UNIT 12:
PARTY SYSTEM CHANGE:
REALIGNMENT AND THE FREEZING
OF PARTY SYSTEMS
Reserve readings:
Flanagan and Dalton, Inglehart and Flanagan, Shamir, Mair
Guiding Questions





What is realignment?
How do we determine if realignment is occurring?
What do we mean when we say that party systems
are “frozen”?
Are party systems “frozen”?
What challenges do political parties face from
realignment?
Verzuiling and the Freezing of Party Systems







Lipset and Rokkan 1967
Party systems are frozen in the aftermath of the extension of universal
suffrage.
 How do party systems “freeze”?
Rokkan 1977
Verzuiling = Pillarization
Vertical networks used by societal groups and political parties to promote
group identity.
 Isolate supporters into groups with others who share outlook or identity.
 Increases social distance when physical distance no longer ensures
cultural or ideological distinctiveness.
As other entities become critical for the dissemination of political
information, pillarization declines (ontzuiling).
Why do we care?


Can create opportunities for extreme parties
Can indicate a lack of connection to the political system.
Realignment






Flanagan and Dalton 1984; 1990
Changes in the salience of certain cleavages changes partisan alignments
 Weaker party attachment creates volatility
How do cleavages weaken?
 Generational change
 Younger generations do not share the same intensity on a given issue as older
generations.
Realignment is cyclical.
 Differentiation of party appeals at first, then convergence over time as salience
of cleavage wanes.
Expects volatility to increase prior to realignment, level off after and then slowly
increase.
What types of events can restructure partisan alignments?
 Critical junctures.
End of the Cold War: Critical Juncture?





Ware 1996
Speculates about what a “critical juncture” might look like
 Suggests the end of the Cold War has shaped political competition in
some systems.
Cold War “anchored” several advanced democratic parties systems (e.g.
Italy)
Notes:
 1) Changes in vote share of governing parties.
 2) Rise of new parties.
But also suggests that these changes may be
 1) Temporary for governing parties; retrenchment at subsequent
elections
 2) Effective in only a small number of cases
 3) Temporary for new parties; difficult to gain a foothold within the
system
Globalization: Critical Juncture?


Kriesi 2008
Speculates that globalization has fostered a new cleavage.


Divides those that benefit from globalization (integration) from those
who do not (demarcation)
Integration/demarcation cleavage is a result of the
“weakening” of the state’s ability to control changes in
economics, politics, and culture.

Result: Political parties stoke anxieties amongst those who “lose” from
globalization.



Manifests itself in the rise of populist right parties.
Kriesi 2009
Further research suggests that this new cleavage is not as
pervasive as previously thought.

Has not eclipsed other traditional cleavages in most countries.
Postmaterialism: Critical Juncture?




Inglehart 1977, 1987
Priorities in advanced democracies
shifting from a materialist towards a
postmaterialist phase.
 Advanced democracies exhibit
concerns for socio-tropic concerns
rather than ownership of the
means of production.
Voters place priority on needs that
are in short supply.
 Younger groups have different
needs than older cohorts.
 Relative affluence in postwar era
shifts outlook.
Voters retain values structure
throughout their lives
 Although changes take time to
manifest themselves in the party
system.
Postmaterialism and the Left



Inglehart 1987
Posits that postmaterialism places a particular strain on parties of the left.
 Absence of total war facilitates shift to postmaterialism.
 Policies of state intervention and protection of the welfare state pass the “point
of diminishing returns.”
 As societies become “more equal” the coalition in favor of further redistribution
declines.
 Left is a victim of their own “success”
Result:
 Splits on the left:
 Sense of community and quality of life issues trump issues of class for middle and
upper class voters (shift to the Greens)
 Counter-response on the right
 Restoring “order” can prompt a shift from working c lass voters on the left to
parties of the right (shift to Conservatives, Christian Democrats or far right)
Evaluating Postmaterialism


Flanagan 1987
Libertarianism and postmaterialism
are similar, but materialism should be
more tightly defined.


Focus on voters privileging a
stable economy, lowering prices,
etc.
Inglehart ignores the ‘new right”

Authoritarianism has also resulted
from postmaterialism
 Intolerance towards outsiders,
strong support for law and
order, patriotism, etc.
 These voters are shifting
from the old left to the
new right.
Are Party Systems Frozen?

What does the presence of new cleavages suggest
about Lipset and Rokkan’s “freezing hypothesis”?
 Theories of realignment would argue that the
system has changed
 But
the jury is out about whether or not this negates the
freezing hypothesis.

No consensus.

Questions include:
 1)
How would we test the “freezing hypothesis”?
 2) What constitutes the “freezing” of party systems?
 3) What constitutes the “thawing” of party systems?
Are Party Systems “Frozen”?


Shamir 1984
What does it mean to say that party systems are “frozen”?

Possible explanations:




Definition of freezing

1) stability in party support at the ballot box
2) persistence of a given set of parties and party organizations
3) persistence in mass loyalties to parties.
“The party system is stable if it tends or is able to recover its original
position or steady motion when disturbed by exterior forces or
interventions”
Freezing does not mean no change at all.

But rather- “stability means then that the party system is not affected—
not in any essential way and only temporarily—by outside factors”
Are Party Systems “Frozen”?


Shamir 1984
Examines elections in 19 systems both within and outside Europe.



Looks at several systemic variables including:




1) party system instability (volatility)
2) party system fragmentation
3) ideological polarization
Includes systemic variables and a variable to account for randomness.



Includes Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, and the US
Time frame includes all elections where there is an “identifiable” party system.
If systems are “frozen” stability at time t+1 should be dependent upon stability
at time t.
If systems are “thawing” stability at time t+1 may be dependent upon random
factors from previous elections.
Finds that most party systems are not “thawing”

Argues that they were never frozen to begin with.
Are Party Systems “Frozen”?


Mair 2001
Debate over whether party system change is a function of


1) Cleavage change (are cleavage patterns persisting?)
2) Party instability (are traditional parties remaining?)


What does it mean to suggest that party systems are “frozen”?

1) Cleavage system is frozen into place.



Same social cleavages coupled with the same parties.
2) Freezing of political parties competing

May or may not be associated with the previous cleavage structure.
3) Freezing of party systems


Both speak to different concepts of freezing (and both could be correct)
Patterns of inter-party competition are frozen.
The freezing hypothesis is only realistic when applied to the third
category.
Are Party Systems “Frozen”?


Mair 2001
If patterns of competition within a system are “stable”
the system is frozen.

Voters are choosing not only between parties but also
between governments.


As long as the patterns of competition remain the same the
identities of the parties can change and the system can remain
stable.
Stability appears to be the norm.

Although some party systems are more “predictable” than others.


Predictability is becoming rarer.
Political institutions can facilitate freezing.

But institutional reform could lead to further “thawing”
Conclusions
FREEZING



Is the left-right cleavage still the
most relevant to understanding
modern politics?
 Yes.
Are the same parties fighting today
that were fifty years ago?
 In most cases, yes.
Are patterns of government
changing frequently?

No.

But some cases fluctuate more
than others.
THAWING



Have cleavage structures changed?
 Consensus appears to be yes.
Are there new parties on the scene?
 Certainly.
Are patterns of governance
changing?

Perhaps
 But some cases exhibit more
predictability than others.
Next Unit

Theme: Dealignment
 Readings:
Dalton and Wattenberg CH 2-4
Reserves: Mair et al. pgs. 145-178