The professionalization of politics and the disappearance of party organizations based on activists seems an inescapable trend. This article shows, by studying the Broad Front of Uruguay as a deviant case, the relevance of organizational rules for explaining the reproduction of party activism. Using data from both an online survey of people differing in their levels of engagement with the Broad Front and in-depth interviews with party activists, we show that those with relatively low levels of engagement—“adherents”—and activists differ in their willingness to cooperate with the party and in the time they devote to party activities. Also, we find that reducing the perceived efficacy of political engagement strongly decreases activists’ self-reported willingness to engage with the party, while this reduction has no effect upon adherents. These findings suggest that the design of organizational rules that grant a political role to grassroots organizers can promote party activism.
AldrichJ. H. (1995). Why parties? The origin and transformation of political parties in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AnriaS. (2013). Social movements, party organization, and populism: Insights from the Bolivian MAS. Latin American Politics and Society, 55(3), 19-46.
3.
AnriaS. (2016). Democratizing democracy? Civil society and party organization in Bolivia. Comparative Politics, 48, 459-478.
4.
AnriaS. (2018a). When movements become parties: The Bolivian MAS in comparative perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5.
AnriaS. (2018b, May 23-26). When movements become parties: The Movement Toward Socialism (MAS). Paper presented at the XXXVI International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Barcelona, Spain.
6.
AstoriD. (2001). Estancamiento, Desequilibrios y Ruptura, 1955-1972 [Stagnation, Unbalances, and Breakdown]. In NahumB. (Ed.), El Uruguay del Siglo XX: La Economía [The Twentieth Century in Uruguay: The Economy]. Montevideo, Uruguay: Instituto de Economía–Ediciones de la Banda Oriental.
7.
BaggettaM.HanH.AndrewsK. T. (2013). Leading associations: How individual characteristics and team dynamics generate committed leaders. American Sociological Review, 78, 544-573.
8.
BentancurV. P.PiñeiroR.RosenblattF. (2018). Working against History The Frente Amplio as a Mass-Organic Party in Latin America. Unpublished manuscript.
9.
BimberB.FlanaginA.StohlC. (2012). Collective action in organizations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BuquetD.ChasquettiD.MoraesJ. A. (1998). Fragmentación Política y Gobierno en Uruguay: ¿Un Enfermo Imaginario? [Political Fragmentation and Government in Uruguay: An Imaginary Invalid?] Montevideo, Uruguay: Facultad de Ciencias Sociales.
11.
BurgessK.LevitskyS. (2003). Explaining Populist Party adaptation in Latin America: Environmental and organizational determinants of party change in Argentina, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela. Comparative Political Studies, 36, 881-911.
12.
CyrJ. (2017). The fates of political parties: Crisis, continuity, and change in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
13.
DaltonR.McAllisterI.WattenbergM. (2005). Political parties and their publics. In LutherK. R.Müller-RommellF. (Eds.), Political parties in the new Europe (pp. 19-42). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14.
DunningT. (2012). Natural experiments in the social sciences: A design-based approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
15.
DuvergerM. (1954). Political parties. London, England: Methuen.
16.
FreidenbergF.LevitskyS. (2007). Organización Informal de los Partidos en América Latina [The Informal Organization of Latin American Parties]. Desarrollo Económico, 46, 539-568.
17.
GarcéA.YafféJ. (2005). La Era Progresista [The Progressive Era]. Montevideo, Uruguay: Editorial Fin de Siglo.
18.
GonzálezL. E. (1991). Political structures and democracy in Uruguay. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
19.
GreenD. P.GerberA. S. (2008). Get out the vote: How to increase voter turnout. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
20.
HanH. (2014). How organizations develop activists: Civic associations and leadership in the 21st century. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21.
HanH. (2016). The organizational roots of political activism: Field experiments on creating a relational context. American Political Science Review, 110, 296-307. doi:10.1017/S000305541600006X
22.
HershE. D. (2015). Hacking the electorate: How campaigns perceive voters. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
23.
HirschmanA. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty. Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
HunterW. (2007). The normalization of an anomaly: The Workers’ Party in Brazil. World Politics, 59, 440-475.
25.
HunterW. (2010). The transformation of the Workers’ Party in Brazil, 1989-2009. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
26.
IssenbergS. (2012). The victory lab: The secret science of winning campaigns. New York, NY: Broadway Books.
27.
JägerK. (2017). The potential of online sampling for studying political activists around the world and across time. Political Analysis, 25, 329-343.
28.
KatzR. S.MairP. (1995). Changing models of party organization and party democracy: The emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics, 1, 5-28.
29.
KirchheimerO. (1966). The transformation of the Western European party system. In LaPalombaraJ.WeinerM. (Eds.), Political parties and political development (pp. 177-200). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
KitscheltH.WilkinsonS. (Eds.). (2007). Patrons, clients and policies. Patterns of democratic accountability and political competition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
31.
LevitskyS. (2003). Transforming labor-based parties in Latin America: Argentine Peronism in comparative perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
32.
LevitskyS.LoxtonJ.Van DyckB.DomínguezJ. (2016). Challenges of party-building in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
33.
LevitskyS.RobertsK. (Eds.). (2011). The resurgence of the Latin American left. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
34.
LujánD.MoraesJ. A. (2017). Why fusions? The role of electoral coordination in the Frente Amplio’s formation. Montevideo, Uruguay: Departamento de Ciencia Política, Universidad de la República.
35.
LumleyT. (2011). Complex surveys: A guide to analysis using R. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
36.
LunaJ. P. (2014). Segmented representation: Political party strategies in unequal democracies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
37.
MadridR. L. (2012). The rise of ethnic politics in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38.
MainwaringS.ZocoE. (2007). Political sequences and the stabilization of interparty competition. Party Politics, 13, 155-178.
39.
NahumB.FregaA.MaronaM.TrochónI. (1993). Historia Uruguaya. El Fin del Uruguay Liberal. Tomo 8 1959-1973 [Uruguayan History. The End of Liberal Uruguay. 8th Volume 1959-1973]. Montevideo, Uruguay: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental.
40.
NichterS. (2008). Vote buying or turnout buying? Machine politics and the secret ballot. American Political Science Review, 102, 19-31.
41.
PanebiancoA. (1988). Political parties: Organization and power. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42.
PiñeiroR. (2004). Elección de diputados y fraccionalización partidaria en Uruguay 1942-1999 [Election of Representatives and Party Factionalization in Uruguay 1942-1999]. Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política, 14, 15-42.
43.
PiñeiroR. (2007). El Sueño de la Lista Propia: Los Dilemas de Coordinación Electoral Post-Reforma de 1997 [The Own List Dream: Electoral Coordination Dilemmas After the 1997 Reform]. Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política, 16, 51-71.
PiñeiroR.YafféJ. (2004). El Frente Amplio por dentro. Las fracciones frenteamplistas 1971-1999 [The Broad Front from the Inside. Frenteamplista Factions 1971-1999]. In LanzaroJ. (Ed.), La izquierda uruguaya entre la oposición y el gobierno [The Uruguayan Left Between Opposition and Government] (pp. 297-319). Montevideo, Uruguay: Fin de Siglo.
46.
PizzornoA. (1970). An introduction to the theory of political participation. Social Science Information, 9(5), 29-61.
47.
Rhodes-PurdyM. (2017). Regime support beyond the balance sheet: Participation and policy performance in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
48.
RibeiroP. F. (2008). Dos Sindicatos ao Governo: a Organização Nacional do PT de 1980 a 2005 [From Unions to Government: The PT’s National Organization from 1980 to 2005] (Programa de Pós-Graduação Em Ciência Política). São Carlos, Brazil: Universidade Federal de São Carlos.
49.
RibeiroP. F. (2014). An amphibian party? Organisational change and adaptation in the Brazilian workers’ party, 1980–2012. Journal of Latin American Studies, 46, 87-119.
50.
RobertsK. (1998). Deepening democracy? The modern left and social movements in Chile and Peru. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
51.
RobertsK. (2014). Changing course in Latin America: Party systems in the neoliberal era. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
52.
RosenblattF. (2018). Party vibrancy and democracy in Latin America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
53.
SamuelsD. (2004). From socialism to social democracy: Party organization and the transformation of the Workers’ Party in Brazil. Comparative Political Studies, 37, 999-1024.
54.
SamuelsD. (2006). Sources of mass partisanship in Brazil. Latin American Politics and Society, 48(2), 1-27.
55.
SamuelsD.ShugartM. (2010). Presidents, parties, and prime ministers: How the separation of powers affects party organization and behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
56.
ScarrowS. (2015). Beyond party members: Changing approaches to partisan mobilization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
57.
ScarrowS.GezgorB. (2010). Declining memberships, changing members? European political party members in a new era. Party Politics, 16, 823-843.
58.
ScarrowS.WebbP.PoguntkeT. (2017). Organizing political parties: Representation, participation, and power. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
59.
SchlesingerJ. A. (1994). Political parties and the winning of office. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
60.
StokesS. C.DunningT.NazarenoM.BruscoV. (2013). Brokers, voters, and clientelism: The puzzle of distributive politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
61.
StromK. (1990). A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 565-598.
62.
StrømK. (2000). Parties at the core of government. In DaltonR. J.WattenbergM. P. (Eds.), Parties without partisans. Political change in advanced industrial democracies (pp. 180-207). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
63.
TavitsM. (2013). Post-communist democracies and party organization. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
64.
van BiezenI. (2003). Political parties in new democracies. Party organization in Southern and East-Central Europe. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
65.
Van HauteE.GaujaA. (2015). Introduction. Party members and activists. In Van HauteE.GaujaA. (Eds.), Party members and activists (pp. 1-17). New York, NY: Routledge.
66.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK.BradyH. (1995). Voice and equality. Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67.
WebbP.WhiteS. (Eds.). (2007). Party politics in new democracies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
68.
WeylandK.MadridR.HunterW. (Eds.). (2010). Leftist governments in Latin America: Successes and shortcomings. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
69.
Wills-OteroL. (2015). Latin American traditional parties, 1978-2006. Bogotá, Colombia: Ediciones Uniandes, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Departamento de Ciencia Política, Universidad de los Andes.
70.
YafféJ. (2005). Al Centro y Adentro: La Renovación de la Izquierda y el Triunfo del Frente Amplio en Uruguay. Montevideo, Uruguay: Linardi y Risso.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
