| Part of thepolitics series |
| Party politics |
|---|
 Politics portal |
Aparty system is a concept in comparativepolitical science concerning the system of government bypolitical parties in a democratic country. The idea is that political parties have basic similarities: they control thegovernment, have a stable base of mass popular support, and create internal mechanisms for controlling funding, information and nominations.
The party system concept was originated by European scholars studying the United States, especiallyJames Bryce,Giovanni Sartori andMoisey Ostrogorsky, and has been expanded to cover other democracies.[1] Party systems can be distinguished by the degree ofpolitical fragmentation,[2][3] proportionality ofseats-to-votes ratio andbarriers to entry to thepolitical competition.[4]
Main classification of party systems is using the number of parties.[5] Counting the "effective number" of parties is somewhat tricky since the decisions need to be made as to which parties shall be included into the count. Including all parties usually makes little sense: for example, in the2005 United Kingdom general election 16 entities run candidates and 12 got seats in the parliament, however, no researcher would argue that UK at the time had a 16- or 12-party system. The practical choice would be between a two-party (Labour won 35% of the vote,Conservatives 32%), or three-party system (Liberal Democrats got 22%).[6] Some researchers suggest to exclude parties with low percentage of votes (for example,Alan Ware recommends a 3% threshold), others, likeGiovanni Sartori, suggest looking at the history of participation in the governments. The 2005 UK example will yield 3 parties if Ware's definition is used and 2 parties if Sartori's definition is chosen, since the Liberal Democrats almost never influenced the government formation.[7]
The classification is based on the typology originally proposed byJean Blondel (1968):[8]
Sartori splits the original Blondel's "one-party" category into true one party (no other ones exist), "hegemonic" (other parties exist, but there is no practical competition), and "predominant", where competition exists, but one party on a regular basis gets over 50% of the votes. He had also split the multiparty system into "moderate pluralism" (3–5 "relevant" parties) and "extreme pluralism" (6–8 parties) and introduced an "atomized" party system, where the political system is so fragmented that adding one more party does not affect the political process at all. The functioning of the moderate pluralism resembles the two-party rule: there are two camps separated in the political spectrum with established electorate, the competition occurs for the voters in the political center, the political forces are "centripetal". The "polarized pluralism" is different: "anti-system parties" position themselves at the fringes of the spectrum are detached from the center, so the parties in the center are left without a credible election threat. This results in deep political divisions, "centrifugal forces", and "irresponsible oppositions" that do "outbidding" secure in their knowledge that they will not have to govern and thus can safely over-promise. Sartori declares that the 5-party threshold between moderate and extreme pluralism is not a cause of change, but a result of the process ofelite accommodation in the moderate case and lack thereof in the extreme pluralism.[10]
Democratic party systems in mostEuropean states have increasingly fragmented over time. That means that the number of relevant parties surged, while the average size declined. Hence, theeffective number of parties increased.[11]
TheEuropean Parliament has compared to other parliaments a higher number of political parties with 206; to reducepolitical fragmentation the parties are organized into 7political groups. Two structures of party system have been identified in theEuropean Parliament since its firstuniversal direct election in 1979, albeit the main EU party groups remained the same:[12]
Italian party systems are usually considered only since the foundation of theItalian Republic (1946) as pre-fascist parties lacked a wide popular base.
The party system of the so-calledFirst Republic (1948–1994), though based on a proportional electoral law, saw the dominance of theChristian Democracy (DC) and theconventio ad excludendum against theItalian Communist Party (PCI). DC and PCI together gathered around 85% of the votes on average. The system was thus a blocked bipolar system; governments were very short (in average lasting less than one year) and post-electoral, but the supporting parties and personnel could not change.With time, some parties (especially theItalian Socialist Party, PSI) gained momentum, until reaching the role of government-making in the 1980s. The system was completely destroyed by the bribery scandals ofTangentopoli, which shattered DC and PSI.According toSartori, the two possible degenerations ofproportionalism (fragmentation and lack of party discipline) were reduced by two factors: the strong role of parties ("partitocrazia") and the polarization between Christian-democrats and communists. Therefore, thefirst republic saw a maximum level of 5 effective parties, with only one dominant party.[13]
The so-calledSecond Republic party system (since 1994) bears the following characteristic marks:
Though more fragmented in the number of parties, the system was bipolar in its functioning. With time, both sides saw a strengthening of coalitions (even if with ups and downs) and the birth of unified parties (theUlivo federation and then theDemocratic Party on the left, and thePeople of Freedom party on the right side).The change in the electoral law in 2005 and the return to proportionality (although with a majority premium able to transform, in the lower chamber, the plurality in a 55% majority) did not bring about a return to collusion, while still leaving such prospect open for the future.
 | This section needs to beupdated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(June 2024) |
The 2009 Bundestag election in Germany was characterized by widespread public apathy and record low voter turnout. Weldon and Nüsser (2010) argue that it solidified a new stable, but fluid five-party system that they see as a defining feature of the emerging German political system. The three minor parties each achieved historical bests at the polls with steep losses for the two traditional Volksparteien. They report that the increased volatility and fluidity of the party system is structured along the left-right ideological spectrum with the parties divided into two major camps and vote-switching much more likely within the respective camps rather than between them.[14]
The 2009 election also marked a devastating defeat for the SPD, leading some commentators to speculate about the end of theSocial Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) as a "catch-all party" and, against the backdrop of recent poor performance of center-left parties all across Europe—perhaps even "the end of social democracy".[15]
The 2013 election saw the first time that the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) that had been represented in parliament since 1949 and formed part of government as a coalition partner to either SPD or CDU (Christian Democratic Union, the major conservative / center-right party) for almost all of the period from 1949 to 1998 and again from 2009 to 2013 fell below the 5% threshold for parliamentary representation. The same election also saw the rise of the "Alternative for Germany" (AfD) party that ran on an anti-Euro platform and failed to enter parliament on their first federal election just barely with 4.8% of the vote.
After this election the secondgrand coalition between CDU and SPD since 2005 was formed. Prior to that Germany had only had one grand coalition that governed from 1966 to 1969, typically coalitions of one big and one small party at the federal level were used instead in a two-and-a-half party arrangement. Whether this shift proves temporary or permanent remains yet to be seen
Four party systems have been identified in post-communist countries of Central-Eastern Europe:[16]
Finland was a Grand Duchy controlled by Russia until 1918. Nationalistic demands from the peasants and workers for greater use of the Finnish language led to the first political party: the Finnish Party in 1860. In response, the Swedish-speaking aristocracy, landowners and businessmen formed their own political party. Thus emerged the first party system.[17]
Following the collapse of the military dictatorship in 1974, the centre rightNew Democracy and centre leftPASOK came to dominate the Greek party system. PASOK and New Democracy had a combined vote share of 80 percent or more in every election between 1981 and 2000.[18]Following the 2008 recession and the ensuingsovereign debt crisis in the country, the populist leftSyriza came to challenge the dominance of PASOK and New Democracy, increasing its vote share in every election from 2009 until eventually winning power in 2015.[19]
Swiss Federal Assembly is organized bypolitical groups.
According to recent scholars, there have been four party systems in Canada at the federal level since Confederation, each with its own distinctive pattern of social support,patronage relationships, leadership styles, and electoral strategies.[20] Political scientists disagree on the names and precise boundaries of the eras, however. Steve Patten identifies four party systems in Canada's political history.[21]
Clarkson (2005) shows how theLiberal Party has dominated all the party systems, using different approaches. It began with a "clientelistic approach" underLaurier, which evolved into a "brokerage" system of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s underMackenzie King. The 1950s saw the emergence of a "pan-Canadian system", which lasted until the 1990s. The1993 election – described by Clarkson as an electoral "earthquake" which "fragmented" the party system — saw the emergence of regional politics within a four party-system, whereby various groups championed regional issues and concerns. Clarkson concludes that the inherent bias built into the first-past-the-post system has chiefly benefited the Liberals.[22]
Party systems differ across Canada in each province, as different provinces have different priorities, and values for their residents.[26] According to Jared Wesley and Clare Buckley, there are two ways of comparing provincial party systems in Canada: "conflict intensity", which is the extent to which parties challenge each other on priorities and opinions, some party systems features more competition when it comes to party options; and competitiveness, a measure of how close the average election is in terms of outcome, an uncompetitive system would show dominance in one party but competitiveness is good in sense that it gives a better sense of democracy.[26] This leads to what they determine are the two types of party systems that are common in provincial politics: centripetal party systems and centrifugal party systems.
Additionally, from elections based from 1960 to 1995, Wesley and Buckley concluded that there are four different classifications of a party system for each of the ten provincial party systems.[26] These groupings of classifications have most likely changed since 1995, as there has been a rise in different political parties for different provinces since these times. The four categories include:
There has been a growing separation between federal and provincial political party systems, resulting in a separation of political perspectives typically associated with specific parties therefore fewer provincial and federal systems are symmetrical. Provincial systems for example, are simpler, stable, and often reflect the cleavages of each province (such as language, religion, class and ethnicity).[27]
Nunavut and theNorthwest Territories do not have political parties, and instead operate underconsensus government. All candidates run and are elected as independents, and the newly elected legislature decides which of its members will make up the executive council. Due to their smaller populations, many argue that the absence of political parties makes it easier for voters to decide the person they are voting for. Other argue that it makes it harder for voters to recognize the goals and priorities of candidates, and that the lack of an opposition makes it harder for identify issues during debates.[28]
The concept of the party system was introduced by English scholarJames Bryce inAmerican Commonwealth (1888).
American Party Systems was a major textbook byCharles Merriam in 1920s. In 1967 the most important single breakthrough appeared,The American Party Systems. Stages of Political Development, edited by William Nisbet Chambers andWalter Dean Burnham. It brought together historians and political scientists who agreed on a common framework and numbering system. Thus Chambers publishedThe First Party System in 1972. Burnham published numerous articles and books.Closely related is the concept ofcritical elections (introduced byV. O. Key in 1955), andpolitical realignments. Realigning elections involve major changes to the political system, regarding the coalition of voters, the rules of the game, finance and publicity, party organization, and party leadership.
A political science college textbook explains:
There have been at least six different party systems throughout the history of the United States:[30]
First Party System: This system can be considered to have developed as a result of the factions in theGeorge Washington administration. The two factions wereAlexander Hamilton and theFederalists andThomas Jefferson and theDemocratic-Republican Party. The Federalists argued for a strong national government with a national bank and a strong economic and industry system. The Democratic-Republicans argued for a limited government, with a greater emphasis on farmers and states' rights. After the 1800 presidential election, the Democratic-Republicans gained major dominance for the next sixty years, and the Federalists slowly died off.
Second Party System: This system developed as a result of the one party rule of the Democratic-Republicans not being able to contain some of the most pressing issues of the time, namely slavery. Out of this system came theWhig Party andHenry Clay'sAmerican System. Wealthier people tended to support the Whigs, and the poorer tended to support the Democrats. During the Jacksonian era, his Democratic Party evolved from Democratic-Republicans. The Whig party began to break apart into factions, mainly over the issue of slavery. This period lasted until 1860.
Third Party System: Beginning around the time of the start of the Civil War, this system was defined by bitter conflict and striking party differences and coalitions. These coalitions were most evidently defined by geography. The South was dominated by the Democrats who opposed the ending of slavery, and the North, with the exception of some major political machines, was dominated by the Republicans, who supported ending slavery. This era was a time of extreme industrial and economic expansion. The Third Party System lasted until 1896.
Fourth Party System: This era was defined by Progressivism and immigration, as well as the political aftermath of theAmerican Civil War. Northeastern business supported the Republicans while the South and West supported the Democrats. Immigrant groups were courted by both parties. The Fourth Party System came to an end around 1932.[31]
Fifth Party System: This system was defined by the creation of theNew Deal Coalition by PresidentFranklin D. Roosevelt in response to theGreat Depression. This coalition supporting new social welfare programs brought together many under-privileged, working class, and minority groups including unions, Catholics, and Jews. It also attracted African-Americans, who had previously largely supported the Republican Party due to Lincoln's freeing of the slaves. This era lasted approximately until early-mid 1970s.[32]
Sixth Party System: The transition to this system appears to have begun with theCivil Rights Act of 1964 with the Democrats subsequently losing their long dominance of the South in the late 1960s, with theGOP adopting thesouthern strategy leading to Republican dominance as evidenced by election results.[30]
Scholars ofArgentina identify two distinct party systems, one in place between 1912 and 1940, the other emerging after 1946. The first party system was not consistently class based, but the second was, with theRadical Party representing the middle classes and thePeronists, workers and the poor.[33]
.svg) | ||
_(cropped).svg)
