sieteme de partide

7/30/2019 Sieteme de partide

1/4

CHAPTER5 POLITICAL PARTIES 14

PARTY SYSTEMS

The term party system refers to the characteristics of the set of parties operating in particular country. It indicates the number of parties that have a serious chance o

winning major elections and the degree of competition between them. The numbe

of competitive parties operating in a particular country fundamentally influences tha

nations entire political system. Obviously, countries governed continuously by a single partyeven if opposition parties are legalare less than fully democratic. Con

versely, countries that have multiple parties, with none able to garner a majority in th

national parliament, are frequently less politically stable. Because of the great impor

tance of the number of competitive political parties, descriptions of, for example, the

Chinese, American, British, and Italian political systems typically label them, respec

tively, one-party, two-party, two-and-one-half-party, and multiparty systems.

Americans often think of a two-party system as natural, since we are accustomed t

it. If by that we mean that a two-party system is preferable to, say, a multiparty system, thaclaim is debatable. And if we believe that having two dominant parties is the most commoarrangement, that belief is simply incorrect. For example, until recently, single-party sys

tems were predominant in Africa, the Middle East, parts of Asia, and the former Communist bloc, and there are still many of them. At the same time, many European and Latin

American countries have multiparty systems. In short, two-party systems are the excep

tion, not the rule, and they predominate primarily in English-speaking democracies.

Of course, even the United States has more than two political parties. Besides th

Democrats and the Republicans, American parties include, among many others, th

Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the United States Marijuana Party (founded i

2002). But although so-called third parties in the United States occasionally win loca

elections, they do not attract a large share of votes in national races. Sometimes, howeve

third-party candidates in the U.S. have played the role of spoilers. Had Ralph Nader no

run in the 2000 presidential election as the Green Party candidate, it is likely that most o

his votes (including those he won in Florida) would have gone to the Democratic nominee, Al Gore, and that Gore, rather than George Bush, would have won the presidency.

Two parties, Conservative and Labour, have dominated British politics for almos

90 years. But unlike the United States, other parties have attracted a substantial shar

of the vote in recent years. During the 1980s, an electoral alliance between the Libera

and Social Democratic parties attracted about one-fourth of the votes in two consecu

tive national elections, nearly matching Labours share. Subsequently, the two partie

merged, forming the Liberal Democratic Party, which received 22 percent of the vot

in the 2005 national election. Consequently, some political scientists argue that th

British currently have a two-and-one-half-party system (defined as a party system iwhich two parties predominate, but a third party presents a significant challenge).

Because they sometimes use different definitions, analysts may differ as to whethea country such as Japan or Mexico in the second-half of the twentieth centurywher

many parties competed but one party always wonhad a single-party, or a multiparty

system. Building on a classification system originally created by Jean Blondel, we offe

the following party-system categories and yardsticks for identifying them.14

1. No-party system: Either political parties have never developed or an authoritariagovernment has banned them.

2. Single-party system: One party regularly receives more than 65 percent of thvote in national elections.


2/4

146 PART II POLITICAL BEHAVIOR

3. Two-party system (including a two-and-one-half-party system such as Britains):Two major parties regularly divide more than 75 percent of the national vote

(but no single party receives as much as 65 percent).

4. Multiparty system: The two largest parties have a combined total of less than75 percent of the vote.

No-Party SystemsAlthough political parties are hallmarks of modern political systems, there remain a

number of countries that have never formed political parties with any significant fol-

lowing or that have banned previously active political parties. The first group, very

limited in number, consists principally of countries with pre-modern social structures

and low levels of political participation. In countries such as Saudi Arabia, relatively

small, elite bodies (sheikhs, princes, and tribal chiefs) have made political decisions

with no need for parties.

When the armed forces take control of the government (not long ago a com-

mon occurrence in Africa and Latin America) they have often banned political-party

activity. For example, for many years Chile had enjoyed one of Latin Americas most

vibrant party systems. But when the military, led by General Augusto Pinochet, seizedpower (19731990) it banned all political parties and party activity. With the spread

of democracy in the developing world since the 1970s, military governments and their

no-party systems have become far less common (Chapter 15).

Single-Party Systems

As we have noted, many authoritarian regimes, once so common in the developing

world, and all totalitarian governments have single-party systems. Totalitarian parties,

most notably Fascist and Marxist-Leninist parties, are mass-membership organizations

that seek to exercise total control over society and to inculcate the ruling partys ideo-

logical values into the population. Following revolutions in Russia, China, Vietnam,and Cuba, each countrys Communist Party launched an extensive resocialization cam-

paign to restructure their political cultures (see Chapters 3 and 15). At least initially,

many activists seemed strongly committed to the partys vision of a new social order.

Because of their capacity to penetrate and control other social institutions, to-

talitarian political parties were once considered nearly impossible to dislodge once

they had taken power.15 In the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Communist-party

functionaries controlled the military, police, factories, state farms, and schools. Yet

ultimately, their grip on power weakened and Communist regimes collapsed from the

Soviet Union to Hungary. Currently, Communist parties retain power in only a hand-

ful of nations.

A second group of single-party states emergedfollowing World War II and thedisintegration of Europes colonial empiresin the newly independent nations of

Africa and the Middle East. Many of these ruling parties were organized along Leninistlines, like Communist parties with highly centralized control. They usually espoused a

nationalistic ideology and wished to resocialize the population into a new, post-colonial

political culture. Many of them, however, have been too self-serving and corrupt to

attract a loyal, mass following and have governed ineffectively. Consequently, ruling

parties in countries such as Libya and Syria have maintained power more through in-

timidation than through mass mobilization.


3/4

CHAPTER5 POLITICAL PARTIES 14

Until the 1980s, few African or Middle Eastern countries permitted viable opposi

tion parties. In addition, several Asian governmentsin countries such as Indonesia

Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwanargued that developing nations needed the unify

ing influence and direction of a single-party system. However, with the wave of de

mocracy that has swept across the less developed world in the past 30 years or so (se

Chapter 15), many African and Asian nations have introduced relatively free and fai

elections. In some cases, political parties now alternate in power.

To be sure, not all entrenched ruling parties are self-serving or incompetent

When headed by well-intentioned leaders, they sometimes have served their nation

well. During the late 1930s, Mexican President Lzaro Crdenas used the ruling party

to integrate previously excluded peasants and workers into the political system. Mor

recently, Tanzanian President Julius Nyereres Tanganyika African National Union

(TANU) channeled the demands of the countrys villagers to the national government

In time, however, the absence of party competition and the passing of idealistic lead

ers such as Crdenas and Nyerere have perverted even well-intentioned dominant par

ties. In fact, most Third World single-party systems have fallen victim to corruptio

and the pursuit of special interests.

Two-Party Systems

Two-party and two-and-one-half-party systems are most prevalent in Anglo-America

societies, including Great Britain, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.

However, other countries, such as Austria, Germany, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Uruguay

have had two dominant parties as well.

Why do these countries have two dominant parties while most democracies hav

multiparty systems? One important factor influencing the number of parties that can

compete effectively is the countrys electoral arrangements. We have seen (Chapter 4

that proportional representation more easily facilitates (but does not guarantee) th

development of several competitive political parties, whereas single-member-distric

systems are more likely to produce two dominant parties.Among advanced parliamentary democracies, two-party systems tend to be mor

stable than multiparty systems because one of the parties is likely to achieve a legisla

tive majority. But in a number of Latin American countries with two-party systems

stability has been elusive. For example, Colombia has had a turbulent history of po

litical violence. Just as they are not universally stable, neither are two-party system

always democratic. During its years of minority (White) rule, South Africa had com

petitive elections, pitting two leading parties against each other. But since only th

white minority could vote for important posts, the two-party system was hardly dem

ocratic. Similarly, before Nicaraguas 1979 revolution, the ruling Somoza dictatorshi

regularly sponsored elections between its own Liberal Party and the Conservatives,

puppet opposition party. The government, however, predetermined the outcomes othose elections.

* Political scientists often cite Britain as an archetypal example of a two-party system. Since the 1980however, the two largest parties (Labour and Conservative) have often failed to receive a combined totof 75 percent of the parliamentary vote, Blondels threshold for a two-party system. Thus, Britain technically has been moving to a multi-party system, but because of single-member districts one party stialmost always wins over half the seats in parliament (Chapter 12).


4/4

148 PART II POLITICAL BEHAVIOR

Multiparty Systems

Multiparty systems predominate in Western Europe but also exist in a number of de-

veloping nations. Sometimes these parties mirror multiple societal divisionsclass,

religious, linguistic, racial, and ethnicthat translate into multiple political cleavages.

So, it is not surprising that a country such as Switzerlandwith religious divisions

between Catholics and Protestants, class and ideological divisions, and several spoken

languageshas a multiparty system. Yet some fairly homogeneous nations, such asSweden and Iceland, also have multiple parties.

Indeed, social divisions are neither the only factor that determines the number

of competitive parties nor even the most important one. Electoral procedures are tre-

mendously important. We have noted that countries that elect their parliament or

congress through proportional representation (PR) are more likely to have multiparty

legislatures than those using single-member districts (SMD) (Chapter 4). For example,

SMD elections to the U.S. House of Representatives and the British House of Com-

mons discriminate against small parties by denying them legislative representation

proportional to their voting strength (See Box 12-3). Moreover, as it becomes evident

how difficult it is for third-party candidates to win in SMD elections, their initial sup-

porters may eventually conclude that continuing to vote for them is a wasted effort.Proponents of PR point out that it is a fairer electoral system because it makes it

easier for smaller parties to win some seats in the national legislature, with their num-

ber of seats proportional to their support from the voters. At the same time, however,

it makes it harder for any single party to achieve a legislative majority. Consequently,

in parliamentary systems, where the government needs to command a legislative ma-

jority to stay in power, the prime minister often must secure the backing of a multi-

party coalition. If there are many policy and strategic divisions among the coalition

partners, the governments life is precarious because coalition members may withdraw

their support at any time. For example, in Italy a succession of unstable parliamentary

coalitions produced more than 50 governments during the second half of the twenti-

eth century (although recently government coalitions have become somewhat more

durable).

How unstable multiparty parliamentary systems are depends on how cooperative

the political parties are. Although postwar Italy and Fourth Republic France had to live

with ruling coalitions that fell apart every year or so, other countries with more co-

operative political parties manage to maintain stability. These include Finland, Israel,

the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland. Indeed, Finland and Switzerland have two

of the most fractionalized party systems in the democratic world (that is, a very large

number of parties hold some parliamentary seats and none predominates). Yet they are

models of political stability. Clearly, they have benefited from political cultures that

stress cooperation rather than conflict.

TYPESOF POLITICAL PARTIES

Let us now turn our attention from party systems to the characteristics of individ-

ual political parties. Among the many possible ways to classify these parties, we

focus here on two important characteristics: internal organization and ideological

message.

sieteme de partide

Documents