A Deliberative Model of Intra‐Party Democracy

Abstract

LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author's final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it.A deliberative model of intra-party democracy * FABIO WOLKENSTEIN Political Science, London School of Economics and Political Science I. INTRODUCTION: PARTIES AND LINKAGEPolitical parties serve a number of important functions in representative democracies.Connecting citizens to government is perhaps the most important one. This is how parties were traditionally conceived, and it continues to be the main standard according to which their legitimacy as representative institutions is evaluated. 1 Intra-party democracy is instrumental in establishing and sustaining this connection between society and government. Internally democratic parties empower the members on the ground, who have privileged access to the demands of the constituents, and provide them with opportunities to channel these demands into policy decisions. 2 Earlier versions of this article were presented in workshops at the LSE, the universities of Western Bohemia in * Plzeň and Lucerne, as well as at Sciences Po Paris and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. I thank André Bächtiger, Simon Beste, Gideon Calder, Maurits De Jongh, Charles Girard, Lilia Giugni, Simon Glendinning, Volkan Gül, Andrew Knops, Jenny Mansbridge, Giulia Pastorella, Carmen Pavel, and Sanna Salo for incisive and generous comments on these occasions. The article has also greatly benefited from exchanges with Cecilia Bruzelius, Charlotte Haberstroh, Lise Herman, Abby Innes, Jakob Kapeller, Mareike Kleine, Christina Maria Koch, and Jonathan White. My thanks to them for engaging with my work. Finally, I am grateful to the two anonymous referees of the JPP for their extensive and extremely helpful comments.As Sartori (1976, p. ix) put it more than a quarter century ago, "parties are the central intermediate and In this article, I begin by arguing that existing models of intra-party democracywhich focus on candidate selection and direct participation, respectively-are not adequate to the task of linking citizens to government. I suggest that these models run the risk of simply reinforcing the preferences of the party elite, thus weakening, instead of strengthening, the members on the ground. Missing from these models are fora of discussion and debate, in which the party base can...

Is It Interests, Ideas or Institutions? Explaining Elected Representatives' Positions Toward Democratic Innovations in 15 European Countries

“…At first sight, elected representatives and democratic innovations do stand in a contentious relationship toward one another. Despite theoretical arguments made in defense of the normative value and deliberative potential of parliaments and parties (White and Ypi, 2011;Wolkenstein, 2016), the very foundations of democratic innovation are inevitably in conflict with the logic of representation and the role played by elected MPs in the democratic system. After all, one predominant rationale behind the recourse to democratic innovations is to free politics from the shackles of partisanship and to see what happens when ordinary citizens discuss and decide on political issues, unharmed by partisan considerations or the weight of the next election (Fishkin, 2018).…”

The Crisis of Party Democracy, Cognitive Mobilization, and the Case for Making Parties More Deliberative

“…Empower local party branches. Local party branches are the “basic unit” of intraparty deliberation, being the venues where active and committed party members meet regularly to discuss local issues, or debate politics more generally, on a face-to-face basis (see Clark 2004; Wolkenstein 2016). Their accessibility makes them an important “entry point” for citizens into parties: lacking barriers to participation, party branches are a natural place to start if one wants to become politically active in a party.…”

“…Local party branches are the "basic unit" of intra-party deliberation, being the venues where active and committed party members meet regularly to discuss local issues, or debate politics more generally, on a face-to-face basis (see Clark 2004;Wolkenstein, forthcoming). Their accessibility makes them are an important "entry point" for citizens into parties:…”

Complementing and correcting representative institutions: When and how to use mini‐publics

“…Finally, partisan agendas are sometimes also the outcome of more or less deliberative processes of will‐formation that occur within parties. These processes have until recently been ignored or set aside in the literature, though it was recognised in some early texts on deliberative democracy (especially in Cohen ; contemporary discussions include Biezen & Saward : 30–31; Rosenblum : 160; Wolkenstein ).…”