|
0
|
Local
organizations, defined as
constituency/municipal/commune/county
level or lower, are the only discernible
structural element in the party; these
organizations may indeed demonstrate different
forms of organization among themselves; there is
no formal provision for higher party
organs.
|
|
1
|
Local
organizations remain the most discernible
structural element in the party, but there are
formal provisions for federation of local
organizations that involve their representation
in higher party organs at a regional or state
level, although these organs are not effectively
superior to the local organizations.
|
|
2
|
There are
discernible regional party organs that exercise
their authority over local organizations, but
there are no formal national organs; nationwide
coordination of party activities is handled, if
it is attempted at all, through informal
meetings of regional party leaders.
|
|
3
|
There are
discernible national party organs that provide
for formal representation of regional or state
organs (or local organs in the absence of
regional or state organs), but these national
organs are not effectively superior to the
regional ones which in practice can and do defy
the national organization.
|
|
4
|
There are
discernible national party organs that are more
powerful than regional and local organizations,
but these national organs themselves constitute
competing power centers rather than a single
peaked hierarchy; includes situations in which
the parliamentary party organization challenges
leadership of other organizations.
|
|
5
|
This is a
discernible party hierarchy that runs from a
single national council or executive committee
through regional party organs down to local
organizations; parliamentary organization is
subordinated to national organs.
|
|
6
|
There is a
discernible party hierarchy that has a single
national council or executive committee at the
top acting directly on the local organizations
without interposing regional organizations;
there are only national organs.
|
Coding Results. Tables l0.la and l0.lb present the
results of coding parties on BV901, "nationalization of
structure." We coded about 80 percent of the parties on this
variable, had adequate means for AC901, and found no
significant relationship between BV901 and AC901.
Nevertheless, the operationalization of this variable was
somewhat wanting, as most of the parties were clustered at
the upper end of the scale, with the top two positions
embracing about 70 percent of the parties. Perhaps a scale
that is more sensitive to distinctions among parties at this
end of the continuum could be constructed. On the other
hand, perhaps the scale was adequate but parties simply do
not display much variation within the concept.
TABLE 10.1a: Mid 1950s: BV9.01 Nationalization of
Structure
TABLE 10.1b: Early 1960s: BV9.01 Nationalization of
Structure
Basic Variable 9.02: Selecting the
National Leader*
At a minimum, a party's "national leader" is the person
who acts as the primary spokesman of the party in the
country's communications media. At maximum, the national
leader may not only fulfill the symbolic function of
personifying the party, but he may also be the real locus of
power in the party and its effective leader, issuing orders
that are regarded as "legitimate" by party members.
This variable isolates the set of procedures used to
select the national leader. Selection procedures reflect
processes of negotiation, compromise, conflict, and co-
|