UNIT 9:
PARTY SYSTEMS:
COMPETITION EXPLANATIONS
Ware pgs. 5-13 and CH 5, Reserves: Sartori
Reading Note


Party Systems: Competition
The library will not place Sartori on electronic reserves due
to copyright restrictions

The reading is available on hard reserves at Geisel.



Page numbers are listed on the reading handout on course website.
Party Systems: Sociological and Institutional
The library will not place Lipset and Rokkan or Duverger on
electronic reserves due to copyright restrictions



An abridged version of Lipset and Rokkan can be accessed at:
http://www.janda.org/c24/Readings/Lipset&Rokkan/Lipset&Rok
kan.htm
An abridged version of Duverger can be accessed at:
http://www.janda.org/c24/Readings/Duverger/Duverger.htm
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?
Party Systems Defined
Ware 1996
 Units: political parties
 Systems: “patterns of competition and
co-operation between the different
parties [within a given] system”

Why Do We Care?

It was believed that the number of parties within a system
exerted a large influence on party behavior.


Also argued that democratic stability was predicated on the
number of parties within a system.


Two party systems promote moderation.
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.
Why Do We Care?

Understanding the party system gives us a basic
understanding of the political system.


Knowing the number (and types) of parties present within
a system provides a basis for analysis and comparison
with other systems.



An “entry level” discussion of a political system.
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?
What Shapes Party Systems?


DV: Party systems
Competition theories (e.g. Sartori 1976)
 IV:

Sociological theories (e.g. Lipset and Rokkan 1967)
 IV:

patterns of political competition
social divisions/cleavage patterns
Institutional theories (e.g. Duverger 1951; 1954).
 IV:
electoral systems; number of parties
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
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.
Multiparty Systems: Polarized Pluralism


Sartori 1976
Fragmentation:


Five to six relevant political parties.
Polarization:


Center of spectrum is occupied.
Relevant anti-system parties exist.


Patterns of competition:



Centrifugal
Polarization creates center fleeing effects.
Consequences for the party system:


Bilateral oppositions force coalitions of the center.
Ideological patterning, irresponsible oppositions, and a politics of
outbidding.
Example: Weimar Republic; Italian First Republic
Multiparty Systems: Moderate Pluralism


Sartori 1976
Fragmentation:


Polarization:




Centripetal
Lack of polarization creates center seeking effects.
Consequences for the party system:


Center of spectrum is not occupied.
No anti-system parties or bilateral oppositions
Patterns of Competition:


3-5 parties exist
Bipolar coalition structure; alternation in government occurs.
Example: Italian Second Republic amongst others.
Two Party Systems


Sartori 1976
Fragmentation:


Polarization:



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



No anti system parties
Pattern of competition:


Two parties
Majority party is willing to govern alone.
Alternation of government is expected or possible
Example: United States; United Kingdom (2.5 parties)
Predominant Party Systems


Sartori 1976
Fragmentation:



Polarization:



No anti-system parties
System allows for other parties to exist and contest elections.
Consequences for the party system:



Pluralist systems with more than one relevant party.
Three consecutive majority governments create a predominant system.
Alternation does not occur in these systems.
Same party consistently (and legally) wins the majority of seats.
Example: South Africa
Hegemonic/One Party Systems


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
Evaluating Sartori
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.
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.
 Suggests
 Is
that institutional explanations are relevant.
competition epiphenomenal?
Next Unit


Theme:
Party Systems-Sociological and Institutional
Explanations
 Readings:
Ware
CH 6
Reserves (Lipset and Rokkan, Duverger,
Cox)