|
Showing 1 - 5 of
5 matches in All Departments
Roughly sixty-five years ago, a group of political scientists
operating as the "Committee on Political Parties" of the American
Political Association thought long and hard about whether the
American parties were adequately serving their democracy, and made
specific recommendations for improvements. Comparing the parties of
this country to those of Great Britain, the Committee found the
American parties to be lacking in such fundamentals as clear policy
differences, strong and effective organization, and unity of
purpose among each party's representatives in public offices.
Starting from that background, this book is intended to
significantly enhance students' understanding of the American
parties today by putting them in broader context. How do the
twenty-first century Democrats and Republicans compare to the APSA
Committee's "responsible parties model" of the mid-twentieth? And
how do the American parties compare to parties of other democracies
around the world, including especially the British parties? Harmel,
Giebert, and Janda answer those questions and, in the process,
demonstrate that the American parties have moved significantly in
the direction of the responsible parties model, but while showing
little inclination for implementing the greater discipline the
Committee thought essential. Already having provided as much
ideological choice as the British parties, the US parties have now
edged closer on the other critical requirement of legislative
cohesion. The authors show that the latter has resulted "naturally"
from the greater homogenization of the meaning of "Democrat" and
"Republican" across the country, both within the electorate and now
within Congress as well. The dramatic increase in cohesion is not
the product of greater party discipline, but rather of sectoral
realignments.
Roughly sixty-five years ago, a group of political scientists
operating as the "Committee on Political Parties" of the American
Political Association thought long and hard about whether the
American parties were adequately serving their democracy, and made
specific recommendations for improvements. Comparing the parties of
this country to those of Great Britain, the Committee found the
American parties to be lacking in such fundamentals as clear policy
differences, strong and effective organization, and unity of
purpose among each party's representatives in public offices.
Starting from that background, this book is intended to
significantly enhance students' understanding of the American
parties today by putting them in broader context. How do the
twenty-first century Democrats and Republicans compare to the APSA
Committee's "responsible parties model" of the mid-twentieth? And
how do the American parties compare to parties of other democracies
around the world, including especially the British parties? Harmel,
Giebert, and Janda answer those questions and, in the process,
demonstrate that the American parties have moved significantly in
the direction of the responsible parties model, but while showing
little inclination for implementing the greater discipline the
Committee thought essential. Already having provided as much
ideological choice as the British parties, the US parties have now
edged closer on the other critical requirement of legislative
cohesion. The authors show that the latter has resulted "naturally"
from the greater homogenization of the meaning of "Democrat" and
"Republican" across the country, both within the electorate and now
within Congress as well. The dramatic increase in cohesion is not
the product of greater party discipline, but rather of sectoral
realignments.
When it comes to party institutionalisation - at least for
entrepreneurial right-wing protest parties -- leadership matters!
That is the primary takeaway from this book. Of the hundreds of new
parties that have formed since the 1970s, many have fallen by the
wayside, but others have gone on to reach institution-hood. And
some of the latter have then met with decay and
de-institutionalisation. The experiences of the Progress Parties of
Denmark and Norway - both of which institutionalised and one of
which then de-institutionalised - shed important light on both
topics. While focusing particularly on those two cases, the authors
develop conceptual and theoretical frameworks that are broadly
applicable, as demonstrated in the final chapter and in an
elaborate appendix.
This edited collection builds directly upon the recently published
book by Harmel, Svasand, and Mjelde (Institutionalisation (and
De-Institutionalisation) of Right-Wing Protest Parties: The
Progress Parties in Denmark and Norway) and applies their
conceptual framework to a wide range of additional cases. Employing
a common conceptual framework throughout, the chapters cover a
broad range of cases and make important contributions toward
building theories on why some parties succeed in institutionalising
while others fail. The book is primarily about the status some
parties achieve as an 'institution', the means by which parties may
acquire that status, and some of the obstacles that stand in their
way.
When it comes to party institutionalisation - at least for
entrepreneurial right-wing protest parties -- leadership matters!
That is the primary takeaway from this book. Of the hundreds of new
parties that have formed since the 1970s, many have fallen by the
wayside, but others have gone on to reach institution-hood. And
some of the latter have then met with decay and
de-institutionalisation. The experiences of the Progress Parties of
Denmark and Norway - both of which institutionalised and one of
which then de-institutionalised - shed important light on both
topics. While focusing particularly on those two cases, the authors
develop conceptual and theoretical frameworks that are broadly
applicable, as demonstrated in the final chapter and in an
elaborate appendix.
|
You may like...
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
|