Small but Significant: Why Small Parties Benefit from a Presidentialised German Party System

Abstract

Poguntke and Webb suggest a trend toward the presidentialisation of modern democracies. Small parties would seem to be disadvantaged by presidentialisation, given a traditional lack of emphasis on personalities in their governing and campaign styles. This study attempts to show that smaller parties in the Federal Republic are actually advantaged by presidentialisation as the policy convergence of the larger CDU and SPD coupled with declining levels of partisanship in the electorate have made smaller parties more relevant in the politics of the Federal Republic.

Notes

This paper was originally presented at the Thirtieth German Studies Association Annual Conference in Pittsburgh, 2006. I would like to thank the members of the panel for their helpful comments, as well as the School of Social and Behavioral Science at CSU Northridge for financial support enabling me to complete this project.

1. T. Poguntke and P. Webb, ‘The Presidentialization of Politics in Democratic Societies: A Framework for Analysis’, in T. Poguntke and P. Webb (eds.), The Presidentialization of Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p.1.

2. M. Güllner et al., Die Bundestagswahl 2002. Eine Untersuchung im Zeichen hoher politischer Dynamik (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2005).

3. Options ranged from a SPD–Green–Linke coalition to a Grand Coalition of Union and SPD, although the former may have owed more to media speculation than political reality.

4. See D. Patton, ‘The Rise of Germany's Party of Democratic Socialism: “Regionalized Pluralism” in the Federal Republic?’, West European Politics 23/1, pp.144–60; H. Fessenden, ‘Red Dawn’, Foreign Affairs 81/1, pp.177–92.

5. W. Thompson, ‘The Party of Democratic Socialism in the New Germany’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies 29/4, pp.435–52.

6. In fact, an argument could be made that the PDS is in a very similar situation to the Green party of the 1980s and early 1990s. As the Greens demonstrated their governability at the local and state levels, their inclusion in a national governing coalition became easier for SPD partisans to envision. See C. Lees, The Red–Green Coalition in Germany: Politics, Personalities and Power (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001).

7. R. Dalton and M. Wattenberg, ‘Unthinkable Democracy: Political Change in Advanced Industrialized Democracies’, in R. Dalton and M. Wattenberg (eds.), Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrialized Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp.3–18.

8. Poguntke and Webb, ‘The Presidentialization of Politics in Democratic Societies’, p.10.

9. This is not to say that small parties have not had leaders who have served as integral parts of their campaigns. Joschka Fischer, as the Greens' ‘Spitzenkandidat’, and Guido Westerwelle, as the FDP ‘Kanzlerkandidat’ serve as examples of this in 2002. However, because the media did not take seriously the potential for either to assume office, personalisation in this case did not affect the party vote in the same way that it did for Gerhard Schroeder of the SPD or Edmund Stoiber of the CDU/CSU. See U. Rosar and D. Ohr, ‘Die Spitzenkandidaten: Image und Wirkung’, in M Güllner et al. (eds.), Die Bundestagswahl 2002: Eine Untersuchung im Zeichen hoher politischer Dynamik (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2005), p.119.

10. P. Mair, ‘The Electoral Universe of Small Parties in Postwar Western Europe’, in F. Müller-Rommel and G. Pridham (eds.), Small Parties in Western Europe (London: Sage Modern Politics Series, 1991), p.49.

11. T. Poguntke, ‘A Presidentializing Party State?’, in T. Poguntke and P. Webb (eds.), The Presidentialization of Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p.67.

12. Mair, ‘The Electoral Universe of Small Parties in Postwar Western Europe’, p.41.

13. Poguntke, ‘A Presidentializing Party State?’, p.78.

14. G. Smith, ‘In Search of Small Parties: Problems of Definition, Classification and Significance’, in F. Müller-Rommel and G. Pridham (eds.), Small Parties in Western Europe (London: Sage Modern Politics Series, 1991), p.39.

15. P. Webb and T. Poguntke, ‘The Presidentialization of Contemporary Democratic Politics: Evidence, Causes, and Consequences’, in T. Poguntke and P. Webb (eds.), The Presidentialization of Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p.340.

16. Ibid., p.345.

17. The term “smaller parties” refers to the FDP, Alliance ‘90/Greens, and PDS/Linke in combination.

18. Strategic voters, voters who feel close to another party yet vote for a small party, may be doing so to ensure the election of their favored ruling coalition, as has been historically the case for the FDP for example. See G. Roberts, Party Politics in the New Germany (London: Pinter, 1997), p.120.

19. M. Caul and M. Gray, ‘From Platform Declarations to Policy Outcomes: Changing Party Profiles and Partisan Influence over Policy’, in R. Dalton and M. Wattenberg (eds.), Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrialized Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp.208–37.

20. Ibid., p.212.

21. S. Wolinetz, ‘Beyond the Catch-All Party: Approaches to the Study of Parties and Party Organization in Contemporary Democracies’, in R. Gunther et al. (eds.), Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp.136–65.

22. F. Müller-Rommel, ‘Small Parties in Comparative Perspective: The State of the Art’, in F. Müller-Rommel and G. Pridham (eds.), Small Parties in Western Europe (London: Sage Modern Politics Series, 1991), p.13.

23. I. Budge and H. Keman, Parties and Democracies. Coalition Formation and Government Functioning in Twenty States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).

24. Müller-Rommel, ‘Small Parties in Comparative Perspective’, p.5.

25. Smith, ‘In Search of Small Parties, pp.41–70.

26. Budge and Keman, Parties and Democracies.

27. Lees, The Red–Green Coalition in Germany.

28. S. Bartolini, ‘Electoral and Party Competition: Analytical Dimensions and Empirical Problems’, in R. Gunther et al. (eds.), Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), p.106.

29. Bartolini, ‘Electoral and Party Competition’, p.93.

30. Poguntke, ‘A Presidentializing Party State?’, p.65.

31. Ibid.

32. See H. Dülmer, ‘Der Ausgangspunkt: Der Wahlsieg von Rot-Grün bei der Bundestagswahl 1998’, in M Güllner et al. (eds.), Die Bundestagswahl 2002: Eine Untersuchung im Zeichen hoher politischer Dynamik (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2005), p.35.

33. They collected daily surveys with n = 500 respondents, election studies which were administered approximately five months before the election (with four waves), and special ‘debate’ surveys which were administered as the chancellor candidates debated one another on television (n = 2163).

34. Respondents were asked to assess how competent they judged the major party candidates (Gerhard Schroeder for the SPD and Edmund Stoiber for the CDU) in particular issue areas, including the 2002 flooding in Eastern Germany.

35. Dalton and Wattenberg, ‘Unthinkable Democracy’, pp.3–18.

36. R. Inglehart, Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997).

37. This is not to say that economic issues are not important; Inglehart suggest that economic downturns can renew an emphasis on materialist issues. The overall trend, however, is in the direction of Postmaterialist values, See Inglehart, Modernization and Postmodernization, pp.130–59.

38. R. Dalton, ‘The Decline of Party Identification’, in R. Dalton and M. Wattenberg (eds.), Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrialized Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p.32.

39. P. Lösche, ‘The German Party System after the 2002 Bundestag Elections’, German Politics 12/2 (2003), pp.66–81.

40. T. Saalfeld, ‘The German Party System – Continuity and Change’, German Politics 11/3 (2002), p.124.

41. G. Kleinfeld, ‘The Return on the PDS’, in D. Conradt et al. (eds.), Germany's New Politics. Parties and Issues in the 1990s (Providence: Berghahn Books, 1995), p.243.

42. Lösche, ‘The German Party System after the 2002 Bundestag Elections’, p.70.

43. I. Joers, ‘East Germany; Another Party Landscape’, German Politics 12/1 (2003), pp.135–58.

44. H. Fessenden, ‘Red Dawn’, Foreign Affairs 81/1 (2002), p.178.

45. C. S⊘e, ‘The Free Democratic Party. A Struggle for Survival, Influence and Identity’, in D. Conradt et al. (eds.), Germany's New Politics. Parties and Issues in the 1990s (Providence, RI: Berghahn Books, 1995), p.171.

46. G. Roberts, Party Politics in the New Germany (London: Pinter, 1997), p.128.

47. Lösche, ‘The German Party System after the 2002 Bundestag Elections’, p.69.

48. See Lees, The Red-Green Coalition in Germany.

49. H. Betz, ‘Alliance 90/Greens. From Fundamental Opposition to Black-Green’, in D. Conradt et al. (eds.), Germany's New Politics. Parties and Issues in the 1990s (Providence, RI: Berghahn Books, 1995), pp.202–20.

50. Lösche, ‘The German Party System after the 2002 Bundestag Elections’, p.69.

51. Available in H.-D. Klingemann et al., Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990–2003 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).

52. Publicly available at www.cses.org. These materials are based on work supported by the American National Science Foundation (www.nsf.gov under grants SES-0112029 and SES-0451598, the University of Michigan, and the many organisations that fund election studies by CSES collaborators. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in these materials are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding organisations.

53. Weighting is applied to reflect demographic distributions.

54. Chi-Square = 8.15, p < .001.

55. The major critique against the use of party election manifestos to represent party issue positions is that election manifestos arise after much debate within the party, and thus may not reflect the sentiments of party member accurately. The position assumed here is that party election manifestos are what the parties present to voters, and what voters use to differentiate the parties, so their use as a differentiation source is in fact a valid one. See A. Volkens, ‘Manifesto Research since 1979: From Reliability to Validity’, in M. Laver (ed.), Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors (London: Routledge, 2001), pp.33–49.

56. R. Harmel et al. argue that the coding of the Comparative Manifestos Project, in that it focus on issue emphasis rather than issue position, neglects an important qualitative consideration of these manifestos. That is, although the dataset can indicate whether a party emphasises one or the other issue, it does not indicate the party's support or opposition to a particular issue. This is a justifiable critique. H.-D. Klingemann argues that parties do not emphasise issues that are not salient. At best we have important indication of which issues are most salient to which parties; at worst it is not always clear why these issues are salient. See R. Harmel et al., ‘Substance vs. Packaging: An Empirical Analysis of Parties’ Issue Profiles' (Chicago: Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 1995), and H.-D. Klingemann, ‘Election Programmes in West Germany, 1949–1980’, in I. Budge et al. (eds.), Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

57. Although these parties are separate entities, the party manifestos have been presented to the electorate as joint manifestos.

58. Klingemann, ‘Election Programmes in West Germany, 1949–1980’.

59. M. Caul and M. Gray, ‘From Platform Declarations to Policy Outcomes: Changing Party Profiles and Partisan Influence over Policy’.

60. The signs on issue dimension 1 have been reversed to coincide with popular conceptions of Left and Right. That is to say, emphasis on negative militarism, government and administrative efficiency, social justice, the welfare state, education, minority groups and labour unions would commonly square with what is considered ‘Left’. By reversing the signs, the parties scoring high on this issue dimension, are in fact on the left in Figure 3.

61. Dülmer, ‘Der Ausgangspunkt: Der Wahlsiey von Rot-Grün bei der Bundestagswahl 1998’