Party positions

Gábor Tóka*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to Book/Report typesChapterpeer-review

Abstract (may include machine translation)

Furthermore, the clarity of party positions is more easily and unambiguously linked to themes in normative democratic theory than polarisation. It is simply not obvious whether relatively great policy distances between the parties are good or bad for the quality of democracy. The responsible party government ideal requires that competing parties have distinctive, unambiguous, and binding policy commitments. In the absence of policy differences between the parties, governments cannot be held accountable for their policies. But the requirements of responsible party government may well conflict with the ideal of responsive government (cf, Pennock 1979: 283-6, 293-303). In a purely Downsian world, Tweedledee and Tweedledum may converge around a single position - either as a consequence or an anticipation of electoral pressure - and thus create responsive party government. Here, the dearth of policy differences between the competitors would actually help to ensure that popular preferences (whatever that means) determine public policies.3 However, the clarity - as opposed to the differentiation - of party positions at any one point in time is part of both responsible and responsive party government ideals. In both cases, parties offer identifiable products. Therefore, the clarity - not the differentiation - of party positions is the decisive sign of programmatic party competition.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationComparative Politics
Subtitle of host publicationThe Problem of Equivalence
PublisherTaylor and Francis
Pages180-204
Number of pages25
ISBN (Electronic)9781134738960
ISBN (Print)9781138971325
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jan 2006

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Party positions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this