Untangling the conceptual web of professionalization

As anticipated, professionalization encompasses different analytical orientations and areas of focus. Remarkably, its understanding has changed over time so that “it has become something completely different from what previously was hypothesized and discussed” (Mancini, 1999, p. 231). This is clearly evident by comparing two interpretations which are considered the cornerstones of the professionalization debate, namely those of the German sociologist Max Weber and the Italian political scientist Angelo Panebianco. Even though their works date from the late 1910s and early 1980s respectively, they are of particular interest here because when looking at these, albeit different, perspectives, emerge as much the elements of the three E’s as the link to modernization.

Weber was one of the first writers to discuss the emergence and implications of professionalization on politics and politicians. In his famous

essay “Politics as a vocation,” he distinguishes between politicians who live off politics and those who live for politics (Weber, 1919). For the former, politics is the primary means of employment and income; for the latter, it is rather intended as the service to a cause, made possible by the material support largely drawn from private means. In this sense, the professional politician is someone living not only for politics, but living from politics as well. By reading Weber, the three E’s are evident. The professional politician entirely devotes himself to the political career, gaining experience and skills that make him an expert of politics. Put it differently, “Tautologically, it can be stated that the specialization of the political professional is politics itself” (Mancini, 1999, p. 232). Furthermore, in the Weberian interpretation, from the exercise of power comes great responsibility. This is why the (professional) politician should feature a number of moral attributes: passionate dedication to a cause, sense of responsibility, and farsightedness above all. These qualities can be ascribed to a work ethos that defines – albeit in an almost romantic fashion – the political personality. However, by no means they exhaust what being a “professional” means, whether it relates to politicians or not.²

Shifting the focus from individual politicians to political parties, it is Panebianco’s (1988 [1982]) seminal work on party organization to first develop political professionalism as a full-fledged theoretical framework. By introducing the model of the “electoral-professional” party he elaborates on professionalism with regard to vote maximization premised on a marketization logic. At the same time, he draws a clear line between mere bureaucrats and professionals. Whereas bureaucrats come from lower classes, run the party machine as administrators, are subordinated to and dependent from the leadership in a hierarchic system, professionals have a higher middle-class background, are well-educated and with an extra-political expertise, act as experts and more independently from the leadership within a “dual-control”

system, partly hierarchic and partly peer-to-peer (Karlsen & Saglie, 2017;

Moens, 2016). Against this backdrop, it is the professionals – the so-called experts, technicians with special knowledge – (Panebianco, 1988, p. 264) to manage the linkage between elected politicians and voters. In doing so, they

2 After all, Weber never systematized the characteristics of professionals, which can be nonetheless drawn from his discussions of specific occupations (Ritzer, 1975).

replace the party organization and members which traditionally performed that linkage function between party leaders and the particular class that the party is devoted to represent in the mass-party era (ibid.). For the sake of truth, Panebianco never specifies what kind of experts he is referring to, but it is a fair assumption that he meant professional campaign organizers, pollsters, and those who have become known as spin-doctors, all of them having specific technical skills which do not belong exclusively to the political sphere (Mancini, 1999; Pettitt, 2014, Chapter 3).

Comparing the two perspectives mentioned, what for Weber is the type of party reference for the emergence of the professional politician – i.e., the mass party – for Panebianco is, instead, the ideal-type that is abandoned when it is the party that becomes professional. In Weber’s conceptualization, the enlargement of suffrage pushed for the emergence of the mass-party and its new-style politicians and party functionaries making a living from politics alone. This new ideal-type stood in contrast to traditional politicians, essentially local notables, relied on a robust bureaucratic machine and on delegation rather than on deference as a source of support. According to Panebianco, socio-economic and technological changes – a more educated public and greater media influence above all – called for a rethinking of the partisan organizational model in the wake of the pre-eminence of professionals over bureaucrats, the strengthening of the leadership, the increasing role of interest groups, and the relevance of issue-oriented campaigns.

Whilst for Panebianco the professionalization of the party – which, more properly, relates to the ability to attract votes – involves the weakening of the bureaucratic apparatus, in Weber’s writings, professionalization, like bureaucratization, is a key aspect of the process of rationalization defining modernity (Ritzer, 1975). In short, the “legal-rational” authority typifying modern societies is but one aspect of his famous ideal-type triad along with charisma and tradition. In particular, legal-rational authority is grounded in institutional procedures and clearly defined rules, which restrain arbitrary behavior. In this case, a bureaucratic, impersonal and rational logic governed by law is the defining characteristic of legitimate authority, rather than established customs and prevailing practices (traditional authority) or emotional attachment and exceptional personal qualities (charismatic authority). Hence, some of the key distinguishing features of professionalization

– the “professional equipment of special knowledge”, “vocational qualifications”, a “fixed doctrine” – are a response to the growing demand for specialized knowledge and experience, according to a new rational logic, and further stimulate it (ibid.). Also, professionalization and bureaucratization, far from being antithetical, are complementary processes, and “related causes, and consequences, of growing rationality” (ibid., p. 632). In this sense, modernity incorporates rationality, professionalization and bureaucratization, and stands in contrast to alternative organizations mostly based on charisma or tradition.

At this point, a question arises: what conception of professionalization and modernity is at stake within the political parties under scrutiny?