Explaining party cohesion and discipline in democratic legislatures: purposiveness and contexts

Legislative party discipline and cohesion are important phenomena in the study of political systems. Unless assumptions are made that parties are cohesive and act as unified collectivities with reasonably well-defined goals, it is really difficult, if not impossible, to consider their electoral and legislative roles usefully. But levels of legislative party cohesiveness are also important because they provide us with crucial information about how legislatures/ parliaments function and how they interact with executives/governments. Without cohesive (or disciplined) parties,1 government survival in parliamentary systems is threatened because executive and legislative powers are fused while in separated systems presidents' bases of legislative support become less stable. How do we explain varying levels of legislative party cohesion? The first part of this article draws on the purposive literature to explore the benefits and costs to legislators in democratic legislatures of joining and acting collectively and individualistically within political parties. This leads on to a discussion of various conceptual and empirical problems encountered in analysing intra-party cohesion and discipline in democratic legislatures on plenary votes. Finally, the article reviews the extant empirical evidence on how a multiplicity of systemic, party-levels and situational factors supposedly impact cohesion/discipline levels. The article ends with a discussion of the possibilities and limitations of building comparative models of cohesion/discipline.

Less Cambridge, more York: Leavis's later ideas about the university

Leavis’s name is synonymous with a resolutely negative verdict on mass higher education: he went on record as saying ‘There’s no redeeming the democratic mass university’ (The Living Principle, p. 7). What relevance then does Leavis have for the majority of us involved in a system of widening participation, whether as students, researchers, teachers, managers or other stakeholders? The key to answering these questions in a productive way lies in our understanding of Leavis’s time at York. It is the work of this period that opens a dialogue between Leavis and contemporary debate on higher education. Appreciating Leavis’s later and currently more neglected work undertaken at York gives pointers to ways in which he can begin to be a meaningful presence again in relation to our thinking about the ‘democratic mass university’.