Reading guide week 9
Schattschneider, E.E. (1975). The Semisovereign People. A Realist’s View of Democracy in
America. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, pp. 60-67 (Chapter 4, first
part).
1) What is a cleavage?
Cleavage is a gap (for instance a conflict) between people, that leads to people being on
different sides. According to lecture: a cleavage is a societal line of division, fundamental
differences
2) In what sense do conflicts compete with each other? Why?
Only a few conflicts are able to become significant, because the rise of a new conflict leads
to a shift in priorities among the contestants. It is not possible for contestants to be really
invested in multiple conflicts at the same time, because these conflicts are not always
compatible with each other. So, conflicts have to compete with each other to get people’s
attention and become the most important cleavage in society.
3) Why is “the definition of alternatives the supreme instrument of power”?
The people that are able to decide which conflicts are the most important, are the people
that have the most power in a state.
4) Schattschneider says that “Political conflicts are waged by coalitions of inferior interests
held together by a dominant interest”. How and why does this matter?
This refers to what is said on page 63 about how people may be in smaller conflict with each
other, but that these conflicts may be put aside in the light of a bigger conflict. So, former
enemies may become friends when facing a new, bigger conflict.
5) How does this insight relate to the reading by Suryanarayan and White in week
6?
The reading by Suryanarayan is about how during the Reconstruction, black men got the
right to vote and participate politically. Because of them, many new taxation policies were
implemented. The rich elites did not like this, and tried to convince poorer white voters that
it was in their interest to vote against redistribution, because then they would be able to
maintain their “higher status”, since they were white. So, there was a battle between
different conflicts (or cleavages): race or social class (white vs black), economic status (rich vs
poor).
First, economic status became the most important conflict, but the rich white elites
managed to convince poorer white elites that social class was more important.
Mair, P. (2006). “Ruling the Void?: The Hollowing of Western Democracy.” New Left
Review 42: 25–51.
1) How and why has politics become devalued, according to Mair? Do you agree?
According to Mair, politics has become devalued because of the indifference towards politics
among citizens. Many ordinary citizens do not think politics is that relevant anymore. I agree
,to some degree, because for instance in the Netherlands, you see that there are many
people that cannot be bothered to vote (e.g. only 50% during last months’ municipality
elections). However, I think it is important to look at what causes this indifference.
2) What do the popular and the constitutional component of democracy refer to?
How are they related?
The constitutional component stresses the need for separation of power, so that no political
institution can grab absolute power and the government is able to govern for the people.
The popular component stresses the role of ordinary citizens and their participation in
politics, so this is more about elections et cetera.
3) Why are parties important for democracy? Which role do they play?
According to Schattschneider, parties are in the center of modern governments and play a
crucial role in them. Parties are really important for the popular component of democracy,
since they engage ordinary citizens to get involved in politics. So, without parties, there will
be less, or maybe even no electoral accountability.
4) Which indicators capture changes in citizen engagement? How have these trends
affected the relationship between parties and citizens?
Parties are no longer succeeding in getting ordinary citizens involved in politics. People no
longer commit themselves to parties and vote less. So, citizens are not really politically
involved in a conventional way anymore.
Parties are no longer able to provide their leaders with what they need. As a consequence,
these leaders have to go to external institutions to get their resources. So, parties are used
and then left behind.
So, parties, political leaders and citizens are no longer engaging with each other, which
shows in several ways:
1. Electoral entropy: Citizens participate way less in national elections. In the 1990s, the
participation percentage dropped below 80% for the first time. Throughout all of
Europe, there is a downward trend.
2. Voter volatility: The citizens who are still voting are less bound to specific parties. This
will make election outcomes more unpredictable and pressurize traditional
alignment.
3. Partisan attachment: Individual voters feel less commitment to political parties. They
do not feel like they belong at a specific party anymore. There is, for instance, more
split-ticket voting: people vote for a specific party during some elections (e.g.
national elections), but for another party during other elections (e.g. municipality
elections). Besides, people are more likely to decide which party to vote for during
the election campaign, instead of having a solid party preference. They are also less
likely to become a party member and engage in the activities that come with that.
5) How are parties responding? Where do politicians and parties turn if they are
no longer defined by their linkages with society?
Political and party leaders withdraw from close contact with citizens as well, and tend to get
more caught up in the world of politics. So, they are less approachable for citizens. Besides,
parties become more similar to each other, and at the same time they become more distinct
, from the preferences of the voters. This reinforces the indifference and political mistrust of
citizens.
Parties are no longer able to survive with just the resources provided by members and
donators. So, they have to rely on state funding.
There are a lot of regulations and laws political parties have to adhere to, for instance about
registration and broadcasting. Having to adhere to these regulations does have an
advantage: it makes parties somewhat official. However, they also become less autonomous.
Parties now prioritize their governing role over their representative role. So, they are more
focused on getting into government and remaining in power than on accurately representing
the voice of their members.
Parties become agencies that govern, instead of representing. On the other hand, citizens
become spectators instead of participants. This disengagement between citizens and parties
leads to the rise of populist (right) parties. Besides, it leads to demands for a greater role for
non-political agencies.
Abou-Chadi, T, and S. Hix (2021). “Brahmin Left versus Merchant Right? Education, class,
multiparty competition, and redistribution in Western Europe”, British Journal of
Sociology, 72: 79– 92.
1) The starting point for the analysis are Piketty’s claims about the transformation of
dimensions of political conflict. What does Piketty say happened?
The most significant political conflict used to be class. This meant that parties were divided
into left and right parties, where the left parties were in favor of redistribution of wealth
from upper classes to lower classes, and the right parties were against this. However, for the
last few decades, the most significant political conflict is identity (or borders). This means
that the left parties are more in favor of globalization and attract more highly-educated
voters, whereas the right parties are against this and attract more lower-educated voters.
2) Is this supported by political science scholarship on electoral politics?
Some parts of Piketty’s claims are supported, but according to political science scholarship,
Piketty’s distinction between left and right is too one-dimensional and doesn’t take into
account the fragmentation of party systems. Besides, Piketty’s claim that the political left
does no longer support redistribution of wealth is incorrect. Instead, the reduction of the
size of the working class meant that the left had to reach out to other groups in order to stay
relevant. So, instead of just focusing on redistribution, they had to focus on other topics as
well, even though redistribution is still highly supported.
3) Which dimensions of the contemporary political space do political scientists
generally distinguish? Can you place some of the parties you know or have voted for in this
two-dimensional space?
First, there is a distinction between economic left and right, where economic left parties are
in favor of redistribution of wealth and economic right parties are against this. Besides, there
is a sociocultural dimension, where libertarian parties are in favor of maximization of
personal and economic freedom, whereas authoritarian parties are in favor of more
governmental control.
