Explaining party systems I

1. Explaining party systems I Reading: Sartori

2. Guiding Questions • 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?

3. Party Systems Defined • Ware 1996 • Units: political parties • Systems: “patterns of competition and co-operation between the different parties [within a given] system”

4. Why Do We Care? • 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.

5. Why Do We Care? • 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?

6. What Shapes Party Systems? • 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

7. Competition Theories: Fragmentation • 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

8. Competition: Polarization • 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. • Known for discussion of moderate vs. polarized pluralism

9. Multiparty Systems: Polarized Pluralism • 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

10. Multiparty Systems: Moderate Pluralism • 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, Germany, amongst others.

11. Two Party Systems • 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 Kingdom (2.5 parties)

12. Evaluating Sartori STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES • 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. • Classification lumps most systems into the moderate pluralist category. • Although if we relax the assumption about anti system parties, this changes • Extreme parties, whether or not anti-system, may create centrifugal tendencies. • Far right parties not “anti-system” but they do shift patterns of competition • Appeals in two party systems are not always moderate.

13. Sociological and Institutional Rejoinders • 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?

14. Next Unit • Theme: Explaining Party Systems II • Readings: Lijphart 62-77 and 143-170, Lipset and Rokkan, Duverger, Cox • PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO: • 1) Cleavage patterns and party systems. • 2) Critical junctures and issue dimensions. • 3) Relationships between electoral systems and party systems.