The construction of party membership

Transcription

1 232 European Journal of Political Research 54: , 2015 doi: / The construction of party membership ANIKA GAUJA Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney, Australia Abstract. While the collapse of party membership in the last half-century has consumed much of the focus of party scholarship, the notion of membership itself is surprisingly under-theorised. This article presents a tripartite framework for understanding party membership as a constructed concept: from the perspective of the state, the individual and the political party. As organisational mediators and strategic electoral actors, political parties construct varying notions of membership in order to mobilise resources and gain legitimacy, while balancing the participatory demands of citizens with the legal and normative expectations imposed by the state. Using a number of illustrative examples from Europe and beyond, the article analyses the development of supporters networks and the extension of participatory opportunities to non-members. Designed in part to address this membership decline and to offer individuals a different way of engaging with political parties, these initiatives are seen as a crucial step in the evolution of modern parties towards looser, more individualised and amorphous networks of affiliation. Keywords: political parties; political organisations; membership; affiliation; participation Introduction Political scientists have long used the concept of membership to categorise organisational associations and to analyse forms of political participation. This examination, however, is typically undertaken from the perspective of a particular subfield of scholarship for example, political parties or interest groups. Consequently, many of the fundamental questions surrounding membership (what it means to be a member, the range of activities associated with membership, and the role of members in creating, linking and legitimising political groups in society) are often treated uncritically (based on formal, accepted criteria) or too narrowly (based on a particular organisational type or geographic region). The underlying premise of this article is that conceptions of membership that are rooted in sub-disciplinary boundaries are no longer adequate for analysing contemporary trends in political participation and that we need to re-evaluate and engage more critically with what is meant by the concept of membership in studies of political organisation. This is particularly important at a time when party decline is a prominent theme in the scholarly literature, when citizens are looking to alternate means of political expression, and when political parties and interest groups are converging in both their organisational features and policy impacts. While the focus here is on membership as it relates to political parties, similar debates are taking place within the realm of other political organisations, including not-for-profits, highlighting the hybridity of organisational forms, the wide reach of state regulation and the potential of synthesising concepts from different scholarly traditions to advance our understanding of membership decline and/or evolution (Bolleyer 2013; Van Biezen et al. 2012; Hasenfeld & Gidron 2005; Skocpol 1999). Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

2 THE CONSTRUCTION OF PARTY MEMBERSHIP 233 Drawing on several different literatures in the fields of party politics, law, social movements and political participation, the article examines how party membership is constructed from three different perspectives: that of the state, the individual and the political party. Rather than treating membership as a static concept with an accepted formal or legal definition, this analytic framework shows that membership has different meanings depending upon the context within which it is viewed, and can be seen as the product of social, organisational and institutional imperatives. How membership has evolved, and how it continues to change, depends on the interplay between these three perspectives specifically, how political parties are able to mediate between the expectations and norms set by the state and citizens participatory preferences. In developing this tripartite framework, the article aims to make a theoretical contribution to our understanding of the trajectory of party evolution in an era of membership decline, but also at a time when the meaning of membership itself is often taken for granted. 1 Adopting these three perspectives not only acknowledges the heterogeneity of membership as a legal construct, as a type of political engagement and an organisational strategy, but also provides a useful heuristic for understanding how it is sustained over time. Individually, each of these three perspectives provides distinctive insights into what it means to be a member, what members do, and how they legitimate certain forms of political activity. Together, viewed as potentially competing narratives situated in particular beliefs and traditions (see, e.g., the approach of Bevir and Rhodes 2003), the framework highlights some of the tensions that are apparent in modern conceptions of membership particularly between those expressed in laws and social norms and those practiced by individuals. As the article will argue, contemporary political parties face significant challenges as mediators between the membership cues provided by the state including traditional norms of party participation (often couched in the mass party model and in terms of corresponding rights and obligations) and the more expressive and fluid norms of political engagement that many scholars now see as the hallmarks of contemporary citizen participation in politics. As such, it demonstrates how both legal constraints and participatory preferences shape the organisational structures of political parties and create a variety of membership options. The argument is structured according to these three perspectives. After briefly discussing the concept of membership in political party scholarship, the article outlines how membership, as an associational concept, is constructed by the state (as expressed predominantly through party laws), the range of ways in which it may be practiced by individuals, and finally, how political parties deliberately construct increasingly diverse membership opportunities in order to satisfy citizen demand within the confines of social (state-led) expectations. A number of examples from parties within Europe, and beyond, are examined at the conclusion of the article to demonstrate the application of the analytical framework. While these examples are designed to be illustrative rather than exhaustive, they nevertheless highlight a general trend towards the diversification of membership. Returning to the idea of how we might conceptualise membership in the future, the conclusion examines some of the tensions and possibilities that are inherent in these new practices.

3 234 ANIKA GAUJA Membership in the political parties literature The decline of party membership across European democracies, and beyond, is well documented in the literature on comparative party organisations (Van Biezen et al. 2012; Whiteley 2011; Scarrow & Gezgor 2010). Many scholars have identified it as both a pervasive and problematic trend, and have questioned the future role of political parties as both representative and participatory vehicles whether this is seen in terms of the death of parties as we currently know them, or in their transformation into a different kind of mediating political organisation (see, e.g., Van Biezen & Poguntke 2014; Pemberton & Wickham-Jones 2013; Whiteley 2011; Mair 2005). However, the analytical connection between party membership decline and organisational transformation is often implicitly built upon an understanding of party politics that conceptualises political parties, both empirically and normatively, as mass-member organisations. As the name suggests, the central characteristic of this organisational form is the existence of a large financial (or formal) membership, which serves multiple purposes: resourcing the organisation, injecting policy ideas and maintaining links to voters, and providing legitimacy to the party in the eyes of the public. While the golden age of mass parties has long been challenged whether this be through the evolution of new models of organisation (catch-all, electoral professional, cartel, franchise parties, etc.) or through questions as to whether this model ever existed in the first place (see, e.g., Van Biezen 2014: ; Scarrow 2000; Epstein 1967: 100) the concept of membership itself continues to be treated rather uncritically in party scholarship. Some important insights into the malleability of membership (particularly as a recruitment tool) can be obtained from studies of the cartel model of party transformation (see, e.g., Sandri & Pauwels 2010; Bolleyer 2009) and accounts of individual party change (e.g., the evolution of Green parties from social movement to mainstream parties). However, there is little to bridge the conceptual gap between accounts of organisational change and specific studies of party membership. While previous research has revealed that the characteristics and experiences of party members are diverse, particularly in terms of the type and intensity of their involvement and activism (see, e.g., Van Haute 2011, Spier et al. 2011; Heidar & Saglie 2003; Whiteley et al. 2006; Bennie 2004; Seyd & Whiteley 1992, 2002, 2004; Whiteley & Richardson 1994), almost all of this research relies on self-reported data from political parties as to who counts as a party member (Bruter & Harrison 2009: 10 12). The European scholarly interest in membership has been concerned primarily with the characteristics and activities of those individuals who appear on parties membership lists, with little consideration of the significance of this formal status. The broader consequence is that the decline in official membership numbers and certain participatory trends (e.g., the decline of high-intensity activism) are often characterised as reflecting membership organisations in crisis, rather than prompting a re-examination of the concept itself and whether the theoretical and empirical indicators that we rely on are still suitable. Recently, however, party organisation scholars have started to acknowledge more fluid conceptions of party membership and shifting participatory trends. Several studies of party activism have used subjective measures of membership (i.e., self-reported membership from surveys such as the European Social Survey and the International Social

4 THE CONSTRUCTION OF PARTY MEMBERSHIP 235 Survey Program), rather than objective figures provided by political parties (see, e.g., Ponce & Scarrow 2011; Whiteley 2011; Scarrow & Gezgor 2010). In Europe and beyond, we have witnessed the emergence of several organisational reforms and participatory opportunities that challenge the very notion of formal party membership, prompting the recognition that forms of partisan affiliation, beyond formal party membership, matter (Kosiara-Pedersen et al. 2014: 2; Scarrow 2014). Typically analysed within the prism of intraparty democracy, these reforms have included the establishment of friends and supporters networks that encourage the participation of non-members in policy development, leadership and candidate selection (see, e.g., Fisher et al. 2014; Cross & Katz 2013; Scarrow 2013; Gauja 2013a, 2012). A well-known example is the primary used by the French Socialists to select their presidential candidate in Much of this engagement is now occurring online, through, for example, Twitter, Facebook and party websites (Gibson et al. 2013, 2014; Gibson & Ward 2009). The result is the blurring of organisational boundaries and the distinction between members and non-members (Katz & Mair 2009: 755, 761). Three perspectives on party membership There is no such thing as a one size fits all membership. Membership means different things to different people and the experience differs from party to party. What it means to be a member of a Green Party, for example, will differ considerably from what it means to join the Social Democrats or the Conservatives. Citizens take their cues about what membership means from a number of different sources: from their own political preferences and lifestyles, from what is offered to them by political associations such as parties and interest groups, and from the norms of democratic practice operating in the political system around them. Given the diversity of membership experiences and the range of influences that impact upon what it means to be a party member, membership needs to be understood as a fluid and contested concept. However, it is also a constructed concept. Hence it is important to distinguish between organisational definitions of membership (party perspective), the activities that people might associate with it (an individual perspective) and how they become accepted norms and practices (state perspective). Membership, from the perspective of the state, is articulated through the laws and norms that govern the operation of political parties and other voluntary associations. From the perspective of the individual, membership involves a series of diverse motivations and participatory activities. Finally, from the perspective of the political party, membership is a strategic or functional resource. How it is manifest in an organisational sense is shaped by the competing demands for political participation placed upon it by citizens and the state. This does not assume the existence of a normative hierarchy that one view of membership is more important than another but a conception of membership that appeals to all three perspectives is more likely to endure and create a lasting basis for popular engagement with political organisations. By the same token, disaggregating party membership in this way, and revealing some of the tensions and differences between alternate versions of the concept, helps us to think through some of the reasons for (and implications of) the terminal membership decline that is so pervasive in the parties literature. Rather than

5 236 ANIKA GAUJA signaling the death of political parties as organisations, we may be witnessing the decline of a particular form of party membership bringing with it a new series of adaptive challenges for parties, states and citizens alike. Membership and the state The first set of norms surrounding party membership is generated by the state and is expressed in the regulations governing political parties. Found in constitutions, statutes and case law, 2 these regulations are important for the construction of membership in two respects: they either issue directives or create a set of incentives for political parties to adopt formalised membership structures; 3 and, in so doing, they offer a series of normative cues as to how political parties might legitimately be organised. Hence, membership norms are generated through both explicit and implicit means, reinforced by the shared beliefs and social structures that inform our interpretation of the law (Orr 2014: 334; Bevir & Rhodes 2003). The bottom line is that even though most democracies grant political parties substantial flexibility in determining the conditions for their membership and governance arrangements, parties are essentially construed as membership organisations (Orr 2014; Van Biezen & Piccio 2013: 43 45; Gauja 2010; Rosenblum 2000). The implications of this construction are particularly salient in three facets of regulation: freedom of association (the constitutional status of parties), access to state resources, and internal organisation (membership rights and responsibilities). Members of political parties and other voluntary associations are protected by the fundamental right of freedom of association, codified in many international conventions and national constitutions. 4 While freedom of association provisions typically do not articulate or define membership (or what it means to join or to voluntarily associate), 5 they do have the effect of creating a clear distinction between members and non-members for the purpose of enforcement. There must be clear ways of demonstrating or documenting this status. For example, Bulgarian party law requires that individuals sign a declaration of membership. Similarly, Slovenian and Serbian party law requires that individuals sign membership statements and that parties keep records of their members, including name, address and personal identification numbers. In this way, a formal/legal category of party membership is created and those who belong are afforded recognition, legal protection and, by implication, legitimacy. Establishing a formal membership is also a requirement for access to a variety of privileges and resources conferred by the state, such as public funding, ballot access without the necessity of demonstrating a minimum level of public support, broadcast allocations and access to electoral rolls. These resources are often, though not always, linked to a system of party registration and democracies such as Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, New Zealand and Portugal impose minimum membership requirements upon political parties in order to achieve registered status (Gauja 2010). For example, in 2013, the parliament of the Netherlands passed the Financing of Political Parties Act, which restricted state subsidies to parties represented in parliament with 1,000 or more members paying an annual fee of 12. Although the law does not explicitly define what membership means, through the imposition of registration requirements and the provision of state resources,

6 THE CONSTRUCTION OF PARTY MEMBERSHIP 237 which are tied to a minimum level of membership as a proxy for public support, political parties are compelled to create a formal membership. Where the law seeks to regulate the internal organisation and processes of political parties it also begins to prescribe the character and content of membership. In democracies such as Germany, Spain and Latvia, it is explicitly required in the constitution and party statutes that members have a clearly articulated set of rights and responsibilities. In common law democracies, where legislation says little of how parties ought to organise their membership, years of judicial decision making and precedent have effectively taken their place. Understood within the mindset of the common law, a party is its members (Morris 2012: 106) linked by a set of political relationships mediated by the rules of the party constitution. Although it is up to individual parties to determine the exact nature of this relationship, members are typically able to participate in some way in the election of office bearers, the selection of candidates and leaders, to attend a conference or request constitutional amendments. 6 The United States is a particularly powerful example of the impact of state regulation. Here, party membership has been heavily regulated since the late nineteenth century through the imposition of state-mandated primaries (Lowenstein 2006). The law s focus on regulating candidate selection contests, in order to quash what were seen as corrupt party machines, has had the lasting effect of creating such an inclusive and permeable notion of membership that it barely exists at all and hence, the American case has often been treated as exceptional (Ware 2006). In protecting associational freedoms and allocating resources, the state constructs a particular notion of membership that is formal, that reflects a minimum level of public support and that is built upon rights and responsibilities. While the exact form of this relationship is not usually specified, administrative requirements necessitate that it be proved in some way. In practical terms, this has led over time to the creation of party rules and constitutions, membership lists, membership cards and the submission of applications for joining. While we may question these documents as accurate indicators of intraparty processes and of an individual s commitment to a party, they have become the standard measures of membership from the perspective of the state, of political parties and, in turn, party researchers. Of even greater significance perhaps are the normative cues infused within this construction: as Orr (2014: 337) explains, in legal form then the membership is the party... in the legal imagination its membership is its soul; and all this mapped onto the prevailing political science ideal of the mass party. Party membership and the individual In contrast to the importance placed upon membership as a formalised relationship that is evident in state-centred conceptions of party membership, from an individual perspective, joining a political party potentially means much more, or much less, than signing a membership form. Existing studies of party members utilising survey methodology provide ample evidence of the variety of incentives that lead citizens to become party members (see, e.g., Seyd & Whiteley 1992, 2002, 2004; Clarke & Wilson 1961) and the range of activities that they undertake once they do so (Van Haute 2011). In this sense, both the incentives that draw citizens to parties, and the activities that they subsequently undertake,

7 238 ANIKA GAUJA influence the character of what it means to be a member. Bruter and Harrison (2009: 22 24), for example, develop a typology of young European party members as moral minded, social minded and professional minded. They hypothesise that different models of why people join parties have different implications for the types of activities that they undertake, and show that those members who are categorised as social are less active than their professional and moral counterparts. However, many existing studies of party membership, particularly those that rely upon member surveys, suffer from two substantial limitations. First, they are constrained by a sample that is based upon self-reported figures from the parties themselves, identified and collected largely according to the state-centred criteria explained above. While this sample would include individuals with a formal attachment to the party, it may exclude those citizens whose affiliation is expressed through more functional means such as volunteer activity (see, e.g., Fisher et al. 2014). Second, the range of activities for which members have been surveyed is becoming increasingly out of date. Many surveys have conceptualised membership activity as attendance at local branch meetings, or in terms of the rights and responsibilities articulated in party constitutions. In order to ameliorate these constraints we need to think about how (a) party affiliation might be conceptualised by individuals beyond the formal state-centred model of membership, and (b) expand the range of participatory activities associated with membership to better reflect the overall character of a citizen s political participation today. Susan Scarrow (2014) offers a fruitful path forward in moving beyond formal party membership as the dominant indicator of partisan engagement. In her model of the multi-speed membership party (discussed further below), formal membership is only one of a series of ways in which individuals might affiliate with political parties. Although the multi-speed model is centred within an organisational (as opposed to an individual) analysis of membership, it is extremely useful in highlighting the fact that in many ways, affiliation (and the spectrum of activities associated with it) matters more in explaining contemporary patterns of citizen engagement with political parties than party membership. If we think about membership in terms of individual activity and motivation rather than formal status, the question then becomes what types of actions or motivations could be considered as constituting membership of, or affiliation with, a political party. For example, Duverger s (1954) concentric circle of party affiliation presents membership as one of a series of affiliational types of varying intensity, from militants to voters. However, drawing the line between members and supporters is not an easy task, particularly if we consider the theoretical distinction between passive members and non-members (see, e.g., Heidar & Saglie 2003: 764). Perhaps the conception of party membership that we are most comfortable with, both normatively and empirically, is that in which the formal status of being a party member is accompanied by corresponding activity. Joining a party is linked to the possibility of doing something within it, which maps closely onto the rights and obligations model expressed in party law, and which is also expressed by many leftist or Christian Democratic parties that are willing to impose such obligations. While not all members are expected to participate equally (and some not at all), there is a presumed link between the reasons why people join political parties and the types and intensity of the activities that they undertake (see also, e.g., Seyd & Whiteley 2002).

8 THE CONSTRUCTION OF PARTY MEMBERSHIP 239 However, it is also conceivable that someone might join a political party based purely on motivational factors (such as an expression of support, or identification with a group, belief or class) that requires no further activity beyond the act of joining itself. In this instance, motivation becomes exclusive to the individual s conception of what it means to be a member, without any further link to participatory action. The very act of joining is key, and this can be expressed in a number of different ways: whether this is as a formal member, a friend or a supporter, or undertaking public displays of affiliation such as wearing badges, displaying placards, using a party logo as a social media profile picture, or liking a party or politician on Facebook. Conversely, it might also be conceivable that an individual undertakes an activity without any intention of actually joining the political party that is, he or she does so without any requisite associational motivation. Membership, conceived as political action, is expressed in what could be termed a continuum of participation in party affairs, 7 and might involve information-seeking activities such as signing up to news and information about politics and the party; voting in an open primary; providing resources such as donations; volunteering on specific campaigns or even participating in citizen-initiated campaigns. Activity of this kind could be individual or collective, online or offline (or both), internal or external, party or issues-based opening up an entire range of new participatory repertoires that have been recognised in the political participation literature (see, e.g., Faucher 2014; Karpf 2012; Micheletti & McFarland 2011), but that need to be further understood in the context of party membership. Teasing out some of the nuances of what it means to be a member from an individual perspective and acknowledging that membership does not need to be based on both an expression of affiliation or an activity, but also that each form, individually, resonates with the contemporary scholarship on political participation that documents a shift away from duty-oriented norms of insitutionalised collective activity towards more individualised, issue-oriented and direct forms of action (see, e.g., Bang 2011; Dalton 2008: 86; Pattie et al. 2004). Whether or not these activities constitute a meaningful form of partisan affiliation, or a functional indicator of membership, is certainly open to debate. While a resolution is beyond the scope of this particular article, it is important to cite Rosenblum s (2000: 821) argument at this juncture: [I]t is one thing to erect a moral hierarchy of forms of participation and association and another to disparage anything less than ideal activism. Membership and the political party: An organisational accommodation Adopting an exclusively individual perspective overlooks the fact that political parties, as institutions, also determine the character of political participation, through the opportunities they offer for partisan engagement (Faucher 2014). As adaptive agents, parties have significant agency in determining the character of party membership in deciding the type of link to establish with citizens, implemented through their rules and process (Van Biezen 2014: 183; Kosiara-Pedersen et al. 2014: 5; Conway & Feigert 1968: 1160). In constructing different notions of membership and affiliation, political parties are influenced by two primary considerations: the functional utility of maintaining a membership base, and the necessity of balancing both state and individual expectations as to what it means to be a party member.

9 240 ANIKA GAUJA Subject to any overriding requirements imposed by the state, political parties do not necessarily need to have party members, and certainly not mass memberships (Young 2013). As many have noted, the mass party is only one in a long list of party types not all of which feature prominent, or active, member bases. Rather, political parties choose to enroll members for several strategic reasons, which they believe give them a competitive electoral advantage for example, to provide resources (both monetary and volunteering capacity) and as a source of legitimacy (evidence of broad public support) (Faucher 2014: 6; Scarrow 2009; Ware 1996: 63 64). Parties may not require their members to be active in some models of organisation such as the cartel party (Katz & Mair 1995), passive or inactive members are seen as more desirable. Nonetheless, this recruitment strategy must have some internal coherence and ideally fit within the party s worldview (Scarrow 2014). What it means to be a member will therefore differ between parties of different ideologies as political parties use membership as a strategy intended to mobilise supporters and create a shared sense of identity (Snow & Benford 1988; Melucci 1988). In addition to the functional motivation, the concept of membership from the perspective of the political party also represents an attempt to simultaneously balance state and individual conceptions of, and demands for, party membership (as outlined above). One way in which political parties have attempted this balancing exercise is to increase the selective incentives that are available exclusively to party members (Faucher 2014; Young 2013). Responding to the obligations imposed by party law and the possibility of access to state resources, detailed governance arrangements are articulated in party constitutions that confer rights on party members in areas such as candidate and leadership selection, the right to stand for public office, conference attendance, participation in policy development and intraparty decision making. In recent decades, comparative party scholars have documented a substantial expansion of participatory opportunities for individual members and the strengthening of intraparty democracy within many parties, at least in a formal sense (Faucher 2014; Cross & Katz 2013; Kenig 2009). The corresponding obligations placed upon party members include the payment of dues, a requirement of exclusive membership and adherence to the party s principles and constitution. The second adaptive strategy is to accommodate the increasingly individualised nature of citizen participation through the creation of more diverse membership and affiliation options, as well as the implementation of more individualised and ad hoc participatory opportunities that blur the distinction between party members and supporters (Gauja 2013b). In Scarrow s model of the multi-speed membership party, citizens are offered six different structured opportunities to engage with political parties: as traditional individual members, as light members, as cyber members, sustainers, social media followers and friends, and as a news audience. Each of these affiliation options is characterised by the fact that it is centralised, accessible and digital (Scarrow 2014). An alternate categorisation of affiliation options ranges from traditional forms of direct and indirect (e.g., union membership), through to informal links, to social media activists (Kosiara-Pedersen et al. 2014: 5 6). In each case, engagement strategies reflect an organisational attempt to respond to the expressive and social identity needs of their members (Hasenfeld & Gidron 2005: 107). As more scholars undertake research in this field, as technologies continue to change, and as political parties experiment with new participatory practices, these categorisations may be adapted and refined. The underlying logic, however, remains the same: over time,

10 THE CONSTRUCTION OF PARTY MEMBERSHIP 241 political parties redefine the contours of what is meant by associational membership in order to meet the competing demands from citizens and the state, as well as work to preserve their resource flows. The two main adaptive strategies that political parties have used to accomplish this are: assigning increasing exclusive benefits (and obligations) to formal membership; and blurring the boundaries between members and non-members by creating a variety of affiliation options, including less obligation-centred roles and ad hoc participatory opportunities. Each has its trade-offs the first sits comfortably with the state-centered construction of membership but may not appeal to citizens participatory preferences, while the second strategy might attract more members but it is unclear whether it does so legitimately and with the support of the state. Empirical illustrations As there already is a substantial literature on the expansion of plebiscitary democracy and other formal opportunities for membership participation (see, e.g., Cross & Katz 2013), this section provides some empirical illustrations of the second adaptive strategy (blurring the boundaries between members and non-members). Three main examples are considered: the creation of formalised supporters networks, re-defining what it means to join the organisation, and the creation of participatory opportunities for non-members. As this is a rapidly developing area, the cases discussed are designed to be illustrative only suffice to say that these examples are concentrated in democracies (Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom) where there is relatively less explicit legal regulation, but where membership decline has been substantial. 8 In this particular scenario, we might expect greater experimentation from parties and hence, these illustrations could be seen as examples of more radical adaptive strategies. Nevertheless, these trends are not insignificant on a broader scale: in a cross-national study of 99 parties in 23 democracies, Kosiara-Pedersen et al. (2014: 11) found that a third of parties offered affiliation in the form of a friend or supporter, and just under half provided participatory opportunities for non-members (as of 2011). Formalised supporters networks The British Labour and Conservative parties; the German Social Democrats (SPD); the Christian Union in the Netherlands; and the Italy of Values Party (IDV), People of Freedom (PDL) and the Democratic Party (PD) in Italy are all examples of political parties that citizens can now formally join as supporters or friends rather than members. According to the United Kingdom Labour Party, supportership offers people a means of formalising their support for the party without going so far as becoming full members (Hain 2004: 16). The primary motivation for the establishment of these networks is to reach out beyond the core membership, to create a wider base of people willing to mobilise and campaign for the party, and to draw from experiences within the wider community when making local policy decisions (United Kingdom Labour Party 2011). Re-branding itself as a broadly-based, mass participation party (Liberal Party of Canada 2011: 2), rather than a broadly-based, mass membership party, supporters are now also recognised in the Canadian

11 242 ANIKA GAUJA Liberal Party s Constitution as a formal category of affiliation. Like Britain s Labour Party, the Canadian Liberal Party describes supportership as a new opportunity for engagement with the party for individuals who do not wish to become full Members of the Party, leading to a new, more open and more flexible framework for active engagement as a Liberal partisan (Liberal Party of Canada 2011: 4). These statements highlight that, as an alternate construction of membership, supportership promises to fulfil the dual goals of satisfying citizen demand and maintaining party resources. In addition to granting status, supportership potentially carries the opportunity to become involved in intraparty decisions. In both the Canadian Liberals and the Italian Democratic Party, supporters may participate in policy forums and select the party leader. Within the British Labour Party, affiliated supporters enjoy almost exactly the same rights as full members, with the exception of voting at the party conference and representing the party (Collins 2014: 23). In Australia, the Labor Party (the ALP) has also involved its registered supporters in candidate selections through the trial of open primaries for the selection of parliamentary candidates in its state branches a move that has been endorsed by many within the party (Bracks et al. 2011: 22 23). These developments suggest that if supporters are also given rights in leadership and candidate selections, then the distinction between members and supporters may not be as clear-cut as suggested in party rhetoric. Participatory opportunities for non-members In addition to creating alternate categories of affiliation, political parties have also experimented with creating participatory opportunities for non-members thereby reconstructing membership in a functional rather than formal sense. These initiatives can take place online or offline, and include policy forums and open primaries for candidate and leadership selection. For example, in 2010, the ALP established Labor Connect with the aim of creating a new place for Labor supporters and the wider community to connect with each other and participate in current progressive policy debates (ALP 2014). In 2013 in the United Kingdom, Labour launched an online consultation initiative entitled Your Britain (United Kingdom Labour Party 2013), which is described as: Labour s online policy hub. Whether you re a Labour Party member, a trade union member, a representative of a voluntary organisation or business, or none of the above, we want to hear your ideas on how the next Labour Government can tackle the challenges that face Britain. Like Labor Connect, Your Britain allows citizens to engage with the party on an individual and temporary basis. The focus of these sites is on communicating information around specific policy issues and local campaigns rather than branded party principles or ideologies. In this way, partisan activity is reconstructed to appeal to a new type of politically active citizen. Re-defining what it means to join Another strategy for reconstructing membership simply redefines the notion of what it means to join the party. Utilised primarily as a rhetorical device, this strategy builds upon the expansion of participatory opportunities to non-members by linking activities (such as donating) to a sense of organisational belonging. For example, the British Conservatives offer three ways in which to join the party: as a Friend (involving a donation of the Friend s

12 THE CONSTRUCTION OF PARTY MEMBERSHIP 243 choice), as a Member (with a set fee of 25 per year), or as a Donor (donation of choice). 9 Similarly, the ALP offers three options to join : as a member, by providing contact details to stay up to date and by volunteering for the party. The benefits of joining the party as a member are advertised as having the opportunity to influence the policies of Labor in government, have your ideas brought before the entire ALP, participate actively in election campaigns, meet other people with a commitment to social justice, stand in pre-selection ballots as a candidate for public office, meet ALP parliamentary representatives, and find out the inside news on the labour movement and Labor in government. (ALP 2013) In order to stay up to date, citizens are asked to provide their , mobile number and street address, and indicate their preferences for receiving s and text messages. Potential volunteers are able to choose from helping out on election-day, door-knocking, office administration, event management or joining the party s social media Share squad (ALP 2013). In all of these instances, alternative forms of affiliation status and party activity that emphasise individual engagement stand alongside more traditional party membership structures. Formal party membership continues to be an option for those wishing to become involved, but it is now complemented by the possibility of becoming a friend, a supporter or a donor. A myriad of activities that are not conditional upon formal membership are also presented to interested individuals, ranging from information provision, policy consultations to candidate and leadership selections. These examples serve to highlight the fluidity of modern conceptions of party membership, but also some of the potentially problematic ambiguities when the functional and formal distinctions between members and nonmembers are blurred. To the extent that supporters are able to perform similar roles to members, and that participation and inclusivity are emphasised in new ways of joining, there is some consistency between the strategy of blurring membership boundaries and the normative model of membership constructed by the state. Parties pursuing this strategy may still be seen as legitimate and, therefore, this could be seen as a rational way forward. However, without a formal membership, access to state resources may be compromised which in the absence of legislative change suggests that formal memberships are still necessary as a distinct category. The notion of formality is also important in securing the protection of associational freedoms and membership rights without it supporters may not be able to enforce party rules or to challenge decisions. As these practices show, traditional conceptions of membership rooted in the mass party model are being challenged by political practice. While parties are changing, the formal, state-centred notion of membership is more difficult to shift. Conclusion Membership is a malleable concept and a strategic tool that can be used by all political organisations to attract citizens, obtain resources and legitimacy. Rather than taking the

13 244 ANIKA GAUJA concept of membership for granted, the tripartite analytical framework developed in this article reveals that as mediators, political organisations construct their particular notions of membership according to their strategic priorities, to respond to popular demands for participatory opportunities, and to comply with the normative and legal conceptions of membership as directed by the state. Understanding the three different conceptual forces that shape membership state, individual and organisational helps to explain why, and how, an adaptive strategy of diversifying membership options has emerged in the face of membership decline (e.g., creating supporters networks and increasing the opportunities for non-member involvement). Ostensibly, these new forms of partisan affiliation and activity satisfy the inclusive and participatory model of party organisation that is advocated by the state, as well as accommodating more individualised, project-oriented and ad hoc participatory demands. Thinking about membership in this way points to a number of fundamental changes in the way in which political organisations link citizens and their governors, but in contrast to the dominant discourse on the future of political parties, this does not necessarily paint a picture of organisational decline. Drawing on what the experience of membership means to individuals (a topic that could well be developed in future ethnographic research), might actually provide a way forward in reconceptualising and theorising the place and role of political parties (and other political organisations) in modern societies. The arguments put forward in this article also have implications for empirical research and strategies. To the extent that party membership is predicated upon the assumption of mass and active participation according to traditional stereotypes and norms, such as attendance at branch meetings, door-knocking and handing out materials for the party on election days, then we may well be seeing what we traditionally conceive as mass parties and party members disappearing. However, as this article has argued, party membership is a diverse and fluid concept one that should prompt us to think about how engagement with (and within) political parties can be better conceptualised to reflect changing norms of political participation. While formal party membership might be diminishing, a corresponding increase in supporter and non-member activity may provide a new measure of party organisational strength (Fisher et al. 2014: 79). To remain relevant, party member surveys will need to move away from formal, state-based conceptions of membership, and incorporate some of the individual perceptions and organisational adaptations of membership that have been highlighted in this article. Correspondingly, political parties face significant challenges in ensuring the stability of this new organisational form and its constituent relationships of affiliation. Will political parties be able to continue to offer collective and selective incentives if participation is open and comes at no cost? Are alternate pathways for joining a political association sustainable and are they compatible with a common organisational goal? These are questions for future research that might usefully draw from an interdisciplinary canon (particularly social movement studies) as alternative forms of affiliation and strategic adaptations mature. In the meantime, however, the meaning of membership in parties and other political associations should not be taken for granted. Understanding membership in the way outlined in this article as a contested and constructed concept that is shaped by party, state and individual motivation provides a solid basis for analysing why, and how, it will continue to evolve into the future.

14 THE CONSTRUCTION OF PARTY MEMBERSHIP 245 Acknowledgments This research was supported by an Australian Research Council DECRA ( ). I would like to thank Florence Faucher, Dick Katz, Ariadne Vromen, Diarmuid Maguire and Nicole Bolleyer for their helpful suggestions, as well as the anonymous referees and editors of this journal for their constructive comments. Thanks also to participants in the various meetings at which previous versions of the article were presented in 2013: the APSA Annual Meeting (Chicago, IL), the United Kingdom PSA Annual Conference (Cardiff) and the Towards More Multifaceted Understandings of Party Membership conference (Copenhagen). Notes 1. As discussed below, this is a particular characteristic of party member surveys developed in the 1980s, upon which much of our understanding of partisan activity is based. 2. A number of databases containing the text of party laws are now easily accessible on the Internet. See, e.g., Party Law in Modern Europe ( the NDI Database of Party Laws ( International IDEA s Party Law and Finance Database ( finance). 3. In examining the role of the state in providing membership cues, reference is made to what could be termed the formal or legal conception of party membership as distinct from the more functional, expressive or resource-based notions that underlie individual- and party-based perspectives. 4. In Europe, Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects this freedom, subject only to justifiable limitations (see, e.g., Molenaar 2010). Individual democracies, such as Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania and Portugal explicitly provide for these associational freedoms in their party laws. 5. Some party laws will place restrictions on membership (e.g., an individual cannot belong to more than one political party at once). Examples include Bulgaria, Hungary, Portugal and Romania. Other countries, such as Spain and Latvia, will clearly articulate the rights that members are entitled to (e.g., participation in intraparty decisions). 6. Latvian party law, for example, confers on members the right to participate in party decisions and the selection of candidates in return for undertaking party work and paying a membership fee. 7. This phrase was used by Justice Marshall of the United States Supreme Court to describe American political parties as membership organisations in Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 US 208, 215 (1986) (cited in Rosenblum 2000: 822). 8. Each of these democracies operates under the laissez-faire, common law model of party regulation (Gauja 2010). Party membership in each country currently stands at around 1% of the electorate some of the lowest figures in advanced industrial democracies (see Webb et al. 2002; Van Biezen et al. 2012). 9. See the Conservatives May 2014 membership flyer, which is available for download from the party s website: References Australian Labor Party (ALP) (2013) Joining Labor. Available online at: Australian Labor Party (ALP) (2014). Labor Connect. Available online at: Bang, H. (2011). The politics of threats: Late-modern politics in the shadow of neoliberalism. Critical Policy Studies 5(4):