PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 81

Portuguese Journal of Social Science Volume 4 Number 2. © Intellect Ltd 2005.

Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/pjss.4.2.81/1

Party system change in Portugal,

1974–2005: the role of social, political
and ideological factors
André Freire ISCTE

Abstract Keywords
The main goal of this article is to analyse the role of social, political and ideologi- party system
cal factors in explaining party system change in Portugal during the democratic Portugal
period (April 1974–June 2005). We begin with the evolving trends in the party policy competition
system format, and their main effects on the patterns of parties’ interactions as ideology
well as on the functioning of the political system. This first approach will enable
us to divide the democratic period into two distinct phases and an interlude.
Following this, we will analyse the dimensions and strength of policy competition
between the parties before, finally, analysing the impact of social, political and
ideological factors on party system change in Portugal.

Historical background
Prior to the relatively bloodless Carnation Revolution of 25 April 1974, 1 The PS has always
been a member of the
which initiated the so-called ‘third wave’ of world-wide democratization, Socialist International
free and fair elections with universal suffrage and a competitive party (Sablosky
system were unheard of in Portugal. Portugal’s transition was initiated by 1997: 56–58).

a coup led by junior officers (Linz and Stepan 1996: ch. 7). Whilst the 2 Until the 1990s, the
PSD had been associ-
coup may have been planned as a political revolution to liberalize society, ated with the
overthrow a decrepit regime and end the interminable colonial wars, it is European Liberal
Democratic and
important to note that the military remained committed to holding con- Reformist Group
stituent elections one year from the date of the coup. These elections were (ELDR) in the
held on schedule on 25 April 1975, and obtained a 92 per cent turnout. European Parliament.
Since the beginning of
One year later, on 25 April 1976, the first constitutional parliamentary the 1990s, however, it
elections took place. has aligned itself with
the conservative
A stable party system quickly emerged, and by 1976 four parties rep- European People’s
resented almost 90 per cent of the electorate. Apart from a brief period Party (EPP) (Frain
1997: 80–82).
during the mid-1980s when the centre-left PRD (Party of Democratic
Renewal) emerged and disappeared, the party system has remained rela-
tively stable. The general tendency is for the vote to concentrate on the
two centrist ‘catch-all’ parties (although there is slight inversion of this
trend in the 2005 legislative election): the centre-left Socialist Party (PS),1
and the centre-right Social Democratic Party (PSD). This latter is not, as
its name suggests, a social democratic party, but is rather a liberal party.2

PJSS 4 (2) 81–100 © Intellect Ltd 2005 81

PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 82

Table 1: Distribution of votes and seats in parliamentary elections, 1975–2005*

[Source: www.cne.pt]
* Percentage (seats won in parentheses), spoiled papers excluded
(a) FRS (pre-electoral coalition: 1980) - PS, UEDS, ASDI.
(b) AD (pre-electoral coalition) - PSD, CDS, PPM, and independents.
(c) APU (pre-electoral coalition: 1979–1985) - PCP, MDP/CDE.
(d) CDU (pre-electoral coalition: 1987–2002) - PCP, PEV.

3 Founded in 1921, the Alongside the PS and the PSD, the Communist Party (PCP)3 and the con-
PCP was a member of
the Comintern until
servative Christian Social Democratic Centre (CDS) have become the
the collapse of this system’s main parties. Following its defeat in the 1991 legislative elec-
organization (Cunha tions, the CDS changed its leadership, its ideological profile and its name,
1997: 37). In the
European Parliament, becoming the Social Democratic Centre-Popular Party (CDS-PP).4 Some
the PCP is a member smaller parties have obtained seats in parliament during the democratic
of the United
European Left/Nordic period (Table 1). Among these parties, it is worth mentioning the Left Bloc
Green Left (UEL/NGL) (BE). This left-libertarian organization was originally a coalition of two old
parliamentary group.
left-wing parties (PSR: Socialist Revolutionary Party; and UDP: Popular
4 The CDS was founded Democratic Union) and a political movement (Politics XXI), which was
as a Christian democ-
ratic party. Following formed to compete in the 1999 legislative elections. Over the past few
accession to the years, however, it has come to be viewed as a single political party.5
European Union it
joined the EPP. In the Portugal had had some experience of representative government prior to
early 1990s it began 1974 (Magone 1999: 232–34; Jalali 2002: 7–32; Lopes 2004). First with
promoting an anti-EU
stance, leading to its the Constitutional Monarchy (1820–1910) and then with the First Republic
expulsion from the (1910–26). In spite of the existence of some civic and political liberties -
EPP in 1992.
namely freedom of association and of the press - during these liberal regimes,

82 André Freire
PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 83

there were severe limitations to their functioning as democratic political Following this, it
regimes. Elections were, at best, only semi-competitive, and did not operate joined the Union for
Europe of the Nations
as a mechanism for government alternation. Moreover, relations between Group (UPE). After
the political parties and civil society were based mainly on the patronage 1997, the party’s
stance on the
networks that existed between the electors and their representatives. European Union
During the longest authoritarian interlude in western Europe during the changed, culminating
twentieth century (the Military Dictatorship, 1926–33, followed by the New with their return to
the EPP in July 2004.
State (Estado Novo), 1933–74), the Portuguese dictatorship tolerated some
5 The BE elected its first
‘limited pluralism’, unlike the Fascist, Nazi and Soviet regimes in Italy, MEP at the 2004
Germany and the Soviet Union respectively. Nevertheless, civic and political European Elections. In
the European
liberties remained severely limited. Censorship was introduced, suffrage Parliament, the BE
remained restricted and elections were neither free nor fair. The authoritarian (like PCP) is an associ-
regime had banned all political parties save its own National Union (UN).6 ated member of the
UEL/NGL parliamen-
As Jalali notes, ‘The absence of these “historic” parties is a crucial for- tary group.
mative factor for the Second Republic party system, [with] 1974 becoming 6 The National Union
the “Year Zero” for political organization in Portugal’. However, this does was renamed
National Popular
not mean to say that the legacy of the First Republic and the New State had Action (ANP) during
no effect on the post-1974 party system (Jalali 2002: 18–23). The above- the 1960s.
mentioned absence and the fact that most of the parties were formed imme-
diately before or after the 1974 revolution (i.e. PS - 1973; PSD - May 1974;
CDS - July 1974) had repercussions upon the nature and characteristics of
the parties within the new democratic system (only the PCP is a historic
party, formed in 1921, as we said before). With the exception of the PCP,
none of the parties had extensive mass membership or deep roots within
society. In order to compensate for this, the parties have relied on patronage
networks and state support in forging relations with civil society, and have
ill-defined ideological profiles. The leaders of these parties play a determin-
ing role in the political direction their parties may take (this is particularly
true of the CDS and its successor, the CDS-PP). From the very beginning,
these parties, and the PS and the PSD especially, have developed ‘catch-all’
strategies. The PCP, on the other hand, has a large membership base, deep
social roots, a well-defined Marxist-Leninist ideology and a collective leader-
ship (although we should note that many of these characteristics have been
eroded since the 1980s) (Diamandouros and Gunther 2001; Jalali 2002;
Lopes and Freire 2002: part I; Canas 2003; Lopes 2004; Freire 2004b).
One final element that assisted in the formation and consolidation of
Portugal’s political parties is international assistance. For the PCP, this aid
came from the Communist International and the Soviet Union (Cunha
1997: 27), while for the PS, help was on hand from the Socialist
International, the German SPD and the Scandinavian Social Democratic
parties (Sablosky 1997: 65–66). The PSD obtained assistance from the
European Liberal, Democratic and Reformist Group, and the European
Christian Democratic Union helped the CDS (Frain 1997: 80–82).
Portugal’s political system is semi-presidential (Duverger 1992), and
the only institutions with national electoral legitimacy and the responsi-
bility for forming government are the president and parliament. The head

Party system change in Portugal, 1974–2005 ... 83

PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 84

of state is the directly elected president, although this person must share
power with the prime minister (who remains responsible to parliament).
Until the revision of the constitution in 1982, the president’s powers were
fairly significant; since the revision, however, these powers have been sub-
stantially reduced (Shugart and Carey 1997: ch. 2; Freire 2001b).
A single chamber of 230 deputies (reduced from 250 in 1987) who are
elected in 22 multi-member constituencies constitute the legislative
branch of government. National legislative elections ultimately determine
which party shall form the government, who will become prime minister,
and, thus, who will share executive power with the president.
One of the more widely used definitions of a party system is that devel-
oped by Giovanni Sartori:

The concept of system is meaningless - for the purposes of scientific inquiry -

unless: (i) the system displays properties that do not belong to a separate
consideration of its component elements; and (ii) the system results from,
and consists of, the patterned interactions of its component parts, thereby
implying that such interactions provide the boundaries, or at least the
boundedness, of the system ... Parties make for a ‘system’, then, only when
they are parts (in the plural); and a party system is precisely the system of
interactions resulting from inter-party competition.
(Sartori 1976: 43–44)

Of course, as Alan Ware (1996: 7) comments, party system interactions

are not only about competition; they are also about cooperation.
The main goal of the present article is to analyse the role of social,
political and ideological factors in explaining party system change in
Portugal during the democratic period (1974–present (June 2005)). We
begin with the evolving trends in the party system format, and their main
effects on the patterns of parties’ interactions as well as on the functioning
of the political system. This first approach will enable us to divide the
democratic period into two distinct phases and an interlude. Following
this, we will analyse the dimensions and strength of policy competition
between the parties before, finally, analysing the impact of social, political
and ideological factors on party system change in Portugal.

Party system format, cabinet durability and periods of party

system change
As we have seen, democratic politics in Portugal have been dominated by
four parties: the PS, PSD, PCP and CDS. In addition to these parties,
several smaller ‘micro’ parties representing both the left and the right have
persisted. These are presented under the column labelled ‘Others’ in Table
1. With the exception of the non-party cabinets that President Eanes
appointed during the late 1970s (see Table 2), the PS and PSD have con-
trolled the government. This has been achieved either by the parties gov-
erning alone (PS, 1976–77, 1995–2002, and February 2005–present

84 André Freire
PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 85

Table 2: Portuguese cabinets, 1976–2005*

[Source: adapted (and updated) by the author from Magalhães (2003: 195)]
* Only the Constitutional period is considered: provisional governments (1974–76) excluded.
** Normal parliamentary mandate is 48 months.
(a) Balsemão I and II’s goverments have precisely the same partisan support, and no elections took place between them.
In terms of cabinet durability, therefore, they are considered to be the same executive; this explains why it is here
considered to have existed for 28 months.
(b) Barroso (2002–04) and Lopes (2004–05) have precisely the same partisan support, and no elections took place
between them. Therefore, in terms of cabinet durability, they are considered to be the same executive (which existed for
35 months).
(c) Expected cabinet’s durability.

date; PSD, 1985–95) or in coalition (PS/CDS, 1977–78; PSD/CDS/PPM,7

1979–83; PS/PSD, 1983–85; PSD/CDS-PP, 2002–February 2005).

Party system change in Portugal, 1974–2005 ... 85

PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 86

7 The Popular We should note that it was only in the elections that took place in
Monarchist Party 1979 and 1980 that there were important pre-electoral coalitions.8 These
(PPM) is a very small
right-wing party that coalitions involved the PSD, CDS and PPM under the rubric of the
supports the restora- Democratic Alliance (AD) (see Table 1). However, in order to calculate the
tion of the monarchy.
‘effective number of (electoral and parliamentary) parties’ (see Figure 1
8 There were other pre- below), this article considers only the evolution of the four main parties.
electoral coalitions
(PS/FRS; PCP/APU; This means that the votes cast for the AD have been allocated to the indi-
PCP/CDU), but they vidual coalition partners as follows. The average percentage vote obtained
have been counted as
single parties because by each of the coalition partners in the previous (1976) and ensuing
often the small parties (1983) elections was calculated, then the resulting three averages were
within the coalition
were little more than
added, from which each coalition partner’s proportion of the total vote
satellites of the could be determined. This proportion was then used to determine the per-
leading parties. centage of the vote obtained by each party in 1979 and 1980, by multi-
plying the proportion by the coalition’s total percentage vote. These
procedures were only used to obtain data concerning the ‘effective number
of parties’ that is presented in Figure 1. In Table 1, the data for the per-
centage vote and seats obtained by each political grouping is not disaggre-
gated, enabling us to scrutinize the raw material.
Leaving aside the short-lived presidential governments, between 1976
and 1987 the country was governed by either minority governments or by
coalitions, none of which completed their mandates (see Table 2).
The 1985 general election was critical and represented the start of a
major transformation in Portugal’s electoral politics that was to eventually
lead to a reduction in cabinet instability. The Democratic Renewal Party
(PRD), which was led by the former president, Ramalho Eanes, obtained
17.9 per cent of the popular vote, reducing the PS’s share to 20.8 per cent,
its worst ever result in legislative elections. The Socialists, however, recovered
by the 1987 election, while the PRD’s share declined to around 5 per cent.
By 1991, the PRD had practically disappeared.
The 1985 election is associated with several significant features, some of
which only began to reveal themselves at the 1987 realignment election
and later. Perhaps the most significant phenomenon was the concentration
of the vote in the two major parties. This fundamentally altered Portugal’s
party system at legislative elections, pushing it in a more majoritarian direc-
tion. This bipartisan trend can be seen in Figure 1, in which the effective
number of electoral (ENEP) and parliamentary parties (ENPP) in Portuguese
legislative elections (1975–2005) are presented. Despite some small delay in
making its appearance, this majoritarian trend is also evident in the so-
called ‘second-order elections’ (see Freire 2004c: fig. 2; 2005b: fig. 2). Thus,
there was a type of spill-over from first- to second-order elections.
There has been another rather obvious change associated with this
bipartisan trend in the party system: since 1987, both the PCP and the CDS
lost a substantial proportion of their previous electoral support (see Table 1).
A third major change that is associated with the majoritarian trend in
the party system is that, since 1987, cabinet stability has substantially
improved, particularly during the period to 1999. The Socialist government

86 André Freire
PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 87

Figure 1: Effective Number of Parties, and Vote for Two Major Parties (divided by
10), 1975–2005
[Sources: data elaborated by the author from official electoral results available at
www.cne.pt]
Legends: ENEP - Effective number of electoral parties; ENPP - Effective number of
parliamentary parties (Laakso and Taagepera, 1979).
Note: The AD (Democratic Alliance) coalition was disaggregated into each of its component
parties (PSD, CDS, and PPM) in order to calculate the ENEP and the ENPP.

that was in office from 1999 to 2002 did not complete its term. This was
because the prime minister resigned following the PS’s hugely significant
(although not huge) defeat at the 2001 local elections. Following that (rela-
tively short-lived) PS government, the PSD and CDS-PP coalition (2002–05)
was unable to complete its term. On 30 November 2004, following a suc-
cession of problems with the new cabinet’s performance during the previous
four months (Almeida and Freire 2005), the president announced his inten-
tion to call fresh elections in February 2005. In these elections, both the
PSD and the CDS-PP were defeated by the PS in particular, and by the left
(PS, PCP, BE) in general (see Table 1). Nevertheless, comparison of the
period 1976–87 with 1987–2005 clearly shows that cabinet stability is
greater during the latter period.
With the exception of the most recent PSD/CDS-PP coalition, govern-
ments since 1987 have been of a different type. During the 1976–87
period, there were five coalitions and two single-party minority govern-
ments, none of which completed an entire term of office. Between 1987
and 2002, single-party governments have either had an absolute parlia-
mentary majority (PSD, 1987 and 1991), or were very near that threshold
(PS, 1995 and 1999). All but the second PS cabinet completed their full
term in office. We cannot say that the PSD/CDS-PP coalition of 2002–05
marked the beginning of a new era in the Portuguese party system, in

Party system change in Portugal, 1974–2005 ... 87

PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 88

9 The weakening of the which the concentration of the vote in the two main parties persists, albeit
president’s role in the with a return to coalition government and ‘consensus democracy’. In the
political system is also
related to the 2005 legislative elections, the concentration of the vote for the two main
reduction of presiden- parties persisted (although it had declined by around 5 per cent (see Figure
tial powers following
the revision of the
1)), yet the PS achieved a parliamentary majority, enabling it to form a
constitution in 1982. single-party government.
The majoritarian trend of the party system has had several conse-
quences for the functioning of the political system. On the one hand, the
role of the president was somewhat diminished with the single-party major-
ity governments of 1987–95 (Freire 2001b).9 This has led to the concen-
tration of power into the hands of the prime minister during that period,
and up until 2002 (Lobo 2003). This trait remained evident even under the
PSD/CDS-PP coalition. The trend within the party system towards majori-
tarianism has also resulted in the adoption of some majoritarian practices
within Portugal’s parliament (Leston-Bandeira 2001; Magalhães 2003).
The changes within the Portuguese party system can be divided into two
phases and one small interlude. The first of these phases was the period
from 1976 to 1987, which is characterized by a fragmented multi-party
system with highly unstable cabinets. During this phase, the role of each of
the different major political institutions (president, government and parlia-
ment) was more balanced. The second period, from 1987 to 2002, and
from 20 February 2005 to the present, is one in which a strong bipartisan
trend within the party system is evident. This trend has impelled change
towards single-party and increasingly stable governments, with power being
concentrated with the prime minister. The interlude occurred between
2002 and 2005, when the concentration of the vote in the two major
parties persisted, although not sufficiently to obviate the need to form coali-
tions. However, following the 2005 legislative elections, single-party govern-
ment returned, and with it a return to the major characteristics of the
second phase. The continued concentration of the vote in the two major
parties unites both phase two and the interlude. Although it was the second
lowest in the period 1987–2005 even in 2005, at 73.8 per cent, the con-
centration of votes in the two main parties was greater than in 1987, when
it was 72.4 per cent. At least in this respect, then, a majoritarian trend
existed throughout the 1987–2005 period. However, in terms of govern-
ment type, the 2002–05 coalition marked a change vis-à-vis the rest of the
period: a ‘consensual’ interlude. Additionally, the quasi-majority PS govern-
ments of 1995–2002, largely as a consequence of their not having a parlia-
mentary majority, exhibited some ‘consensual’ practices and, during the
years 1999–2002, the return of governmental instability.

Dimensions and strength of policy competition

When competing for voters’ support, parties present different packages of
public policies, each with different levels of priority. Both the packages of
public policies and their relative priority are related to the issue dimen-
sions of partisan conflict (Lijphart 1999: 78–89). Lijphart (1999: 78)

88 André Freire
PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 89

Table 3: Issue dimensions in the Portuguese party system, 1975–2005

[Source: adapted by the author from Lijphart (1989: 279) for the period 1975–86 and (1999: 80–1) for
the period 1975–1996. Information for the period 1996–2005 represents the present author’s evaluation.]
H = issue dimension with high salience (counts as 1.0 for the number of dimensions);
M = issue dimension with medium salience (counts as 0.5 for the number of dimensions).

emphasizes the need to distinguish between the dimensions of policy com-

petition, and ‘the characteristics of the voters that parties represent’. In
this respect, it is important to recall the difference between ‘domain of
identification’ and ‘space of competition’ that were introduced by Sani and
Sartori (1983: 330). The former refers to which electors identify with the
different parties, and which dimensions of identification (ideological, reli-
gious, ethnic, linguistic, etc.) are relevant in each case. While ‘space of
competition ultimately addresses the query, along which dimensions lie
the non-identified partisan or floating voters for which it is rewarding to
compete?’ (Sani and Sartori 1983: 330). The two dimensions are comple-
mentary, but what it does mean is that electors are usually distributed
along multiple dimensions of identification; however, this does not neces-
sarily mean that political parties compete along the same dimensions.
Moreover, in spite of multiple dimensions of identification, the space of
competition can be one-dimensional.
Lijphart (1999; 1989) defines seven issue dimensions of policy competi-
tion. Additionally, for each country and epoch, he classifies each of them
according to their importance for policy competition. In Table 3, Lijphart’s
analysis of the dimensions of policy competition in the Portuguese case are
presented for the periods 1975–86 and 1975–96. Updated data for the
period 1996–2005 has been added from the present author’s own analysis.
In the Portuguese case, the cultural/ethnic dimension is not relevant
for either policy competition or as a domain of identification. The same
can also be said about the urban/rural dimension (Pinto and Núñez 1997;
André and Gaspar 1989; Freire 2001a).
For the period 1975–96, the post-materialist issue dimension was irrel-
evant both as a domain of competition and of identification. For the period
for which appropriate survey data is available (1990–2005, it can be seen
that the electorate has very little support for post-materialist values, and
that, in general, there is practically no difference between the supporters
of each of the parties (Freire 2003, 2004a, 2004b; Jalali 2004; Portuguese
National Election Study 2005). Until the end of the 1990s, parties had
hardly competed on this issue dimension. With the emergence of the BE as

Party system change in Portugal, 1974–2005 ... 89

PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 90

a parliamentary force, however, new political issues have became a

domain of competition between the left (particularly the BE, but also the
PCP and PS) and the right (PSD and particularly the CDS-PP). From 1996
until at least 2005, post-materialism has been a pertinent dimension of
policy competition, although only with medium-level significance.
During the early phase of Portugal’s transition to democracy, from 25
April 1974 to 25 November 1975, regime support was a highly con-
tentious issue that placed the PCP and several other extreme-left parties in
opposition to the pro-liberal democratic parties (Aguiar 1994: 188–90;
Linz and Stepan 1996: 116–23; Jalali 2002: 43–50). The PCP advocated
a Soviet-style popular democracy, while the extreme-left parties defended
Third World communist models. The PS, PSD and CDS, on the other hand,
advocated following the Western democratic model. On 25 November
1975, a counter-coup by moderate elements within the MFA, who had
foiled a coup attempt by the extreme left, established a durable liberal
democracy. Since then, the PCP has normalized its relationship with par-
liamentary democracy (Cunha 1997), and the issue has lost most of its
previous significance. In any event, this matter has very little significance
for our present analysis of the period 1996–2005, with the only relevant
point concerning the PCP’s and BE’s reservations regarding the capitalist
system, which is a model of society accepted, to varying degrees, by the
other three parliamentary parties.
In terms of foreign policy, the major issues of competition have been
concerned with the alignment of political parties in terms of the two Cold
War political and military blocs and European integration. With respect to
the former, the democratic pro-liberal PS, PSD and CDS supported the
West and its military organizations, while the PCP sympathized with the
Soviet bloc and its military organization. As we have seen in respect of
regime support, this policy dimension of competition cuts across the
left/right divide. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold
War, this divide lost most of its significance, although its continued pres-
ence remains apparent in relation to certain international issues, such as
the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 and the 2003 Iraq War. These divi-
sions sometimes have the power to force an ideological alignment that
reinforces the left/right political divide. One example of this can be seen in
the political response to the 2003 Iraq War, which was opposed by all of
the left-wing parties and supported by the right-wing parties.
European integration is an issue that cuts across the ideological divide,
albeit in a rather less than straightforward manner. During the transition
to democracy, the PCP and other left-wing groups proposed alternative
socialist and Third World paths. This explains why European integration
was to become a major policy goal of the PS, PSD and CDS (Freire 2005a).
From the mid-1970s until 1992, political support for European integration
was monopolized by these parties, with the result that, from 1987 (the year
of the first direct elections to the European Parliament), the PCP was forced
to significantly moderate its resistance to Europe (Cunha 1993). Following

90 André Freire
PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 91

its resounding defeat at the 1991 elections, however, the newly renamed 10 In 1995, 94.5 per
CDS-PP followed its new leader in adopting a much more sceptical position cent of Portuguese
were Roman Catholic.
towards the European Union and its proposals for a single European cur- The religious cleavage
rency. This change in direction was short-lived, however: following the elec- in Portugal is mainly
between religiously
tion of a new leader in 1997, the party accepted the inevitability of the new integrated and
currency. With the CDS-PP’s subsequent rise to power as part of the secularized segments
PSD/CDS-PP coalition that formed the government in 2002, the party has of the population
(Freire 2004d).
assumed a more prudent position. The position of the CDS-PP notwith-
standing, it is a fact that there is very little to separate the PSD and the PS
on European issues (Freire 2005a). One new element of left/right division
over European matters came to light in the wake of the European parlia-
mentary elections of 2004 when the opposition left-wing parties rejected
the EU stability pact that was defended by the governing right-wing parties
(Freire 2005a). However, now that it has been returned to government fol-
lowing the February 2005 election, and practically without any choice, the
PS is attempting to comply with the (revised) EU stability pact, although in
a longer-term perspective (i.e. 2005–08).
The issues that provide the best overlaps in the left/right divide in
Portugal are, first, socio-economic matters, and, second, religious affairs.
Whether as a domain of competition or of identification, both issues enable
us to split the parties into left- and right-wing, and to further order them in
a left/right continuum that ranges from the PCP (and the BE) on the far
left, through the PS and the PSD to the CDS-PP on the right (Cunha 1997;
Frain 1997; Freire 2001a; 2003; 2004a; Sablosky 1997; Nunes 2000;
Lobo and Magalhães 2001; Jalali 2002). In terms of the domain of compe-
tition, the socio-economic dimension (i.e. controversies concerning socio-
economic equality and the role of the state in the economy and society) is
the most significant, with the religious dimension having only medium sig-
nificance. During the democratic transition, the Catholic Church aligned
itself with the pro-liberal democratic parties against the radical left. During
that period, religious polarization was high. Since then the religious dimen-
sion has barely registered as a domain of policy competition except when
policies concerning moral issues and/or the Church’s interests are debated.
This has been the case with proposals to liberalize abortion legislation
(which is supported by the left) (Freire and Baum 2003),10 or the proposal
to provide state finance for the Catholic University (which is supported by
the right). As a dimension of identification, however, the religious issue has
always proved more significant than the socio-economic issue, with some
studies of Portuguese electoral behaviour revealing that church attendance
is a better vote predictor than social class (André and Gaspar 1989;
Bacalhau 1994; Gunther and Montero 2001; Freire 2001a; 2003; 2004a).
Post-materialist issues are more pertinent to the competition domain than
they are to that of identification. They more or less permit us to range the
parties from left to right in terms of their policy proposals; however, they
are a very poor predictor of voting alignments or of the individual citizen’s
position on the political spectrum (Freire 2004a; 2004b; 2004d).

Party system change in Portugal, 1974–2005 ... 91

PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 92

11 Portugal, Spain, Leaving aside those issues that normally cut across the left/right divide,
Greece, France, we are left with the socio-economic, the religious and the post-materialist
United Kingdom,
Germany, Austria, issue dimensions. What, however, is the strength of the left/right divide in
Italy, Holland, Portugal in a comparative perspective in terms of the policy competition
Denmark, Belgium,
Sweden and Ireland.
domain? By using the electorates’ perception of the position of political
The 1989 figures are parties on the political spectrum in 13 countries in 1989 and 1999,11 the
based on the following became apparent (Freire 2004d: app. 3). In terms of standardized
Eurobarometer 31A
survey data for all ideological distances (i.e. the absolute distance between parties on the politi-
countries except cal spectrum, divided by the maximum distance) between the two most
Austria and Sweden,
where data from the extreme parties represented in their respective parliaments, France, Portugal
‘Party Manifestos’ and Greece had the most polarized political systems both in 1989 and 1999.
was used (Budge et al.
2001). The figures for In both Portugal and Greece this is due mainly to the presence of orthodox
all countries in 1999 Communist parties. When considering the standardized ideological distance
are based on data
from the European
between the two major parties (one from the left ideological bloc, and the
Election Study of that other from the right12) in these countries, the opposite conclusions can be
year. drawn for the Portuguese case. In 1989, Portugal, Austria and Ireland were
12 Only in Ireland have the least polarized systems, while in 1999, Portugal, Belgium, the United
we considered the two
major parties tout Kingdom, Austria and Ireland were the least polarized. Using data from
court (Fianna Fail and expert surveys conducted during 1989 (Laver and Hunt 1992: 133–36) and
Fine Gael) due to the
fact that these are the
1993 (Huber and Inglehart 1995: 92–108), the conclusions arrived at were
parties that usually very similar (Freire 2004d: app. 3).
alternate in Whilst the reasons for the polarization of the Portuguese system in terms
government.
of the existence of parties located at the extremes of the political spectrum
have been outlined above, the limited ideological separation between the
country’s two main political parties, the PS and the PSD, remains to be
explained. Jalali (2002: 65) contends that ‘the significant leftwards shift of the
revolution in 1975 had the effect of skewing the parties and the party system
to the left, at least nominally’. This explains why the parliamentary party that
is ideologically furthest to the right (the CDS-PP) considers itself to be on the
centre, and why the liberal PSD calls itself a social democratic party (Gunther
and Montero 2001: 142–43). A second reason concerns the exclusion of the
PCP from government since 1976, which has pushed the PS to the right both
in terms of coalition partners, and in terms of government performance and
policies. When the PS first came to power during the 1970s and 1980s, the
country’s economic situation was perilous (due to the instability associated
with the transition and the two oil shocks), forcing it to reach two agreements
with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The conditions placed upon
receiving IMF assistance meant that the PS was forced to introduce stringent
austerity measures that led to it becoming associated with traditionally con-
servative policies (Gallagher 1989; Freire 2004b).
Another explanation for the small ideological difference between the
PS and the PSD relates to their need during the transition to reduce the
influence that the PCP could exercise over organized labour through its
control of the only trade union confederation, the General Confederation
of Portuguese Workers (CGTP). To this end the PS and PSD created a sep-
arate union confederation in 1979: the General Union of Workers (UGT).

92 André Freire
PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 93

Figure 2: Main Portuguese political parties’ ideological positioning in the left-right scale,
1978–2005, according to electors’ perceptions.
[Sources: Freire, 2004d, using survey data from: Bacalhau, 1994, p. 134 (1978); PCSE 1985
(1985); EB 31A 1989 (1989); EES 1999 (1999); CSES M1 (2002); PNES 05 (2005).]
See note 13 in the text for the names of the surveys.

This had significant consequences. Because the UGT was largely unsuc- 13 The sources referred
to in an abbreviated
cessful in penetrating the organized working class, the PS’s relationship form in Figure 2 are:
with this group was damaged and the UGT’s political cohesion as a PCSE - Political Culture
workers’ representative organization was weakened. in Southern Europe, a
survey conducted in
One final explanation is that, since the mid-1980s, the two main parties 1985 by Sani and
have advocated general ‘catch-all’ centralist strategies (although there is evi- Santamaria; EB 31A -
Eurobarometer 31A,
dence that this may have begun to change during the 2002 legislative elec- 1989; EES - European
tions) (Lopes and Freire 2002: 43–55; Jalali 2002: 203–33; Freire 2004a). Election Study 1999;
CSES M1 - The
How have the ideological positions of Portugal’s parties evolved Comparative Study of
between the beginnings of democracy in the early 1970s and the 2005 Electoral Systems
(Module 1), 2002; The
legislative elections? Using data from several sources,13 Figure 2 demon- Portuguese National
strates the electorate’s perception of the position of each of the main parties Election Study 2005
(PCP, PS, PSD and CDS-PP) on the political spectrum between 1978 and (PNES 05). The
Portuguese National
2005, which shows that there are several short-term movements from one Election Study, 2002
period to the next. By averaging out their positions on the spectrum for the and 2005 editions,
was conducted under
periods 1978–85 (1978 and 1985), 1987–99 (1989 and 1999), and the auspices of the
2002–05 (2002 and 2005), we are able to compare the parties’ average research project
‘Electoral Behaviour
standardized ideological distances during each of the periods. The average and Political Attitudes
ideological difference score for the extreme parties (PCP and CDS) is 0.64 of the Portuguese’
(see http://www.ics.
(1978–85), 0.73 (1989–99) and 0.55 (2002–05). This allows us to con- ul.pt/ceapp/english/)
clude that there is no linear pattern of change, that between 1978–85 and and has been
2005 there was a reduction of polarization, and that the most majoritarian conducted by André
Freire, Marina C. Lobo
period coincided with that of greatest ideological polarization, perhaps and Pedro Magalhães
reflecting the need of the PCP and the CDS to distinguish themselves from - see Freire et al
(2005). For more
the PS and the PSD, respectively, in hostile situations.

Party system change in Portugal, 1974–2005 ... 93

PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 94

details about the With respect to the standardized ideological distance between the PS and
other surveys used, the PSD, the situation is the following: 0.23 (1978–85), 0.26 (1989–99) and
see Freire
(2004d: ch. 2). 0.24 (2002–05). We can see, therefore, that from 1978–85 to 1989–2005
there has been no linear increase in polarization, with the majoritarian
period coinciding also with the moment of greatest polarization. This appears
to contradict the belief that, from 1987 until 2005, the two main parties
have mainly used centripetal policy competition strategies. However, caution
must be exercised when drawing conclusions from this data. First, there are
a very small number of time points, and these do not always coincide with
elections. Second, the ideological distances between the different periods are
very short and third, this data uses the electorate’s perceptions of the position
of each party on the political spectrum; and, as Montero (1994) discovered
in his analysis of Spanish politics, the electorate is slow to acknowledge
ideological change within political parties.
It is possible, however, to propose three main conclusions from the data
shown in Figure 2. First, there is a significant ideological overlap between
the PSD and the CDS, although the latter is always further to the right.
This overlap has also been found at the electoral level (Freire 2001a,
2004a; Jalali 2004) as well as at the party identification level (Cabral
1995). Second, the ideological overlap between the PSD and the CDS has
no equivalence in the case of the PS and the PCP, where the differences are
great. In this case, the difference between the ideological position of the
PCP and the PS is much greater than that which exists between the two
right-wing parties (Freire 2004b). Third, the ideological distance between
the PS and PCP are, in every instance, larger than the distance between
the PS and PSD. This means that, at the elite level, there is a greater ideo-
logical gap on the left than there is at the centre of the political spectrum,
while the reverse is true for the supporters of these parties (at least during
the 1985–2002 period (Freire 2004b)). These two contradictions indicate
that there is a mismatch between the parties’ strategies and the voters’
preferences.
Information for the BE is only available for 2002 and 2005, and it
shows that this party is slightly to the left of PCP. However, the data also
indicates that there seems to be a potential overlap of the two parties’
left/right placement, at least in the perceptions of the electorate.

Social, political and ideological explanations for party system

change
What, then, can explain the majoritarian trend that has been evident
within the Portuguese political system since 1987? The first set of possible
explanations are of the institutional type, and relate to the impact of the
electoral system on party competition (Lopes and Freire 2002: 182; Jalali
2002: 320–24) and the effects of presidential elections on legislative elec-
tions (Lobo 2001: 650–52). Since I have already argued against these
factors being major explanations of party system change in Portugal
(Freire 2005b), I will not return to these arguments here.

94 André Freire
PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 95

It is this author’s belief that the main reasons behind the development
of the majoritarian trend since 1987 are social, political and ideological.
Socially there are two factors: whilst by the end of the 1990s Portugal
had, according to Eurostat, the greatest income inequalities of any EU
member state, the country had, nevertheless, experienced a large increase
in living standards since 1974. The increased living standards, in turn,
eroded the bases for radicalism, leading to a decline in support for the PCP.
This also helps to explain the concentration of the party support towards
the two centrist parties (Lobo 2001).
Politically, there are at least five identifiable reasons for the trend towards
majoritarianism. The collapse of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent disinte-
gration of the Soviet Union undoubtedly provide an explanation for the PCP’s
decline. Furthermore, the fact that the PCP was always excluded from gov-
ernment goes a long way towards explaining its ideological inflexibility, and
may also have led many former and potential PCP voters to consider a vote
for them to be a wasted vote. Consequently, many erstwhile supporters
simply abandoned the party. The PCP has, so far, been unable to modernize
its language, principally by abandoning the ‘old political’ language and
replacing it with an emphasis on ‘new left’ issues. This failure to develop
meant that the party has been unable to appeal to the younger generations.
On a more general point, by 1987 the electorate had finally tired of the
cabinet instability that had plagued the country since the revolution. By
then, the incumbent PSD had taken advantage of the opportunities presented
to it by the availability of EU grants, the low price of oil and the relatively
weak dollar, and was performing well in government. This led many voters to
the belief that this party was worthy of their continuing support, which
resulted in a concentration of support in the PSD. Finally, we cannot ignore
the effect that the PRD had in 1985, when it initiated a period of large voter
transfers between elections, making the alternation of support between the
PS and PSD much less psychologically difficult for the electorate.
There are three main ideological factors that may explain this trend.
The large ideological overlap that exists between the PSD and the CDS
enabled substantial vote transfers from the latter to the former, particu-
larly in 1987 and 1991, when the charismatic Aníbal Cavaco Silva led the
PSD. Conversely, the ideological gap that separates the PCP from the PS
has meant that voter transfers between these parties have been rather
slower. The relatively small ideological difference between the two centre
parties can help explain why the large transfers of votes between these two
parties have become a major cause of government alternation since 1987.

Concluding remarks
The aim of this article was to analyse and explain changes in the Portuguese
party system during the democratic period (1974–present). In analysing
evolving trends in the party system format, the patterns of interaction
between the parties, their effects on the functioning of the political system
and the models of democracy that have been associated with them, it was

Party system change in Portugal, 1974–2005 ... 95

PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 96

thought useful to identify two distinct periods of party system change, as well
as an interlude during the second phase. The first period (1976–87) was one
in which there was a relatively high level of party system fragmentation and
heightened cabinet instability. Also during this period, both the president and
parliament played an important role in determining how the political system
functioned with respect to the role of the cabinet and the prime minister.
Coalitions were the norm at this time, although there were two minority gov-
ernments. During this phase, Portuguese democracy resembled the consen-
sual model.
The second period (1987–2002 and February 2005–present) saw the
development of a majoritarian trend within the party system, which was
caused, primarily, by a significant reduction in the effective number of politi-
cal parties. In governmental terms, this period saw a marked change towards
single-party majority (PSD, 1987–95; PS, 2005–2009 (predictably)) or
quasi-majority (PS, 1995–2002) governments. One of the major conse-
quences of these changes has been a substantial improvement of cabinet sta-
bility. With respect to the operation of the political system, the emergence of
single-party government and cabinet stability altered the balance of power,
with the locus moving from the president and parliament towards the prime
minister and cabinet - a pattern that was particularly evident during the
PSD’s two absolute majorities. Because the 1995–2002 PS governments
lacked an overall parliamentary majority, the position of the president and
parliament regained some of their previous importance. During this phase,
democracy approached the majoritarian model.
There was a brief interlude between 2002 and 2005. Nevertheless, the
concentration of the vote in the two major parties persisted (majoritarian
model of democracy), although it was not sufficiently strong to obviate the
need to form a coalition (consensual model).
The permanent exclusion of the PCP from government has skewed the
political system, in general, and the party system, in particular, towards the
right. The PCP’s communist orthodoxy is a major explanatory factor as to
why they are never seriously considered to be a coalition partner by the PS.
While the party did attempt to moderate its ideological position through its
1998 ‘New Impulse’ programme, the party’s 2000 congress reversed this
policy and restored many of the old orthodox guard to leadership positions.
The position of the moderates was further weakened in 2004, when the
party’s congress elected an orthodox secretary-general, Jerónimo de Sousa,
to lead them. The PS, by persistently proposing ‘catch-all’ centrist strategies,
bears some responsibility for the PCP’s continued exclusion from govern-
ment. The election of José Sócrates to the leadership of the PS (October
2004) has given a clear signal that the party intends to return to its previ-
ous policy of advocating ‘catch-all’ centrist strategies. Under this new leader-
ship, the absolute parliamentary majority that the PS won at the February
2005 elections obviated the need for the formation of a coalition with one or
both of the parties on the PS’s left (PCP and BE) - at least until the end of this
mandate in 2009. The fact remains that, in terms of cooperation between

96 André Freire
PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 97

parties and government formation, the patterns in terms of the left and right
ideological blocs have been unbalanced: the parties within the former bloc
have not yet managed to join forces in order to form a government coalition.
Two significant aspects of policy competition, namely regime support
and foreign policy, cut across the ideological divide separating the PCP (and,
to a lesser degree, the BE) from the PS, PSD and CDS. The issue dimensions
that overlap the ideological cleavages are socio-economic, religious and
post-materialist (this latter since the end of the 1990s). Three main ideolog-
ical traits have been evident until now in the Portuguese party system.
There is a significant ideological overlap with the PSD and the CDS, which is
one of the factors explaining the development of a majoritarian trend (at
least on the right) since 1987. This overlap has effectively facilitated the
large transfer of votes from the CDS to the PSD. The ideological distance
between the PCP and the PS has always been greater than that separating
the PS from the PSD. This has, at least since 1985, provided clear evidence
of the existence of a serious mismatch between the parties’ policy positions
and the electorate’s preferences. The ideological distance between the PS
and PCP, as well as the exclusion of the latter from government, may well
have contributed to the PCP’s electoral decline, as voters increasingly view a
vote for the Communists as a wasted vote. Finally, in comparative terms, the
Portuguese party system is highly polarized between the two parliamentary
parties at the ideological extremes (PCP and CDS), although there is not
much differentiation between the two major parties (PS and PSD). This lack
of differentiation has also been a factor that may explain why, since 1987,
voter alternation has been concentrated at the centre.
Besides these ideological factors, however, there are political and social
reasons behind the development of a majoritarian trend within the party
system. The collapse of Soviet Communism and the PCP’s inability to reform
and follow a more flexible ideological line certainly helps explain the party’s
continuing decline, while the emergence of the PRD in 1985 helps explain
the massive vote transfers that have taken place at the centre since 1987.
The increase in standards of living since 1976 explains the reduced propen-
sity towards radicalism, and thus the decline of the PCP. This can also help
explain the voters’ increasing moderation, and the concentration of support
for the two main parties. It must be argued, therefore, that institutional
explanations for the development of a majoritarian trend in the party
system (i.e. electoral system effects, and the impact of a bipolar logic from
presidential to legislative elections) are of secondary importance (Freire
2005b), particularly those related with the effects of the electoral system.

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Stewart Lloyd-Jones, Director of the Contemporary
Portuguese Political History Research Centre, for proofreading this article and cor-
recting the English. The author would also like to thank ISCTE’s Department of
Sociology for funding the translation of this article into English.

Party system change in Portugal, 1974–2005 ... 97

PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 98

Works cited
Almeida, P.T. and Freire, A. (2005), ‘Two overwhelming victories of the left: the
2004 European Election and the 2005 legislative election in Portugal’, South
European Society and Politics, (forthcoming).
André, I. and Gaspar, J. (1989), ‘Portugal, geografia eleitoral: 1975 e 1987’, in M.
Coelho (ed.), Portugal, o sistema político e constitucional 1974/1987, Lisbon: ICS,
pp. 257-78.
Aguiar, J. (1994), ‘Partidos, eleições, dinâmica política (1975-1991)’, Análise Social,
XXIX (125-126): 171-238.
Bacalhau, M. (1994), Atitudes, opiniões e comportamentos políticos dos portugueses,
1973-1993, Lisbon: Mário Bacalhau e Tom Bruneau.
Budge, I. et al. (2001), Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors and
Governments 1945-1998, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cabral, M.V. (1995), ‘Grupos de simpatia partidária em Portugal: perfil sociográfico
e atitudes sociais’, Análise Social, XXX (130): 175-206.
Canas, V. (2003), ‘Partidos políticos: um balanço do estudo do tema’, in Tribunal
Constitucional, Estudos em homenagem ao Conselheiro José Manuel Cardoso da
Costa, Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.
Cunha, C. (1993), ‘L’opposition du parti communiste portugais à l’adhésion à la
CEE’, in P. Delwit and J.M. De Waele (eds), La gauche face aux mutations en Europe,
Brussels: Editions de L’Université de Bruxelles, pp. 119-32.
—— (1997), ‘The Portuguese Communist Party’, in T.C. Bruneau (ed.), Political
Parties and Democracy in Portugal: Organizations, Elections and Public Opinion,
Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 23-54.
Diamandouros, P.N. and Gunther, R. (eds) (2001), Parties, Politics, and Democracy in
New Southern Europe, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Duverger, M. (1992), ‘A new political system model: semi-presidential government’,
in A. Lijphart (ed.), Parliamentary versus Presidential Government, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 142-49.
Frain, M. (1997), ‘The Right in Portugal: The PSD and the CDS/PP’, in T.C.
Bruneau (ed.), Political Parties and Democracy in Portugal: Organizations, Elections
and Public Opinion, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp.77-111.
Freire, A. (2001a), Mudança eleitoral em Portugal continental: clivagens, economia e
voto em eleições Legislativas, 1983-1999, Oeiras: Celta.
—— (2001b), ‘Presidentes e eleições presidenciais no Portugal democrático’, in A.C.
Pinto (ed.), Os presidentes da República Portuguesa, Lisbon: Temas and Debates,
pp. 192-211.
—— (2003), ‘Elecciones y comportamiento electoral en Portugal’, in A. Barreto,
B. Gomez and P.C. Magalhães (eds), Portugal: democracia y sistema político,
Madrid: Siglo XXI, pp. 113-44.
—— (2004a), ‘Voto por temas: orientações perante as políticas públicas, desem-
penho do governo e decisão eleitoral’, in A. Freire, M.C. Lobo and P.C.
Magalhães (eds), Portugal a votos: as eleições legislativas de 2002, Lisbon:
Imprensa de Ciências Sociais, pp. 159-92.
—— (2004b), ‘Geografia e sociologia do voto PS’, in V. Canas (ed.), O Partido
Socialista e a democracia, Oeiras: Celta.

98 André Freire
PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 99

—— (2004c), ‘Second order elections and electoral cycles in democratic Portugal,

1975-2004’, paper presented to the Conference, ‘The European Construction
through the prism of the June 2004 European Parliamentary elections’,
Strasburg (IEP), 18-19 November 2004, available from http://www.afsp.msh-
paris.fr/activite/groupe/europe/europe.html, accessed 12 December 2004.
—— (2004d), ‘O significado da divisão entre esquerda e direita: Portugal, Espanha
e Grécia em perspectiva comparada’, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of
Lisbon’s Institute of Social Science.
—— (2005a), ‘Portugal’, in Y. Déloye (ed.), Dictionnaire des elections européennes,
Paris: Economica.
—— (2005b), ‘The Portuguese party system, 1974-2004: Changing or strength-
ening patterns of interaction?’, in O. Niedermayer, R. Stöss and M. Haas (eds),
Die Parteiensysteme Westeuropas, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Freire, A. and Baum, M. (2003), ‘Referenda voting in Portugal, 1998: the effects of
party sympathies, social structure and pressure groups’, European Journal of
Political Research, 42 (1): 135-161.
Freire, A., et al (2005), Portuguese National Election Study 2005: The 2005 Post-Electoral
Survey (questionnaire and dataset), a survey conducted by André Freire, Marina
Costa Lobo, and Pedro Magalhães under the auspices of the “Portuguese Electoral
Behaviour and Political Attitudes of the Portuguese” research project, from the
Social Sciences Research Institute of the University of Lisbon (ICS-UL) (for more
information about this project, see http://www.ics.ul.pt/ceapp/english/).
Gallagher, T. (1989), ‘The Portuguese Socialist Party: the pitfalls of being first’, in
T. Gallagher and A.M. Williams (eds), Southern European Socialism: Parties,
Elections and the Challenge of Government, Manchester: Manchester University
Press, pp.12-33.
Gunther, R. and Montero, J.R. (2001), ‘The anchors of partisanship: a comparative
analysis of voting behaviour in four Southern European countries’, in P.N.
Diamandouros and R. Gunther (eds), Parties, Politics, and Democracy in New
Southern Europe, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 83-152.
Huber, J. and Inglehart, R. (1995), ‘Expert interpretations of party space and party
locations in 42 societies’, Party Politics, 1, pp. 73-111.
Jalali, V.C. (2002), ‘The evolution of the Portuguese party system in comparative
European perspective since 1974’, unpublished doctoral thesis, Oxford University.
—— (2004), ‘As mesmas clivagens de sempre? Velhas clivagens e novos valores no
comportamento eleitoral português’, in A. Freire, M.C. Lobo and P.C. Magalhães
(eds), Portugal a votos: as eleições legislativas de 2002, Lisbon: Imprensa de
Ciências Sociais, pp. 87-124.
Laver, M. and Hunt, W.B. (1992), Policy and Party Competition, New York: Routledge.
Leston-Bandeira, C. (2001), ‘The Portuguese parliament during the first two
decades of democracy’, West European Politics, 24: 1, pp. 137-56.
Linz, J.J. and Stepan, A. (1996), Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation:
Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe, Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press.
Laakso, M. and Taagepera, R. (1979), ‘“Effective” number of parties: a measure
with application to West Europe’, Comparative Political Studies, 12, pp. 3-27.
Lijphart, A. (1989), As democracias contemporâneas, Lisbon: Gradiva.
—— (1999), Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in 36
Countries, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Party system change in Portugal, 1974–2005 ... 99

PJSS_4-2_Layout 6/1/06 4:39 pm Page 100

Lobo, M.C. (2001), ‘The role of political parties in Portuguese democratic consoli-
dation’, Party Politics, 7: 5, pp. 643-53.
—— (2003), ‘El incremento del poder del primer ministro en Portugal desde 1976’,
in A. Barreto, B. Gomez and P.C. Magalhães (eds), Portugal: democracia y sistema
político, Madrid: Siglo XXI, pp. 175-204.
Lobo, M.C. and Magalhães, P.C. (2001), ‘From “third wave” to “third way”: Europe
and the Portuguese socialists (1975-1999)’, Journal of Southern Europe and the
Balkans, 3: 1, pp. 25-35.
Lopes, F.F. (2004), Os partidos políticos: modelos e realidades em Portugal e na Europa
ocidental, Oeiras: Celta.
Lopes, F.F. and Freire, A. (2002), Partidos políticos e sistemas eleitorais: uma introdução,
Oeiras: Celta.
Magalhães, P. (2003), ‘Elections, parties and policy-making institutions in democratic
Portugal’, in A.C. Pinto (ed.), Contemporary Portugal: Politics, Society and Culture,
New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 183-202.
Magone, J. (1999), ‘Party system installation and consolidation’, in D. Broughton
and M. Donovan (eds), Changing Party Systems in Western Europe, London: Pinter,
pp. 232-54.
Montero, J.R. (1994), ‘Sobre las preferencias electorales en España: fragmentación
y polarización (1977-1993)’, in P. del Castillo (ed.), Comportamento político y
electoral, Madrid: CIS, pp. 51-124.
Nunes, F. (2000), ‘As “políticas de solidariedade” nos programas eleitorais do
Partido Socialista’, Cadernos de Política Social, 2-3, pp. 107-42.
Pinto, A.C. and Núñez, X.M. (1997), ‘Portugal and Spain’, in R. Eatwell (ed.),
European Political Cultures: Conflict or Convergence?, London: Routledge.
Sablosky, J.A. (1997), ‘The Portuguese Socialist Party’, in T.C. Bruneau (ed.),
Political Parties and Democracy in Portugal: Organizations, Elections and Public
Opinion, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 55-76.
Sani, G. and Sartori, G. (1983), ‘Polarization, fragmentation and competition in
Western democracies’, in H. Daalder and P. Mair (eds), Western European Party
Systems: Continuity and Change, London: Sage, pp. 307-40.
Sartori, G. (1976), Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Shugart, M.S. and Carey, J.M. (1997), Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional
Design and Electoral Dynamics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ware, A. (1996), Political Parties and Party Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Suggested citation:
Freire, A. (2005), ‘Party system change in Portugal, 1974–2005: the role of
social, political and ideological factors’, Portuguese Journal of Social Science 4: 2,
pp. 81–100, doi: 10.1386/pjss.4.2.81/1

Contributor details
André Freire is Assistant Professor of Political Sociology and Methodology at Lisbon’s
ISCTE and has published widely on Portuguese electoral behaviour, political atti-
tudes, electoral and party systems. Contact: ISCTE, Avenida das Forças Armadas,
1649-026 Lisbon, Portugal.
E-mail: andre.freire@iscte.pt

100 André Freire