Observers of the current political scene warn that liberal democracy is in crisis, and that fascism or authoritarianism lurk around the corner. Contrary to such dire predictions, Frances McCall Rosenbluth and Ian Shapiro, distinguished political science professors at Yale, argue that it isn't democracy that's in crisis, but rather, political parties. Rosenbluth and Shapiro point to the paradoxical truth that “hierarchical parties are vital for a healthy democracy.” Since the 1960s, social movements have sought “decentralizing” reforms to bring politics closer to the people. Changes have included the adoption of primaries and local caucuses to choose candidates, as well as direct-democracy measures, such as the initiative and referenda, to let citizens vote directly on public policy. Rather than increase satisfaction with government, however, devolving politics to the grassroots has increased “voter alienation” and fed “political dysfunction,” the authors argue, while weakening the ability of the parties to mediate between citizens and government.
Against these trends, Rosenbluth and Shapiro argue that the best system is one with two big, disciplined, hierarchical, and competitive parties. This “Westminster model,” with its roots in England, is characterized by single-member districts, first-past-the-post elections, and the delegation of power from members of Parliament to the party leadership. Rosenbluth and Shapiro see the Westminster model as best designed to produce “policies that serve the long-run interests of most voters” because under its terms, the parties campaign in competitive elections on clear platforms written by leaders who have the power to enact those platforms into law—should they win.
Read Full Article »