see Downs (2001); Heinisch (2003); Minkenberg (2001); van Spanje and van der Brug (2007).
2. Quoted in Ranney (1978: 1).
3. The text of his contribution is reprinted in
Progressive Governance for the XXI Century: Conference Proceedings Florence, 20 and 21 November 1999
. Florence: European University Institute and New York University School of Law, 2000, 42.
4. Hailsham’s speech is reprinted in
The Listener
, 21 October 1976. After the 1979 election, Hailsham went on to become a leading member of the strongly partisan governments of Margaret Thatcher.
5. See also Laver and Shepsle (1991), who discuss this in the context of minority governments.
6. Rose’s 1969 article was later reprinted in his
The Problem of Party Government
(Rose, 1974), which as a whole, despite its title, goes no further in dealing with party government as such than did the original article.
7. Laver and Shepsle (1994: 5–8) also briefly list a variety of alternatives to party government, including bureaucratic, legislative, prime-ministerial, cabinet and ministerial forms. See also Müller (1994).
8. For an earlier evaluation of these problems, see Smith (1986).
9. For a different approach to the issue of party government, focusing more attention on the link between parties and the governing institutions, see Blondel and Cotta (2000). In this chapter, I focus mainly on the question of the power that may or may not travel from party to government. In the wider discussion of the cartel party (e.g. Katz and Mair, 1995; Katz and Mair, 2002), there is also a treatment of power that travels from government to party, and particularly to the party in public office.
10. The version of the German story as told by a clearly peevish Oskar Lafontaine (2000: 50–57) carries extraordinarily strong echoes of the version of the British story that was reported by various allies of Gordon Brown to Andrew Rawnsley (2000). As Lafontaine puts it, having admitted that Schröder cut the better figure on television: ‘Is it permissible … for the media to have the decisive voice in a discussion over who shall lead a party into an election campaign? If the party were to answer this question in the affirmative, would it not be shedding too much of its own responsibility?’
11. Although they may well be controlled by an autonomous political leadership, suggesting a ‘party as network’ notion that seems markedly different from the more traditional forms of party organization.
APPENDIX: A NOTE ON ADDITIONAL TABLES
Tables 5 (a) and (b), in Chapter 4 , are an editorial addition computing the vote share of a number of populist parties, for national general and European Parliament elections – from 1980 to 2010 for the former and from 1979 to 2009 for the latter. The parties featuring in the tables are mainly populist formations of the radical right, as defined by Cas Mudde (2007) in his seminal work on the subject, already cited in the draft text of
Ruling the Void
. They are accompanied by a number of instances that in one way or another deviate from the general pattern. The countries included are those of the European Union as it stood on the eve of the major enlargement of 2004, plus a number of long-established west European democracies outside the EU – a selection made to facilitate comparison with the tables in Chapter 1 . Here, by country, are the parties included in the calculations.
• Austria: Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) for the general elections of 1983, 1986, 1990, 1994, 1995,1999, 2002, 2006 and 2008 and the European elections of 1996, 1999, 2004 and 2009; and Bündnis Zukunft Österreich (BZÖ) for the general elections of 2006 and 2008 and the European election of 2009.
• Belgium: Vlaams Blok (VB) for the general elections of 1981, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1999 and 2003 and the European elections of 1984, 1989, 1994, 1999 and 2004; Front National (FN) for the general elections of 1991, 1995, 1999 and 2003 and the European
2. Quoted in Ranney (1978: 1).
3. The text of his contribution is reprinted in
Progressive Governance for the XXI Century: Conference Proceedings Florence, 20 and 21 November 1999
. Florence: European University Institute and New York University School of Law, 2000, 42.
4. Hailsham’s speech is reprinted in
The Listener
, 21 October 1976. After the 1979 election, Hailsham went on to become a leading member of the strongly partisan governments of Margaret Thatcher.
5. See also Laver and Shepsle (1991), who discuss this in the context of minority governments.
6. Rose’s 1969 article was later reprinted in his
The Problem of Party Government
(Rose, 1974), which as a whole, despite its title, goes no further in dealing with party government as such than did the original article.
7. Laver and Shepsle (1994: 5–8) also briefly list a variety of alternatives to party government, including bureaucratic, legislative, prime-ministerial, cabinet and ministerial forms. See also Müller (1994).
8. For an earlier evaluation of these problems, see Smith (1986).
9. For a different approach to the issue of party government, focusing more attention on the link between parties and the governing institutions, see Blondel and Cotta (2000). In this chapter, I focus mainly on the question of the power that may or may not travel from party to government. In the wider discussion of the cartel party (e.g. Katz and Mair, 1995; Katz and Mair, 2002), there is also a treatment of power that travels from government to party, and particularly to the party in public office.
10. The version of the German story as told by a clearly peevish Oskar Lafontaine (2000: 50–57) carries extraordinarily strong echoes of the version of the British story that was reported by various allies of Gordon Brown to Andrew Rawnsley (2000). As Lafontaine puts it, having admitted that Schröder cut the better figure on television: ‘Is it permissible … for the media to have the decisive voice in a discussion over who shall lead a party into an election campaign? If the party were to answer this question in the affirmative, would it not be shedding too much of its own responsibility?’
11. Although they may well be controlled by an autonomous political leadership, suggesting a ‘party as network’ notion that seems markedly different from the more traditional forms of party organization.
APPENDIX: A NOTE ON ADDITIONAL TABLES
Tables 5 (a) and (b), in Chapter 4 , are an editorial addition computing the vote share of a number of populist parties, for national general and European Parliament elections – from 1980 to 2010 for the former and from 1979 to 2009 for the latter. The parties featuring in the tables are mainly populist formations of the radical right, as defined by Cas Mudde (2007) in his seminal work on the subject, already cited in the draft text of
Ruling the Void
. They are accompanied by a number of instances that in one way or another deviate from the general pattern. The countries included are those of the European Union as it stood on the eve of the major enlargement of 2004, plus a number of long-established west European democracies outside the EU – a selection made to facilitate comparison with the tables in Chapter 1 . Here, by country, are the parties included in the calculations.
• Austria: Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) for the general elections of 1983, 1986, 1990, 1994, 1995,1999, 2002, 2006 and 2008 and the European elections of 1996, 1999, 2004 and 2009; and Bündnis Zukunft Österreich (BZÖ) for the general elections of 2006 and 2008 and the European election of 2009.
• Belgium: Vlaams Blok (VB) for the general elections of 1981, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1999 and 2003 and the European elections of 1984, 1989, 1994, 1999 and 2004; Front National (FN) for the general elections of 1991, 1995, 1999 and 2003 and the European
Similar Books
