Abstract
Drawing on systematic participant observations, the study offers unique comparative findings about the importance of parties within French and German MPs’ district work. First, it looks at deputies’ communication with their party organization at the grassroots level. Second, it sheds light on whether MPs act locally as representatives of their party and, thus, contribute to the parties’ linkage function. Moreover, the study investigates MPs distancing themselves from their party, thereby providing valuable insights for the party unity literature. Comparatively, the data confirm that dissimilar incentives lead to differences regarding internal party work and party representation. However, contrasting results from questionnaires and observations also reveal divergences between words and deeds. Not least, the results are important because of France’s recent abolition of the cumul des mandats (multiple office-holding).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Moreover, the ranking of candidates on the party list is determined (almost exclusively) by delegates of the local party organizations in conventions at the Land level. Usually, the final list emerges from informal negotiations in which the local and regional party elites are key actors.
- 2.
It is worth highlighting that the state of the art regarding candidate selection in France, and in particular recent literature, is very poor. Besides some studies focusing on legislative candidates (Laurent and Wallon-Leducq 1998; Sineau and Tiberj 2007; François 2009), works on the candidate selection process are almost non-existent (but see Thiébault 1988; Murray 2010). In Germany, nomination procedures have not yet been the subject of extensive research either. They reentered scholarly debate only recently (Schüttemeyer and Sturm 2005; Reiser 2011; Steg 2016).
- 3.
Yet, two aspects should not be overlooked. First, multiple office-holding is not a French exclusivity (Navarro 2009, 201): About three out of ten German MPs are elected to local offices, mostly in the county council (Patzelt and Algasinger 2001, 195, 515). However, it is unthinkable to be a deputy in the Bundestag and mayor of a mid-sized town simultaneously. Second, local mandates in both countries can also provide party contacts, i.e., while performing their local offices, MPs can interact with other representatives of their party.
- 4.
The wording was: “In your district, how often do you communicate with (your party)—very often, often, sometimes, rarely, never?”
- 5.
However, parties are seldom mentioned when MPs were asked in an open question for “the most important things” they do in the district. For instance, in Germany only seven out of 64 deputies referred to party work. This illustrates that district work is a multifaceted phenomenon. One explanation why parties are rarely mentioned might also be their not very positive image with the public.
- 6.
Admittedly, citizens’ evaluation of whether MPs “should” represent party does not refer to district work specifically. Moreover, the citizenry in both countries attributes more importance to voters, district and nation as foci of representation than to party (see Chap. 7 for a closer look).
- 7.
According to CITREP mass-survey data, French citizens expect that MPs heavily focus on their voters, their district and all citizens but clearly less on their political party. However, the same holds true for their German counterparts (see Chap. 7 in this book).
- 8.
The wording was: “What should be central in the political work of MPs? For each of the following statements, please tell me on a seven-point scale whether MPs should attach great importance or whether they shouldn’t attach great importance… Item: MPs should be loyal to their party.”
References
Bach, Laurent. 2012. Faut-il abolir le cumul des mandats? Paris: Rue d’Ulm.
Brouard, Sylvain, Olivier Costa, and Éric Kerrouche. 2013. The ‘New’ French Parliament: Changes and Continuities. In Developments in French Politics, Five, ed. Alistair Cole, Sophie Meunier, and Vincent Tiberj, 35–52. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brown, Rupert. 2000. Group Processes: Dynamics Within and Between Groups. Oxford: Blackwell.
Colomer, Josep M. 2011. Introduction: Personal and Party Representation. In Personal Representation: The Neglected Dimension of Electoral Systems, ed. Josep M. Colomer, 1–19. Colchester: ECPR Press.
Costa, Olivier, and Eric Kerrouche. 2009. Representative Roles in the French National Assembly: The Case of a Dual Typology? French Politics 7: 219–242.
Cox, Karen E., and Leonard J. Schoppa. 2002. Interaction Effects in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Theory and Evidence From Germany, Japan, and Italy. Comparative Political Studies 35: 1027–1053.
Fenno, Richard J., Jr. 1977. U.S. House Members in Their Constituencies: An Exploration. American Political Science Review 71: 883–917.
———. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Co.
François, Abel. 2006. Testing the ‘Baobab Strategy’ of French Politicians. The ‘cumul des mandats’ as a Way of Obtaining More Political Resources and Limiting Electoral Competition. French Politics 4: 269–291.
———. 2009. Who Are the Candidates and Substitute Candidates in the French Legislative Elections? A Statistical Note on the 2007 Elections. French Politics 7: 206–215.
François, Abel, and Laurent Weill. 2014. Le cumul de mandats locaux affecte-t-il l’activité des députés français? Revue économique 65: 881–906.
Fulbright, J. William. 1979. The Legislator as Educator. Foreign Affairs 57: 719–732.
Gabriel, Oscar W., and Everhard Holtmann. 2010. Der Parteienstaat—ein immerwährendes demokratisches Ärgernis?—Ideologiekritische und empirische Anmerkungen zu einer aktuellen Debatte. Zeitschrift für Politik 57: 307–329.
Gallagher, Michael. 1988. Introduction. In Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective, ed. Michael Gallagher and Michael Marsh, 1–19. Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications.
Katz, Richard S. 2008. Political Parties. In Comparative Politics, ed. Daniele Caramani, 293–317. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kempf, Udo. 2007. Das Politische System Frankreichs. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Laurent, Annie, and Christian-Marie Wallon-Leducq. 1998. Les Candidats Aux Élections Législatives de 1997. Sélection et Dissidence. In Le Vote surprise. Les élections législatives des 25 mai et 1er juin 1997, ed. Pascal Perrineau, 120–138. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
Mair, Peter. 2003. Political Parties and Democracy: What Sort of Future? Central European Political Science Review 4: 6–20.
Mair, Peter, and Ingrid van Biezen. 2001. Party Membership in Twenty European Democracies. 1980–2000. Party Politics 7: 5–21.
Manow, Philip. 2013. Mixed Rules, Different Roles? An Analysis of the Typical Pathways into the Bundestag and of MPs’ Parliamentary Behavior. Journal of Legislative Studies 19: 287–308.
Marrel, Guillaume. 2003. L’élu et son double. Cumul de mandats et construction de l’État républicain en France du milieu du 19ème siècle au milieu du 20ème siècle. Grenoble: Institut d’Études Politiques de Grenoble.
Miler, Kristina C. 2010. Constituency Representation in Congress: The View from Capitol Hill. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, Paul. 2000. Voters and Their Representatives: Electoral Institutions and Delegation in Parliamentary Democracies. European Journal of Political Research 37: 335–351.
Müller, Wolfgang C. 2000. Political Parties in Parliamentary Democracies: Making Delegation and Accountability Work. European Journal of Political Research 37: 309–333.
Murray, Rainbow. 2010. Parties, Gender Quotas and Candidate Selection in France, French Politics, Society and Culture. Paris: Palgrave Macmillan.
Navarro, Julien. 2009. Multiple-Office Holders in France and Germany. An Elite Within the Elite? SFB 580 Mitteilungen. Universität Jena.
Nohlen, Dieter. 2014. Wahlrecht und Parteiensystem. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.
Patzelt, Werner J., and Karin Algasinger. 2001. Abgehobene Abgeordnete? Die gesellschaftliche Vernetzung der deutschen Volksvertreter. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 32: 503–527.
Pütz, Christine. 2000. Rolle und Funktionen der Parteien in der V. Republik. In Parteien in Frankreich, ed. Sabine Ruß, Joachim Schild, Jochen Schmidt, and Ina Stephan, 77–98. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Rahat, Gideon, and Reuven Y. Hazan. 2001. Candidate Selection Methods: An Analytical Framework. Party Politics 7: 297–322.
Rahn, Wendy M. 1993. The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing About Political Candidates. American Journal of Political Science 37: 472–496.
Reiser, Marion. 2011. “Wer entscheidet unter welchen Bedingungen über die Nominierung von Kandidaten?” Die innerparteilichen Selektionsprozesse zur Aufstellung in den Wahlkreisen. In Die Parteien nach der Bundestagswahl 2009, ed. Oskar Niedermayer, 237–259. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
———. 2014. The Universe of Group Representation in Germany: Analysing Formal and Informal Party Rules and Quotas in the Process of Candidate Selection. International Political Science Review 35: 55–66.
Renzsch, Wolfgang. 2000. Bundesstaat oder Parteienstaat. Überlegungen zu Entscheidungsprozessen im Spannungsfeld von föderaler Konsensbildung und parlamentarischem Wettbewerb in Deutschland. In Zwischen Wettbewerbs- und Verhandlungsdemokratie, ed. Everhard Holtmann and Helmut Voelzkow, 53–78. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Sawicki, Frédéric. 1988. Question de recherche: pour une analyse locale des partis politiques. Politix 1: 13–28.
Schindler, Danny. 2013. Die Mühen der Ebene: Parteiarbeit der Bundestagsabgeordneten im Wahlkreis. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 44: 507–525.
Schüttemeyer, Suzanne S. 2002. Wer wählt wen wie aus? Pfade in das unerschlossene Terrain der Kandidatenaufstellung. Gesellschaft–Wirtschaft–Politik 51: 145–159.
Schüttemeyer, Suzanne S., and Roland Sturm. 2005. Der Kandidat—das (fast) unbekannte Wesen: Befunde und Überlegungen zur Aufstellung der Bewerber zum Deutschen Bundestag. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 36: 539–553.
Sieberer, Ulrich. 2010. Behavioral Consequences of Mixed Electoral Systems: Deviating Voting Behavior of District and List MPs in the German Bundestag. Electoral Studies 29: 484–496.
Sineau, Mariette, and Vincent Tiberj. 2007. Candidats et députés français en 2002. Revue française de science politique 57: 163–185.
Steg, Christian. 2016. Die Kandidatenaufstellung zur Bundestagswahl. In Analyse der Nominierung von CDU und SPD in Baden-Württemberg zur Bundestagswahl 2009. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Strøm, Kaare. 2000. Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. European Journal of Political Research 37: 261–289.
Thiébault, Jean-Louis. 1988. France: The Impact of Electoral System Change. In Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective, ed. Michael Gallagher and Michael Marsh, 72–93. Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications.
Vaillant, Jérôme, and Wolfram Vogel. 2009. Le système des partis en France et en Allemagne. In L’avenir des partis politiques en France et en Allemagne, ed. Claire Demesmay and Manuela Glaab, 23–41. Presses universitaires du Septentrion.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Deiss-Helbig, E., Schindler, D., Squarcioni, L. (2018). Where Is the Party? Party Work and Party Representation in the District. In: Gabriel, O., Kerrouche, E., Schüttemeyer, S. (eds) Political Representation in France and Germany. New Perspectives in German Political Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72029-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72029-6_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72028-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72029-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)