How iron is the iron law of oligarchy?

Abstract. Probably the most famous dictum about parties' internal structures is Robert Michels' 'iron law of oligarchy'. Over the past two decades, however, the societal context within which parties are embedded has begun to change which may alter the psychological premise upon which Michels' law is based. More specifically, we hypothesize that New Politics proponents within established parties are disproportionately likely to rely on cues from local party branches, instead of leadership cues, in forming issue positions on intra-party controversies. Accordingly, this paper analyzes the influence of New Politics issues on the leadership-constituency views of party delegates within fifty-two West European parties. In addition, we analyze the relative contribution of party ideology and party structures to the evolution of mean party support for NP policies and constituency orientations. The data base for this paper is a unique study of convention delegates conducted in all major West European parties, and a study of party characteristics. We find that New Politics supporters, especially within socialist parties, are predisposed to emphasize the representation of their local party constituency, in case the views of local party branches and a party's national leadership clash. We assess the implications of this research for parties and party theories, especially Michels' law.     

Postmodernists,pragmatists and the justification of democracy

According to current wisdom, we have entered a new ‘age of democracy’. The new global popularity of the democratic ideal appears likely to pose new challenges to democratic theory, adding yet more formulations and nuances to existing categories. Just as some key questions about democracy–such as ‘why is it a good (or the best) political system?’ and 'precisely what does it demand of us, and owe to us, as citizens?' – become daily more urgent, some worry about the RESOurces of political theory to cope with them, given the apparent shift towards scepticism and a suspicion of large-scale, encompassing claims about politics. This article focuses of four arguments from postmodernist and pragmatist writers who have given democracy a prominent part in their work. It asks whether the writers examined provide convincing justifications for the democratic ideal.     

政治民主、经济民主及其相互关系分析

人类历史演进的过程表现为自身权利的无限扩展和实现的过程.经济民主和政治民主正是人类实现其自身权利的重要途径.因此在厘清两者基本概念的基础上,对其交互关系进行分析是十分必要的.     

Justice,democracy, and future generations

Proposals for how to redesign democracy so as to better secure the demands of intergenerational justice can be divided into three broad families: (1) representative proxies; (2) differential voting schemes; and (3) counter-majoritarian devices. However, these proposals suffer from a fundamental weakness: namely, they all assume that despite the fact that democracy is by its very nature ill-equipped to secure intergenerational justice, it is nevertheless possible to rely on democracy to solve this problem in the first place. But that, to put it colloquially, is like thinking that one can pull oneself up by one’s own bootstraps. This paper sketches the shape and contours of a solution to this problem that is better able than the alternatives to escape this objection. This solution draws upon the strategy of a so-called ‘non-reformist reform.’     

Economics,democracy, and Spanish elections

The argument is advanced that economic conditions have played an important role in Spanish elections but, until recently, one secondary to the establishment of democracy itself. First, the Spanish economy's development at the time of these elections and the Spanish public's response to it are considered. Next, Spain's three national elections and significant economic policy activities and conditions are analyzed. Unemployment is then considered as the central economic influence on recent Spanish elections. Finally, Spain's politics of consensus is presented as an explanation for the initial lack of influence of economic conditions on elections.     

在平等与自由之间拯救民主——萨托利论美国民主

萨托利试图厘清古典民主与现代民主、直接(参与式)民主与间接(代议制)民主、自由与平等之间的联系与冲突,为当代西方民主政治提供他认为是相适的理论,即自由民主理论。其核心是自由与民主结合(或说民主必须以自由为前提),并以法治宪政为保障。     

Globalization and the erosion of democracy

Despite the apparent development and spread of liberal democratic state forms in the 1980s and 1990s, possibilities for genuine democratic governance overall are declining. Firstly, the emergence and consolidation of modern liberal democracy was inextricably intertwined with the development of the nation–state and is profoundly socially embedded in that structural context. Secondly, in today's globalizing world, cross–cutting and overlapping governance structures and processes increasingly take private, oligarchic (and mixed public/ private) forms; hegemonic neoliberal norms are delegitimizing state–based governance in general; and democratic states are losing the policy capacity necessary for transforming democratically generated inputs into authoritative outputs. Consequently, robust constraints limit the potential for (a) reinstitutionalizing the 'democratic chain' between accountability and effectiveness, (b) rearticulating the multitasking character of authoritative institutions and (c) renewing the capacity of authoritative agents to make the side–payments and to undertake the monitoring necessary to control free–riding and assimilate alienated groups. Rather than a new pluralistic global civil society, globalization is more likely to lead to a growth in inequalities, a fragmentation of effective governance structures and the multiplication of quasi–fiefdoms reminiscent of the Middle Ages.