University of UtahWestern Political Science Association

Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis by Giovanni SartoriReview by: Ruth K. Scott and Paul K. WarrThe Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Sep., 1977), pp. 437-438Published by: University of Utah on behalf of the Western Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/447948 .

Accessed: 04/04/2014 07:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

University of Utah and Western Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to The Western Political Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 5.13.70.13 on Fri, 4 Apr 2014 07:42:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews and Notes 437

A second problem exists with the content of the lion's share of the essays. The analyses presented are in the main neither particularly imaginative nor suggestive. Based upon them, there is a demonstrable need for both more thorough and chal- lenging empirical efforts at investigating race and politics in Britain.

One instance of this failing is in an essay by Roger King and Michael Wood on Enoch Powell, "The Support for Enoch Powell." They analyzed data having to do with the 1970 and 1974 elections. The conclusions they draw are what one might expect - Powell's support was related to socioeconomic groups and cut across party lines. My criticism: why did these two authors, and others, not go on with their analyses and at the very least look into the question of whether or not support for Powell was more or less related to a broader alienation from the British party sys- tem than it was to racism or to both?

The Brier and Axford piece, "The Theme of Race in British Social and Political Research," makes a number of good points. Even in their comparative success, however, there are problems, the most important of which is that this is an essay which makes discrete points but does not hold together. They make the as- sertion that "there exists an elite consensus to exclude racial questions from formal politics." What fine grist for some enterprising scholar's mill; put together with the Enoch Powell case the imagination runs to some interesting suggestions. The point is left dangling and we are then intellectually jostled by their discussion of Jurgen Habermas on late capitalism.

Surely the best essay of the lot, one which stands out for its clarity and overall treatment, is Daniel Lawrence's "Race, Elections and Politics." Space is short and there is only time to make one point: Lawrence connects race to politics and the party structure. He finds that the issue of race in elections and its impact is sug- gestive of the restlessness if not the alienation of the British voter.

As an assembledge this is not a contribution; although one can glean some pickings from it, only the one essay really bears good fruit.

CARL F. PINKELE Ohio Wesleyan University

Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Vol. 1. By GIOVANNI SAR- TORI. (London: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Pp. 356. $32.50.) Parties have developed without the benefit of a theoretical framework. How-

ever, a thorough understanding of parties necessitates the development of such a framework. Sartori is one of many political scholars who have attempted to explain the development and behavior of parties. Parties, Sartori says, must be examined because they reflect the polity: in a one-party state, "party" and government are virtually synonomous: in a multi-party state, parties symbolize and encourage diversity and legitimize dissent.

Following in the tradition of Duverger, Sartori analyzes parties through their internal organization and by the number of parties operating in the political sys- tem. The novelty of this author's scheme lies in his recognition of party subunits as factors influencing the development of political systems. In the past, theorists examined internal party organization only by dichotomizing leaders and followers: Sartori claims that this approach is too simplistic. Instead, he examines the party as an aggregate of subunits or fractions, whose interactions determine the behavior of the whole. Fractions, then, may be evaluated through six dimensions: (1) Organization - Does the subunit have a tighter knit organization than the party itself? Does it operate its own loyalty networks, seek its own friends, hold its own conventions? (2) Motivation---Does the fraction seek party power for its own sake, for spoils or for ideology/idea promotion? (3) Ideology - Is the fraction fanatical and future-oriented or pragmatic and practical? (4) Left or right- Does the fraction lean toward communist, socialist, liberal, conservative or fascist principles? (5) Personalism-- Is the fraction led by a single undisputed leader or a coalition of leaders? and (6' Policy role - Does the group serve to obstruct, support, or create party policy?

This content downloaded from 5.13.70.13 on Fri, 4 Apr 2014 07:42:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

438 Western Political Quarterly

The development, maintenance and interactions of fractions are partially determined by the party's leadership selection methods. The selection process used by each party determines whether or not a particular fraction gets a share of the rewards and sanctions which the party has to offer. Another variable affecting fractions within the party is the number of parties competing for political power. While most party theorists have eschewed the numerical criterion as a means of party classification, Sartori makes a significant contribution by expanding the number of "counting" categories. Instead of using Duverger's one-party, two- party and multi-party scheme, he perceives seven types of party systems, distin- guished by the number of parties within each number system: one-party, hegemonic party, predominant party, two-party, limited pluralism, extreme pluralism and atomization. In addition to the "number" dimension, another used by Sartori con- cerns ideology - multi-party systems are distinguished by the distance between the ideological positions adopted by the parties: single-party systems are, however, classified by the intensity of ideology within the single party. Discussion of these two dimensions, the number of parties and the ideological distance between the parties - serves to indicate the dispersion of power, and its accompanying material and ideological rewards, within a political system.

The purpose for which Parties and Party Systems was written was ostensibly to replace Duverger's classic Political Parties in the realm of theory building. Sartori tells us his twofold purpose for writing the work - the first was an "un- happiness" with the manner in which Duverger classified parties; the other was to render a general theory of political parties. However, while the author contributes significantly to the international study of political parties through his classification scheme, we yet have not been offered a comprehensive theory of political parties. We have been given another classificatory study that we may add to our catalogue of normative studies, empirical studies, behavioral studies, economic studies: alas, we have no comprehensive studies. The assertion of David Apter that "what is lacking is a theory of political parties" is as applicable today as it was in 1963.

RUTH K. SCOTT and PAUL K. WARR University of Utah

Politics and the Future of Industrial Society. Edited by LEON N. LINDBERG. (New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1976. Pp. 286. $12.50; $6.95.) This joins the steadily growing literature on political futures - much of which

is bad. Fortunately, this is very good. Neither fact nor fiction, it is in the best tradition of Herman Kahn, Daniel Bell and those others who have tried to look systematically at the changes in political processes and institutional constructs which may accompany the development of post-industrial systems. But this book is more political than the others. Unlike much of the genre, it is not overly con- cerned with the United States. Composed of six original research-essay chapters plus an introduction and concluding discussion by Lindberg, it is a good example of what futures research in politics should and could be.

Lindberg's first chapter provides ample intellectual structure for each of the following six chapters. His task is made easier because those chapters share a com- mon intellectual interest and discipline. Happily, none has fallen into the concep- tual pit of a definition of the future. For, as Lindberg points out, social scientists have not done well in the study of change. As it turns out, one of the real contri- butions of this book is in the concept of change - depicting process.

Chapter two, by Todd La Porte and C. J. Abrams, looks at alternative pat- terns of post-industria using California as a model. On balance, they opt for the unstable system as being more probable - with emerging extremist right and left wing movements accompanied by massive citizen alienation.

Chapter three, by Ronald Inglehart, utilizes a substantial body of survey re- search data in his analysis of changing values in western society. Essentially, he sees this change as a secular process - from industrial materialism to post-industrial non-materialism. This new value system, found more in the younger generations

This content downloaded from 5.13.70.13 on Fri, 4 Apr 2014 07:42:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions