South African Legislators: Unity through Cohesion or Discipline?

In his book “Legislative Voting and Accountability” John M. Carey seeks to understand whether legislatures are voting out of discipline or cohesion. Cohesions means that a party is voting together because they are united ideologically and want it to be that way. Discipline means that a party votes according to the rewards or punishments that follow their vote. Party unity means that a party is voting together whether it be a result of discipline or cohesion. This post will question whether South African politicians are voting out of cohesion or discipline. 

               Thiven Reddy wrote an article for Politikon, a South African political science journal, which explains that politicians are voting as a result of discipline and their fear of losing the favor of the powerful ANC party. Reddy explains that as a new proportional representation party list democracy South Africa should be a champion of the voice of the minority. However, with the ANC dominating every election since 1994 the list of voices to be heard has been unpredictably small. Reddy offers his thesis as to why this is, he says, “there is little questioning of the executive in parliamentary systems because members toe the party line. This is further enhanced in the part list PR electoral system of South Africa where party representatives fear the loss of their seats should the party bosses decide to remove them” (194). Furthermore, he claims “The party control of the state suffocates civil society, which reduces the democratic space, and blurs the line between the party and the state, which reduces accountability and increases corruption” (194). It is clear to see that with such a strong party the only principal that a politicians needs to oblige is the party in power.

               To answer the question posed in the thesis it seems that there can be little argument that South African politicians are voting out of discipline and as Reddy mentioned, fear of losing their seats and all the benefits that come with it. 

What to do with the asylum seekers?

In response to Hinich and Munger (1996) on ideology, reasons for compromise on ideology were identified. There are four reasons why a party would be willing to make a compromise on ideology:

·      If the tradeoff involves something that is not central to the party’s ideology.

·      If the compromise would be of low-level importance.

·      If it is possible that voters won’t notice.

·      If it is easy to explain the compromise away by another principle of the party’s ideology.

In the latest issue concerning asylum seekers from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka via Indonesia, the Coalition party and Labor party are split as to where the off-shore asylum center should be. The Coalition party wants to have the asylum center be located on the island of Nauru with the ability to issue these seekers temporary visas to enter into Australia as refugees. The Labor party opposes any increase in immigration and prefers a plan where asylum seekers can be relocated to an off-shore site permanently. The Labor party has proposed the Malaysia Plan to do just this (Eric, 2011).

In an effort to make a compromise, the Labor party has allowed the asylum center to be located in Nauru, but with the intent to relocate these asylum seekers to Malaysia after processing in Nauru.

According to the above four reasons, the Labor party is willing to make a compromise on it’s position toward asylum seekers, but is not willing to make a compromise on it’s position toward allowing these asylum seekers to eventually come to Australia. Such a position will inevitably create an impasse. However, such an impasse is actually beneficial to the Labor party.

Although the Labor party is not willing to allow asylum seekers into the country, they would prefer that asylum seekers go to Nauru rather than risk death trying to reach Australia directly on treacherous waters. The willingness of the Labor party to take a step toward the Coalition party’s position will inevitably lead to a complete embrace of the Coalition’s position, but it will be under the cloak of unwillingness. Such falls in line with the fourth of the above stated reasons. Unwillingness, but respect for human life, is the grounds that will allow the Labor party to explain away its compromise on the issue.

-Hinich. , & Munger, (1996). Ideology, candidate strategy, and the theory of elections. Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice

-Eric, P. (2011, December 23). Labor lures coalition for a compromise on refugee solution. International Business Times. Retrieved from http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/271811/20111223/labor-lures-coalition-compromise-refugee-solution.htm

The Cohesive Problem

Senator Orrin Hatch, like his former colleague Bob Bennett two years ago, faces an uphill battle to re-election. The ultra-conservative Tea Party Movement has been warming up again as elections draw closer and Hatch has been targeted as a potential upset. If Hatch is brought down it would mean another junior senator in congress for Utah. This particular situation has brought about questions involving competing principals. Is Orrin Hatch more accountable to the Republican Party or to the voters of Utah? The balance of these principals is going to be a deciding factor in whether or not he receives re-election.

In John Carey’s book Legislative Voting and Accountability, he discusses some competing principals that politicians face while in office. In a simple model he talks about two that are very applicable to politicians in the United States, they are voters and party. Politicians are accountable to their party because party leaders have the ability to reward or punish them depending on their willingness to be cohesive to the party platform. They are also accountable to voters, if voters do not feel that they are being represented well by their legislator, they can choose to punish him by not giving him their vote[1].

Senator Hatch has recently found himself struggling to balance these two principals. When it comes to cohesiveness to the Republican Party, he has found himself near the top of the list. In the 112^th Congress he is voting with the party 90 percent of the time, while the Republican Senate is averaging 86.2 percent[2]. This high party cohesiveness has been very common for Hatch throughout his career and has given him many benefits within the party. He has served as chairman in both the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, as well as the Committee on the Judiciary, and is currently serving as a ranking member in the Committee on Finance[3]. His cohesiveness to the party, however, has made some voters in Utah feel somewhat neglected.

In 2010 Utah voters ousted long time senate member Bob Bennett because they felt that he had lost touch with the people of Utah. Bennett’s voting record has always been very close to Hatch’s, while Bennett’s replacement, Mike Lee, has only been voting with the party 76 percent of the time[4]. With Lee claiming to be claiming to be a true representative of Utah voters it brings some question to where Hatch lies in their minds. Ideologically many feel that he is not as conservative as he should be to represent the state of Utah. This graph[5] shows information taken from senate republican voting records and puts them on a conservative ideological scale of 0 to 1, 1 being more conservative. It also ranks states on a conservative scale. The dotted line in the middle is a representation of where senators should be according to the state they represent. As seen here Senators Bennett and Hatch are far below where they generally should be while representing Utah.

This has made conservatives in Utah nervous and has made it difficult for Hatch to receive a solid base for another nomination. Although he has thrived in the Republican Party due to his high cohesive levels, his choice to neglect some Utah conservative values has left him at odds with many Utah voters.

---

[1] Carey, J. (2009). Legislative voting and accountability. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

[2] http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/

[3] http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/H000338

[4] http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/

[5] http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/in-targeting-murkowski-tea-party-chooses-wisely/

Mobilizing Minorities

In his article “Mobilization Strategies of Democrats and Republicans”, Gershtenson describes what types of voters are the most likely to be contacted. He gives four types of people that are likely to be contacted:

1. People who are likely to vote

2. People who have the ability to get others to vote

3. People that support the party/candidate that is contacting

4. People that might make the difference in a close race.

His theory helps to explain why Arab voters were targeted in the 2008 Kadima party election.

People who are likely to vote: Gershtenson explains that people that will actually turn out to vote should be contacted. Since Kadima is a Zionist party, it might seem like Arabs would be unlikely to turn out to vote. However, Jamal Zahlka, an MP of an Arab nationalist party, explains that Arabs will vote even though they do not support most of the ideology or policy. He states Arabs will vote because they are seeking to accomplish specific interests (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2518302/Israeli-politicians-chase-the-Arab-vote.html).

People who have the ability to get other people to vote: Gershtenson describes in his article that people with more influence should be contacted more. For example, married people should be contacted more often because they influence at least one person. By this same logic candidates should want to contact people who are members of larger families. Arabs usually have large extended families that tend to support the same candidate. As a result, candidates should be motivated to contact Arabs because they are likely to persuade others to vote.

People that support the party or candidate that is contacting: Gershtenson states that a candidate should make an effort to mobilize people that they believe will support her. Tzipni Livni, a candidate for leader of the Kadima party, should targeted Arabs. Livni expected Arabs to support her because she believes in peace and equality. Majali Wahbe, Livni’s Druze Arab deputy, expected roughly 70-80 percent of the registered Arabs to support Livni. In order to make an effort contacting Arabs, Livni’s second campaign stop was in an Arab town.

People that might make the difference in a close race: Gershtenson believes that voters will be mobilized in close races. The Kadima leadersip race was a close race. Livni won by a mere 400 votes. http://www.raptureforums.com/RaptureReport/rapturereport09212008.cfm). Livni had reason to believe Arabs would be helpful in a close race, because the Arabs were previously responsible for a win in a close race. Ehud Barak, a member of the Labor party, succeeded in winning the party leadership position. His success was partially attributed to his ability to get Arab voters to register and turn out to vote. As(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2518302/Israeli-politicians-chase-the-Arab-vote.html).

In conclusion, Arabs are an important group to mobilize in elections because they fit into each of Gershtenson’s four categories.

A Party Without is a Party in Doubt

In the book titled "Legislative Voting and Accountability" (Carey, 2008), John Carey (not to be confused with Kerry), compared the many variables which improve or undermine party unity. Party unity would be described as platform, agenda, but most importantly voting record. Carey's argument included the idea that a party in control of the government is more likely to be unified than a government opposition party. But why is that so?

A recent study of Sweden might provide a sufficient answer. TheLocal.se published an article about recent results of party membership. According to the results, the top parties grew in size, especially the party in power. What is more interesting, however, is the short paragraph at the end of the article that seems to be almost just a "by-the-way" paragraph and not meant to be too significant. In fact, it helps us understand this principle of Carey's. TheLocal.se says that the Centre party actually lost some membership (the Centre party is not in power), and it is likely that this happened because they moved more to the "right" of the political spectrum. Since the party is not in power, it is interesting to see how an entire party shifts its political views, and consequently it is losing favor because of those who were likely very in favor of its previous positions.

So let's think about this. A party in control of the government likely got where it is because the people was in favor of its positions. Therefore, it will want to preserve its ideals and thus be quite unified, almost by necessity. A party outside of the government needs to find the needs of the people which might be a very non-uniform process and as desires and circumstances change, so do the parties which may or may not be okay with party members.


Carey, John. 2008. Legislative voting and accountability. Cambridge University Press.

TheLocal.se, 2012. Rise in polls Lofven-effect: political expert. http://www.thelocal.se/39074 /20120213/ (accessed March 3, 2012).

Getting out the vote: South African style

South Africa has long been a land that has pride in its heritage. Unfortunately or not for the country it has almost too many heritages and too much misunderstanding between them. When you delve deeper below the surface level of white and black you find Xhosa, Zulu, Tsonga, Tswana, British, Dutch and a whole list of other heritages that still remain a point of pride and contention to this day. So how do politicians approach such a diverse group and mobilize them to vote for their party? It does not seem that they could follow political scientist Joseph Gershtenson who discovered that American political parties target well to do social movers and shakers. Instead, I will focus on one unique and quirky way that South African politicians have utilized to mobilize their base, tribal singing and dancing.

In a move that seems almost to strange to be true presidential hopeful Jacob Zuma was seen many times in public donning his tribal Zulu clothing singing and dancing to Zulu songs. While we could never imagine a United States president attempting such a thing voters love this display of respect and loyalty to one’s culture.  Yet how could Helen Zille, the leader of the predominately white DA party attempt a similar stunt and get similarly positive results?

According to a New York Times article Mrs. Zille was in Shoshanguve singing and tentatively dancing to a song with Xhosa language lyrics. Spectator Simon Mahlangu was recorded as saying “She’s really not as bad as you’d expect”. Did Mrs. Zille change her policies? Did she promise new legislation? No. She opened up and showed that she valued and felt a part of their Xhosa heritage and thus endeared herself to countless South Africans who would likely see her on the news thus slowly breaking down the racial divide between the two major parties.

While it is understandably that not all party mobilization strategies have been revealed for competitive purposes it is clear to see that their politicians know the hearts of their voters and know that appeals to culture and heritage is what will get out the vote. 

The Woes of Intraparty Competition

The ongoing republican presidential nomination race has brought about many interesting twist and turns. The fight to represent the party in a race against President Obama has pushed the candidates into a heated battle that has left some worried about the lack of cohesion from the republican base. The Republican National Committee (RNC) set up the candidate selection process this year so as to allow for more competition between candidates and prevent an easy victory for one single candidate[1]. This planning however has caused more intraparty competition, which has caused a lack of cohesion among conservative voters and activists alike.

Primary elections are very different from those of a general election in many respects, one of which is that each candidate must run on a more individually accountable ticket, rather than being able to run collectively with a party. According to John Carey, electoral rules, as well as candidate selection, can decrease party unity. Each candidate is forced to differentiate himself from the rest of the crowd in order to win over the party base. The more intraparty competition there is, the greater the decrease of party cohesion[2]. This lack of cohesion has been quite evident through this recent nomination process. Mitt Romney has been teetering in and out of the front-runner spotlight, while candidates like Newt Gingrich, and more recently Rick Santorum have been battling their way to the top. This prolonged brawl has made candidates poke holes in each other’s reputations in an attempt to bring them down. This menial bickering, however, has caused them to attack principles that are generally promoted within the republican ideology. One of Mitt Romney’s conservative strengths has been his strong capitalist background, which is generally a respected republican value, but in this race he has been attacked for his business experience, saying that it has detached him from the general public. This and other attacks on conservativism have been made by each one of the candidates. Such attacks may bring candidates down, but they also start to pick apart and factionalize the party.

This race has been defined, like many, by each candidate tearing the next in line apart. The prolonged battle, however, has spread the state delegates across the board, every candidate scrapping for his share. This shows that republican voters are still not in agreeance of who the nominee should be, which is generally solidified by now. This disunity is demonstrated even among party leaders. According the CPAC straw poll, Romney won with 39 percent, but Rick Santorum was in a close second with 31 percent[3]. If this factionalism continues throughout the rest of this candidate selection process, it could be difficult for the Republican Party to pull together against the more unified Democratic Party come November.

---

[1] Carey, J. (2009). Legislative voting and accountability. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

[2] http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/this-is-how-romney-wins/

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/11/cpac-straw-poll-results-2012_n_1270466.html

Principals and the Accountability of Politicians

In a thrilling political science text, John M. Carey explains how an increased number of competing principals results in decreased party unity.  In layman's terms, this means politicians within a party will have a greater tendency to vote against the party line  as the number of principals or actors influencing those politicians increase.  Such principals could include voters, special interest groups, other politicians, etc.  Why is this important?  Do we care how united a party is when voting?  Is it good or bad (if either) for a party to vote with consistent unity?

Party unity matters because it increases collective accountability.  Individual accountability is the accountability a politician owes her constituents.  Collective accountability essentially is the accountability a party owes the electorate.  It is much easier to hold a party collectively accountable than it is to hold each politician in that party accountable.  The task of gathering information about each politician's voting history in the legislature is enormous, but putting together a record of how the LDP or the JDP voted in Japan's Diet (legislature) is doable.  So we care about party unity in voting because it makes it easier to track how well parties (and therefore, the politicians inside the parties) are sticking to their platforms.  If a party has high unity, that means that we can assume a politician such as Sadakazu Tanigaki has voted with his party throughout his career (the fact that he is the President of the LDP makes this even more probable).

In addition to worrying about what voters want, what special interest groups want, and what other politicians in the opposition party want, politicians in Japan have to worry about factions within their own party.  It seems that a party with many factions would have trouble maintaining voting unity.  And yet, the LDP managed to maintain voting unity in part through the use of committee assignments.  The LDP assigned politicians to committees that would increase the change of those politicians' re-elections.  This is an example of a principal being used to strengthen voting unity, instead of decreasing it (because this is not a competing principle).

Individual accountability is important, but collective accountability is easier to achieve.  Party unity is important in making possible collective accountability, and the use of non-competing principals to increase party unity in Japan has helped make collective accountability in that country easier to measure.






Fujimura Naofumi. 2011. Electoral incentives, party discipline, and legislative organization: Manipulating legislative committees to win elections and maintain party unity. European Political Science Review. Cambridge University Press.

Carey, John M. 2009. Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge University Press.