Parties and Party Systems

A political party is a group of people that is organized for the purpose of

winning government power, by electoral or other means
Parties typically exhibit the following characteristics:
1. They aim to exercise government power by winning political office
(small parties may nevertheless use elections more to gain a platform
than to win power)
2. They are organized bodies with a formal ‘card carrying’ membership
3. They typically adopt a broad issue focus, addressing each of the
major areas of government policy (small parties, however, may have a
single-issue focus)
4. To varying degrees, they are united by shared political preferences
and a general ideological identity
Parties are fundamental in modern politics; but a relatively new invention (19th
century)
Now they are universal; may not exist only in absolute monarchies or
dictatorships
As an organizing principle of modern politics, they the vital link between the state
and civil society, between government institutions & groups within the society
They are not alike; differ in structure, size, orientation, objectives
One-party systems operate very differently from competitive party systems, but
there are also important contrasts between two-party and multiparty systems
But overall, parties are criticized for being orthodox, failing to articulate the new
and more diverse aspirations & for failing to solve, address, many of troubling
problems
By late 1950s, some 80 % states were ruled by political parties. During
1960s & early ‘70s, the number declined due to spread of military rule
And for they were accused of being divisive & of failing to solve
problems of poverty, and ethnic and tribal rivalry
They also proved to be inconvenient for economic and military elites.
The upsurge of democratization since 1980s has, nevertheless, led to a
renewed flourishing of parties
 Types of party
A variety of classifications have been used for political parties. The most important of
these are the following:
1. cadre and mass parties
2. representative and integrative parties
3. constitutional and revolutionary parties
4. left-wing and right-wing parties
The most common distinction is that between cadre parties and mass parties
cadre party actually meant a ‘party of notables’, dominated by an informal group of
leaders who saw little point in building up a mass organization (now used for communists)
this sense, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), the Nazi Party in Germany,
and the Fascist Party in Italy were cadre parties; CCP in PRC
Such parties rely on a politically active elite (usually subject to quasi-military discipline)
that can offer ideological leadership to the masses; some may join cadre parties for
careers & simple convenience
A mass party emphasizes broadening membership and constructing a wide
electoral base; initially [before extension of franchise] socialist parties for
mass parties
Now even conservative parties must become mass parties
Such parties place heavier stress on recruitment and organization than on
ideology and political conviction
General agreement on goals is sufficient for membership
Otto Kirchheimer (1966) call modern political parties ‘catch-all parties’
They reduce their ideological baggage to attract people
Modern de-ideologized socialist parties (Labour in UK) also fit this descriptio
Sigmund Neumann’s (1956) distinction between parties of representation
and parties of integration
Former see their primary function as being the securing of votes in elections
They thus attempt to reflect, rather than shape, public opinion; catch-all; pragmatists
who do market research before popular mobilization
(Faction: a faction is a section or group within a larger formation, usually a political party
Factionalism refers either to the proliferation of factions, or to the bitterness of factional
rivalry)
Prevalence of such parties today support rational choice models of political behavior,
such as those of Joseph Schumpeter and Anthony Downs (1957), which portray
politicians as power-seeking creatures who are willing to adopt whatever policies are
likely to bring them electoral success
Integrative parties, in contrast, adopt proactive, rather than reactive, political strategies
they wish to mobilize, educate, and inspire the masses, rather than merely respond to
their concerns (socialist parties before electoral disappointment)
Constitutional parties acknowledge the rights and entitlements of other parties
and, thus, operate within a framework of rules and constraints
They acknowledge that there is a division between the party and the state,
between the party in power (the government of the day) and state institutions
(bureaucracy, judiciary, police and so on); they respect rules of electoral
competition
They recognize that they can be voted out of power as easily as they can be voted
in
Mainstream parties in liberal democracies all have such a constitutional character
Revolutionary parties [right or left] are antisystem parties
They aim to seize power and overthrow the existing constitutional structure using
tactics like insurrection, popular revolution, & quasi-legalism practiced by the
Nazis and the Fascists
Left-wing parties (progressive, socialist, and communist parties) are
characterized by a commitment to change, in the form of either social
reform or wholesale economic transformation (they draw support from
the ranks of the poor and disadvantaged)
Right-wing parties (conservative and fascist parties, in particular)
generally uphold the existing social order and are a force for continuity
(support from business interests and the materially contented middle
classes)
The above is a problematic distinction, though
 Functions of parties
Parties’ impact on the political system is substantially broader and more
complex; constitutional parties are bastions of democracy
Six general functions of parties:
1. representation
2. elite formation and recruitment
3. goal formulation
4. interest articulation and aggregation
5. socialization and mobilization
6. organization of government
Representation: often seen as the primary function; It refers to the
capacity of parties to respond to and articulate the views of both the
members and voters
Elite formation and recruitment: they are responsible for providing states with their
political leaders; more commonly, politicians achieve office by virtue of their party post:
contestants in a presidential election are usually party leaders
In most cases, parties therefore provide a training ground for politicians, equipping them
with skills, knowledge, and experience; and offer them some career structure
Goal formulation: traditionally, a means for through which societies set collective goals
and, in some cases, ensure that they are carried out
Parties formulate programs of government; most commonly in parliamentary systems
Interest articulation and aggregation: In the process of developing collective goals,
parties also help to articulate and aggregate the various interests found in society
Parties often develop as vehicles through which business, labour, religious, ethnic or
other groups advance or defend their various interests
Socialization and mobilization: through internal debate and discussion, as well as
campaigning and electoral competition, parties are important agents of political
education and socialization
The issues that parties choose to focus on help to set the political agenda, and the
values and attitudes that they articulate become part of the larger political culture
Mainstream parties in competitive systems play a significant a role in encouraging
groups to play by democratic rules, thus mobilizing support for the regime itself
Organization of government: complex modern societies would be ungovernable in
the absence of political parties
Parties help with the formation of governments; give governments a degree of
stability and coherence
They facilitate cooperation between the two major branches of government; and
provide, in competitive systems, a vital source of opposition and criticism, both
inside and outside government
 Party organization: where does power lie?
Because of the crucial role that political parties play, considerable attention has
been focused on where power lies within parties
The organization and structure of parties thus provides vital clues about the distribution of power within
society as a whole
An earlier attempt to investigate internal party democracy was undertaken in Mosei Ostrogorski’s
Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties (1902), which argued that the representation of
individual interests had lost out to the growing influence of the party machine and control exerted by a
caucus of senior party figures
Party democracy: it is a form of popular rule that operates through the agency of a party. There are two
models of party democracy:
Intraparty democracy: parties are democratic agents, in that power within them is widely and evenly
dispersed
democracy dictates that policy-making power should be concentrated in the hands of party members
who are elected and, therefore, publicly accountable.
In this view, the first model may lead to the tyranny of nonelected constituency activists
The existence of factions and tendencies is as important as formal organization in determining the
location of power within a party
While all parties, even those with an apparently monolithic character,
embrace some measure of political and ideological rivalry
The degree to which this rivalry is reflected in conflict between organized
and coherent groups is crucial in determining the degree of authority of
party leaders
(Rank-and-file members of an organization tend to be apathetic and are,
therefore, generally disposed to accept subordination and venerate leaders)
(Machine politics: A style of politics in which party ‘bosses’ control a mass
organization through patronage and the distribution of favors)
(Caucus: A meeting of party members held to nominate election candidates,
or to discuss legislative proposals in advance of formal proceedings)
 PARTY SYSTEMS

Parties are not just important for functions like representation, elite recruitment,
aggregation of interests, they matter because complex interrelationships between and
among parties are crucial in structuring the way political systems work in practice
This network of relationships is called a party system; Duverger (1954) distinguished
between ‘one-party’, ‘two-party’ and ‘multiparty’ systems
Although such a typology is commonly used, party systems cannot simply be reduced to
a ‘numbers game’
As important as the number of parties competing for power is their relative size, as
reflected in their electoral and legislative strength
As Sartori (1976), Party size matters, whether their size gives them the prospect of
winning, or at least sharing, government power
The mere presence of parties does not, however, guarantee the existence of a party
system
the pattern of relationships amongst parties constitutes a system only if it is
characterized by stability and a degree of orderliness (Chinese parties)
One-party systems
Strictly speaking, the term one-party system is contradictory since ‘system’ implies
interaction amongst a number of entities
A single party enjoys a monopoly of power through the exclusion of all other parties (by
political or constitutional means)
Because monopolistic parties effectively function as permanent governments, with no
mechanism (short of a coup or revolution) through which they can be removed from
power, they invariably develop an entrenched relationship with the state machine
This allows such states to be classified as ‘one-party states’, their machinery being seen
as a fused ‘party–state’ apparatus
Two different types of one-party system can be identified:
one found in state socialist regimes where ‘ruling’ communist parties have
directed and controlled virtually all the institutions and aspects of society
This type of one-party system is associated with anticolonial nationalism and
state consolidation in the developing world
In South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, the ‘ruling’ party developed out of an
independence movement that proclaimed the overriding need for nation-
building and economic development
Former parties are subject to strict ideological discipline, traditionally inked
tenets of Marxism–Leninism, and they have highly-structured internal
organizations
One-party systems in Africa and Asia have usually been built around the
dominant role of a charismatic leader and drawn whatever ideological identity
they have possessed from the views of that leader
Two-party systems
A two-party system is duopolistic in that it is dominated by two ‘major’ parties that have
a roughly equal prospect of winning government power
In its classical form, a two-party system can be identified by three criteria:
Although several ‘minor’ parties may exist, only two parties enjoy sufficient electoral
and legislative strength to have a realistic prospect of winning government power
The larger party is able to rule alone (usually on the basis of a legislative majority); the
other provides the opposition
Power alternates between these parties; both are ‘electable’, the opposition serving as a
‘government in the wings
The UK and the USA are the most frequently cited examples of states with two-party
systems (also, Canada, Australia)
Two-party politics was once portrayed as the surest way of reconciling
responsiveness with order, representative government with effective
government
Its key advantage is that it makes possible a system of party government,
supposedly characterized by stability, choice and accountability
The two major parties are able to offer the electorate a straightforward
choice between rival programs and alternative governments
Voters can support a party knowing that, if it wins the election, it will
have the capacity to carry out its manifesto promises without having to
negotiate or compromise with coalition partners (attractive option)
Two-party systems deliver strong but accountable government based on
relentless competition between the governing and opposition parties
Two-partyism, moreover, creates a bias in favor of moderation, as the two
contenders for power must battle for ‘floating’ votes in the center ground
However, two-party politics and party government have not been so well
regarded since the 1970s
Instead of guaranteeing moderation, two-party systems such as the UK’s have
displayed a periodic tendency toward adversary politics
A further problem with the two-party system is that two evenly-matched
parties are encouraged to compete for votes by outdoing each other’s electoral
promises, perhaps causing spiraling public spending and fueling inflation
(irresponsible party government)
A final weakness of two-party systems is the obvious restrictions they impose in
terms of electoral and ideological choice
 Dominant-party systems
Dominant-party systems should not be confused with one-party systems, although they may at times
exhibit similar characteristics
A dominant-party system is competitive in the sense that a number of parties compete for power in
regular and popular elections, but is dominated by a single major party that consequently enjoys
prolonged periods in power
This apparently neat definition, however, runs into problems, notably, in relation to determining how
‘prolonged’ a governing period must be for a party to be considered ‘dominant’
Japan (until its defeat in 2009, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) had been in power almost
continuously for 54 years) (Congress in India for first 30 years; African National Congress (ANC) in
South Africa)
What accounts for the ANC’s predominant position in South African politics? The key explanation is
the leading role the party played in the campaign against extreme Afrikaner nationalism and in
helping to promote resistance to the policies of apartheid
In such system, the political focus shifts from competition between parties to factional conflict within
the dominant party itself (factions in LDP)
Factions can exist for several reasons: in Japan factionalism tended to revolve more around personal
differences than policy or ideological disagreement
Whereas other competitive party systems have their supporters, or at least apologists,
few are prepared to come to the defence of the dominant-party system
Apart from a tendency towards stability and predictability, dominantpartyism is usually
seen as a regrettable and unhealthy phenomenon because:
1. it tends to erode the important constitutional distinction between the state and the
party in power
2. an extended period in power can engender complacency, arrogance and even
corruption in the dominant party (Italian and Japanese politics)
3. a dominant-party system is characterized by weak and ineffective opposition
4. existence of a ‘permanent’ party of government may corrode the democratic spirit
by encouraging the electorate to fear change and to stick with the ‘natural’ party of
government
 Multiparty systems
A multiparty system is characterized by competition amongst more than two
parties, reducing the chances of single-party government and increasing the
likelihood of coalitions
In coalitions, smaller parties are included to exclude larger parties from
government; however, if the likelihood of coalition government is the index of
multipartyism, this classification contains a number of subcategories:
Sartori (1976) distinguished between two types of multiparty system, which he
termed the ‘moderate’ and ‘polarized’ pluralist systems
moderate pluralism exists in countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands and
Norway, where ideological differences between major parties are slight, and
where there is a general inclination to form coalitions and move towards the
middle ground
Polarized pluralism, on the other hand, exists when more marked ideological
differences separate major parties, some of which adopt an anti-system stance
Strength: it creates internal checks and balances within government and exhibit a
bias in favor of debate, conciliation, and compromise
The process of coalition formation and the dynamics of coalition maintenance
ensure a broad responsiveness that cannot but take account of competing views
& contending interests
Criticism: The principal criticisms of multiparty systems relate to the pitfalls and
difficulties of coalition formation
Post-election negotiations and horse-trading that take place when no single party
is strong enough to govern alone can take weeks, or (as in Israel and Italy) months
Coalition governments may be fractured and unstable, paying greater attention to
squabbles amongst coalition partners than to the tasks of government (Italy)
A final problem is that the tendency towards moderation and compromise may
mean that multiparty systems are so dominated by the political centre that they
are unable to offer clear ideological alternatives
 DECLINE OF PARTIES?
Modern concerns about parties principally stem from evidence of their
decline as agents of representation, and as an effective link between
government and the people (evidence is their declining memberships in
UK)
Alongside these changes, there is evidence of what has been called
‘antipolitics’
That is, the rise of political movements and organizations the only common
feature of which appears to be antipathy towards conventional centres of
power and opposition to established parties of government
A problem that parties suffer from is their perceived oligarchical character
They are seen as bureaucratized political machines, whose grass-roots
members are either inactive, or engaged in routine tasks (attending
meetings, sitting on committees etc.)
In contrast, single-issue protest groups have been more successful in
attracting membership and support, particularly from amongst the
young, partly because they are more loosely organized and locally based
An alternative way of explaining party decline is to see it as a symptom of
the act that complex, modern societies are increasingly difficult to
govern
(Party government: Party government is a system through which single
parties are able to form governments and carry through policy programs.
Its key features are as follows:
Major parties possess a clear programmic character and thus offer the
electorate a meaningful choice between potential governments
The governing party enjoys sufficient ideological and organizational unity
to deliver on its manifesto commitments
Responsibility is maintained by the government’s accountability to the
electorate through its mandate, and by the existence of a credible
opposition that acts as a balancing force