

Ezrow

Lehrer

2022

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the PPDB presents missing data for most parties (see variable C101MAN2), we combine it with the COSPAL (Comparative Study of Party Leaders) dataset by using the following coding: the value 1 is attributed to parties that grant the party leader (and/or a drafting committee directly appointed by him or her) both an informal input and a vote in formulating the party election manifesto; 0.5 when the role of the party leader is based on either an informal input or a vote; 0 when neither of the two situations applies. When party statutes do not provide any specifications, we perform a qualitative analysis with the help of the coding scheme elaborated by vom dem Berge et al (2013).…”

Section: Measurement and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualising and Measuring Leadership Autonomy in Contemporary Party Organisations

Lisi

2022

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At a time when party politics is becoming increasingly personalised, conventional wisdom argues that the party leaders’ power in organisations is on the rise. However, scholarship has not yet provided a thorough and systematic analysis of the role of party leaders that offers theoretical and empirical specification. The aim of this article is to provide an analytical framework for the study of party leadership by examining the concept of leadership autonomy and its components. This new conceptualisation is then applied to a number of different parties across Western Europe, showing how leadership autonomy varies across countries and different party organisations. The conclusion sets out the implications for party change and highlights the importance of placing the leaders’ role at the centre of the empirical analysis of political parties.

show abstract

“…The renewed focus on an assembly-based or deliberative account of IPD has been instrumental (Wolkenstein, 2016; von dem Berge and Poguntke, 2017). Some authors argue that deliberative modes of party democracy could lead to more meaningful IPD beyond the simple aggregation of votes (Teorell, 1999; Wolkenstein, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, some scholars have started to take stock of deliberative practices in political parties (e.g. von dem Berge and Poguntke, 2017). One study conducted by Wolkenstein (2018) suggests that discussions among ordinary party members in established political parties can live up to deliberative ideals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who rules the deliberative party? Examining the Agora case in Belgium

Junius

Matthieu

2022

Party Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, pessimism about plebiscitary intra-party democracy has been challenged by assembly-based models of intra-party democracy. However, research has yet to explore the emergence of new power dynamics in parties originating from the implementation of deliberative practices in their intra-party democracy. We investigate how deliberative democratization reshuffles power relations within political parties through a case study of Agora, an internally deliberative movement party in Belgium. Employing a process-tracing approach using original interview and participant observation data, we argue that while plebiscitary intra-party democracy shifts power towards passive members prone to elite domination, our case suggests that deliberative intra-party democracy shifts power towards active members that are more likely to be critical of elites.

show abstract

Measuring Intra-Party Democracy

Cited by 27 publications

References 0 publications

Populism and intra‐party democracy

Populism and intra‐party democracy

Conceptualising and Measuring Leadership Autonomy in Contemporary Party Organisations

Who rules the deliberative party? Examining the Agora case in Belgium

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About