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)