3. Political parties, elections and the electoral systems
Lubomír Kopeček
Political parties are a necessary part of modern politics. In the Czech Republic they began to
appear during the process of democratization in the 19th century. Although parties, along with
the rest of society, have undergone enormous changes since that time, none of today’s
democracies are imaginable without them. Political parties represent a vitally important link
between the state and society. The competition between them is the fundamental attribute of
every democratic political regime. As the classic political scientists Larry Diamond, Juan
Linz, and Seymour M. Lipset put it, democracy is basically nothing more than “a contest
between individuals and organized groups (primarily political parties) over key positions in
the system of government, by means of legitimate elections and without the use of violence.”
For obvious reasons, in dictatorships the ruling elites do not want political competition. In
some dictatorships an organized political party may exist, and there may even be more than
one, formally. But they never have the same role as in a democracy. In dictatorships,
government political parties usually function as an instrument of tyranny and repression. Even
in a democracy, political parties can be distrusted, whether fairly or unfairly. But as Alexis de
Tocqueville said almost two hundred years ago, “parties are a necessary evil of free
government”.
This chapter offers a brief overview of the basic terms and concepts associated with
political parties. Some attention will be devoted to the issue of elections and electoral
systems, which are an integral part of the existence of political parties and modern democratic
societies. Territorially we will remain predominantly within the European framework.
3. 1 The term political party and its basic organizational types
Of the many definitions of political party, perhaps the most often cited “minimum” definition
is that of Italian political scientist Giovanni Sartori, which includes some of the basic
properties of political parties. According to Sartori, a political party is “a political grouping
that takes part in elections and through them is able to get their candidates into public
offices.” Sartori’s definition is popular because it is universally useful for various parts of the
world with varying traditions and cultures. However, various authors give the term political
party a broader definition and a broader set of attributes, including, in particular, a permanent
organizational structure, local territorial structures and (with a?) centralized leadership as
well as an ideological orientation and/or a specific political program or at least a basic
political goal. They can also be defined by their effort to gain support in society through
elections and other means.
Another question that offers itself is how to distinguish political parties from other
actors that take a hand in politics, such as interest groups (trade unions, business groups, etc.)
or social movements (pacifist, feminist, anti-globalization, etc.). The most reliable
differentiating criteria are elections, which also seems to be the most important element of
Sartori’s “minimalist” definition of political parties.
From an organizational perspective, it is important to distinguish between cadre
parties and mass parties, terms appearing in a classic study of political parties by Maurice
Duverger. The term cadre party is historically linked with the 19th century and refers to groups
of politicians in the early era of mass politics; they were usually active only in parliament and
did not possess firm or elaborated territorial organizations (constituencies?). In many ways
they were more like political clubs than parties: they did not seek to build a large membership
base, extensive territorial structure, or to address a broad spectrum of voters. Nor did they
need to, given the limited voting rights extended at the time. These are sometimes called
parties of notables, honorary parties, or elite parties. The expansion of voting rights forced the
cadre parties – in the 19th century mostly ideologically liberal or conservative – to react by
adapting their structures more towards the mass party model.
Mass parties appeared on the political scene in Western and Central Europe in the
1880s. This organizational model was especially associated with the socialist, agrarian, and
Christian movements. Mass parties are characterized not only by large numbers of members
but by developed organizational structures and a functioning party bureaucracy. It was mass
parties that gave us the term “party machinery.” The large membership base of a mass party
was important for organizing election campaigns, gaining new voters, and generally declaring
the party’s presence through various gatherings and demonstrations. It was also important
because it financed the party through its membership dues. This allowed it to pay for both the
party bureaucracy and its election campaigns. Unlike decentralized and ill-disciplined cadre
parties, mass parties are centralized and disciplined. The rather weak ideological
underpinnings of the cadre parties were overshadowed by the wide-ranging and ideologicallydefined programs of the mass parties. Part of this was because the mass parties were strongly
dependent on particular social groups, whether it be the working class (social democrats), the
strongly religious (Christian parties), or the peasantry (agrarians). This led to the formation of
a firm party identity, to which a particular group of voters was connected.
In the 1960s Otto Kirchheimer identified a newly-developing kind of political party,
which he labeled the catch-all party. This new type was a reaction to the changes in Western
European society after the Second World War. This refers especially to the erosion of
traditional social boundaries, and the growth of social mobility. Mass parties, especially the
big Christian Democratic and Social Democratic parties, which had previously focused on a
limited social segment, began to appeal to voters outside their traditional groups. This
required greater flexibility, organizationally and ideologically. As a result, the catch-all
parties went about trying to attract socially very diverse voters. With the growth of the middle
class, which was politically moderate and shied away from radical solutions, the most suitable
strategy seemed to be expanding their ideological range towards the center. This was reflected
in the diminished intensity of the ideological conflicts that once gave rise to the mass parties,
although the program differences between the parties did not disappear. The change in the
types of voters parties sought to attract and the loosening of ties between voter and party also
made election campaigns much more important. More voters waited to make their decision
until the last minute before the election, which caused the parties to react by modifying their
election campaigns, which became more professionalized and more personalized.
Kirchheimer originally envisioned a more or less generalized model of the catch-all
parties in all of Western Europe, but it turned out to be only partially applicable. In practice
some of the big parties remained strongly linked to the model of the mass parties. Besides
this, the small parties, representing smaller segments of voters, which Kirchheimer thought
would disappear as the catch-all parties expanded, failed to go away. Instead, their numbers
and influence in Western European party systems are growing. Even so it is undoubtedly the
case that many of the Christian Democratic, Social Democratic, or conservative parties have
today become de facto catch-all in nature.
Summary:

The existence of political parties is an important prerequisite for free political
competition and a functioning democracy.

The important factor in distinguishing parties from other political actors is
participation in elections.

We can distinguish between three general organizational types of political party –
cadre, mass, and catch-all.
3. 2 Political party identity
Very often, parties across Europe are connected and placed in “related” groups; in political
science terminology these groups are called party families. The parties of a given party
family tend to be related in terms of ideology and program, and they are often created under
similar historic circumstances and influences; that is, they have a similar genetic origin.
Sometimes they may become part of broader super-national party groupings, such as the
Party of European Socialists at the EU level, including social democrats and socialists, or the
European Liberal, Democratic, and Reform Party, made up of liberals. Thanks to ideological
convergence of at least some of the political parties of Central and Eastern Europe towards
Western European ideological models, we can classify the parties in these countries into the
European party families as well. Nevertheless we must take into account that some of the
post-communist countries have specific conditions as a result of the discontinuity of political
pluralism in the region during the era of communism and the complicated legacy of the
communist era, which continues to affect the identity of many parties even today.
Within the classic left-right political spectrum, on the left we can identify the party
families of the social democrats and socialists, greens, and the far left. In the center and on
the right we see liberals, Christian democrats, conservatives, and the far right. There are also
regional and ethnic parties that cannot be placed along the left-right spectrum. The onceimportant party family of the agrarians has lost its significance with the decline of the
agrarian electorate. In addition, in today’s Europe we also see parties that cannot be
categorized into any party family. In the conditions of Central and, even more so, Eastern
Europe, the ideological-policy orientation of some formations is still fluid. Here a significant
role is played by the limited life span of many parties and the sometimes unfavorable social
or political conditions that do not give time or space for the formation of clearer and more
permanent identities.
Social democrats and socialists represent the most important family on the left and
usually win from a quarter to a third of the votes or sometimes more. Among the most
important parties within this family are the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the Social
Democratic Party of Austria, the Swedish Social Democratic Labor Party, the French Socialist
Party, and the British Labour Party. In the area of post-communist Europe after 1989, there
were only a few examples of successful renewals of the “historic” social democratic parties
from the pre-war era. One exception was the Czech Social Democratic Party. Otherwise most
of the “social democratization” happened with the former Communist parties, which
completely overshadowed the restored “historic” social democrats. The Union of the
Democratic Left in Poland and the Hungarian Socialist Party are examples of such excommunist parties.
After their appearance in the late 19th century, the social democratic parties were
usually characterized by revolutionary radicalism, Marxist, or near-Marxist socialist
programs, and rejection of the market economy. Their original identity gradually underwent
revision, as the social and institutional context in which they existed changed (with the
granting of political and social rights to the working class, the winning of seats in parliament
and then in executive office, etc.). Over time the social democrats adopted the principles of
the liberal political order and began to see the electoral and parliamentary areas as the only
acceptable “playing fields” for political competition. Their Marxist program was gradually
abandoned. The vision of a radically altered society was replaced by the vision of the socalled welfare state, with a large public sector and regulated market economy. The social
democratic program retained its emphasis on solidarity, social justice, and protection for the
socially disadvantaged.
The history of the far left in the 20th century was mostly shaped by the communists.
The communists emerged by splitting from the left wing of the social democratic or socialist
parties. They criticized the social democrats’ abandonment of social change through
revolution and instead followed Marxist-Leninist ideology, including the concepts of class
struggle and a state based on the dictatorship of the proletariat. Furthermore, they rejected
political competition based on political plurality and the principles of liberal democracy.
Between the wars and after the Second World War, the Western European communist parties
were seen as a dangerous “fifth column” of Moscow, loyal and obedient to its orders. In the
second half of the 20th century, their electoral potential was gradually eroded, and in some
places they became totally marginalized. At the same time, a number of Western European
communist parties began to try and free themselves from their previous dependence on
Moscow and took a critical look at their previous Marxist-Leninist ideology. Gorbachev’s
perestroika and the breakup of the Eastern block drove most of the West European communist
parties toward a further shift in identity. This was seen most sharply in the case of the Italian
communists, who were the most important Western European communist party in the late
1980s but who later completely abandoned their original communist identity. After a series of
organizational changes and fusions with other groups, they now go by the name of the
Democratic Party and differ little in their profile from social democratic parties. As we have
already seen, the “social democratization” of some of the communist parties of the former
Eastern bloc caused them to experience a similar process to that of the Italian communists.
Other communist parties in Western and Central Europe developed in varying ways. Today
only a few of them, like the Communist Party of Greece or the Communist Party of Bohemia
and Moravia, are dogmatically left-wing and Marxist. Other parties have more or less
abandoned their original ideological baggage and have instead adopted other elements
(feminism, pacifism, environmentalism, etc.). The result has been the formation of new
parties, such as the Left Party in Sweden, the Green Left in the Netherlands, or the French
Communist Party, which now has little in common with communist ideology despite its
name. Although they usually do not challenge the democratic regime, these groups are still
politically and economically radical. With a few exceptions, they represent small or marginal
political forces.
The Green party family began to form in Western Europe in the 1970s. The Greens
were especially attractive to younger voters who advocated alternative lifestyles, post-material
values, and participatory politics connected especially with the new social movements which
at the same time represented an important base for the formation of the greens. Their
ideological foundations are more or less radical environmentalism or ecology. To this they
add combinations of various other elements, such as emphasis on women’s rights, protection
of minorities, multiculturalism, and strongly redistributive leftist sociology. In this respect
they are often close to some of the far-left parties (see above). Some of the parties in this
family, for example the German Greens, have nevertheless moved much closer to the center
in recent years. To this day, in every case in which the greens have succeeded, they have been
small parties usually winning up to ten percent of the vote. In Central and Eastern Europe
after 1989, the greens were not able to make a great deal of headway. The main reason for this
was the continuing and painful economic transformation and the related absence of the postmaterialist orientation among voters.
Liberal parties in the European party system are usually small formations hovering
around the political center. The most successful of these include the Party for Freedom and
Democracy in the Netherlands, the Free Democrats in Germany and, in Central Europe, the
Liberal Democrats in Slovenia. Historically the liberal parties have emerged as defenders of
individual rights and opponents of religious influence in political and public life. Their anti-
clericalism is what distinguished them from the Christian democratic parties. The liberals also
defined themselves by arguing for a minimal role by the state in society and the economy,
unlike the social and Christian democrats. There are, however, certain differences among
today’s liberal parties. While some parties advocate neo-liberalism, others are more socialliberal; that is, they are willing to allow a regulated market economy. Despite their limited
electoral potential, the liberals, thanks to their position near the political center, are often the
junior partners in both center-right and center-left governing coalitions.
The beginnings of the Christian democratic parties lie in the last decades of the 19th
century. Their golden age in Western Europe came after the Second World War, when they
became the most important party family on the right side of political spectrum. In the late 20th
century many of these parties went through an internal crisis stemming from the social
changes in Western Europe, secularization, and the disappearance of their traditional political
base. At present the most important of these parties are the Christian Democratic Union in
Germany, its sister party the Christian Social Union in Bavaria, the Christian Democratic
Challenge in the Netherlands, and the People’s Party in Austria. The Christian democrats are
mostly Catholic in origin; parties with Protestant or other Christian origin are a minority. The
Christian democrats have fared even worse in post-communist Central Europe, where they
have always been small parties struggling to maintain representation in parliament. At present
the Christian democratic parties usually present themselves as ecumenical, and a large role in
their identity is played by other elements such as family, morality, and traditional values.
Back at the beginning of the 20th century, this party family was still very skeptical of the
market economy, but after World War II they began to accept it, emphasizing the social
aspect of this form of economy. Today they usually defend a social market economy.
In the Western and Central European countries where the Christian democrat influence
is weak or lacking, the conservative parties are generally the largest parties on the right side
of the political spectrum. In many countries they are the main political opponents of the social
democrats. In this context it is important to note that the conservative parties originally
represented mainly the upper social classes. Over time their electoral focus evolved, and they
expanded their electoral base. The big conservative parties today are the Union for the
People’s Movement in France, the Conservative Party in Great Britain, New Democracy in
Greece, the People’s Party in Spain, Law and Justice in Poland, and the Civic Democratic
Party in the Czech Republic. The conservative parties strongly emphasize the importance of
nation, state, defense of national interests, and traditional institutions, whether they be the
monarchy, family, or local community (depending on the national context). On economic
issues, the conservatives originally took a reserved attitude towards the free market. At
present, however, most of the conservative parties are economically liberal and supportive of
free enterprise, although some, like Poland’s Law and Justice, still prefer economic
protectionism.
Historically, between the world wars, the far right was associated with fascism. After
the Second World War, for understandable reasons, this strain of political parties nearly
vanished from the parliamentary scene in the European countries, with isolated exceptions
such as the neo-Fascist Italian Social Movement. The return of the far right in Western
Europe dates back to the last quarter of the 20th century, but most are still very small political
parties. The context of the far right’s latter-day return sets it apart quite distinctly from
historical fascism in a number of respects. Among the issues these parties stress are
opposition to the influx of immigrants from the Third World, corruption among traditional
political elites, multiculturalism, and excessive tax burdens. Ideologically, meanwhile, it is
very difficult to discern any individual unifying element given the heterogeneity of the parties
classified in this family. A minimum set of shared elements on the far right might be
nationalism, xenophobia, a program of “chauvinistic social security” and emphasis on “law
and order”. This party family is represented by formations such as the National Front in
France, the People’s Party in Denmark, the Freedom Party in Austria, the Slovak National
Party and the Movement for a Better Hungary.
Ethnic and regional parties emphasize defense of the interests of a particular region or
ethnicity or both. Typically they are the product of a conflict between the center and the
periphery. The goal of parties in this family may be to achieve greater autonomy for the given
region, federalization of the national state, or full independence. As a result of the strong
trends towards regionalization and the revival of some of the small nationalist movements in
today’s Europe, the number and importance of such parties is generally growing. Examples
across Europe are the National Party in Scotland, Convergence and Unity in Catalonia, the
South Tyrolian People’s Party in the Italian Tyrol, and the Party of the Hungarian Coalition in
Slovakia.
Summary:

Parties can be sorted into party families according to their ideological and policy
orientation, known as their “genetic origin,” and their international ties.

To the left of center are the social democrats and socialists, the greens, and the far left.

In the center and to the right are the liberals, the Christian democrats, conservatives,
and the far right; outside of the left-right axis are the regional and ethnic parties.
3. 3 Specific features of Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of
communism
Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of the communist regimes present a very
complicated field for classifying political parties. As indicated in the preceding text, over the
last two decades a number of trends can be seen in Central Europe that are similar to those
seen in West European party politics. This is true not only in the ideological sphere but in
terms of political party organization as well. One example is the Czech conservative-liberal
Civic Democratic Party; another is Poland’s liberal-conservative Civic Platform, which can
undoubtedly be labeled as a catch-all party.
What sets them distinctly apart, however, are the many differences in local party
politics. The product in the field of political science is the construction of concepts developed
specifically for identifying these differences in local party politics. One concept worthy of
attention is by Herbert Kitschelt, who divided political parties in Central and Eastern Europe
into “charismatic”, “clientelistic”, and “programmatic”. He mainly looked at what it is that
attracts voters to a political party, eventually concluding that a voter is attracted by either (1)
the personality of the party candidates (a “charismatic party”), (2) expected personal or other
material and non-material gains (the “clientelistic” party), or (3) indirect gain in the form of
collective benefits if the (programmatic) party wins the elections. “Charismatic” parties do not
build a classic internal organization and are mostly an unstructured mass concentrated around
their leader. The “clientelistic” parties invest a certain amount of energy into building
organizational structures, but key to their organizations is maintaining patron-client ties.
These patron-client networks replace the classic territorial structure. “Program” parties are the
only ones that possess a developed organizational structure and a clearer policy profile which
offers voters an intelligent choice between competing alternatives.
3. 4 Elections and electoral systems
The basic function of elections in a democracy is the selection of political representation. In
countries with a non-democratic regime, if elections are held at all, citizens cannot usually
choose from among several party alternatives. Free elections in democratic societies fulfill a
number of other functions: the government and parliament gain electoral legitimacy; elections
are the mechanism for peaceful change in governments and peaceful resolution of tension
within society; through them, voters are mobilized on behalf of certain values, demands, or
goals.
Generally, free elections are universal, equal, secret, and direct. What do these terms
mean? Universal – every person has the right to vote and thus indirectly takes part in the
political management of society. Equal – each person’s vote has the same value. Secret – it is
not possible to find out for whom or what a person voted. Direct – the voter selects his
representative (member of parliament, president, etc.), and there is no intermediate step
distorting his choice.
We usually distinguish between two types of voting rights: 1) active voting rights - the
right to cast a ballot and 2) passive voting rights - the right to be elected or to run for election
to office. The criteria for applying these two types of voting rights are somewhat different. A
typical example is an age requirement, which is usually lower for active rights than for
passive rights. For example, in the Czech Republic all citizens aged 18 and older may vote,
but one must be 21 or older to be elected a member of parliament and 40 years old to be
elected president.
A very important role in the structure of political competition is played by the electoral
system used for various types of elections, whether parliamentary, presidential, regional, or
local. The electoral system in the law or the constitution represents the given method of
transforming votes into mandates. The form of the electoral system more or less strongly
influences the structure of the party system in the given country. Electoral systems are either
majority or proportional.
Majority electoral systems are historically older and today come in various
adaptations, of which the most notable is the first-past-the-post electoral system. An example
of this system is elections to the lower house of the British parliament. In this system, the
winner is the candidate who wins the most votes, regardless of his share of the entire number
of votes. In other words it does not matter whether the winner received 20, 50, or 60 % of the
votes; instead, the winner must simply have more votes than any of the other candidates.
These kinds of elections are usually held in single-mandate districts. Another common system
is the absolute or multi-round electoral system. Elections to the Senate of the Czech Republic
are a classic example. The candidate for senator must win more than half of all the votes. If no
one receives the required number of votes in the first round, a second round is held between
the two most successful candidates from the first round. There are a number of modifications
possible in this voting system. For example, in elections to France’s National Assembly, the
number of candidates for the second round is determined by a minimum number of votes in
the first round, which must be at least 12.5 % of the vote. In the second round, the winner is
the candidate who receives the simple majority (the most votes, not necessarily more than half
the votes).
Majority electoral systems, especially first-past-the-post, eliminate parliamentary seats
for the minority (smaller parties) in favor of producing viable governing majorities. In other
words, elections usually produce a clear winner – one party. An exception is the situation in
which a small party has its electorate concentrated into a few districts, which enables it to
win. However, unlike in proportional voting systems, majority systems generally favor
functionality at the expense of proportionality. Note that this applies only in the case of
countries with a structuralized, or relatively “settled,” party spectrum. In environments where
the ties between parties and voters are weak, however, majority systems can lead to complete
atomization of the balance of forces in parliament.
Proportional representation (PR) electoral systems are a later phenomenon, which
have the basic goal of producing a parliament that corresponds as closely as possible to an
array of voter opinions. The handicap of the smaller parties or candidates representing less
important groupings typical of the majority system is entirely or almost entirely abolished
here. On the other hand, it produces the necessity of forming coalition governments. With
proportional representation systems, there are a number of variables (indicators) that influence
the form and composition of a government thus assembled. Among the most important is the
election threshold – usually it is 3 %, but sometimes 5 %. The threshold is the percentage of
the vote a party must take in order to win seats (in some cases it is 0 %).
Another important variable is the number of mandates distributed within the electoral
district (the higher number of mandates, the greater chance for the small parties) or the way
votes are counted to produce mandates (the so-called electoral method).
PR systems are most often founded on the system of party-lists. Parties make lists of
candidates to be elected, and seats get allocated to each party in proportion to the number of
votes the party receives. However, party lists differ. A closed list is the variant where voters
can only vote for a party as a whole and thus have no influence on the party-supplied order in
which party candidates are elected. If a voter has at least some influence, then it is called an
open list. In some extreme examples, the voter can give his vote to any candidate of a list.
In conclusion we might mention that besides proportional and majority electoral systems, we
sometimes also see mixed electoral systems. These began to appear mainly in the 1990s and
combine in various ways elements of the majority and proportional electoral systems.
Summary:

Elections are the basic instrument for selecting political representation in a democracy.

The basic attributes of democratic elections are that they are universal, equal, secret,
and direct.

The electoral system represents a mechanism for transforming votes into mandates.

We distinguish between majority and proportional electoral systems.

Majority electoral systems transform votes into the composition of the representative
body in a strongly altered way and especially diminish the importance of small parties.
Generally they help in producing homogeneous governments.

Proportional electoral systems allow more precise transformation of voters’ opinions
into the composition of the representative body, but at the same time they produce the
need to involve more parties in forming a coalition government.
3. 5 Conclusion
The issue of political parties, like that of elections and electoral systems, is still one of the
most dynamic fields of political science. The lively discussions in recent decades over the
declining importance or existential crisis of political parties have done nothing to change this.
These arguments are a reflection of various socio-political trends that Europe is experiencing
today, including the increased influence of the media and interest groups, changes in social
structure, and the increasing significance of factors affecting national politics, such as
globalization or European integration. For political parties, these trends undoubtedly represent
a major challenge, and their long-time privileged place in modern politics is now a thing of
the past. As this chapter shows, however, political parties still represent an extraordinarily
adaptable actor, which is very necessary for the functioning of competitive democratic
politics.
Literature
 Beyme, K. von (1985): Political Parties in Western Democracies. Aldershot: Gower
Press.
 Diamond, L. - Linz, J. J. - Lipset, S. M. (1990): Politics in Developing Countries.
Comparing Experiences with Democracy. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
 Inglehart, R. (1981): Post-materialism in an Environment of Insecurity. The American
Political Science Review, 75, 4, pp. 880-900.
 Kirchheimer, O. (1966): The Transformation of the Western European Party Systems,
in: La Palombara, J. - Weiner, M. (eds.): Political Parties and Political Development.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, s. 177 – 200.
 Kitschelt, H. (1992): The Formation of Party Systems in East Central Europe. Politics
& Society, 20, 1, pp. 7-51.
 Sartori, G. (1976): Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
 Tocqueville,
A.
de
(2000):
Democracy
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/home.html
in
America
-