Janda's Definition Of A Political Party example essay topic

Does the dominance of the Democrat and Republican parties endanger American democracy? Politics of the USA Matt Jackson The role of parties within the American system has been an ambiguous one since the first days of the American Republic, when the then vice President John Adams' commented "The greatest political evil under the constitution was the division of the Republic into two great parties, each under its leader". This seems to suggest that a full examination, of the role the party would play within American democracy, was not on the minds of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton when they fought to create the first major party divide since independence, namely that of federalist and Jeffersonian approaches to government in the United States. From these early tensions have grown a culture of partisan fighting between two central groups, which if not from 1789 has definitely been the case since the conclusion of the Civil War. It is from this context that America has evolved its party system, to much criticism from those in support of a more pluralist approach, who accuse American democracy of disenfranchising huge rafts of the population and stifling participation from Washington outwards. However, there also exists a compelling case to say that democracy exists in a unique way in America, which is not applicable to European criteria of judgement.

The defence of the status quo has to confront the fact that no third party has stood a realistic chance of forming a government in America since the end of the Civil War in the 1860's. The Independents of Ross Perot in 1992, and the Socialists after World War One are the only possible counter examples to this and illustrate the dearth of change at the highest levels of government. At this point Janda's definition of a political party may help to illuminate possible responses to the above charge. Janda (1994) defines a political party as "An organisation that sponsors candidates for political office under the organisation's name".

This definition is open to extreme interpretation, particularly when we consider the historical differences between American and European political parties. The Janda definition is of little use in explicitly detailing how broad political parties can be, and how disciplined party members are except in the most elementary sense. McKay (1993) gives a fuller explanation of how the parties behave on either sides of the Atlantic. "American political parties differ from their European counterparts in a number of ways.

Generally, they have been and continue to be less disciplined, less ideological and more pragmatic and subject to a greater degree of decentralisation". The latter part of the quote hints that democracy may not be as at risk as we would imagine from a European perspective, particularly compared to the unitary state such as Britain and a highly centralised state such as France where all major government decision occurs in Paris. American democracy functions at several levels in a very legitimate way, and so the threat supposed to come from stagnation in Washington can be diluted by differing levels of activism at state level. In fact, the very influence that states can exert contributes to the way a Senator or Congressman will vote, "Most county parties continue to distribute literature, stage events, raise money, produce publicity and conduct registration drives. The democratic activism of the electorate standing behind a rebel Georgian Congressman who votes against the partisan line will serve as justification for that individual in conflict with the central party machine, and shows that democracy functions at many levels. The rebuke to the criticism that the two party system reduces participation and plurality of result is contentious or perhaps unreasonable when the number of votes an American citizen has to make is taken into consideration.

Wattenburg (1992) explains that a US voter will have to vote for, among others, President, Senator, Representative, Governor, State senator, State representative, Mayor, City council members, School board members, Sheriff and Drain Commissioner! This exhaustive participation is also enhanced because of the regularity that franchise is expected to be used. "While the typical European voter may be called upon to cast two or three ballots in a four-year period, many Americans are faced with a dozen or more separate elections in the space of four years". The separation of powers also has tended to mean that both the democrat and republican positions are represented, in the form of Congress and the Presidency. President Clinton had extreme difficulties passing the Medicare Bill in the mid-90's, because of the Republican majority in Congress. This can be shown as an example of the conflicting interests of both political orientations being represented, and if we assume a large divergence of opinion throughout each party, then a substantial cross-section of views will have been contributed to debates of this nature.

This is rejected in 'Parties and Elections in an Anti-Party age' "Whether or not the positions taken by third parties seem desirable or productive, the fundamental right to voice them must be respected. In the end a democracy is protected by the reasoned choices of the electorate among all positions, not by suppression of the allegedly bad ones". This is a strong idealist appeal to reason among the electorate, and is a re-summation of Mill's view that if a minority has an extreme opinion, then it should be heard by the wider society. If after consideration the view is deemed incorrect, then freedom of speech has been observed (enshrined in the US Constitution) and if the view valued then it means the society has enhanced and broadened its understanding of the issue or theme. E.E. Schattschneider is noted by Crotty, "the political parties created democracy and... modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of the parties. With no new parties being encouraged, either by adequate state funding or by mass media support, then the opportunity for these views to emerge is suffocated.

McSweeney and Z vesper (1991) categorise the possibility for reform of the current party situation under four headings. They suggest that moderate reform is undertaken and can be undertaken via finance, television advertising, presidential selection procedures and legal regulation. With finance, the introduction of tax credits for small donors, or the conditional granting of licences to TV stations that offered cheap air time for broadcasts are just a few ways that the massive fiscal dominance of the two major parties could be challenged. With television adverts, David Broder (1990) hoped that there would been a cessation of negative image commercials which serve to create apathy and distaste among voters.

"A genuine rebellion against the cheapening of US politics may take place". This kind of reform is particularly needed on the subject of presidential debates, as the findings of Harvard University's Vanishing Voter show. Of those polled, 50% of interviewees in 2000 said they wanted to see an active campaign by a third party before the presidential election. This was not the case in 2000, and was particularly highlighted in 1996, when the Commission of Presidential Debates ruled that Ross Perot would not be able to attend, despite polling 19% of the popular vote in 1992. Another hurdle established and maintained by the CPD is the support requirement to attend, which stands at 15% from 5 national opinion polls. A harsh figure, and seemingly an undemocratic one, when we consider that a candidate only needs 5% of the vote to qualify for public campaign financing.

In summary, it can be clearly seen that from a financial and legislative viewpoint, minor parties have been excluded from the corridors of power in the United States. The average party member in Congress is still white, middle class and well educated, and will have to hold views flexible enough to be criticised by one realist commentator in the following vehement manner. "Parties are parties of circumstance, and not of principle... the parties are identical in their moral character, and can easily change ground with each other... (both) are perpetually corrupted by personality... politics is a deleterious profession, like some poisonous handicraft... the only safe rule is always to believe that the worst will be done". However, the above view fails to adequately consider the role the ordinary citizen should be expected to play.

To consider the issues and vote with a decent pool of knowledge, which any case is a relative criterion, would not be a practical lifestyle choice except for the most ardent activist. Having two major parties with such a well documented history and personality allows the electorate to make a sensible choice, and guarantees the exclusion of parties that would be considered offensive, such as racist or militant groups. It does not offer the chance for small parties to be 'kingmakers', as the Greens were able to do in Germany after the 1998 election, which supporters of the current system would say is an example of the over-representation that comes with systems of proportional representation. Ultimately, I believe the difference in opinion can be helpfully understood in the words of the British political scientist S.E. Finer, "There is an important distinction to be made between those who think of parties that do, and those who think of them that are". The actual performance of the parties in government, the contesting of election etc, seems more central in judging how strong democracy is than how the public aligns itself to support or castigate a particular party. The oscillations of governmental foreign policy, the bitter budget disputes in Congress, and historical cultural examples such as the Civil Rights moves by the Kennedys in the 1960's, all appear to the observer as varied and consequently as diverse and democratic as the product of any multi-party system.

Word Count: 1706 words

Bibliography

William J Crotty, American Parties In Decline, Little, Brown and Company, Toronto 1980 Everett C.
Ladd, American Political Parties: Social Change and Political Response, W.W. Norton & Company, New York 1970 Harry Edward Neal, Diary of democracy - The Story of Political Parties in America, Julian Messner Inc.
New York 1963 Ed.
L. Sandy Maisel, The Parties Respond: Changes in American Parties and Campaigns, Westview Press, Colorado, 1998 Martin Shelter, Political Parties and the State, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ 1994 F.
So rauf, Party Politics in America, HarperCollins, New York 1992 M.
Wattenburg, The Decline of American Political Parties 1952-1992, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA 1994 Websites: web web.