Harbingers of Change? Subnational Politics in Dominant Party Systems DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Danielle Langfield, B.A.U., M.A. Graduate Program in Political Science The Ohio State University 2010 Dissertation Committee: Richard Gunther, Advisor Goldie Shabad Marcus J. Kurtz Copyright by Danielle Langfield 2010 Abstract Democratic dominant party systems hold fair but uncompetitive competitions. In a democratic country in which one political party wins national elections repeatedly and continuously, what determines whether it will become competitive, authoritarian, or if it will maintain both dominance and democracy? These questions are important with regard to achieving democratic consolidation, and to ensure accountability and representativeness. Prior work on this question generally has taken a view of party system evolution as a result either of top-down ruling elite factionalism or of grassroots-based opposition growth. I link the two processes, arguing that competitiveness emerges from a combination of a weakening dominant party and a growing opposition. The dominant party‟s attitude to interparty and intraparty opposition, and the opposition‟s viability as a credible alternative largely determine the evolution of a dominant party system. I use a multi-level approach, looking explicitly at the role of sub-national party systems in a nationally dominant party system to gain analytical leverage. I evaluate both explicit efforts to spread subnational opposition success to other localities and to other levels of government, and the ruling party‟s attempts to thwart these efforts. In this way I link the grassroots-growth theories to the elite-driven ones. To support this theory, I draw - ii - extensively on literature about a diverse set of countries, including India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, and several states of sub-Saharan Africa. Then, I turn to an analysis of South African cities, using my own interviews with party elites, newspaper accounts, and archival sources to compare increasingly competitive Cape Town and increasingly African National Congress (ANC)-dominant Durban through the 2009 elections. This period coincides with a fraught succession fight within the ANC, culminating in severe factionalism with geographic bases and an organized defection to form a separate party. The weakened ANC created opportunities for opposition growth. I argue that opposition parties are most likely to find traction with strategies that, first, build their credibility through winning and governing subnational governments and, second, capitalize on voters‟ doubts about the democratic credentials of the dominant party in order to capture some of the electoral center. However, democracy‟s contested status may damage the quality of democracy and consolidation of the regime. Based on survey data drawn from the Afrobarometer and the Comparative National Election Project, South Africans are disillusioned with their democratic system in ways we expect (based on comparable cases) and they support democracy in the abstract. However, there are reasons for concern about the public‟s reaction if the dominant party were to lose national power. I conclude that the evolution of dominant party systems into competitive ones may be a double-edged sword; competitive parties should yield a better functioning democracy, but the process of achieving that competitiveness risks political instability. - iii - Dedication for my mother, Margaret Langfield, and for my father, Michael D. Langfield - iv - Acknowledgments One of the more important lessons I learned in graduate school is that, despite appearances to the contrary, academia is not a solitary pursuit. While at some point we each must think and write on our own, both beforehand and afterwards we benefit from conversations with and feedback from numerous people. Acknowledgements for the help and feedback I have received must of course begin with my dissertation committee. I am grateful for Dick Gunther‟s interest in this project and his guidance of my pursuit of it. It is not an accident that his combined expertise in democratization, political parties, survey research, and semi-structured elite interviewing is reflected throughout this dissertation. Goldie Shabad provided invaluable detailed feedback and spent the time to make sure my prose said what I meant it to say. I am thankful for her unflagging encouragement throughout the years. Marcus Kurtz saw this project in its initial stages, leading my cohort‟s Prospectus Workshop, and so helped shape it from the start. His practical advice is always very welcome, and his insistence on further theory development significantly improved this project. Also at Ohio State, I benefitted from conversations, feedback, and general assistance from Irfan Nooruddin, Larry Baum, Herb Weisberg, and Kevin Cox. Kuba Zielinski‟s course on party politics is largely responsible for my fascination with the subject. Retta Semones, Diana Camella, Wayne DeYoung, and Bill Miller were - v - incredibly useful resources for navigating bureaucracy, resolving pedagogical troubles, and generally solving problems of all kinds. Earlier in my education, some extraordinary teachers set me on the path that led to a doctorate. In my undergraduate days, Sandy Korros and James McCann, S.J., deserve special mention for their mentorship, friendship and, in Sandy‟s case, excellent meals. (Fr. McCann deserves special mention for his stories about excellent meals, for what is field work for if not the acquisition of pastries?) Earlier, Renée Bell and Rosalie Gwinn taught me how to write and how to research, as well as how to be amused in the process of doing so. If you are lucky, those with whom you attend graduate school will be smart, generous, and fun. I have been immensely lucky. Michael Cohen and Christina Xydias deserve special mention for reading drafts throughout each stage of this project. Both provided encouragement while pushing me to defend my ideas. They witnessed the sausage being made here, and I can only hope that I was able to repay the favor. Miryam Chandler became an invaluable colleague and friend late in my graduate career, adding a fresh perspective to the project just when it needed it and fresh enthusiasm just when I needed it. For ideas, feedback, and sanity (or insanity, as the situation warranted), thanks also to Erin McAdams, Amanda Metskas, and Amanda Rosen; my comrades in the Comparative Mafia: Michael Cohen, Ryan Kennedy, Mike Litzinger and Keith Moser; Rich Arnold, Soundarya Chidambaram, Delia Dumitrescu, Jenny Nowlin, Autumn Lockwood Payton, Jennifer Moyer, Jen Regan, Anand Sokhey, Sarah Wilson Sokhey, Srdjan Vucetic, and Byungwon Woo. Many thanks also to Elizabeth Smith; Andrea - vi - Haupt; August Brunsman, Gaelynn Dooley, DJ Gregor, Lyz Liddell, Sharon Moss, Jim Smith, and Landon Winkler; Paige, Lee, Shannon, Katerina, Shonali, Suri, Chris, Sara, Dan, Kristin, and Jeff; Heather and Tony Clark for visiting me in Cape Town; and the inimitable Ana Espinal-Rae. My field work in South Africa was generously supported by travel grants from the Mershon Center for International Security Studies at Ohio State and from the Ohio State Graduate School in the form of awards through the AGGRS and PEGS programs. Many of the South African politicians I interviewed agreed to be identified by name. However, to protect the anonymity of those who did not, I refrain from connecting any specific statement to a particular person, except in a very few cases when I thought the quotation benefitted from the context of who said it. I am extremely grateful to all those who shared their time and thoughtful insights with me. Along with those who wished not to be identified, they include Jameelah Daniels, Martin Fienies, Grant Haskins, Logie Naidoo, Ian Neilson, Fawzia Peer, Dan Plato, Demetri Qually, Jayraj Singh, John Steenhuisen, Michael Sutcliffe, Belinda Walker, Dumisani Ximbi, and Helen Zille. Thanks too to Sthe Mshengu and the many kind staff assistants who helped to arrange interviews. I am also grateful to the academics, researchers, officials, and activists who helped me to grasp the details of South African politics and government: Richard Bosman, Rob Cameron, Zweli Jolobe, Brij Maharaj, Bob Mattes, Rama Naidu, Thami Ngwenya, Sophie Oldfield, Lawrence Piper, Collette Schultz-Herzenberg, and Per Strand. - vii - Finally, several individuals helped me in practical and intangible ways to complete this dissertation. Karen and Nick Hogan adopted me into their family when I moved to Columbus for graduate school and later provided me with a place to live between research trips. Their generosity is apparently limitless, and I am immeasurably grateful. Joan Hutchinson told me long ago that acquiring a PhD would require, above all else, sheer determination. I am very glad she did, and I am happy to call her a role model. My family, too, is unfailingly supportive of my work and my goals. Joan Johnson fed me quite well while encouraging much-needed opportunities to not do work, and also gave me a place to stay as I travelled in and out of the country for field work. My now-husband, Dennis Johnson, became part of my life at about the same time this project began to take shape. He woke up at inordinately early hours to phone me in South Africa, enthusiastically learned nearly as much about my cases as I know, and provides not insignificant amounts of both research assistance and cooking. Completing this dissertation would not have been possible without his love, good humor, and unwavering belief in me, and I am grateful every day that he has joined me on this journey. Both of my parents have been extraordinarily encouraging of my pursuit of an academic career. My mother, Margaret Langfield, has been instrumental in ways big and small at every stage of my education. My decision to pursue a career in academia is because of her influence. She is unfailingly supportive; it is difficult to imagine life without the free long-distance phone calls afforded us by the 21st century.