1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Political Science
  4. Volume 23, 2020
  5. Article

Annual Review of Political Science

Volume 23, 2020

The Political Theory of Parties and Partisanship: Catching Up

Abstract

Despite their centrality to modern democracy, until recently political parties were relegated to the margins of normative democratic theory, taking a back seat to social movements, civil society associations, deliberative experiments, spaces for local participatory government, and direct popular participation. Yet, in the past 15 years, a burgeoning literature has emerged in democratic theory focused directly on parties and partisanship; that is our focus in this review. We locate three main normative defenses of parties: one centered in the special role parties can play in political justification as agents of public reason, a second that looks to the way parties contribute to deliberation, and a third that focuses on the partisan commitment to regulated political rivalry and peaceful rotation in office. In this last connection, we survey work on the constitutional status of parties and reasons for banning parties. We then consider the relation of partisanship to citizenship, and in a fourth section we turn to the ethics of partisanship. Parties and partisanship are interwoven but separable: If partisans are necessary to realize the value of parties, the reverse holds as well, and parties are necessary to realize the value of partisanship.

Keyword(s): deliberation, democratic theory, justification, legitimate opposition, parties, partisanship
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041916-020727
2020-05-11
2024-07-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/23/1/annurev-polisci-041916-020727.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041916-020727&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Achen CH, Bartels LM. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ackerman B, Fishkin J. 2004. Deliberation Day New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Barak A. 2002. A judge on judging: the role of a Supreme Court in democracy. Harvard Law Rev 116:116–166
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Beerbohm E. 2018. The problem of clean hands: negotiated compromise in lawmaking. Compromise: Nomos LIX J Knight 1–52 New York: NYU Press
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Beitz CR. 1990. Political Equality Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bhatia U. 2018. Cracking the whip: the deliberative costs of strict party discipline. Crit. Rev. Int. Soc. Political Philos. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2018.1479813
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bonotti M. 2017. Partisanship and Political Liberalism in Diverse Societies Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bonotti M, Bader V 2015. Parties, Partisanship and Political Theory London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Cain B. 2015. Democracy More or Less: America's Political Reform Quandary New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Chambers S. 2009. Rhetoric and the public sphere: Has deliberative democracy abandoned mass democracy?. Political Theory 37:1323–49
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Christiano T. 1996. The Rule of the Many New York: Westview
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Cohen M, Karol D, Noel H, Zaller J 2008. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Connolly WF. 2011. James Madison Rules America: The Constitutional Origins of Congressional Partisanship New York: Rowman & Littlefield
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dalton RJ, McAllister I, Wattenberg MP 2000. The consequences of partisan dealignment. Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies RJ Dalton, MP Wattenberg 37–63 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Disch LJ. 2002. The Tyranny of the Two-Party System New York: Columbia Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Disch LJ. 2012. Democratic representation and the constituency paradox. Perspect. Politics 10:3599–616
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Ebeling M. 2016. Epistemic political egalitarianism, political parties, and conciliatory democracy. Political Theory 44:5629–56
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Efthymiou DE. 2018. The normative value of partisanship: when and why partisanship matters. Political Stud 66:1192–208
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Elster J. 2000. Arguing and bargaining in two constituent assemblies. Univ. Pa. J. Const. Law 345:2000345–421
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Fiorina M, Abrams SJ. 2011. Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics Norman: Univ. Okla. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Fox GH, Nolte G. 1995. Intolerant democracies. Harvard Int. Law J. 36:11–70
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Fung A. 2012. Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gilens M. 2012. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Guerrero AA. 2010. The paradox of voting and the ethics of political representation. Philos. Public Aff. 38:3272–306
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Guerrero AA. 2014. Against elections: the lottocratic alternative. Philos. Public Aff. 42:2135–78
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Gutmann A, Thompson D. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gutmann A, Thompson D. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Gutmann A, Thompson D. 2012. The Spirit of Compromise: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Habermas J. 1995. Reconciliation through the public use of reason: remarks on John Rawls's Political Liberalism. J. . Philos 92:3109–31
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Habermas J. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy transl. W Rehg Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hendriks CM, Dryzek JS, Hunold C 2007. Turning up the heat: partisanship in deliberative innovation. Political Stud. 552362–83
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Herman LE. 2017. Democratic partisanship: from theoretical ideal to empirical standard. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 111:4738–54
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Hofstadter R. 1969. The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Ignazi P. 2018. The four knights of intra-party democracy: a rescue for party delegitimation. Party Politics 26:19–20 https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068818754599
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  35. Invernizzi-Accetti CI, Wolkenstein F. 2017. The crisis of party democracy: cognitive mobilization, and the case for making parties more deliberative. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 111:197–109
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Issacharoff S. 2015. Fragile Democracies: Contested Power in the Era of Constitutional Courts New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Issacharoff S. 2018. Democracy's deficits. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 85:2485–519
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Kateb G. 1981. The moral distinctiveness of representative democracy. Ethics 91:3357–74
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kateb G. 1992. The Inner Ocean: Individualism and Democratic Culture Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Kelsen H. 2013. 1929. On the Essence and Value of Democracy N Urbinati, CA Invernizzi-Accetti, B Graf New York: Rowman & Littlefield
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kirschner A. 2014. A Theory of Militant Democracy: The Ethics of Combatting Political Extremism New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Landis JE. 2017. Whither parties? Hume on partisanship and political legitimacy. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 112:2219–30
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Levitsky S, Ziblatt D. 2018. How Democracies Die New York: Crown
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Leydet D. 2015. Partisan legislatures and democratic deliberation. J. Political Philos. 23:3235–60
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Loewenstein K. 1937. Militant democracy and fundamental rights. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 1:3417–32
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Mair P. 2013. Ruling the Void: The Hollowing-Out of Western Democracy London: Verso
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Manin B. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Mansbridge J. 2011. Clarifying the concept of representation. Am. Political. Sci. Rev. 105:3621–30
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Mansbridge J, Bohman J, Chambers S, Christiano T, Fung A et al. 2012. A systematic approach to deliberative democracy. Deliberative Systems J Mansbridge, J Parkinson 1–26 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Mansfield HC Jr 1965. Statesmanship and Party Government: A Study of Burke and Bolingbroke Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  51. McCarty N, Schickler E. 2018. On the theory of parties. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 21:175–93
     [Google Scholar]
  52. McCormick JP. 2011. Machiavellian Democracy Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Mersel Y. 2006. Hans Kelsen and political parties. Israel Law Rev 39:2158–81
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Montanaro L. 2012. The democratic legitimacy of self-appointed representatives. J. Politics 74:41094–107
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Mouffe C. 2000. The Democratic Paradox New York: Verso
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Muirhead R. 2006. A defense of party spirit. Perspect. Politics 4:4713–27
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Muirhead R. 2013. The case for party loyalty. NOMOS LIV S Levinson, P Woodruff, J Parker 229–36 New York: NYU Press
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Muirhead R. 2014. The Promise of Party in a Polarized Age Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Muirhead R. 2019. Partisan justification. Political Theory 47:182–29
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Muirhead R, Rosenblum NL. 2006. Political liberalism versus “the great game of politics”: the politics of political liberalism. Perspect. Politics 4:199–108
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Muirhead R, Rosenblum NL. 2012. The partisan connection. Calif. Law Rev. Circuit 3:99–112
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Muirhead R, Rosenblum NL. 2019. A Lot of People Are Saying: Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Parekh B. 2000. Rethinking Multiculturalism Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Pitkin HF. 1967. The Concept of Representation Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Ragazzoni D. 2017. Political compromise in party democracy: an overlooked puzzle in Kelsen's democratic theory. Compromise and Disagreement in Contemporary Political Theory C Rostboll, T Scavenius 95–112 New York: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Rawls J. 1993. Political Liberalism New York: Columbia Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Rawls J. 1999. The idea of public reason revisited. Collected Papers S Freeman 573–615 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Rosenblum NL. 2007. Banning parties: religious and ethnic parties in multicultural democracies. Law Ethics Hum. Rights 1:118–75
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Rosenblum NL. 2008. On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Rosenbluth F, Shapiro I. 2018. Responsible Parties: Saving Democracy from Itself New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Runciman D. 2018. How Democracy Ends New York: Basic Books
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Sabl A. 2012. Hume's Politics: Coordination and Crisis in the History of England Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Sartori G. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Saward M. 2010. The Representative Claim Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Saward M. 2014. Shape-shifting representation. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 108:4723–36
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Schattschneider EE. 1942. Party Government New York: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Schwartzberg M, Knight J. 2020. Institutional bargaining for democratic theorists (or how we learned to stop worrying and love haggling). Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 23: In press
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Selinger W. 2019. Parliamentarism: From Burke to Weber Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Stokes DE. 1968. Political parties in the normative theory of representation. Representation: NOMOS X JR Pennock, JW Chapman 150–54 New York: Atherton Press
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Thompson DF. 2002. Just Elections: Creating a Fair Electoral Process in the United States Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Urbinati N. 2006. Representative Democracy: Principles and Geneaology Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Urbinati N. 2014. Democracy Disfigured: Opinion, Truth, and the People Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Urbinati N. 2019a. Me the People: How Populism Deforms Democracy Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Urbinati N. 2019b. Taking sides. Polit. Theory 47:197–105
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Urbinati N, Warren ME. 2008. The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 11:387–412
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Van Biezen I, Saward M 2008. Democratic theorists and party scholars: Why they don't talk to each other and why they should. Perspect. Politics 6:121–35
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Waldron J. 2016. Political Political Theory Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Wampler B. 2012. Participation, representation, and social justice: using participatory governance to transform representative democracy. italicPolity 44:4666–82
     [Google Scholar]
  89. White J, Ypi L. 2016. The Meaning of Partisanship Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Wolfe A. 2000. The tyranny of the undecided voter. New York Times Oct 22: https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/22/opinion/the-tyranny-of-the-undecided-voter.html
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Wolkenstein F. 2016. A deliberative model of intra-party democracy. J. Political Philos. 24:3297–320
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041916-020727
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error