University 8 Mai 1945/ Guelma

Department of Letters and English Language

Course: Culture and Civilization
Level: Third Year

Title: Political Parties

Political parties are organizations of broadly like-minded men and women which seek to win power in
elections in order that they can then assume responsibility for controlling the apparatus of
government. Unlike interest groups, which seek merely to influence the government, serious parties
aim to secure the levers of power.
Political parties are now accepted as an essential feature of any liberal democracy. They are ubiquitous,
existing in different forms under different political systems. They bring together a variety of different
interests in any society, and by so doing ‘overcome geographical distances, and provide coherence to
sometimes divisive government structures’. Via the electoral process, they determine the shape of
governments.1 The competition of parties was not always regarded as inevitable or desirable. In the
American Constitution there is no provision for party government. The Constitution – federal in character
and characterized by competitive institutions – actually makes the operation of parties more difficult. The
Founding Fathers did not want party government and within a few years of the completion of their task
President Washington was still speaking of the ‘baneful effects of the spirit of party’.

Parties have contrasting significance in different democracies. In Britain and the rest of Western Europe they
are much stronger than in the USA, where they are noticeably weak. In much of Western Europe, they have
a large but declining dues-paying membership, a reasonably coherent ideology and a high degree of
discipline among members of parliament. In the USA, none of these factors apply. In parts of the country,
they hardly seem to exist between elections. Britain has party government. At election time, a party seeks to
capture the reins of power and win a mandate to govern. To do this, it requires a majority of seats in the
House of Commons. If it obtains a working majority, it can then expect to control the machinery of
government until the next election is called. Having control of the executive branch and being in a position
to dominate the legislature, it will be able to carry out its manifesto. Its leaders know that they can normally
count on the backing of their MPs to ensure that their legislative program passes through Parliament. As
Shaw puts it: ‘The government will have its way, and the opposition will have its say’.2

The situation is very different in the United States. Party politics are more parochial than national and as
Walles explains: ‘the promises made are not about supporting a national program so much as about doing
something for the district or the state’.3 America lacks the concentration of power possessed by the British
Executive and has a more dispersed system of government. Presidents may have grand ideas for action, but
as the experience of President Clinton and his first-term program for health reform indicates, they cannot
anticipate such a relatively easy ride for their plans. Because Congress has the role of acting as a counter-
balance to the executive branch, it takes the task of scrutinizing White House proposals seriously. Even if
the President has a majority in one or both chambers, he or she may be unable to achieve his or her goals, as
Kennedy, Carter and Clinton all came to realize. Parties are much less disciplined than in Britain and
congress members are likely to think in terms of constituency and other pressures as much or more than
party allegiance. This is why Shaw could refer to the American system as ‘government by individuals rather
than by party’.
The functions of parties
The primary purpose of political parties is to win elections. This is what distinguishes them from pressure
groups, which may try to influence elections but do not usually put up candidates for office. Among their
specific functions, they:
• Contest elections in order to compete with other parties for elective office;
• Select candidates who would have little chance of success but for their party label;
• Coordinate political campaigns;
• Put together coalitions of different interests, for a variety of groups and individuals can come together
under one broad umbrella, so that any government which emerges is likely to have widespread support in the
community;
• Organize opinion, providing voters with cues for voting, because most of them can identify in some way
with the image of the main parties; they can therefore be a basis for making their political choices;
• Articulate policies, educating the voters and providing them with a choice of alternatives;
• Activate voters by mobilizing their support via campaigning, rallies and emblems of identification varying
from banners to lapel badges, giving them an opportunity for political involvement;
• Incorporate policy ideas from individuals and groups which are outside the political mainstream,
responding to changes suggested by third parties and protest movements.
Party systems
There is an obvious distinction between party systems which allow for the existence of only a single party
and those which allow competition between a range of parties. Single-party systems are now on the retreat,
particularly since the fall of the former Soviet satellite governments in Eastern Europe. They are to be found
on the African continent in countries south of the Sahara such as Mozambique and Zimbabwe, and in parts
of what used to be termed the Third World; they also exist in communist countries such as China, Cuba and
North Korea. The majority of countries have a variety of parties from which voters can make their choice.
There are a few authoritarian military regimes which do not allow parties of any kind. These are to be found
in parts of Africa, Latin America and the Middle East.
Systems with more than one party
Party systems which allow a choice of parties fall into three main categories:
1 Two-party systems. In two-party systems, only the two main parties have a meaningful chance of
achieving political power. Heywood identifies three main criteria of two-party systems:
 Although a number of ‘minor’ parties exist, only two parties enjoy sufficient electoral and legislative
strength to have a realistic prospect of winning government power;
 The largest party is able to rule alone (usually on the basis of a legislative majority), the other
providing the opposition;
 Power alternatives between these parties: both are ‘electable’, the opposition serving as a
‘government in the wings’.
Britain is often cited as a good example of a two-party system. Southern Ireland and the United States also
fall into this category, although Ball points out that in both cases the parties lack the centralised hierarchical
structures and mass membership characteristic of British politics. Neither are ideological differences in
either case clear-cut. The political divisions between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gail are largely historical and the
Democrats and Republicans in America often have more internal than inter-party differences.
2 Dominant-party systems. In these, there are two or more parties, but only one party ever wins an election
in normal circumstances. The Congress Party in India monopolized Indian government in the 30 years after
independence, but in recent years it has lost its pre-eminence. Nearer to home, Fianna Fáil held office in
Ireland for 37 out of 43 years between 1932 and 1973. Some commentators felt that Britain was moving in
this direction in the years after 1979, when the Conservative Party won four successive elections.
3 Multi-party systems. Multi-party systems of four, five or six parties are common on the continent, in part
a reflection of the widespread use of list systems of proportional representation, which help all parties to get
reasonably fair representation. In such systems, it is highly unlikely that one party could ever gain an
outright victory and form a single-party government. Governments are coalitions, which vary from the stable
to the unstable.

The two-party systems of Britain and America

The American experience is not straightforward. The system allows one party to capture the White House
(the presidency) and the other to dominate on Capitol Hill (the legislature), so that a British-style divide
between government and opposition is absent. Also, some writers have quibbled about applying the term
‘two-party system’ to one in which there are really 51 party systems: one national and one for each of the
fifty states. The national parties are a loose
aggregation of the state parties, which are themselves ‘a fluid association of individuals, groups and local
organisations’.6 As Vile puts it, ‘politics operate in a framework of 50 systems, for much decentralisation
has occurred’.7 There is a variety of forms of party competition throughout the country, with no two states
being exactly alike. In some, parties are weak, in others rather stronger. Kay Lawson writes that California
‘has political parties so weak as to be almost non-existent . . . it has been run by special interests for so long
that Californians have forgotten what is special about that’.7 By contrast, Pennsylvania has well-organised
parties, with sizeable staffs and plenty of money to spend. In some states, there is a genuine competition for
power, with both parties having a chance of capturing the governorship or control of the legislature. In
others, only one party ever wins and there is no little or no prospect of a change of political control. Yet in
spite of such difficulties, most observers think of America as having a two-party system. When they think
about American parties, they think in terms of the Democrat and Republicans, which between them possess
almost every congressional seat and almost every state governorship.

Britain has in the past often been portrayed as having a model two-party system. In reality, there have been
periods when this was not the case, most notably in the interwar years and from the mid-1970s onwards. The
years 1945–1970 saw a classic two-party confrontation. Each of the main parties won four elections and
between them Labour and the Conservatives monopolized the votes cast and seats won in any election. In
1951, this domination reached its zenith when, in combination, they attracted 96.8 per cent of the votes and
98.6 per cent of the seats. Then and in other elections, the third-party Liberals played an insignificant role.
But from 1974 onwards, the third force (as represented either by the Liberals, the Alliance or the Liberal
Democrats) has been a sizeable one, regularly commanding about 15–20 per cent of the votes and in 1997
and 2001 winning 46 and 52 seats respectively. The nationalists in Scotland and Wales have also often
performed well, so that the British political arrangements can be described as a two-party system but three-
or four-party politics. Both Britain and America have two major parties, and have – with rare exceptions –
done so since national party competition began.

Both countries many minor parties have run candidates. If anything, the dominance of two parties has been
more apparent in America than Britain. The Democrat–Republican stranglehold has endured in America
since the 1850s and is much more entrenched than the duopoly of British politics. Whereas American third
parties have tended to be absorbed by one of the main organizations, this has not happened in Britain. When
the Social Democrats left the Labour Party in the early 1980s, they did not – as a body – return to the fold.
In both party systems, division (to the extent of breakaways) in one of the major parties has usually occurred
on the Left rather than on the Right. The Liberals of the late nineteenth century divided over Home Rule, as
did Labour in the 1950s over disarmament and public ownership and in the early 1980s over a range of
issues. The Democrats split seriously in 1948, with the Truman mainstream under attack from the Dixiecrats
of Strom Thurmond on the Right and the Progressives of Henry Wallace on the Left. In both cases, they
were embraced back into the party within a few years.

Why Britain and the United States have two-party systems

Some writers stress the natural tendency for opinion on issues to divide into a ‘for’ and ‘against’ position
which often follows the basic distinction between people who generally favor retaining the status quo (the
conservatives) and those who wish to see innovation and a quicker pace of change (the progressives). In his
famous analysis of political parties, Duverger long ago argued that a two-party system conformed to the
basic division in society between those who wish to keep society broadly unchanged, and those who wish to
see improvement and reform.8 The liberal–conservative, progressive–stand-pat distinction has not always
been clear-cut, for the main parties in either country have at times had their more forward-looking members
as well as those who oppose social advance. Institutional factors also make a difference. The nature of the
presidency is one. It is the focal point of all political aspiration, but it is a single executive whose leadership
cannot be shared. To capture the office, it is best to take a broad middle-of-the-road stance and create a
coalition behind one person. For any minor party, ‘presidential contests are a mountain to climb which can
only be conquered by a major party capable of assembling a broad national coalition’.9

In Britain, the requirements of the parliamentary system promote two-partyism. The nature of the House of
Commons makes it necessary for elected members to decide whether they are on the government side or that
of the Opposition. There is no in-between. The confrontational Westminster system has always attached a
high priority to firm government and strong opposition. The electorate seems to prefer a strong executive
and is unconvinced about the merits of coalitions which are often seen as weak and unstable. There are more
important and fundamental reasons for two-party dominance. Both countries use the same First Past the Post
electoral system, under which whoever gets the most votes wins the election. There are no prizes for coming
a good second. Even if the largest party gets less than an overall majority, it is declared the winner and other
parties are out in the cold. In this way, third-party activity is discouraged, for unless a party wins there is no
reward for the votes it receives: the ‘winner takes all’. Duverger argued that ‘the simple majority, single
ballot system favors the two party system; the simple majority with second ballot and proportional
representation favor multi-partyism’.10 Also, most Britons and Americans have a broad consensus about
basic matters in society, so that large and generally moderate parties can provide adequate avenues for
political expression. There has often been substantial agreement on the desirability of present constitutional
arrangements and the broad objectives of party policy, in addition to a spirit of compromise which makes it
possible for one party to accept the innovations initiated by the other. Both Labour and the Conservatives,
and Democrats and the Republicans, are broad coalitions in which people of a variety of political
persuasions can co-exist. They are flexible enough to cater for most sections of the electorate, each having
more die-hard and less partisan members.

Finally, there are the difficulties which affect any third party which tries to break through the system. In
America, there may be real barriers in getting on the ballot paper in a number of states, but in both countries,
lack of money, staffing and organization are a problem. Moreover, there is also the argument used by their
opponents, that under the voting system used a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. Most voters prefer to
opt for a party which has a
meaningful chance of victory.

The Right–Left divide in both countries: Conservatives and Republicans v Labour and Democrats
If we employ a Right–Left continuum to British and American politics, the Conservatives and
Republicans are parties of the Right, whilst Labour and the Democrats belong on the Left. But as a broad
generalization for the postwar era, the center of gravity in American politics is further to the Right than in it
is in Britain. Therefore, their relative positions in linear terms would be as set out below:
Left Right
196 Understanding US/UK government and politics
Labour Democrats Conservatives Republicans

Shaw, writing in the age of consensus when the two parties had come closer in their attitudes and policies,
suggested that in both countries the ideological distance between the two parties was not a wide one and that
in America it is even narrower than in Britain: ‘In the case of the Conservative and Republican parties, the
tendency is to look long before leaping, while the Labour and Democratic parties tend towards innovation.
Labour party members and Democrats are more receptive to programs of social welfare and governmental
intervention in the economy than their conservative opponents. There is more nationalism in the
Conservative and Republican parties than in the other two’.

Shaw’s judgments still have much truth in them today, even though in both cases the center of gravity in the
party spectrum has moved to the Right in the light of the experiences of the Thatcher–Reagan years. If we
take a series of issues which have been of importance in American politics in recent years, we find a similar
Left–Right divide would apply between the British parties:
1 abortion; 2 civil rights for blacks and other disadvantaged groups; 3 affirmative action; 4 the role of the
federal government in education; 5 anti-poverty policies and welfare reform; 6 the provision of medical
care; 7 the problems of urban renewal; 8 defence spending and the role of America in the post-Cold-War
era.
The Republicans oppose or have been reluctant travelers as far as the first seven are concerned, and on the
eighth have generally supported a high level of spending and a more isolationist position. The terms used
might be different and some issues such as abortion have particular importance in American politics, but
many Conservatives in Britain would echo several of those attitudes. In the past the party did not originally
support legislation on racial discrimination or some of the measures associated with the Welfare State, and
has shown less interest in inner-city conditions and renewal. Their broad approach is to favor less
governmental intervention in aspects of economic and social policy, and to emphasize the importance of low
direct taxes. Smaller government, ‘getting government off the backs of individuals’, more private provision
and lower taxes are attitudes that Republican and Conservatives have in common.
Political