Page 204 - Comparing Media Systems THREE MODELS OF MEDIA AND POLITICS

P1: GLB/IRK/kaa P2: KAF
0521835356c06.xml Hallin 0 521 83535 6 January 28, 2004 21:0

The Three Models

role of political parties and some other differences. The corporatist bar-
gain of the 1930s was preceded, in most countries, by an agreement to
adopt proportional representation, usually at the beginning of the twen-
tieth century. The Democratic Corporatist countries tend to have large
numbers of political parties and consensus, rather than majoritarian
politics, in Lijphart’s (1999) terms: they tend to have broad coalitions
in which no single party has a majority and to practice power sharing,
both among parties and among interest groups and cultural communi-
ties. Switzerland and Belgium are pure consensus systems and the other
countries covered here are mixed systems, most tending toward con-
sensus politics. They also tend toward moderate rather than polarized
pluralism (Sartori 1976) – with Germany and Austria, again, moving in
that direction after World War II. 22
Democratic corporatism was able to develop in Northern Europe, ac-
cordingtoKatzenstein,becausethepoliticalrightwasrelativelyweakand
divided–incontrastbothtolargercountriessuchasGermanyandFrance
and to the countries of Southern Europe – and therefore unable to block
accommodation with the left. Feudalism was not strongly developed in
thelowcountries,inScandinavia,orinSwitzerland.Urbaninterestswere
stronger relative to the landed aristocracy, as was the independent peas-
antry. Economic activity frequently was carried out by “individual pro-
ducers residing in communities,” rather than by large landholders and
landless peasants, and political authority was often “concentrated in the
hands of producer-merchants” (157). In Switzerland, the Netherlands,
Belgium, and Denmark merchants engaged in long-distance trade had
strong influence, while in Scandinavia the independent peasantry was
particularly important. The existence of this independent peasantry –
in Denmark, for instance, peasants were freed in the 1780s and a land
reform was passed in the early nineteenth century – meant that, while in
Southern Europe and other areas where feudalism had been strong, the
aristocracy controlled the votes of the rural population, in Scandinavia
and other smaller countries independent agrarian parties were often
available for alliances with liberal or socialist forces. In Scandinavia,
moreover, the economically weak aristocracy often turned to commerce
in order to survive, making its interests less distinct from those of the
urban bourgeoisie. This social structure provided the context for the
early triumph of liberal institutions that was manifested in an early
development of a free press.

22
Data on polarization and numbers of parties appear in Table 3.2.

186