European political thought split over whether party membership strengthens or degrades citizenship

Evidence

90 For the Central European concept of citizen (the Staatsbürger) as opposed to party member, see Bluntschli, op. cit.: “Parties are not state institutions, …not members of the state organism, but free social associtions whose formations depend upon a changing membership united for common political action by a definite conviction.” The difference between state and party interest is stressed time and again: “The party must never put itself above the state, must never put its party interest above the state interest” (pp. 9 and 10). Burke, on the contrary, argues against the concept according to which party interests or party membership make a man a worse citizen. “Commonwealths are made of families, free commonwealths of parties also; and we may as well affirm that our natural regards and ties of blood tend inevitably to make men bad citizens, as that the bonds of our party weaken those by which we are held to our country” (op. cit.). Lord John Russell, On Party (1850), even goes one step further when he asserts that the chief of the good effects of parties is “that it gives a substance to the shadowy opinions of politicians, and attaches them to steady and lasting principles.” — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 2468

Categorization

• DEFINE: Contrasts the Central European Staatsbürger (state-citizen who must stay above party) with the Anglo-American tradition that treats party bonds as compatible with citizenship.
• XREF: Connects to the party-state distinction that underwrites Arendt’s later argument about totalitarian party supremacy — relevant to the Nazi assertion of Party priority over state in note 91.