Politics Remains a Team Sport: On the Continued Relevance of Studying Party Organization

The study of political parties and, in particular, the study of party organization is one of the staples of Political Science. Early discussions surrounding “party decline” and more recent findings with respect to the “personalization of politics” have increasingly led to questions regarding the utility of the “party organization paradigm”. We argue here that despite changes over the last couple of decades, a focus on political parties as organizations remains indispensable to understanding how politics works and for evaluating when liberal democratic ideals are approximated in practice. Specifically, after identifying the core of the party organization paradigm and reviewing the criticism levelled against it, we develop two arguments. First, since politics essentially remains a team sport even in highly personalized conditions, we need to problematize team-like behavior rather than assume its existence. The degree to which a (charismatic) leader can simply command loyalty is something that varies over time and across parties. More often than not, the leaders’ influence over party structures is crucial to their authority, while the mere fact that they are never really “alone” in the party exerts a constraining effect on their behavior. Second, party organization might well be important to upholding liberal democracy. Political parties are essential to the coordination of the cordon sanitaire that holds illiberal forces from power. It is important for us to understand why some politicians are willing to sacrifice the effective defense of the liberal system for short term electoral advantage while others do not, and how party organization can contribute to disincentivizing defection from the cordon sanitaire. These arguments connect to Schumpeterian and Sartorian strands of democratic theory: Here, one of the bulwarks of liberal democracy is the capacity of party organizations to vet would-be political leaders for their “responsibility”. If failure to perform this function has contributed to the rise of personalization and illiberal politicians, that just underscores the importance of considering reforms that might enhance our normative standards as to how liberal democracy should operate.