Chapter 9.

Regime Change
Definition
- Process through which one regime is transformed into another
• Coup d’état
• Revolution
• Democratization
- It is often not clear in the short term what kind of regime change is taking place as it
happens

The military in politics: coup d´état

- Forceful removal of a regime and establishment of a new one
- Democracies and highly institutionalized regimes are less likely to suffer military coups
because the military is well socialized and controlled by a civilian authority

Why military coups happen

- Military coups happen when all efforts to keep the military loyal to the regime fail
- Three major explanations:
o Weak institutions and political cultures that do not value nonmilitary transfer of
power
o Military seeks its own interests (larger budgets, higher pay, better equipment,
etc.)
o Individuals use the military to advance (neopatrimonialism in Africa)
- Fundamental regime and often social change from below
- Much more rare than military coups
- Social revolutions
o Most common outcome is authoritarian rule
o Violence and political divisions after revolution
o Also nearly always strengthens state
- Political revolutions
o Outcomes vary more: democracy possible
o Post-Communist revolutions in eastern Europe: less violence,
o not as deep political divisions
o Still problem of establishing new institutions: “color revolutions”

Participation and the collective action problem

- Most regimes allow some amount of participation and representation
- Democratic regimes face challenge of stimulating and channeling participation into
representation
- Authoritarian regimes seek to constrain or co-opt it
- Collective action problem
o Rational belief that individual actions will have little or no effect
o Individuals become unwilling to engage activities
o Collectively, all individuals suffer adverse consequences, when all fail to act
o Especially in very complex systems (Aina Gallego 2015)
Electoral systems
- Formal, legal mechanisms translate votes into:
o Control over political offices
o Control over shares of political power
- Major types of electoral systems:
o Single-member districts (SMD)
o Proportional representation (PR)
o Mixed systems

Single – mandate district systems

- Each geographic district elects a representative
- First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) or Plurality System: SMD system in which the candidate
with a plurality of votes wins
- Majority System: SMD system in which the winner must gain an absolute majority of
the votes (50% + 1)
- Simple majority vs. absolute majority
o E.g. Turnout: 80%
o Absolute majority: 62.5%
- Otherwise, a second round will be held (open or close)
- Sincere voting and tactical (strategical) voting
- Problems: underrepresentation of the major parties, underrepresentation of the minor
parties, the logic of the winner-takes-all and the wasted votes, imbalance of power.

Proportional representation
- Vote: belonging, opinion, and exchange (Katz 1985)
- Seats in a legislature are apportioned on a purely proportional basis, giving each party
the share of seats that matches its share of the total vote
- Closed-list PR: Electoral system in which each party presents a ranked list of
candidates, voters vote for the party rather than for individual candidates, and each party
awards the seats it wins to the candidates on its list in rank order
- Open-list PR: Electoral system in which multiple candidates run in each district, voters
vote for the individual candidate of their choice, and the candidates with the most votes
in the party get the seats the party wins
How to reduce fragmentation
- Raising the minimal electoral threshold (e.g. Netherlands 0.67%; Israel 3.25%; Sweden
4% national level, 12% constituency; Turkey 10%)
- Introducing a majority bonus system
- Reducing the average constituency size
- Adopting a different formula: D'Hondt method and Imperiali quota favor the larger
parties (Sainte-Lague method and Droop quota favor the mid-size parties; Hare quota
favors the smaller parties)

Political parties
- Parties are important organizations where political participation takes place
- People join parties for various reasons
 o Because they agree with their ideas
o To gain direct material benefits
- Relationship between party and citizens important to party’s institutional strength

Dealignment / Realignment
- Russell Dalton > parties and voters disconnect
- Functions of a party: educating voters about political issues and simplifying voters’
choices
- As voters have become more educated and media outlets have multiplied, they no
longer need parties to educate them
- The media changes have also prompted parties to campaign increasingly via national
media rather than by mobilization of grassroots membership > from the mass party to
the catch-all party (light party)
- Realignment: as parties change or new parties emerge, voters and parties will once
again come into alignment
- Inglehart and theory of post materialism: economy does not matter anymore > beyond
the cleavage “right-left”´
- Iversen and Wren 1998, Rodrik 1997: economy still matters >globalization and
postindustrial service economies > new cleavages

Party System
- The number of parties and their relative institutional strength
o Dominant party system: Party system in which multiple parties exist but the
same one wins every election and governs continuously (African National
Congress; Indian National Congress 1947-1989)
o Two-party system: Party system in which only two parties can garner enough
votes to win an election, though more may compete (e.g. UK and USA)
o Multiparty system: Party systems in which more than two parties could
potentially win a national election and govern
Sartori´s Relevance Criteria (1976)
- Coalitional potential: a minor party can be discounted as irrelevant whenever it remains
superfluous over time, in the sense that it is never needed or used for any feasible
coalition majority.
- Blackmail potential: a party discloses blackmail potential «whenever its existence, or
appearance, affects the tactics of party competition and particularly when it alters the
direction of the competition – by determining a switch from centripetal to centrifugal
competition either leftward, rightward, or in both directions – of the governing-oriented
parties»

A sociological explanation: Cleavages

- Party systems reflect divisions in society´
- Rokkan and Lipset (1967): 2 historical events, 4 cleavages
- Caused by the creation of the modern nation-state:
o Centre vs. Periphery > ethnic and/or regionalist parties
o State vs. Church > secular parties vs. religious parties
- Caused by the Industrial Revolution
o Land vs. Industry > agrarian (protectionist) parties vs. liberal parties
o Owners vs. Workers > Liberal and conservative parties vs. socialist and social
democratic parties
- New cleavages: left wing (socialist vs. communist); polarized struggle (communist vs.
fascist); postmateriliasm (neoliberal vs. environmentalist); globalization
(internationalism/multiculturalism vs. nationalism) Europe (Europeanism vs. euro-
skepticism)

An institutional explanation
- Institution can shape and determine the party system
- Electoral system/party system relation
- Duverger's laws (1954)
o 1st law: the plurality system tends to party dualism
o 2nd law: the majority system or PR tend to multipartyism
- Raw/Riker's proposition (1971, 1982)
o Plurality formulae are always associated with two-party competition except
where strong local minority parties exist
- Sartori's tendency laws (1986)
o 1st law given systemic structuring and cross-constituency dispersion (as joint
necessary conditions), plurality systems cause a two-party format
o 2nd law: PR formulas facilitate multipartyism and are hardly conducive to two
partyism