Classifying Party Systems
What do parties do?
What are the advantages and
disadvantages of a two party system?
What is a party system?
“Parties make for a “system”, then only when they are parts (in
the plural); and a party system is precisely the system of
interactions resulting from inter-party competition. That is, the
system in question bears on the relatedness of parties to each
other, on how each party is a function (in the mathematical
sense) of the other parties and reacts, competitively or
otherwise, to the other parties.
Sartori 1976
Classifications of Party Systems
• The most widely accepted criteria for classifying party systems is the
number of parties vying to gain power.
• The simplest classification of party systems is the differentiation
between two-party and multi-party systems.
• This classification method was seen to show a more fundamental
distinction between stable and consensual democracies, and less
stable and conflictual democracies.
• This was later challenged by the experiences of some European
democracies, but still remains the starting point for categorizing
party systems.
• However, this system of simply counting parties does present
difficulties and is open to much interpretation as to what constitutes
a party and what is an interest or pressure group.
• Furthermore, most political theorists have come up with their own
methods for classifying party systems.
Other Classification systems
Author
Principal Criteria for classification
Principal types of party system
identified
Duverger (1954)
Numbers of Parties
Two-party systems
Multiparty systems
Dahl (1966)
Competitiveness of opposition
Strictly competitive
Co-operative-competitive
Coalescent-competitive
Strictly coalescent
Blondel (1968)
Numbers of parties
Relative size of parties
Two-party systems
Two-and-a-half-party systems
Multiparty systems with one dominant
party
Multiparty systems without dominant
party
Rokkan (1968)
Numbers of parties
Likelihood of single-party majorities
Distribution of minority party strengths
The British-German “1 vs. 1+1”
system
The Scandinavian “1 vs. 3-4” system
Even multiparty systems: “1 vs. 1 vs.
1+ 2-3”
Sartori (1976)
Numbers of Parties
Ideological distance
Two-party systems
Moderate pluralism
Polarized pluralism
Predominant-party systems
Reasons why Sartori’s typology is
often viewed as the most significant
1.
2.
3.
4.
It is the most comprehensive of all the typologies, both
in terms of how it was developed and the way in which
it has been applied to certain cases.
It can and has been applied to national and crossnational studies and has been found to be
“incomparably” better than all the other theories.
It underlines the influence exerted by systemic
properties and party system, on electoral behaviour
and outcomes. It recognises the importance of the
party system in either constraining or directing
electoral outcomes.
It is explicitly concerned with the patterns of
competition and interactions between parties, and is
therefore concerned explicitly with the party system
itself.
Is Sartori’s typology still applicable
today?
•
•
Since the publication of Sartori’s volume more than 30 years ago,
the world’s political situation has changed. This has led to an
overcrowding of the moderate pluralism category and an emptying
of all other systems.
It is also now relatively difficult to find examples of clear-cut twoparty systems:
The US often cited as a two-party system, can now be understood to have
a four-party system, with presidential and congressional two-party
systems, or even as having 50 two-party systems, each functioning
separately in each of the 50 states.
The UK has experienced the rise of the Liberal Democrats, even though it
fulfilled Sartori’s conditions for a predominant party system with the
successive majorities of the Conservative party in 1979,1983, 1987,
and 1992.
What do parties do?
• The choice between parties aggregates the preferences of individual
voters. Therefore parties are the method by which people participate
in the political process.
• Other forms of citizen participation may exert substantial influence
on government, but they lack this representative quality.
• Although this is a simple definition, there are problems in that there
is a distinction between “parliamentary” and “electoral” parties.
However, if this method was used then every country can be
considered to have a multi-party system. It is therefore important to
remember that these theories are concerned with “parliamentary”
parties. This is particularly argued by Norris, she further claims that
it is very hard to discern a total two-party system, certainly when
many different countries are taken into account
Competition
• Sartori’s approach remains influential as it is focused on
the most important aspect of party systems; that of the
competition between parties to gain government.
• However, in terms of the distinctions themselves it is only
Dahl’s which uses distinctions directly related to
government formation.
• Competition itself can be broken down into three main
factors, which when examined show the advantages and
disadvantages of a two-party system, these are the
prevailing mode of government alteration, the stability or
consistency in the governing alternatives, and finally the
question of who governs and how open that process
actually is.
1. Alternation in Government
•
•
•
•
•
The ability to alter the governing party has been seen as a major advantage
of the two-party system. In that it is often easy to remove that party and
replace it with another, this is known as wholesale alteration.
However, to say that this did not occur in more fragmented systems would
be incorrect.
A second pattern can also be discerned, that of partial alternation, in which
a newly incumbent government contains at least one party that formed part
of the previous government. This is of course impossible in a two-party
electoral system, which do not see coalition governments.
The final pattern is non-alternation in which the same party or parties
remains in exclusive control of government over an extended period of time.
This again is generally found in multi-party systems where the same
coalition holds power. This is harder to achieve in a two-party system as the
electorate has a more discernable choice to make.
A two-party system therefore can be viewed as preferable, in that there is a
far greater ability to change the ruling party than in multi-party, coalitiondominated systems.
2. Innovation and Familiarity
• This refers to whether or not a party or coalition of
parties has governed in a particular format before.
• There is no clear distinction to be made between twoparty and multi-party systems, as examples can be
found of a continuation of governing formulae in both.
• A lack of innovation is not necessarily a bad thing in twoparty systems as this does not mean a lack of change or
choice, just that there is stability in that no coalitions are
formed. Where as in multi-party system this can mean
that the same coalition gains power on every occasion,
and a continually changing and innovative governing
formulae can lead to instability and a lack of clarity.
3. Which parties govern?
• Party systems can be distinguished by the degree to which access
to office is narrowly or widely accepted. In other words whether all
relevant parties gain representation in parliament or whether this
privilege is only given to a small number.
• Sartori’s polarised pluralism seems to call for a number of antisystemic parties, but whether these actually exist is another matter.
Perhaps it would be simpler to talk of “outsider” parties; those which
other parties are not prepared to form a coalition with.
• This can be seen as an advantage and a disadvantage of the twoparty system. The two-party system limits the number of parties that
have a significant say in government, and while it can be argued this
does not reflect voters views, it also protects the political system
from anti-systemic and extremist parties. In this case would it be
preferable for other parties to gain representation, or limit it to only
two parties that aggregate the majority of people’s wishes?
Closed and Open structures of
competition
Closed structure of
competition
Wholesale alternation in
office, or non-alternation in
office
Familiar governing formulae
Access to government
restricted to a limited
number of parties
Open structure of
competition
Partial alternation, or mix of
both partial and wholesale
alternation
Innovative governing
formulae
Access to government open
to (almost) all parties
E.G UK, Japan (1955-93),
Switzerland
E.G Denmark, the
Netherlands.
Questions to consider
•
•
•
Is it unrealistic to create a formulae for
classifying party systems? Is every party
system unique to that country?
Does a two-party system offer better
competition, in relation to the three
factors that make it up?
Which is preferable a closed or open
structure of competition?