 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
| Part of thePolitics series | ||||||||
| Basic forms ofgovernment | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| List of forms ·List of countries | ||||||||
Source of power | ||||||||
Power ideology
| ||||||||
 Politics portal | ||||||||
Particracy, also known aspartitocracy orpartocracy, is a form ofgovernment in which thepolitical parties are the primary basis of rule[1] rather thancitizens or individualpoliticians.
As argued by Italian political scientist Mauro Calise in 1994, the term is often derogatory, implying that parties have too much power—in a similar vein, in premodern times it was often argued that democracy was merely rule by the demos, or a poorly educated and easily misled mob. Efforts to turn particracy into a more precise scholarly concept so far appear partly successful.[2]
Particracy tends to install itself as the cost of campaigning and the impact of the media increase so that it can be prevalent at the national level with large electoral districts but absent at a local level; a few prominent politicians of renown may hold enough influence on public opinion to resist their party or dominate it.
The ultimate particracy is theone-party state, although in a sense that is not a true party, for it does not perform the essential function to rival other parties. There it is often installed by law, while in multi-party states particracy cannot be imposed or effectively prevented by law.
In multi-party regimes, the degree of individual autonomy within each can vary according to the party rules and traditions, and depending on whether a party is in power, and if so alone (mostly in ade facto two party-system) or in a coalition. The mathematical need to form a coalition on the one hand prevents a single party from getting a potentially total grip, on the other hand provides the perfect excuse not to be accountable to the voter for not delivering the party program promises.
The party system which developed in theFederal Republic of Germany afterWorld War II provides examples of particracies. More explicitly than in most European parliamentary systems, parties play a dominant role in the German Federal Republic's politics, far outstripping the role of individuals.[3] Article 21 of theBasic Law states that "the political parties shall participate in the forming of the political will of the people. They may be freely established. Their internal organization must conform to democratic principles. They must publicly account for the sources of their funds." The 1967 "Law on Parties" further solidified the role of parties in the political process and addressed party organization, membership rights, and specific procedures, such as the nomination of candidates for office. The educational function noted in Article 21 (participation in the "forming of the political will") suggests that parties should help define public opinion rather than simply carry out the wishes of the electorate.[4]
On the other side of theIron Curtain, the formerGerman Democratic Republic (or East Germany, 1949–1990) was hardly democratic, but at least in theory more democratic than theUSSR insofar as the dominantSocialist Unity Party allowed the existence of eternally minority small interest-group parties in theNational Front.
In the West, the United States, in which the Democratic and the Republican parties have been in power continuously since before the American Civil War, could be viewed as a particracy or, as in Safire definition, as apolitical machine.
Particracy is one of the reasons for the2010–2011 Greek protests.[citation needed]
Some scholars[which?] have characterized the MexicanPRI party as a "state party" or as a "perfect dictatorship" for ruling Mexico for over 70 years (1929–2000), later losing power for 12 years against thePAN party, regaining it in 2012 just to lose it again in 2018 againstMorena.
TheRepublic of Ireland can also be seen[by whom?] as a particracy. Since the foundation of thestate, one of two parties –Fianna Fáil andFine Gael – has always led thegovernment, either on its own or in coalition. Fianna Fáil is one of the most successful political parties in history.[citation needed] From the formation of the first Fianna Fáil government on9 March 1932 until theelection of 2011, the party was in power for 61 of 79 years. Fine Gael held power during the remaining years.
InSouth Africa, theAfrican National Congress has been the ruling party ever since the first free and fairelections in 1994, despite several high profilecontroversies over the years.
Brazil could also be considered a particracy, and some consider the country aplutocracy.Similarpolitical machines have been described in Latin America, where the system has been calledclientelism orpolitical clientelism (after the similarClientela relationship in theRoman Republic), especially in rural areas, and also in some African states and otheremerging democracies, likepostcommunist Eastern European countries.
The SwedishSocial Democrats have also been referred, to a certain extent, as a "political machine", thanks to its strong presence in "popular houses".[5]
Japan'sLiberal Democratic Party is often cited as another political machine, maintaining power insuburban andrural areas through its control of farm bureaus and road construction agencies.[5] In Japan, the wordjiban (literally "base" or "foundation") is the word used for political machines.[6][7] For decades, the LDP was able to dominate rural constituencies by spending massive amounts of money for rural areas, forming clientelist bonds with many groups and especially agriculture. This lasted until the 1990s when it was abandoned after becoming less effective.[8]Japanese political factional leaders are expected to distributemochidai, literally snack-money, meaning funds to help subordinates win elections. For the annual end-year gift in 1989 Party Headquarters gave $200,000 to every member of the Diet. Supporters ignore wrongdoing to collect the benefits from the benefactor, such as money payments distributed by politicians to voters in weddings, funerals, New year parties among other events. Political ties are held together by marriages between the families of elite politicians.[9]Nisei, second generation political families, have grown increasingly numerous in Japanese politics, due to a combination of name-recognition, business contacts and financial resources, and the role of personal political machines.[10]
It has been alleged[by whom?] that Italian parties have retained too much power in theFirst Republic, screening the choices citizens had in elections; this electoral law would reinstate fixed electoral lists, where voters can express a preference for a list but not for a specific candidate. This can be used by parties to guarantee virtual re-election to unpopular but powerful figures, who would be weaker in afirst-past-the-post electoral system[citation needed].
The nearly pureproportional representation system of the First Republic had resulted not only inpolitical fragmentation and therefore governmental instability, but also insulation of the parties from the electorate and civil society. This was known in Italian aspartitocrazia, in contrast to democracy, and resulted in corruption andpork-barrel politics[citation needed]. The Italian constitution allows, with substantial hurdles,abrogative referendums, enabling citizens to delete laws or parts of laws passed by Parliament (with exceptions).
A reform movement known asCOREL (Committee to Promote Referendums on Elections), led by maverickChristian Democracy memberMario Segni, proposed three referendums, one of which was allowed by theConstitutional Court of Italy (at that time packed with members of theItalian Socialist Party and hostile to the movement). The June 1991 referendum therefore asked voters if they wanted to reduce the number ofpreferences, from three or four to one in the Chamber of Deputies to reduce the abuse of the open-list system by party elites and ensure accurate delegation of parliamentary seats to candidates popular with voters. With 62.5% of the Italian electorate voting, the referendum passed with 95% of those voting in favor. This was seen[by whom?] as a vote against thepartitocrazia, which had campaigned against the referendum.
Emboldened by their victory in 1991 and encouraged by the unfoldingMani pulite scandals and the substantial loss of votes for the traditional parties in the 1992 general elections, the reformers pushed forward with another referendum, abrogating the proportional representation system of theItalian Senate and implicitly supporting a plurality system that would theoretically force parties to coalesce around two ideological poles, thereby providing governmental stability[citation needed]. This referendum was held in April 1993 and passed with the support of 80% of those voting. This caused theGiuliano Amato government to collapse three days later.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)The educational function noted in Article 21 ('forming of the political will') suggests that parties should help define public opinion rather than simply carry out the wishes of the electorate.
