CHAPTER 5 POLITICAL PARTIES

145

PARTY SYSTEMS
The term party system refers to the characteristics of the set of parties operating in a particular country. It indicates the number of parties that have a serious chance of winning major elections and the degree of competition between them. The number of competitive parties operating in a particular country fundamentally influences that nations entire political system. Obviously, countries governed continuously by a single partyeven if opposition parties are legalare less than fully democratic. Conversely, countries that have multiple parties, with none able to garner a majority in the national parliament, are frequently less politically stable. Because of the great importance of the number of competitive political parties, descriptions of, for example, the Chinese, American, British, and Italian political systems typically label them, respectively, one-party, two-party, two-and-one-half-party, and multiparty systems. Americans often think of a two-party system as natural, since we are accustomed to it. If by that we mean that a two-party system is preferable to, say, a multiparty system, that claim is debatable. And if we believe that having two dominant parties is the most common arrangement, that belief is simply incorrect. For example, until recently, single-party systems were predominant in Africa, the Middle East, parts of Asia, and the former Communist bloc, and there are still many of them. At the same time, many European and Latin American countries have multiparty systems. In short, two-party systems are the exception, not the rule, and they predominate primarily in English-speaking democracies. Of course, even the United States has more than two political parties. Besides the Democrats and the Republicans, American parties include, among many others, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the United States Marijuana Party (founded in 2002). But although so-called third parties in the United States occasionally win local elections, they do not attract a large share of votes in national races. Sometimes, however, third-party candidates in the U.S. have played the role of spoilers. Had Ralph Nader not run in the 2000 presidential election as the Green Party candidate, it is likely that most of his votes (including those he won in Florida) would have gone to the Democratic nominee, Al Gore, and that Gore, rather than George Bush, would have won the presidency. Two parties, Conservative and Labour, have dominated British politics for almost 90 years. But unlike the United States, other parties have attracted a substantial share of the vote in recent years. During the 1980s, an electoral alliance between the Liberal and Social Democratic parties attracted about one-fourth of the votes in two consecutive national elections, nearly matching Labours share. Subsequently, the two parties merged, forming the Liberal Democratic Party, which received 22 percent of the vote in the 2005 national election. Consequently, some political scientists argue that the British currently have a two-and-one-half-party system (defined as a party system in which two parties predominate, but a third party presents a significant challenge). Because they sometimes use different definitions, analysts may differ as to whether a country such as Japan or Mexico in the second-half of the twentieth centurywhere many parties competed but one party always wonhad a single-party, or a multiparty system. Building on a classification system originally created by Jean Blondel, we offer the following party-system categories and yardsticks for identifying them.14 1. No-party system: Either political parties have never developed or an authoritarian government has banned them. 2. Single-party system: One party regularly receives more than 65 percent of the vote in national elections.

146

PART II

POLITICAL BEHAVIOR

3. Two-party system (including a two-and-one-half-party system such as Britains): Two major parties regularly divide more than 75 percent of the national vote (but no single party receives as much as 65 percent). 4. Multiparty system: The two largest parties have a combined total of less than 75 percent of the vote.

No-Party Systems
Although political parties are hallmarks of modern political systems, there remain a number of countries that have never formed political parties with any significant following or that have banned previously active political parties. The first group, very limited in number, consists principally of countries with pre-modern social structures and low levels of political participation. In countries such as Saudi Arabia, relatively small, elite bodies (sheikhs, princes, and tribal chiefs) have made political decisions with no need for parties. When the armed forces take control of the government (not long ago a common occurrence in Africa and Latin America) they have often banned political-party activity. For example, for many years Chile had enjoyed one of Latin Americas most vibrant party systems. But when the military, led by General Augusto Pinochet, seized power (19731990) it banned all political parties and party activity. With the spread of democracy in the developing world since the 1970s, military governments and their no-party systems have become far less common (Chapter 15).

Single-Party Systems
As we have noted, many authoritarian regimes, once so common in the developing world, and all totalitarian governments have single-party systems. Totalitarian parties, most notably Fascist and Marxist-Leninist parties, are mass-membership organizations that seek to exercise total control over society and to inculcate the ruling partys ideological values into the population. Following revolutions in Russia, China, Vietnam, and Cuba, each countrys Communist Party launched an extensive resocialization campaign to restructure their political cultures (see Chapters 3 and 15). At least initially, many activists seemed strongly committed to the partys vision of a new social order. Because of their capacity to penetrate and control other social institutions, totalitarian political parties were once considered nearly impossible to dislodge once they had taken power.15 In the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Communist-party functionaries controlled the military, police, factories, state farms, and schools. Yet ultimately, their grip on power weakened and Communist regimes collapsed from the Soviet Union to Hungary. Currently, Communist parties retain power in only a handful of nations. A second group of single-party states emergedfollowing World War II and the disintegration of Europes colonial empiresin the newly independent nations of Africa and the Middle East. Many of these ruling parties were organized along Leninist lines, like Communist parties with highly centralized control. They usually espoused a nationalistic ideology and wished to resocialize the population into a new, post-colonial political culture. Many of them, however, have been too self-serving and corrupt to attract a loyal, mass following and have governed ineffectively. Consequently, ruling parties in countries such as Libya and Syria have maintained power more through intimidation than through mass mobilization.

CHAPTER 5 POLITICAL PARTIES

147

Until the 1980s, few African or Middle Eastern countries permitted viable opposition parties. In addition, several Asian governmentsin countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwanargued that developing nations needed the unifying influence and direction of a single-party system. However, with the wave of democracy that has swept across the less developed world in the past 30 years or so (see Chapter 15), many African and Asian nations have introduced relatively free and fair elections. In some cases, political parties now alternate in power. To be sure, not all entrenched ruling parties are self-serving or incompetent. When headed by well-intentioned leaders, they sometimes have served their nations well. During the late 1930s, Mexican President Lzaro Crdenas used the ruling party to integrate previously excluded peasants and workers into the political system. More recently, Tanzanian President Julius Nyereres Tanganyika African National Union (TANU) channeled the demands of the countrys villagers to the national government. In time, however, the absence of party competition and the passing of idealistic leaders such as Crdenas and Nyerere have perverted even well-intentioned dominant parties. In fact, most Third World single-party systems have fallen victim to corruption and the pursuit of special interests.

Two-Party Systems
Two-party and two-and-one-half-party systems are most prevalent in Anglo-American societies, including Great Britain, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.* However, other countries, such as Austria, Germany, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Uruguay, have had two dominant parties as well. Why do these countries have two dominant parties while most democracies have multiparty systems? One important factor influencing the number of parties that can compete effectively is the countrys electoral arrangements. We have seen (Chapter 4) that proportional representation more easily facilitates (but does not guarantee) the development of several competitive political parties, whereas single-member-district systems are more likely to produce two dominant parties. Among advanced parliamentary democracies, two-party systems tend to be more stable than multiparty systems because one of the parties is likely to achieve a legislative majority. But in a number of Latin American countries with two-party systems, stability has been elusive. For example, Colombia has had a turbulent history of political violence. Just as they are not universally stable, neither are two-party systems always democratic. During its years of minority (White) rule, South Africa had competitive elections, pitting two leading parties against each other. But since only the white minority could vote for important posts, the two-party system was hardly democratic. Similarly, before Nicaraguas 1979 revolution, the ruling Somoza dictatorship regularly sponsored elections between its own Liberal Party and the Conservatives, a puppet opposition party. The government, however, predetermined the outcomes of those elections.

* Political scientists often cite Britain as an archetypal example of a two-party system. Since the 1980s, however, the two largest parties (Labour and Conservative) have often failed to receive a combined total of 75 percent of the parliamentary vote, Blondels threshold for a two-party system. Thus, Britain technically has been moving to a multi-party system, but because of single-member districts one party still almost always wins over half the seats in parliament (Chapter 12).

148

PART II

POLITICAL BEHAVIOR

Multiparty Systems
Multiparty systems predominate in Western Europe but also exist in a number of developing nations. Sometimes these parties mirror multiple societal divisionsclass, religious, linguistic, racial, and ethnicthat translate into multiple political cleavages. So, it is not surprising that a country such as Switzerlandwith religious divisions between Catholics and Protestants, class and ideological divisions, and several spoken languageshas a multiparty system. Yet some fairly homogeneous nations, such as Sweden and Iceland, also have multiple parties. Indeed, social divisions are neither the only factor that determines the number of competitive parties nor even the most important one. Electoral procedures are tremendously important. We have noted that countries that elect their parliament or congress through proportional representation (PR) are more likely to have multiparty legislatures than those using single-member districts (SMD) (Chapter 4). For example, SMD elections to the U.S. House of Representatives and the British House of Commons discriminate against small parties by denying them legislative representation proportional to their voting strength (See Box 12-3). Moreover, as it becomes evident how difficult it is for third-party candidates to win in SMD elections, their initial supporters may eventually conclude that continuing to vote for them is a wasted effort. Proponents of PR point out that it is a fairer electoral system because it makes it easier for smaller parties to win some seats in the national legislature, with their number of seats proportional to their support from the voters. At the same time, however, it makes it harder for any single party to achieve a legislative majority. Consequently, in parliamentary systems, where the government needs to command a legislative majority to stay in power, the prime minister often must secure the backing of a multiparty coalition. If there are many policy and strategic divisions among the coalition partners, the governments life is precarious because coalition members may withdraw their support at any time. For example, in Italy a succession of unstable parliamentary coalitions produced more than 50 governments during the second half of the twentieth century (although recently government coalitions have become somewhat more durable). How unstable multiparty parliamentary systems are depends on how cooperative the political parties are. Although postwar Italy and Fourth Republic France had to live with ruling coalitions that fell apart every year or so, other countries with more cooperative political parties manage to maintain stability. These include Finland, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland. Indeed, Finland and Switzerland have two of the most fractionalized party systems in the democratic world (that is, a very large number of parties hold some parliamentary seats and none predominates). Yet they are models of political stability. Clearly, they have benefited from political cultures that stress cooperation rather than conflict.

TYPES OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Let us now turn our attention from party systems to the characteristics of individual political parties. Among the many possible ways to classify these parties, we focus here on two important characteristics: internal organization and ideological message.