Unit 9: Party Systems (Competition)
Download
Report
Transcript Unit 9: Party Systems (Competition)
Ware pgs. 5-13 and CH 5, Reserves: Sartori
What are party systems?
How do we characterize/explain party
systems?
Why do we study party systems?
Which variables do competition theories
privilege?
How do we evaluate competition theories of
party systems?
Ware 1996
Units: political parties
Systems: “patterns of competition
and co-operation between the
different parties [within a given]
system”
It was believed that the number of parties within a system
exerted a large influence on party behavior.
Two party systems promote moderation.
Also argued that democratic stability was predicated on the
number of parties within a system.
Examples: French Third and Fourth Republics, Italian First
Republic, Weimar Germany.
But the number of political parties within the system only
tells us part of the story.
These cases also had other factors which promoted
instability.
Multiparty systems are not necessarily less moderate than
two party systems.
Two party systems are not necessarily more moderate
than multiparty systems.
Understanding the party system gives us a basic
understanding of the political system.
An “entry level” discussion of a political system.
Knowing the number (and types) of parties present
within a system provides a basis for analysis and
comparison with other systems.
Are there anti-system parties?
How polarized is the political system?
Understanding party systems helps us to identify
whether or not broad political change is occurring.
Are the “old guard” parties holding their own?
Are new movements eclipsing the older parties?
DV: Party systems
Competition theories (e.g. Sartori 1976)
IV: patterns of political competition
Sociological theories (e.g. Lipset and Rokkan
1967)
IV: social divisions/cleavage patterns
Institutional theories (e.g. Duverger 1951;
1954).
IV: electoral systems; number of parties
Sartori 1976
Number of parties (fragmentation) shapes
complexity of the system.
But this begs the question: Which parties should
be counted?
Parties are relevant if they possess:
Coalition potential
Blackmail potential
Sartori 1976
Fragmentation only tells us part of the story.
Ideological spread of relevant parties
(polarization) also matters.
Classifies party systems on the basis of
fragmentation (number of parties) and
polarization (ideological spread and
intensity).
Identifies seven categories.
Sartori 1976
Fragmentation:
Five to six relevant political parties.
Polarization:
Center of spectrum is occupied.
Relevant anti-system parties exist.
▪ Bilateral oppositions force coalitions of the center.
Patterns of competition:
Centrifugal
Polarization creates center fleeing effects.
Consequences for the party system:
Ideological patterning, irresponsible oppositions, and a politics of
outbidding.
Example: Weimar Republic; Italian First Republic
Sartori 1976
Fragmentation:
3-5 parties exist
Polarization:
Center of spectrum is not occupied.
No anti-system parties or bilateral oppositions
Patterns of Competition:
Centripetal
Lack of polarization creates center seeking effects.
Consequences for the party system:
Bipolar coalition structure; alternation in government occurs.
Example: Italian Second Republic amongst others.
Sartori 1976
Fragmentation:
Two parties
Polarization:
No anti system parties
Pattern of competition:
Two parties can conceivably win a majority of the seats.
One of the two parties always win a parliamentary
majority.
Consequences for the party competition
Majority party is willing to govern alone.
Alternation of government is expected or possible
Example: United States; United Kingdom (2.5 parties)
Sartori 1976
Fragmentation:
Pluralist systems with more than one relevant party.
Three consecutive majority governments create a predominant
system.
Polarization:
No anti-system parties
System allows for other parties to exist and contest elections.
Consequences for the party system:
Alternation does not occur in these systems.
Same party consistently (and legally) wins the majority of seats.
Example: South Africa
Sartori 1976
Fragmentation:
One party dominates the system.
Polarization:
Not pluralist.
Other parties are denied access to the political
system.
Consequences for the party system:
Limited competition and access to the political
system.
Example: Former Soviet Union; China
STRENGTHS
Useful in terms of
determining relevant
political parties.
Appear to be links between
the number of political
parties within a system and
its polarization.
Pattern of competition
does appear to shape
coalition formation.
WEAKNESSES
Classification lumps most
systems into the moderate
pluralist category.
Extreme parties, whether or
not anti-system, may create
centrifugal tendencies.
Appeals in two party systems
are not always moderate.
Sartori hints at aspects of society that foster
moderate politics.
Boosts sociological explanations.
Discussion glosses over how institutions
frame competition within the system.
If institutions frame competition this suggests
that institutional explanations are relevant.
▪ Is competition epiphenomenal?
Theme:
Party Systems-Sociological and Institutional
Explanations
Readings:
▪ Ware CH 6
▪ Reserves (Lipset and Rokkan, Duverger,
Cox)