Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:59:00.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Art of Handing Over: (Mis)Managing Party Leadership Successions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Fredrik Bynander  and
Paul 't Hart
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

SECURING ORDERLY TRANSITION OF POWER FROM ONE RULER TO another is a classic problem for polities of any kind. Historically, ruler succession episodes were often marred by fierce competition and infighting among members of the ruling elite. Even in stable democratic systems with effective electoral and other procedures for replacing heads of government, leadership rotation within political parties retains some of these brutal qualities. Party leadership successions are mostly ad hoc affairs, frequently rooted in either the incumbent's state of mind, dissatisfaction with the incumbent's performance within the party, or internal power struggles. Comparative studies find that party leadership successions often generate widespread uncertainty, agony and even trauma within parties and thus they weaken rather than consolidate or strengthen a party's public support base.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , 2008 , pp. 385 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2008.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 P. Calvert (ed.), The Process of Political Succession, London, Sage, 1987; R. Punnett, Selecting the Party Leader: Britain in Comparative Perspective, London, Wheatsheaf, 1992.Google Scholar

2 Calvert, The Process of Political Succession; Bynander, F. and 't Hart, P., ‘The Politics of Leader Survival and Succession, Australia in Comparative Perspective’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 42: 1 (2007), pp. 47–72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 T. Poguntke and P. Webb (eds), The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005; Samuels, D. J., ‘Presidentialized Parties: The Separation of Powers and Party Organization and Behavior’, Comparative Political Studies, 35 (2002), pp. 461–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; R. Heffernan, ‘Prime Ministerial Predominance? Core Executive Politics in the UK’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5 (2003), pp. 347–72; G. Sartori, ‘Party Types, Organisation and Functions’, West European Politics, 28 (2005), pp. 5–32; S. Scarrow, ‘Parties Without Members? Party Organization in a Changing Electoral Environment’, in R. J. Dalton and M. P. Wattenberg (eds), Parties Without Partisans. Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 19–36.

4 Bille, L., ‘Democratizing a Democratic Procedure: Myth or Reality?’, Party Politics, 7 (2001), pp. 363–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; J. Hopkin, ‘Bringing the Members Back In? Democratizing Candidate Selection in Britain and Spain’, Party Politics, 7 (2001), pp. 343–61.

5 P. Norris (ed.), Passages to Power: Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997; J. Borchert and J. Zeiss (eds), The Political Class in Advanced Democracies: A Comparative Handbook, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar

6 E.g. J. Blondel, Political Leadership: A General Analysis, London, Sage, 1987; A. Mughan and S. K. Patterson (eds), Political Leadership in Democratic Societies, Chicago, Nelson Hall, 1992; H. J. Elcock, Political Leadership, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2001.Google Scholar

7 Norton, P., ‘Choosing a Leader: Margaret Thatcher and the Parliamentary Conservative Party’, Parliamentary Affairs, 43 (1990), pp. 249–59Google Scholar; K. Alderman and N. Carter, ‘The Labour Party Leadership and Deputy Leadership Elections of 1994’, Parliamentary Affairs, 48 (1995), pp. 438–55.

8 Weller, P., ‘The Vulnerability of Prime Ministers: A Comparative Perspective’, Parliamentary Affairs, 36 (1983), pp. 96–117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Calvert, The Process of Political Succession.

9 K. Günther, Der Kanzlerwechsel in der Bundesrepublik, Hanover, Verlag Literatur und Zeitgeschehen, 1970; Punnett, Selecting the Party Leader; J. C. Courtney, Do Conventions Matter? Choosing National Party Leaders in Canada, Montreal, McGill-Queens University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

10 LeDuc, L., ‘Democratizing Party Leadership Selection’, Party Politics, 7 (2001), pp. 323–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 T. N. Gilmore, Making a Leadership Change, San Francisco, Jossey Bass, 1988; D. C. Carey and D. Ogden, CEO Succession: A Window on How Boards Can Get it Right When Choosing a New Chief Executive, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar

12 The model is, as always, a simplification. It deals with only one dyad, but in reality there may be more potential successors, and the resultant succession process is more difficult to model because of the anticipation and reaction effects that occur among multiple players when one of them shifts position.Google Scholar

13 Alexander George and Andrew Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2005.Google Scholar

14 M. Metze, De Stranding, Nijmegen, SUN, 1995.Google Scholar

15 P. G. Kroeger and J. Stam, De Rogge Staat er Dun Bij: Macht en Verval van het CDA, 1974–1998, Amsterdam, Balans, 1998, p. 247.Google Scholar

16 Metze, De Stranding, p. 43.Google Scholar

17 K. Versteegh, De Honden Blaffen: Waarom het CDA Geen Oppositie Kan Voeren, Amsterdam, Bert Bakker, 1999, pp. 90–8.Google Scholar

18 Metze, De Stranding, p. 212.Google Scholar

19 Commissie Gardeniers, Rapport Evaluatiecommissie, The Hague, Christen-Democratisch Appèl, 1994.Google Scholar

20 Key sources: A. Schulte and B. Soetenhorst, De Achterkamer: Het Drama van de PvdA, Amsterdam, Van Gennep, 2002; G. Van Westerloo, Prinsendrama: De Val van Ad Melkert, Amsterdam, Bezige Bij, 2002; J. Monasch, Strijd om de Macht, Amsterdam, Prometheus, 2004.Google Scholar

21 See Allern, E. H. and Pedersen, K., ‘The Impact of Party Organisational Changes on Democracy’, Party Politics, 30 (2007), pp. 68–92 Google Scholar; Punnett, Selecting the Party Leader; Courtney, Do Conventions Matter?.

22 This is inferred from the vast overrepresentation of transition cases with incumbent–successor conflict as a major ingredient, and the relative sparse attention paid to the cases with seemingly harmonious dynamics of the managed ones. E.g. Norton, ‘Choosing a Leader’; L. P. Stark, Choosing a Leader: Party Leadership Contests in Britain from Macmillan to Blair, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1996, pp. 170–5. Note, however, the recent criticism of non-competitive successions in Sweden and the UK of Persson to Sahlin, and Blair to Brown.Google Scholar

23 Norris, P. and Lovenduski, J., ‘Why Parties Fail to Learn: Electoral Defeat, Selective Perception and British Party Politics’, Party Politics, 10 (2004), pp. 85–104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Calvert, The Process of Political Succession; Stark, Choosing a Leader.