Personnel and mass parties
Within the general framework of "pragmatic" parties, cadre and mass parties are distinguished. Personnel parties exist on the principle of "balloon". They consist of a kind of “cadre shell”, which is periodically filled with some “air” in the form of electoral masses during election campaigns (in this they absolutely correspond to the signs of pragmatic, directly election parties, although, of course, at the same time they can be ideological political, like, say, the Leninist “party of a new type”, and even more so, charismatic-leader-type — like the “Zhirinovsky party”), the Personnel Party is a kind of “unification of notables, their goal is to prepare the elections, hold them and save thread contact with the candidates. First of all, these are influential notables whose names, prestige and charisma serve as a kind of guarantee for the candidate and provide him with votes; these are, further, technical notables - those who possess the art of manipulating voters and organizing a campaign; finally, these are financial notables - they make up the main engine, the struggle engine. And the qualities that matter here above all are the degree of prestige, the virtuosity of the technique, the size of the condition. ” Figuratively speaking, the cadre parties are a kind of small political “army”. They consist mainly of "generals" - party leaders and an "officer corps" - party functionaries who work on an ongoing basis. "Soldiers" are recruited as necessary - sometimes to participate in elections, sometimes - in uprisings and mass rallies. “If we consider a party member who signs the application for admission to the party and subsequently regularly pays contributions, then the cadre parties do not have members” (Duverger, 2000).
Unlike such cadre parties, mass parties are built on completely different grounds. The emphasis in them is not on the quality of the “officer corps”, but on the number of rank-and-file party members: “What the mass parties achieve by number, the cadres achieve by selection” (Duverger, 2000). Therefore, mass parties, as a rule, are divided depending on the rigidity of their organizational structure. At one extreme, here are parties based on clear, formally fixed principles of membership (charter, forms and conditions for joining a party, party discipline, strict standards of behavior and sanctions for violating them, etc.). On the other extreme are parties in which there is no institution of official membership, and party membership is determined, for example, by the nature of voting for party candidates in elections. Between these poles are diverse options for either a more or less rigid organization.
From a socio-psychological point of view, it is clear that mass parties are exclusively massively voluntary, with an organizational structure that is not too rigid, allowing sufficient freedom of entry and exit from the party. From this point of view, a mass party is just a relatively clearly organized and structured mass movement. However, it is clear that such parties can hardly be found in reality - the line between the party and the movement is too arbitrary, and it is practically impossible to fix it operatively. That is why it is really practical and there are no truly massive parties - since the word "party" really means only part of the population, but not mass. With all the desire, for example, the CPSU to impersonate a mass party, even in the best of times its number did not exceed 10% of the adult population of the USSR. This was an expression of a conscious course to limit the number of parties. Since Stalin's times, this party was seen as a rather closed "order of the Swordsmen" - a special organization that directs and leads the mass, but does not merge with it. Ultimately, it was a "party of notables", but of a special kind - which had the appearance of a mass structure.
In the history of party building, examples of the opposite kind are also known. The ruling party of Mali, for example, in the 80s. XX century, according to its charter, automatically included every resident of the country upon reaching 18 years of age. In search of a kind of "complete unity" of society, the principle of a special religious-administrative-party "trinity" was realized there: the chief shaman of each village was simultaneously appointed its administrative leader ("headman"), as well as the secretary of the primary party organization. However, it quickly became clear that in this case the very meaning of the concept of “party” is emasculated, and the party structure loses any independent meaning. The shaman signing administrative orders on the tom-tom and accepting, on the same tom-tom, party contributions, stamping “paid” on the party card, turned into an elementary totalitarian leader-dictator, except that he was equipped with additional means of suggestive influence. In reality, however, he did not need them and did not particularly use them. The mixing of genres led to numerous crises and the gradual destruction of such a triune of totally mass organization.
Another group of examples, known from history (such as the massive membership of Nazi Germany residents in the NSDAP), became possible only due to the ruling state status of these parties. For obvious reasons, they are difficult to consider as voluntary mass parties - rather, it was a voluntary-forced membership.
If we consider other examples, then in the overwhelming majority of cases, during the socio-psychological examination of parties, a model already familiar to us from the previous chapters arises. This is still the same model of the functioning of the psychology of the masses, only in a specific sphere. From the point of view of the psychology of the masses, the party and the movement can not be considered separately - they are closely related elements of one psychological integrity. A social movement may for some time (at the initial stage) exist on its own. However, politicizing, it inevitably gives rise to elements of the organization. These elements are united in the party - the "core" of the movement. In general terms, the circuit looks simple. In the center is the “core", organization, party. Around it is a relatively massive political movement. Even wider is the mass social movement, the source of “feeding”, the recruitment of new members, first for the political part of this movement, and then for the party itself. In such a model, all three structural elements perform their specific functions that are already quite familiar to us.
Personnel and mass parties.
Maurice Duverger in the mid-1950s of the last century proposed a typology of parties, which is relevant in our time. He divided all existing parties into personnel and mass. This distinction is characterized by a number of signs — this is the history of their occurrence, the number of members of the organization to the number of voters, sources of financing, the relationship between the leadership, government representatives and party members, forms of party activity.
The emergence of cadre parties dates back to the time of the emergence of democracy in Europe. At this time, suffrage was limited, and the majority of the population were excluded from political life. Cadre political parties are made up of a small number of people. They are characterized by friability of the organizational structure, there is no strengthened membership and membership fees. Usually, the activities of the cadre parties take place during the period of election campaigns. And when there are no elections, then in parliamentary groups. The influential members in such parties are people who have a high status, they have a good financial opportunity, they are known. All these qualities and opportunities are able to ensure the victory of the party in the elections without attracting support.
Mass parties consist of many regional and local party organizations. The activity of mass parties takes place on an ongoing basis, strengthened membership, strict party discipline, payment of membership fees and personal assistance to the party. Attracting new members to mass parties is a political and financial need. It carries out the political education of the working class, they believe that the working class is able to take control of the government and government of the country. But also such parties are interested in questions of the current organizational work for training in a significant number of party cadres, political education of their members and supporters, to strengthen their ranks.
The difference between cadre and mass parties is due to the political and social infrastructure, which corresponds to the replacement of universal suffrage. In the nineteenth century, the parties had a cadre form, since the involvement of the masses did not make sense, because they had no political influence.
Capitalist financing of the elections was considered quite natural. When they approved universal suffrage, they did not immediately contribute to the emergence of mass parties. Cadre parties tried to remove restrictions on their structures, showing their openness to the masses. With this method, they wanted to give some way out to the activity of the political masses and to give the cadre parties the appearance of public investment.
The first mass parties lacked a political and financial base. They were not yet going to refuse to finance candidates, from elections by capitalists, there was also no political education of the masses, and there was no direct use of the activity of the masses in political life.
The adoption of universal suffrage contributed to the development of socialist parties in all countries except the United States. The first socialist parties did not differ much from the bourgeois parties. But on the eve of the 1914 war, the European socialist parties began to form in large communities that differed from the cadre parties. The emergence of collective financing was due to the fact that in order for independent workers to participate in the election for candidates, it was necessary to abandon capitalist financing.
The differences between the cadre and mass parties completely coincide with the division into "bourgeois" and "proletarian" parties, into right and left parties. For example, the bourgeois legal party did not attract the masses, either politically or financially. She had her own elite, her own representatives of the upper class and her own creditors. Until the fascists entered the political arena, the creation of mass conservative parties failed. This was due to the fact that the bourgeoisie did not strive for unification and collective action. The bourgeoisie realized the insufficiency of cadre parties in connection with the development of communism and revolutionary methods of political struggle, after which it began to organize mass parties.
The difference in cadre and mass parties is also associated with a difference in their structure. So in the cadre parties, their main goal is to prepare the elections, hold them and maintain contact with the candidates. Notables According to Duverger, the cadre parties are an “association of notables” influential, their prestige and charisma serve as a guarantee for the candidate and provide him with votes. They also know how to manipulate voters and organize a campaign and own high financial means. Personnel parties achieve everything by selection, while mass parties achieve quantity. The entry of a member into the cadre party is determined by his position, strictly determined by his personal qualities and abilities. For example, for the French Socialist Party (refers to the mass party), the recruitment of new members is the main task from a political and financial point of view. This is due to the fact that it seeks to give political education to the working class, to separate the elite from it, so that they can take control of the country and their power. Party members are the matter of the party, the substance of its activity. The party and its members are compared with a teacher and student. They say that if there are no party members this is the same thing, a teacher without students. In the financial situation, the party depends on the contributions of party members. She collects the money that is needed for daily work, elections and political education. In mass parties, elections are financed in a democratic way. By the democratic method is meant that mass parties are distributed over a large number of members so that each has a small amount. The public will pay and thereby receive political education and can participate in public life.
In the pure form, there are very few cadre parties. Sometimes the external form of parties can be misleading. The right criterion is the lack of a registration system or regular collection of contributions. Let's compare the Labor Party with the American Party. The Labor Party was created in 1900 to provide funding for working candidates in elections. By the nature of financing, this is a mass party, since election costs are distributed collectively. Collective membership differs from individual membership, as it has neither political involvement nor personal bias towards the party. And an American party with a primaries system, that is, a closed primary choice with registration of participants, politically resembles mass parties. Nominating candidates nominated by a party for election is a typical responsibility of its members. From a financial point of view, it resembles a cadre party. Since this party does not have a system of regular contributions that ensures the election campaign. Such parties as the Labor and the American are considered to be semi-mass parties, but this concept is not considered as the third category, because it is the opposite of the cadre and mass party due to its originality.
Differences in cadre and mass parties are also determined by their features that are associated with various types of party infrastructure. Personnel parties are party parties that are dispersed and poorly integrated, while mass parties are party-based parties that are more centralized and have a rigid structure. Parties that are built on the basis of cells and police also belong to mass parties.
2.3.2.2. Typology of Political Parties
In political science, there are various systems for classifying parties. Various factors are used as the basis for typologization: functions, ideologies, social base, methods of activity, etc.
The universally recognized and most productive is the classification of M. Duverger, based on differences in the structure of parties and the organization of their inner life. The party structure is the most generalizing component that is affected by a significant number of factors (ideology, goals, social base, etc.). At the same time, it is precisely the party’s structure that contributes to its adaptation to changing conditions and acts as a necessary element of party survival in the political struggle. Among the structural characteristics of the party Duverger singled out the general organizational structure, the membership system and governing bodies. Based on these criteria, he distinguished between cadre, mass and strictly centralized parties.
Personnel Party - This is a small elite party, consisting of professional politicians and parliamentarians, focused mainly on elections. The origin of the cadre parties relates mainly to the period of the emergence of democracy, when the right to vote was still limited, and not universal. In the limited political space that existed at that time, the cadre parties served as a means of expressing the political interests of the bourgeoisie. Their activity, aimed at winning the election, did not require an increase in their ranks, but a union of elites that could influence voters.
Cadre parties are formed, as a rule, from above, on the basis of various parliamentary groups, pressure groups, and the unification of party bureaucracy. They concentrate the efforts of professional politicians and suggest free membership and a certain amorphousness of the party organization. The main structural element of the cadre party are committees. They are created on a territorial basis, and their numbers are usually small. The committee consists of permanent activists, is replenished, if necessary, by co-optation and does not seek to expand its ranks. Committees are close-knit, authoritative groups with working skills among the population. Conducting and organizing election campaigns is their main purpose. Members of the committee select candidates for elections to government bodies, study public opinion, sympathies and interests of voters, help leaders formulate election programs. The activity of the committees sharply intensifies during periods of election campaigns and practically freezes the rest of the time. In these parties there is no membership system with appropriate registration and regular payment of membership fees. Hence their name - cadre parties. Most European liberal and conservative parties are cadre parties.
Mass parties arise with the introduction of universal suffrage. These are parties of a new type, having a mass character, focused on the political education of the masses and the formation of elites from the people. The primary organizations of the party are built both on a territorial and on a production basis, but unlike committees they are open to new members. Moreover, the primary organizations of mass parties are interested in replenishing their ranks. This is due to the fact that mass parties exist at the expense of membership fees.
Mass parties are centralized formations, well organized and disciplined, with statutory membership. Although the leaders and apparatus of the party play a large role here, great importance is attached to common views and ideological unity. Mass parties are most often formed from below, often on the basis of trade unions, cooperative and other social movements. However, sometimes the formation of mass parties takes place in a combined way, combining the efforts of elite circles and ordinary citizens. Given the diversity of forms of activity, orientation and other aspects of the functioning of mass parties, some theorists distinguish among them representative Western parties, socialist and populist.
So, mass party It is focused on involving a large number of members in its ranks, it is characterized by tightly regulated membership with a high degree of ideologization, and is focused on permanent work.
The primary organizations of the socialist parties are sections of the place of residence of several hundred people. They are united in a federation. The party is turning into a kind of state apparatus with a separation of powers, where legislative power belongs to the congress (or national council), executive to the executive committee (or national secretariat), and legal to the control commission.
For strictly centralized parties, Duverger considered characteristic the transformation of the ideological component into a fundamental principle connecting these organizations. For such parties, and Duverger referred to them as communist and fascist parties, the presence of many hierarchical links, strict, almost military discipline, high organization of actions, respect and reverence for political leaders are characteristic.
Communist parties create their primary organizations (cells) at the place of work. They are more uniform and limited in size. This allows parties to control their social composition, regulate their numbers and establish strict party discipline. The organizational principle of the communist parties is “democratic centralism”, which tries to combine freedom (the election of leaders at all levels) and coercion (subjugation of the minority to the majority). In practice, this hierarchical organization significantly limits democracy, the election of leaders turns into a formality, since their selection, like decision-making, is carried out by the central leadership of the party.
The fascist parties have many similarities with the communist parties in matters of their organization: vertical ties, centralization of power, and a rigid structure. However, the fascist parties differ from the communist parties in their social composition, doctrine, and philosophy. Arising from paramilitaries, they cultivated cruelty and violence. The primary organization of the fascist parties is an assault detachment of 4 to 12 people. Entering a larger group, the assault squads create a party pyramid similar to a cadre army.
The division of parties into cadres and masses proposed by Duverger, therefore, corresponds to the division of parties on the ideological basis into right and left, into moderate bourgeois reformists (liberals and conservatives) and radicals (communists). The exception is the fascist parties, which are massive, strictly centralized, but have a right deviation.
In addition, the division of parties into mass and cadre coincides with their division into parties with strong and weak organizations. Personnel parties are decentralized and poorly organized. They have a high degree of autonomy of local committees (primary organizations), and the central organs of the party do not serve as an indisputable authority for them. In mass parties, “vertical ties” prevail between the leadership and primary organizations. The centralized nature and the presence of a strong organization, strict observance of party discipline are due to the need for effective work in upholding the interests of workers, to carry out political education of the masses.
Thus, according to the organizational structure of the party are divided into organizationally designed and organizationally unformed, and by the nature of membership - into open, with free membership and closed, elite. By the way the party is connected with its parliamentary faction - to the soft (weak), allowing free voting of their deputies, and hard (strong), extending strict party discipline to their parliamentary factions. According to their participation in the exercise of power, parties are divided into ruling and opposition (legal and illegal), with respect to other elements of the political system - into democratic and anti-democratic. In addition, there are many classifications based on a variety of criteria. So, parties are divided on social (agrarian parties), ethnic (for example, the Basque party), demographic (women's parties), religious (Christian parties) and other grounds.
Nevertheless, the typologization proposed by M. Duverger is the most universal and pragmatic. However, Duverger himself noted that it is "approximate, describing trends rather than giving a clear distinction." A number of parties remained outside this classification, some were of an intermediate nature. For example, the Labor Party of Great Britain, numbering 6.5 million people, cannot be unequivocally assigned to either cadre or mass parties. The Republican and Democratic parties of the United States also largely combine the features of a mass and cadre party, and from this point of view they can be considered hybrid.
Within the general framework of "pragmatic" parties, cadre and mass parties are distinguished. Personnel parties exist on the principle of "balloon". They consist of a kind of “cadre shell”, which is periodically filled with some “air” in the form of electoral masses during election campaigns (in this they absolutely correspond to the signs of pragmatic, directly election parties, although, of course, at the same time they can be ideological political, like, say, the Leninist “party of a new type”, and even more so, charismatic-leader-type — like the “Zhirinovsky party”), the Personnel Party is a kind of “unification of notables, their goal is to prepare the elections, hold them and save thread contact with the candidates. First of all, these are influential notables whose names, prestige and charisma serve as a kind of guarantee for the candidate and provide him with votes; these are, further, technical notables - those who possess the art of manipulating voters and organizing a campaign; finally, these are financial notables - they make up the main engine, the struggle engine. And the qualities that matter here above all are the degree of prestige, the virtuosity of the technique, the size of the condition. ” Figuratively speaking, the cadre parties are a kind of small political “army”. They consist mainly of "generals" - party leaders and an "officer corps" - party functionaries who work on an ongoing basis. "Soldiers" are recruited as necessary - sometimes to participate in elections, sometimes - in uprisings and mass rallies. “If we consider a party member who signs the application for admission to the party and subsequently regularly pays contributions, then the cadre parties do not have members” (Duverger, 2000).
Unlike such cadre parties, mass parties are built on completely different grounds. The emphasis in them is not on the quality of the “officer corps”, but on the number of rank-and-file party members: “What the mass parties achieve by number, the cadres achieve by selection” (Duverger, 2000). Therefore, mass parties, as a rule, are divided depending on the rigidity of their organizational structure. At one extreme, here are parties based on clear, formally fixed principles of membership (charter, forms and conditions for joining a party, party discipline, strict standards of behavior and sanctions for violating them, etc.). On the other extreme are parties in which there is no institution of official membership, and party membership is determined, for example, by the nature of voting for party candidates in elections. Between these poles are diverse options for either a more or less rigid organization.
From a socio-psychological point of view, it is clear that mass parties are exclusively massively voluntary, with an organizational structure that is not too rigid, allowing sufficient freedom of entry and exit from the party. From this point of view, a mass party is just a relatively clearly organized and structured mass movement. However, it is clear that such parties can hardly be found in reality - the line between the party and the movement is too arbitrary, and it is practically impossible to fix it operatively. That is why it is really practical and there are no truly massive parties - since the word "party" really means only part of the population, but not mass. With all the desire, for example, the CPSU to impersonate a mass party, even in the best of times its number did not exceed 10% of the adult population of the USSR. This was an expression of a conscious course to limit the number of parties. Since Stalin's times, this party was seen as a rather closed "order of the Swordsmen" - a special organization that directs and leads the mass, but does not merge with it. Ultimately, it was a "party of notables", but of a special kind - which had the appearance of a mass structure.
In the history of party building, examples of the opposite kind are also known. The ruling party of Mali, for example, in the 80s. XX century, according to its charter, automatically included every resident of the country upon reaching 18 years of age. In search of a kind of "complete unity" of society, the principle of a special religious-administrative-party "trinity" was realized there: the chief shaman of each village was simultaneously appointed its administrative leader ("headman"), as well as the secretary of the primary party organization. However, it quickly became clear that in this case the very meaning of the concept of “party” is emasculated, and the party structure loses any independent meaning. The shaman signing administrative orders on the tom-tom and accepting, on the same tom-tom, party contributions, stamping “paid” on the party card, turned into an elementary totalitarian leader-dictator, except that he was equipped with additional means of suggestive influence. In reality, however, he did not need them and did not particularly use them. The mixing of genres led to numerous crises and the gradual destruction of such a triune of totally mass organization.
Another group of examples, known from history (such as the massive membership of Nazi Germany residents in the NSDAP), became possible only due to the ruling state status of these parties. For obvious reasons, they are difficult to consider as voluntary mass parties - rather, it was a voluntary-forced membership.
If we consider other examples, then in the overwhelming majority of cases, during the socio-psychological examination of parties, a model already familiar to us from the previous chapters arises. This is the same model of the functioning of the masses, only in a specific sphere. From the point of view of the psychology of the masses, the party and the movement can not be considered separately - they are closely related elements of one psychological integrity. A social movement may for some time (at the initial stage) exist on its own. However, politicizing, it inevitably gives rise to elements of the organization. These elements are united in the party - the "core" of the movement. In general terms, the circuit looks simple. In the center is the “core", organization, party. Around it is a relatively massive political movement. Even wider is the mass social movement, the source of “feeding”, the recruitment of new members, first for the political part of this movement, and then for the party itself. In such a model, all three structural elements perform their specific functions that are already quite familiar to us.
The way parties are organized, according to Weber, must be analyzed based on the differences between the forms of dominance: the charismatic party does not elect its leader like the party is legally bureaucratic. The distinction proposed by Maurice Duverger (in 195, and then complicated and improved) contrasts mainly two types of organizations: the “cadre party” and the “mass party”. These types do not exhaust all the possibilities and suggest the existence of mixed cases. The terminology can be misleading: the difference between the two types of parties is based not on their numbers, but on their structure. Personnel parties rooted in censored democracy and mass parties that appear simultaneously WITHthe development of universal suffrage, deeply differ in the way they are organized. Mass parties, a typical example of which is the German Socialist Party, strive to attract as many members as possible, to educate them, to be financed from their contributions, and to organize meetings regularly. On the contrary, cadre parties are parties of influential persons, where the quality of members is more important than their number; they want to attract prominent figures for their influence, for their prestige and wealth, which
VI. Organization
party cashier lurking during election campaigns. An example of this type of party would be the Conservative Party of Great Britain. However, in both cases, election victory is the goal that the party sets for itself.
But this classification needs to be improved, since there are intermediate parties such as Christian Democrats, and in addition, mass and cadre parties can be tough when they impose voting discipline on their parliamentarians, or flexible when they do not apply it . Based on this criterion, the British conservatives and the French Socialist Party are in the same group, as they impose voting discipline on their parliamentarians, which the American parties do not. Finally, Duverger emphasizes that American parties have a specific character, since they strive to reach a mass of voters without turning into a mass party (it is known that in some American states, voters can formally, but quite freely, join the party without paying membership fees; this system of voter registration cards (voting registration card) is associated with a complex mechanism of primary elections, and the electors are not necessarily members of the party). Expanding the number of organizational criteria, Duverger distinguishes between direct membership parties, which are individually joined, and indirect membership parties, consisting of a combination of grassroots social groups, which allows the creation of mixed formations "with the features of cadre and mass parties, involving the masses through the mediation of leading cadres (the structure of the Union for French Democracy is just such a form, since we are talking about a federation of parties - the Republican Party, the radical party, etc. - with an individual members).
Totalitarian parties are distinguished by a comprehensive ideology that excludes all others; it is aimed at creating a party of adherents (totalitarian parties in democratic political systems are not included, if we use the expression of Weber, at the administrative level in the state and, therefore, are significantly different from their original model, Soviet Communist Party). The presence or absence of a global system of worldview allows opposing totalitarian parties to specialized parties (but there is also a difficulty: the ideology of Christian-democratic and environmental parties is no less total than Marxism of the Third International).
On the other hand, Duverger puts forward as an essential feature the fact that the fascist party opposes the communist type to the extent that the fascists use military methods for political coverage of the masses (although this contrast makes sense only in conditions of Western democracies and only obscures the central place, which the Communist Parties assign to the armed struggle, perfectly formulated in a statement by Mao Zedong: a rifle gives rise to power, see chap. VII, p. 212). And finally, he gives a special place to the parties of developing countries. Today could be noted | the importance of one-party system in countries freed from colonial
dependence in 1950-1980 And since the end of the 80s. attempts to create democratic political systems based on a multi-party system, especially in French-speaking Black Africa, are characteristic. At the same time, the successes of ethnic-based political parties, such as the Incata party, which unites the Zulus of South Africa, provide an example of a communal party that joins on the basis of national, religious, linguistic affiliation and where mobilization opportunities are of primary importance; this also applies to parties that serve as the legal facade for armed groups and allow them to legally appeal to public opinion (for example, parties that are the mouthpiece of the Basque ETA or the Irish Revolutionary Army).
Jean Charlot 1, together with the notion of a “party of voters,” proposed additions close to those made by Otto Kirkheimer: catch-all-parties, that is, a party of voters or a party of gathering forces, are developing in modern democracies. In mass parties (Duverger) there is a narrowing of their membership base with a significant increase in the electorate. They turn into large organizations whose sole purpose is to win voters by seeking support in all segments of the population.