The Presidential Party: A Theoretical Framework for Comparative Analysis
| Author | Gianluca Passarelli |
| DOI | 10.1177/1478929919862232 |
| Published date | 01 February 2020 |
| Date | 01 February 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Special Issue Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929919862232
Political Studies Review
2020, Vol. 18(1) 87 –107
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1478929919862232
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
The Presidential Party:
A Theoretical Framework
for Comparative Analysis
Gianluca Passarelli
Abstract
Presidents of the Republic are crucial actors in both presidential and semi-presidential regimes.
Despite the fact that these two systems represent the majority of all the world’s political systems,
the focus on the head of state has only relatively recently been covered comparatively and
systematically. Although big gaps still persist in relation to many aspects of ‘presidential power’,
advances have been made, and the ‘presidential’ world has been analysed with more sophisticated
tools and concepts. However, the ‘presidential party’ remains relatively understudied at both
the theoretical and the empirical levels. The ‘party of the president’ is the key political actor that
affects presidential activity during his or her mandate. The article aims to present a theoretical
framework and a potential guideline for comparative studies. Starting from a critical review of
Shugart and Carey’s seminal book, I propose a conceptualisation of the presidential party and
the theoretical possible effects of it on the legislature, which might be useful for further empirical
analysis.
Keywords
presidential party, president, political party, presidentialism, semi-presidentialism
Accepted: 26 April 2019
The Presidents of the Republic and the Political Parties in
Context
Presidents of the Republic are crucial actors in political systems (Blondel, 2015). Their
effective influence and power depend on formal constitutional provisions and political
equilibrium alike. Both elements represent crucial variables, although they act in different
ways, and they influence different arenas. If their constitutional powers are relatively easy
to identify and, albeit to a lesser extent, to measure (Shugart and Carey, 1992), there is not
always agreement on how to compare them across cases (Doyle and Elgie, 2016;
Morgenstern et al., 2018; Siaroff, 2003). Even so, constitutional provisions represent a
Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche, Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma, Italy
Corresponding author:
Gianluca Passarelli, Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche, Sapienza Università di Roma, Piazzale Aldo Moro,
5, 00185 Roma, Italy.
Email: gianluca.passarelli@uniroma1.it
862232PSW0010.1177/1478929919862232Political Studies ReviewPassarelli
research-article2019
Special Issue Article
88 Political Studies Review 18(1)
‘quantifiable’ variable. By contrast, presidents’ other skills and powers are much more
difficult to measure, to compare and to use as a key element in defining the presidential
role and influence. Psychology, personal attitudes and qualities, charisma, leadership and
electoral appeal, among others, are variables that can vary deeply between presidents, as
well as over time in a consideration of the same president or presidency. Here, I shall
instead deal with the ‘presidential party’ (PP).
I examine the PP starting from Shugart and Carey’s critical review on the topic,
Presidents and Assemblies. Although political parties are crucial actors, and as such, have
been extensively analysed from a comparative perspective, Shugart and Carey (1992)
focus on parties mainly in relation to presidential power and the strength of the party
leadership over the rank and file.
I consider different outcomes in the configurations of the PP as a crucial element – the
key variable – in determining the president’s political effectiveness in different arenas.
The PP will, in fact, be decisive in dealing with the legislature, with the executive branch,
as well as with the electorate. The PP can be defined as the organisation that selected and
supported the candidate who ran under its label and who subsequently became president
(or to the party the candidate declares an affiliation with in the case of a coalition of par-
ties supporting his or her presidential race).1 The president’s ability to deal with it and the
control of the organisation can depend on different elements: being the leader of the party
or not, and acting as such formally or not, and being the leader of the party in the public
office, that is, the parliamentary majority. Depending on the form of government, the
intense control of the PP can generate, therefore, different political outcomes. The pres-
ence of a situation of cohabitation or of divided government, the term length and the
party’s features are among the most important variables in making the PP work. Therefore,
we can broadly assume that the more that is under the control of the presidential party,
the greater is the presidential strength.
The PP’s features depend on the institutional asset and the genetic features. Among the
latter, we should include societal changes and the de-ideologisation that affect many
political parties, as Kirchheimer (1966) has underlined. Although the PP can also be con-
sidered as that which supports the candidate running for the presidency, I will focus solely
on the political parties of the candidates who have won the elections.
The article proposes a theoretical framework on the PP and its effects that is useful for
analysing and comparing cases of presidential parties in both presidential and semi-presi-
dential systems. In this sense, I would make a clear distinction. Although most of the litera-
ture considers the PP a dependent variable, here I am more interested on the explanatory
strength it has. Therefore, I am interested in the PP as an independent or at least as an inter-
mediate variable. The implications of such an assumption clearly intervene in the possibility
to observe variations not only between regime types and institutions but also within each of
them. In fact, the PP’s features together with the relationships with the president may sig-
nificantly affect the political and legislative outcomes. Before going into detail, it is impor-
tant to define the borders of this peculiar political actor, as well as the institutional context
in which it operates, and consequently, the opportunities and constraints it could face. As
clearly stated by Blondel, ‘leadership cannot be divorced from the environment within
which it occurs’ (Blondel, 1987a: 321, 1987b). Once the main variables affecting the PP
configuration are indicated, I will illustrate the different patterns of relationship that exist
between the president and the president’s own party, and the possible outcomes that can
originate from them. The main hypotheses about the effects of presidential parties’ patterns
on the legislature and presidential activities will be presented.
To continue reading
Request your trial