The Psychological Roots of Intraparty Power.

This paper examines the psychological roots of intraparty power. Since Michels' seminal study of parties, scholars have contended that the psychological tendencies of leaders and members alike pose a major hurdle to intraparty democracy. On the one hand, leaders are thought to desire above all else the personal benefits of public office; hence, they seek complete control over party decision-making and aim to limit the role of the more ideologically minded members and activists. On the other, the rank-and-file accept and even endorse elite control, because they have a "psychological need" for strong leadership and a general apathy toward the entire political process. In short, oligarchy is inevitable because leaders seek it and members willingly acquiesce to it. While Michels' thesis has long held near axiomatic status in the party literature, there has been only limited empirical research on its validity or underlying assumptions. Drawing on a unique set of representative party member surveys from 13 parties in Denmark and The Netherlands, this study constitutes perhaps the most comprehensive and systematic attempt to assess the psychological roots of intraparty power. Specifically, it examines attitudinal support for two competing visions of party democracy: elite-driven and grass-roots, participatory. Overall, the results provide mixed support for Michels' thesis. On the one hand, a clear majority of members in several parties, especially those on the right, are deferent to the leadership. On the other, there is little evidence that leaders have an insatiable appetite for power. Indeed, in 12 of our 13 parties, the leaders, both party and public office-holders, are more supportive of the grass-roots, participatory model than are members themselves! Moreover, the multivariate analysis indicates that attitudes toward intraparty power vary depending on party ideology and the formal structure of internal power-members as well as leaders of leftist, decentralized parties express greater support for grass-roots, participatory democracy. Finally, at the individual-level, age, education, post-materialist values, and political efficacy are found to affect support for the two competing models of democracy. This paper makes an important contribution to our understanding of the intricacies of intraparty power and decision-making in the modern democratic process. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]