Name Kaye Claire L. Estoconing Course & Yr.

BSED SOST 2C DAY

POLITICAL PARTY
According to the book of Hague (2010) a political party is a group identified by name
and ideology that fields candidates at elections in order to win public office and control
government. Parties were a key mobilizing device of the twentieth century, drawing
millions of people into the national political process for the first time. They jettisoned
their original image as private factions engaged in capturing and even perverting, the
public interest. Instead, they became accepted as the central representative device of
liberal democracy. Reflecting this new status, they began to receive explicit mention in
new constitutions, some countries even banning non-party candidates from standing for
the legislature, or preventing members from switching parties once elected (Reilly,
2007).

KEY ARGUMENTS
 The key dilemma facing parties is that they are poorly rated by the public yet they
remain an essential device of liberal democracy.
 Major political parties began as agents of society (representing a particular group
or class) and have since become agents of the state (so much so that the public
funding of parties is quite normal). The implications of this change are important.
 Understanding the role of parties involves looking at party systems, not simply
individual parties. The major theme here is the decline of dominant party and
two-party systems, and the rise of multi-party systems.
 The selection process for party leaders and candidates has been changing, but
its causes, and effects on candidate quality, are less clear.

FIVE ROLES OF POLITICAL PARTIES

1. Government - Providing a foundation for the exercise of power by governments,
offering them direction.
2. Guidance - Giving voters coherent and contrasting sets of policies from which to
choose, giving effect to the idea of liberal democracy.
3. Aggregation - Aggregating interests, filtering many specific demands into
manageable and prioritized packages of proposals.
4. Mobilization – Encouraging voters to take part in politics.
5. Recruitment - Recruiting and preparing candidates for public office.
DEVELOPMENT OF POLITICAL PARTIES
The idea of parties came into being only during the late nineteenth century. Until then they were
simply called “factions or parties where little more than group of like-minded politicians, usually
formed around a key leader or family.

1. MAURICE DUVERGERS CLASSIC CATEGORIZATION OF POLITICAL

PARTIES BY ORGANIZATION
In Roskins, Maurice Duverger’ put all parties into three traditional categories:
mass, cadre, devotee.

 Cadre - Generally associated with totalitarianism or developing nations

cadre parties have centralized organizations and expect the elite group
that makes up their membership to be active within the party.

 Mass - Mass parties have wider public-based support. They are so

organized to mobilize the working-class support system. They give an
extra premium on the recruitment, of members that is membership is open
to all other than those who have direct, political goals. They sought to
keep their representatives in the legislature an a rather competitive and
influential rein and in effect exerted magnanimous, pressure on European
party systems in the twentieth century.

 Devotee - such as the Nazis under Adolf Hitler of Germany, where the
party’s formal structure is built around one person. Such a party is now
found almost exclusively in third world developing countries.

2. CATEGORIZATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES BY THE TYPE OF APPEAL

 Catch-all party
 Ideological

Three Types of Parties in the Philippines

According to Section 2 of the Republic Act No. 7491, the State shall promote
proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of
Representatives through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral
parties or organizations or coalitions

• National parties or organizations - when its constituency is spread over the

geographical territory of at least a majority of the regions. (see R.A No. 7491,
sec. 3)
• Regional parties or organizations - when its constituency is spread over the
geographical territory of at least a majority of the cities and provinces comprising
the region. (see R.A No. 7491, sec. 3)
• Sectorial parties or organizations- refers to an organized group of citizens
belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose principal
advocacy pertains to the special interests and concerns of their sector. (see R.A
No. 7491, sec. 3)

DEFINITION OF PARTY SYSTEM

Hague et al. (2010) defined party system as the overall configuration of political parties,
based on their number, their relative importance, the interactions among them, and the
laws that regulate them. Meanwhile, in the definition of terms from the Republic Act. No.
741 is a mechanism of proportional representation in the election of representatives to
the House of Representatives from national, regional and sectoral parties or
organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC). Party systems fall into one of four types: no-party, single-party, dominant
party, two-party, and multi-party In democracies, both dominant and two-party systems
are in decline, meaning that multi-party systems have become the most common
configuration in the democratic world.

1. One- Party System

Broadly means a party in dominance or a party is in monopoly ol power via the

absence of other party. A domination of power suggests a permanent power im
control with no or very weak opposition. When a party dictates the political power
there seems to be no mechanism through which it can be removed. Hence, it
naturally developed an “entrenched relationship with the state machinery.”

2. Two-Party System
 Characterized with the presence of two major parties, like the Republican and the
Democratic Parties in the United States, alternating in Dowel Republican and the
Democratic Parties in the control of the government. While the party is in power
the other party acts as the opposition. Still, whichever of the two major parties is
in control of power, it is only temporary. The two major parties have a fair and
equal chance of winning although some minor parties may exist; only two parties
enjoy electoral and legislative strength. Power alternates between those two
parties; the losing party serves as a government in waiting.

3. Dominant Party System

Dominant political party refers to the hold of power by one party which is
constantly
in office controlling the governance or coalition with other party. A single major
party assumes prolonged period in power. Dominant parties are regarded to be
competitive in the sense that a number of parties compete for power in popular
and regular elections, but they usually are elected and keep the power of the
governments.

4. Multi-Party System

Representative democracy would be at its finest form whenever there are

competing parties for the control of power in a government. A multi-party system
connotes varying choices and alternatives for the electorate. Thus, they are
becoming undisputable political norms in democratic societies.

CHALLENGE CONFRONTING PARTIES

The growing distrust of politics in contemporary ti but more of the cohesion and
Political parties are anchored on grave suspicion about whether party politics in
contemporary times could solve real issues not only of political importance €
social ramifications going overboard. As democracy works the search for
consensus to satisfy man’s political and moral nature would continue to persist
and even the clamors for higher tools or instruments in the emerging processes
of social movements.

 Traditionally, Thomas Jefferson had once doubted the relevance of

political parties. To him parties would not only breed discontentment in the
process but would gradually damage the fiber of social unity and magnify
 conflicts among the people.

 Stuart Mill on his personal note argued that faction politics would only
suppress the freedom of expression, of thought and the politics of
individual conscience.

 The decline of political parties may be seen from the failure of their
leaders to become effective representatives of the people in connecting
their interests progressively with the government. Not to mention the crisis
within the party where members are slowly withdrawing support only to
find them in other party affiliates, party switching and turncoats. Party
loyalty and principles in the process became poor secondary to personal
interests.

 The rise of new political movements ushered in a new era of anti-politics

the principal attraction of which is that they are untainted by having held
power like the women’s social movement and cause-oriented groups (pro-
group, environmentalists, civil rights advocates). Even if they articulate
their views through party organizations, these movements have never
been too personal to advance politics, yet emphasize popular mobilization
with a cause that is devoid of power politics. Social movements may be
viewed as people groups that set out to subvert traditional politics by
abandoning parliamentary compromise.

 Political parties become too oligarchic in character. They become too rigid
and bureaucratic political machines whose members are either passive or
ceremonial in attending meetings, getting publicity for media mileage, and
so on. Thus, political parties become too engrossed in enhancing their
images by establishing political clout with hardened and traditional
politicians. Eventually, leaders end up as corrupt, ambitious, and
perverted.

 Another reason that explains the decline of party politics in modern times
is that party leaders become too mechanically promising in their campaign
activities to win power. Members and the public alike turned into
disillusionment as party leaders they once trusted out to be more of a
liability as they miserably fail to deliver once in government.

Towards this end, interest groups and other social movements emerge to complement,
not to replace, political parties in building responsible and more conscientious citizens,
by expressing their varied interests in a rather simplistic but more effective approach.
 INTEREST GROUP AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

KEY ARUGEMENTS
• Interest groups are central to the idea of a healthy civil society. Their ability to
organize and lobby government is a hallmark of liberal democracy and a
condition of its effective functioning.
• Interest groups exert a pervasive influence over the details of the public policies
that affect them. But groups are far from omnipotent; understanding them also
requires an awareness of their limits as political actors.
• Pluralism, and the debate surrounding it, is a major academic interpretation of
the political role of interest groups. But there are reasons to question whether the
pluralist ideal is an accurate description of how groups operate in practice.
• Interest groups use a combination of direct and indirect channels of infl uence.
Where ties with government are particularly strong, the danger arises of the
emergence of sub-governments enjoying preferred access.
• Interest groups are often complemented by wider social movements, whose
activities challenge conventional channels of participation.
• Where the governments of liberal democracies may be too heavily influenced by
powerful groups, the problem can be reversed in authoritarian states.

INTEREST GROUP
Also known as ‘pressure groups’- are bodes which seek to influence the public policy
from outside the formal structure of the government.

GROUP THEORY
The nature of group membership is not representative of the population as a whole;
consequently, the importance of group theory will help explain the context in which
interest group develops. There are three potentials of group activity, namely: pluralist
hyper pluralist, and elite.
 a) Pluralism suggests that a centrist position results because there is a more far-
reaching and balancing group representation.
b) Hyper pluralism argues that there are so many competing groups that gridlock
often occurs and that there is not a clear government direction.
c) Elite theory defines group behavior as deriving from an upper class.

How does interest groups influence public policy making?

1. Electioneering- interest group makes donations to campaigns- and give
endorsements.
2. Litigation- interest group will bring lawsuit against the government.
3. Publicity- gain attention for their causes.
4. Lobbying- interest group hire lobbyist to influence lawmakers,

Common types of interest groups

a) Business and Agriculture Organizations

Industry organizations and specific companies and wants better business
opportunities for it’s members.
b) Labor Union groups
an organized association of workers, often in a trade or profession, formed
to protect and further their rights and interests.
c) Professional groups
Promote the interest of specific professions, such as lawyers, doctors and
university professors.
d) Citizen / public interest groups
Promote public concerns, such as consumer, public health, human rights,
and environmental interest.
e) Single issue interest groups
Concerned with distinct and narrow issues and seeks change on a single
topic, government program, or piece of legislation.
f) Ideological groups
Promote causes and issues tied to particular religions, often with
significant moral element.
g) Public sector
Group that represent the interest of the city, local and regional government
to the national administration
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
Hague et al, (2010) defines social movement that is emerging from society to pursue
non-establishment goals through unorthodox means. Its objectives are broad rather
than sectional and its style involves a challenge by traditional outsiders to existing elites.
Interest groups are part of conventional politics, operating through orthodox channels
such as the bureaucracy. Like the political systems of which they form part, they are
increasingly treated with distrust by the wider public. It is perhaps no surprise, then, that
traditional interest groups have been supplemented by social movements – a less
conventional form of participation through which people come together to seek a
common objective by means of an unorthodox challenge to the existing political order.
These movements do not necessarily consist of pre-existing interest groups, but groups
are often at their heart; thus the environmental movement that emerged in most
industrialized countries in the 1960s was driven by interest groups, which continue to
carry the banner of the environmental movement today. Social movements espouse a
political style that distances them from established channels, thereby questioning the
legitimacy, as well as the decisions, of the government. Their members adopt a wide
range of protest acts, including demonstrations, sit-ins, boycotts, and political strikes.
Some such acts may cross the border into illegality but the motives of the actors are
political, rather than criminal.