政党作用的变化.pdf（英文）

The Changing Role of Political Parties • The Functions of Parties • Crisis and Change in the American Party System • Party Decline? • Explaining Party Change • After 2000 – Political Party Revival? • Questions for Discussion • Notes • Further Reading ‘A democratic society has to provide a mode of consistent representation of relatively stable alignments or modes of compromise in its polity. The mechanism of the American polity has been the two party system. If the party system, with its enforced mode of compromise, gives way, and ‘issue politics’ begin to polarize groups, then we have the classic recipe for what political scientists call ‘a crisis of the regime’, if not a crisis of disintegration and revolution.’ – Daniel Bell, The Public Interest ‘The American political party system is not an insoluble puzzle. But it does have more than its share of mysteries. The main one, arguably, is how it has survived for so long, or perhaps, how it survived at all, in a difficult and complicated environment.’ – William J. Keefe, Parties, Politics and Public Policy in America To the outside observer, the American party system can be very difficult to under- stand. Parties appear to be coalitions of many interests. They are organizationally weak and in a constant state of crisis. In contrast, most European political parties have quite vivid public images based on class, regional, religious, linguistic, ethnic or ideological divisions. While this is an oversimplified characterization of the two types of party system, it remains broadly true that American parties cover a narrower band of the ideo- logical spectrum than do their European counterparts. Historically they have also been much less programmatic, offering their supporters very general and diffuse policy options rather than the more structured and specific policy programmes associ- ated with European parties – although there are signs of some convergence in the two types of party systems in recent years. What is true of almost all party systems 5 APAC05.qxd 02/18/2005 04:59PM Page 79 liuchj 高亮 80 THE CHANGING ROLE OF POLITICAL PARTIES is that they are constantly developing and adapting to rapid social and economic changes – a fact which leads so many commentators to attach the label ‘crisis’ to the most recent development or electoral event. The remarkable thing about the American system is that it has always had just two major parties – although not always the same two parties – competing for major offices at any one time. Moreover, these parties have been largely non-ideological and inclusive in style and policy substance, and this in a country constantly being buffeted by the very major social changes that immigration, industrialization and urbanization have brought. So a defining characteristic of both the Democrats and the Republicans is that they have constantly sought to appeal to as wide a spectrum of voters as possible. As such they have been obliged to promise general rather than specific benefits to voters. People’s expectations of what government can do have therefore been raised. Once in office, however, party politicians have been obliged to focus on the provision of specific benefits. Honouring specific promises to one group often means penalizing another group. We return to this point below. A large part of this chapter is devoted to explaining why the American party sys- tem has taken the particular shape it has. As we shall see, however, although this system has retained its two-party, largely non-ideological status through history, it has by no means been static or unchanging. In organization and function the parties have changed quite dramatically over the past 230 years – and indeed have changed considerably over the past 30 years. To understand these changes it is first necessary to discuss the functions that political parties normally play in polit- ical systems. The Functions of Parties Although often abused by politicians and publics alike, political parties do perform vital functions in every political system, and in countries with democratic traditions they are an indisputably necessary part of the democratic process. In the American context parties perform at least five major functions, discussed below.1 Aggregation of demands In any society, social groups with particular interests to promote or defend need some means whereby their demands can be aggregated and articulated in government. Traditionally, political parties have performed this function – hence the association of party with particular social groups, regions or religions. In the US, parties have acquired just such associations, although, as noted, to a lesser extent than in some other countries. Hence, the Democrats became the party of Southern interests quite early in history, although by the 1930s the Democrats had also become the party of Northern industrial workers. The Republicans were originally the anti-slavery party of the North, but eventually developed into the party of national unity and later became identified as the party most interested in defending free enterprise and corporate power, an identification that remains today. APAC05.qxd 02/18/2005 04:59PM Page 80 liuchj 下划线 liuchj 下划线 THE CHANGING ROLE OF POLITICAL PARTIES 81 But generally parties in the United States have not been exclusively associated with one social group or class or one geographical region. Instead they tend to be coalitions of interests, aggregating demands on behalf of a number of social groups and regional interests. Given the relatively low level of ideological division and conflict in the US (see chapter 3), this is, perhaps, unsurprising. Conciliation of groups in society Even in the most divided society some conciliation between competing or conflict- ing interests has to occur if government is to operate efficiently. Political parties often help this conciliation process by providing united platforms for the articulation of diverse interests. Indeed, in the US, there has hardly been a major political party that has not performed this function. In recent history, the Democrats have attempted (and until 1964 largely succeeded) in reconciling a rural segregationist South with the interests of the urban industrial North. In specific elections, the particular coalition of support established is uniquely determined by contempor- ary issues and candidates. So in 1960 Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy managed to appeal to both the Catholic voters of the North (Kennedy was himself a Catholic) and Southern Protestants. In 1968 and 1972, the law and order issue cut across regions and classes and helped bring victory to Richard Nixon, the Republican candidate. By 1980 the Republicans had forged a new coalition con- sisting of a regional component (the West and the South), a religious/moral com- ponent (the Christian right) and an economic/ideological component (the middle classes and supporters of a ‘return’ to free enterprise). By conciliating such diverse groups and offering a common programme, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan was assured victory. In 1988 George Bush managed to retain the loyalty of sufficient numbers of these same groups to win. In 1992 Bill Clinton was successful in reviving at least parts of the old New Deal coalition by appealing to industrial workers, minorities, women and many middle-class voters on the issue of economic revival. His appeal in 1996 was slightly different, based as it was on a vote for the status quo. As in 1992, however, Clinton managed to form a complex coalition of support based on gender, ethnicity and region (the West and the industrial North). In 2000, Gore almost managed to re-create this winning coalition. He won most of the north-eastern and Pacific states and won large majorities among women and ethnic minorities. Unlike for Clinton, however, his overall popular majority did not translate into a victory in the Electoral College. And, in contrast to Bob Dole in 1996, George W. Bush managed to win some key industrial states, such as Ohio, and, of course, the hotly disputed Florida vote, a feat he managed to repeat in 2004. Clearly, political parties have to appeal to a number of competing and potentially conflicting interests if they are to succeed in a country as diverse and complex as the United States. As a result, parties have tended to move towards the middle of the ideological spectrum, avoiding those more extreme positions likely to alienate potential supporters. Noting this tendency towards moderation, political theorists have produced a more general model of party behaviour that assumes that if parties are rational and really want to win elections they will always move towards APAC05.qxd 02/18/2005 04:59PM Page 81 82 THE CHANGING ROLE OF POLITICAL PARTIES the median voter or the centre ground in politics. Only in this way can they ensure majority electoral support.2 Whatever its merits in other countries, this theory seems particularly apt in the United States, where with rather few exceptions (of which more below) parties have remained remarkably moderate. Staffing the government In a modern, complex society parties are a necessary link in the relationship between government and people. According to social-contract theory, governments must be held accountable for their actions. If they are perceived to be failing, then the people can always replace them at election time. Unfortunately, accountability and responsiveness can never be continuous or complete except in very small societies or communities. Given this, parties provide the public with a focus for accountability. Once elected, a president appoints government officials to fill the major posts in the new administration. Not only departmental chiefs (members of the cabinet) but also the top civil service positions are filled in the main through party linkages (see chapter 10). When judging the performance of the government, there- fore, the public can look to the record of an administration united by a common party label and, presumably, a common set of policies. As the party is rooted in soci- ety via party organizations, staffing the government through party helps to ensure an intimate link between the implementation of policies and public preference. This at least is the theory of how party should operate in government. As we will dis- cover below, the practice is rather different. One serious practical problem occurs when party organization, rather than reflecting the interests of social groups or regions, is instead merely the vehicle for the promotion and election of a particular candid- ate. Another problem, to which we now turn, occurs when different branches of government have different constituencies and therefore distinct party organizations. Coordination of government institutions As has already been noted several times in this book, American government is uncom- monly fragmented. National legislature is separated from executive. Federalism adds a further fragmenting influence by giving state (and through the states, local) governments considerable independence from the federal authorities. In centralized systems with cabinet government, parties actually dominate institutions. In Britain, for example, powerful political-party organizations nominate candidates, fight elections and, if successful, form the government out of a majority in the House of Commons. By exercising control over the party organization, governments (or oppositions) can usually ensure the obedience of individual Members of Parliament. In this sense party is hardly needed as a coordinating influence, because a system of party government prevails. In marked contrast, America’s separated powers and fed- eral arrangements greatly aggravate problems of coordination, and as numerous American political scientists have pointed out, party is the main means whereby dis- parate institutions can coordinate the formulation and implementation of policy.3 APAC05.qxd 02/18/2005 04:59PM Page 82 THE CHANGING ROLE OF POLITICAL PARTIES 83 So, even if state and local government, Congress and president have different con- stituencies, a common party label can provide a means of communication and coor- dination. In fact, Democratic governors, mayors and members of Congress usually do have more in common with Democratic presidents than with Republican presid- ents – although we will discover below that they often do not. Certainly there have been periods in American history when relations between Congress and president have been greatly aided by political party ties. During the Jeffersonian period, for example, something approaching party government prevailed. More recently, Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson (both Democrats) used party ties greatly to enhance their relations with Congress and thus erect major new social programmes. During the 1969–77 and 1981–93 periods Republican presidents faced a Congress dominated by Democrats, although the Republicans held the Senate between 1981 and 1987. Divided government of a very different sort prevailed after 1994 when the Republicans controlled Congress and the Democrats the presidency. Most recently of all, George W. Bush enjoyed unified government after 2002, a fact that enabled him to make a significant impact on the legislative agenda. At the state and local levels, the coordinating function of party has taken a rather different form. In the decades immediately following the Civil War, municipal and to a lesser extent state governments proved less than adequate in dealing with suc- cessive waves of immigrants from Europe. Hopelessly divided and fragmented insti- tutionally and politically, local governments could do little to improve transport, housing and other urban facilities, or even to ensure a reasonable degree of public order. Political parties filled this void through the creation of the political machine – an informal ‘government’ based on patronage, bribery and corruption.4 Machines depended on tightly knit grass-roots organization, with the party providing ordin- ary citizens with direct access to the political authorities. Officials in the legitimate government gained through patronage and bribes, and the party was given a guar- antee of political power in return. Although hardly welfare organizations, the urban machines of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries did at least keep government going in the great cities by providing an essential buffer between the immigrant masses and a hostile economic and political environment. Promotion of political stability Parties do not always promote political stability. In many countries parties mobil- ize movements against existing regimes and are a major force in bringing regime change. Moreover, if governmental (as opposed to regime) stability is the measure, it is clear that the multi-party systems of western Europe do anything but promote stability, as the Italian and other systems testify (Italy has had more than 25 governments since 1970). In ‘mature’ democracies, however, parties do help to socialize citizens into an acceptance of the regime, if only by legitimizing national parliaments and assemblies and facilitating the peaceful transferral of power from one government to another. For reasons to be discussed below, America’s two-party system has proved re- markably resilient, with the result that the country has never suffered the problems APAC05.qxd 02/18/2005 04:59PM Page 83 84 THE CHANGING ROLE OF POLITICAL PARTIES associated with a proliferation of organized parties. Although the causal lines are blurred, it does seem reasonable to argue that American political parties have helped to promote political stability. Quite frequently, for example, political move- ments outside the mainstream of American political life have had their policies pre- empted by one of the leading parties. This happened to the Populists during the 1890s when much of their programme was adopted by the Democrats, and to a number of left-wing parties and movements during the early New Deal period. Moreover, the two most significant third parties of the twentieth century, the Progressives and the American Independent Party, grew out of existing parties and were eventually reincorporated into them. In both cases the breakaway was led by a single char- ismatic figure – Theodore Roosevelt in the case of the Progressives in 1912 and George Wallace in the case of the American Independent Party in 1968. In fact George Wallace effectively was the party and without him it simply disappeared. But the crucial point is that the issues which inspired both movements – dispute over the federal gov- ernment’s role in economy and society and the racial integration of the South – and which the existing parties could not accommodate, did not lead to a permanent shift in party alignments. Instead, either the Democrats and Republicans adapted to the new demands or the movements themselves were reincorporated into the main- stream once the protest had been made. In a rather different context, Ross Perot’s strong showing as a third candidate in 1992 (19 per cent of the vote) showed dis- illusionment among voters with the Republican and Democratic Party candidates. Significantly, however, it did not lead in any way to the emergence of a third party. Plate 5.1 Jefferson Davis. Undated political cartoon APAC05.qxd 02/18/2005 04:59PM Page 84 THE CHANGING ROLE OF POLITICAL PARTIES 85 Indeed, Perot’s second challenge to the two-party system in 1996 proved much less effective, when he managed just 8 per cent of the vote. The constantly impressive ability of American political parties to absorb poten- tially destabilizing social movements has no doubt contributed to the stability of the system, although the more inquiring mind could note that the two major parties have been able to perform this function only because there have been so few deep divisions in American society. A more divided society could not possibly sustain such a monopoly of power shared by two such amorphous and adaptable parties. This is clear when the US is compared with divided societies such as Canada or Belgium. In both cases linguistic and religious cleavages are such that they are faithfully reflected in the party system. Crisis and Change in the American Party System At least since the early 1950s political scientists have bemoaned the decline of Amer- ican political parties. The ‘crisis’ has been identified mainly in terms of a constant erosion of the five functions listed above. In what is already a highly fragmented political system, the decline of these functions has, so the argument runs, led to inefficient government and an erosion of the legitimacy of institutions. In order to understand this critique it is necessary to be familiar with the devel- opment of American political parties. Table 5.1 provides a schematic outline of their history by identifying five distinct stages of development. Such a brief summary of the parties’ growth must oversimplify somewhat. In particular, the outline implies that the parties have mobilized different regions and social groups in a coherent way throughout history. But this has never been the case. With the notable exception of the Civil War period, the parties have always represented broad coalitions, and they have almost always eschewed appeals to those class-based ideologies that exploit social divisions in society. Until the early years of the nineteenth century, parties were considered useful only as temporary expedients, or as ‘factions’ necessary to mobilize political power in response to particular crises. As was emphasized in chapter 3, the Constitution and the political culture generally in the New Republic were deeply suspicious of polit- ical parties and their implied threat of government by factions, tyrannical majorit- ies and mass politica