PARTY POLITICS

Political parties are found in the vast majority of countries and in most political
systems. Parties may be authoritarian or democratic; they may seek power
Political party
A political party is a
through elections or through revolution; and they may espouse ideologies of the group of people that
left, right or centre, or, indeed, disavow political ideas altogether. However, parties is organized for the
of some kind exist from Brazil to Burundi and from Norway to New Zealand. purpose of winning
The development of political parties and the acquisition of a party system came government power,
to be recognized as a mark of political modernization. By the late 1950s, some by electoral or other
80 per cent of the world's states were ruled by political parties. During the 1960s means. Parties typically
and early 1970s, however, a decline set in, with the spread of military rule in the exhibit the following
developing world. Political parties were accused of being divisive, and of failing characteristics. (1)

'In politic s, s hared hatreds are almos t always to solve overriding problems of poverty, and ethnic and tribal rivalry. They also They aim to exercise
government power
the bas is of friends hip s .' proved to be inconvenient for economic and military elites. The upsurge of
by winning political
democratization (see p. 120) since the 1980s has, nevertheless, led to a renewed
office (small parties
flourishing of parties. In Asia, Africa and Latin America, the relaxation or collapse
ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, of military rule was invariably accompanied by the re-emergence of parties. In
may nevertheless use
elections more to gain
Democracy in America (1835) former communist states, one-party rule was replaced by the establishment of a platform than to win
competitive party systems. power). (2) They are
organized bodies with
PR VIEW . It would be a mistake, however, to assume that parties have always been with us.
·n c a nc e are often
. . of _mode r n politi c s tha
their role and s1gn1
t Political parties are part of the structure of mass politics, ushered in by the advent
a formal 'card carrying'
art i es to the o peration
So fundame ntal are pol itic al p c hi nes
rel . v y c n t inv ention As o litic al ma of representative government and the progressive extension of the franchise during
membership. (3) They
e n fo r insta nce, that parties ar � , �
taken fo r gr anted. I t is forgott ., : � : en th
re
typically adopt a broad
l
nin
at
rly
a

,n to ex, ten c e o nl y i th ea the nineteenth century.Until then, what were called 'factions' (see p. 246) or 'parties'
. . s and w,e I d go vernment power, parti es c ame
ete

o rga n i z d win I ct,on issue focus, addressing

. ey do not exist are
. u1tou s . The on I parts Of the wor i d in whic h th were little more than groups of like-minded politicians, usually formed around a
to e e

re v irtu ally ub1g

e

c entury. ow, h owe v er, the y a Y

olitic a l p ty has be c ome the
each of the major
N e. Quit e si mply, the p key leader or family. So-called 'court' parties, for instance, often developed within
d b dictato rship or militar y. rul areas of government
those wher e the y are s uppresse Y
ar

and c i vil so ciety,

. . a I part ,es are the v·,tal li nk between the state
. . P o 1·,t,c autocratic monarchies as a result of the struggle for influence amongst notables
g . . _ng � nn · ·
�,p I e of moder n polit ics policy (small parties,
j r owe v er,
rou s and i nterests
that o per ate within soc iet y. H and advisers. Thus, when Edmund Burke (see p. 35) in the late eighteenth century however, may have a
o or anm

of _go v er n m
ma

be t�een t i ti u n
ational str uc tu re and
:;l :: t:e d�ffe� n terms of matte rs s uc h as organi z
t d he

described a party as 'a body of men united ... upon some particular principle upon
t tio s
single-issue focus). (4)
he ns

.
�art ,es are by_ no m�ans all al e N ger political sy . Polit ical par:1es
t
a I:: c a !r o ut differe
nt roles with in the lar which they all agree', he was thinking about fluid and informal groupings such as To varying degrees, they
, deolog1cal o nentat, on, but t ey
stem

re press ion.
Y . ., d s o ur c e of t yr anny and
lau� ed as �h t d r. the Whigs and the Tories, and not about the organized and increasingly disciplined are united by shared
hav e �h us bee n both
, the n etwork of re lationsh ips
v r,'� c
�
r uc, a i ����e ::�: �/:
::�:::o:n a: ��: ;: rt; s ;:tem machines into which they were to develop. political preferences
Their imp c , a rty s ystems
Y s in existen c e . On e -p and a general ideological
the n umber of partie
e
.
t ured in part.,cu J a r by
a t mor eo

between a n d among parties, struc .

ortant c ontr b etwee n two - Parties of the modern kind first emerged in the USA. Despite the abhorrence of identity
bu ther .
tly fr om c om petiti v e part y s� parties felt by the 'founding fathers' who created the.US constitution, the Federalist
asts

o pe r ate v e ry d i ffe r en � \ : :: �: � � reasi ngly come u nder atta ck.

stem a

t v i c
in Party (later the Whigs and, from 1860, the Republican Party) appeared as a mass­
s

av e
rt

:�/ ;:re div erse aspi �atio ns t

s e h

�:; t: a:��:�1:: ��: ::} :i �:�: � :

�:;� based party during the US presidential election of 1800. Many conservative and
hat

��:: �:�e :�� :�: :�

t trou .ing p .
v en to address, many of their mos
ai

modern so c ieties, and

fo r fa iling to s o l v e, or perh aps e liberal parties started life as legislative factions. Only later, forced to appeal to an
ever-widening electorate, did they develop an extraparliamentary machinery of
constituency branches, local agents, and so on. In contrast, socialist parties and
KEY ISSUES parties representing religious, ethnic and language groups were invariably born as
social movements, or interest groups, operating outside government. Subsequently,
be class ifi ed?
• What is a polit ic al party? How c an parti e s they developed into fully fledged parliamentary parties in the hope of winning formal
• What are the key fun c t ions of politi c al pa
rti es? representation and shaping public policy.By the beginning of the twentieth century,
powe r lo c ated within them?
parties and party systems had, in effect, become the political manifestation of the
organ ized, and where
• How are parties
social and other cleavages that animated society at large.However, the resulting party
is

• What kind s of party sy stem ar

e there? forms varied considerably.
pe the br o ader politic al pro c ess?
a How doe s the party sy stem sha
n e ter minal?
a Are parties in de cline, and is th is de cli

244
 down for party membership, careerism and si mple convenience are often powerful
Types of party motives for joining such parties, as both the CPSU and the Nazis found out.
nt
politica1 parti. es. The most importa
..
n used fo
A variety of classifications have bee A mass party, on the other hand, places a heavy emphasis on broadening membership
r

Faction, of these a re th e followin

factionalism
A faction is a section
or group within a larger
f orrnation, usually a
political party. Its aims
and organizational
status must theref ore
be compatible with
those of its host party;
otherwise the group is a
'party within a party'. A
distinction is sometimes
g:
• cadre and mass parties
• representative and integrat ive pa
• const itutional and revolutionary
• left-wing and right-wi
ng par
.
• mainst ream and populist parties
Cadre and mass parties
The most common distinction is th
ty r gin
ter m cadre pa r
all
and constructing a wide electoral base. Althou gh the extension o f the franchise
forced libera l and conservative parties to s eek a mass appea l, the earli est exan1ples of
rties mass parties were Europ ean socialist part ies, such as the German Socia l D e mocratic
Party (SPD) and the UK Labour Party, which const ructed organizations sp ecifically
parties
designed to mobilize working-class support.The key feature of such parties is that they
ties place heavier stress on recruitment and organization than on ideology and political
conviction. Although such parti es oft en have formally democratic organizations,
except for a mino rity of activists, membership usually e ntails little in the way of
part icipation and only genera l agre ement about principles and goals.
and mass pa r:i s. Th
at between cadre par ties
Most modern parties fall into the category of what Otto Ki rchhe imer ( 1966) term ed
�
ate d by an m or�a
;
arty o f notables', do min
y me nt 'p 'catch-all parties'. These are parties that drastically reduce their ideological baggage
o rganizat ion. Such pa r
t in building up a mass
a
in order to appea l to the largest possible number of voters. Kirchheimer part icularly
a

gro up of leaders who saw little poin

o i

.
ties
drawn between 'factions' . ime wh e the
mentary factions or cliques at a t had in mind the Christian D emocratic Union (CDU) in Germany, but the best
and 'tendencies', the invariably developed out of parlia ore co mm
:
only use (as
imi d. H wev r, th e t erm 'ca dre' is now m examples of catch-all parties are found in the USA in the form of the Republicans
latter being looser franchise w
to denote train ed and
professional party me�bers _w�o _a and the D e mocrats. Modern de-ideologized socialist parties such as the German
l te o e

in co mmunist parties)
as re
and more informal
olitical commitment and
doctnnal discip . Socia l D e mocrats and the Labour Party in the UK also fit this description. These
groups, distinguished
p ted to exhibit a high level of p
lme

of th e Soviet Union (CP

SU), th e Nazi �arty part ies differ from the classic model of a mass party in that the y emphasize leadership
only by a common
;: t�is sense , th e Commu nist Party parties, as are the Chmese
policy or ideological . Germany and the Fascist Party in Ita ly were cadre . and unity, and downgrad e th e rol e of individua l pa rty m embers in trying to build.

erta in respects, th e Ind

ian Congress party in the up broad coalitions of support, rather than r elying on a particular socia l class o r
Commum. st Party (CCP) and' in c
disposition. Factionalism
m

refers either to the
proliferation of factions,
;o�it:::u; act ive elite (usually subj e
or to the bitterness of
factional rival ry . The
term faction is often
used pejoratively; the
term factionalism
is always pejorative,
implying debilitating
infighting.
. · r�liance on a
d e riod. The distinguishi
ng feature of cadre parties i· s their sectional group.
- s cap l
ct to quasi-mil itary dis_ cipli e: t�at � _ :� ;:!
� en en a
thou gh stnct p o tica
ership to the masses. Al
offering ideological l ead Representative and integrative parties
The second party distinction, advanced by Sigmund Ne umann ( 1956), is that b etwe en
so -ca ll ed parties o f representation and parties of integration. R epresentative pa rties
see their primary funct ion as being the securing of vot es in elections. Th e y thus
atte mpt to reflect, rather than shap e, public opinion. In this resp e ct, representativ e
parties adopt a catch-all strategy and therefore place pragmatism before principle
and market re search b efore popu lar mobilization. The pre vale nce of such parties

in modern politics gave considerable force to arguments based on rational choice

models of political behavio ur, such as tho se of Joseph Schumpeter (see p. 224) and
Anthony Downs ( 1957), which portray politicians as power-seeking creatures who
are willing to adopt what ever policies a re likely to bring th em elec toral succ e ss.

Integrative parties, in contrast , adopt proactive , rather than re active , polit ical
strategies; they wish to mobi liz e , educate and inspire the masses, rath e r than m erely

respond to their conc erns. Although N eumann saw th e typical mobilizing party as

an ideologica lly disciplin ed cadre pa rty, mass pa rties may also exhibit mo bilizing
Rational choice: An
tendencies. For example , unt il they be ca m e discou rage d by el ectora l failure , so cialist
approach to politics based
parties set o ut to 'win over ' the electorat e to a belief in the ben efits of public ownership, on the assumption that
full employment , redistribut ion, social welfare , and so on. This approach was a lso, individuals are rationally
rather ironically, adopted by the UK Conser vat ives under Margaret Thatcher in self-interested actors;

the Great Hall of th e 1980s. Abandoning the pa rty's t ra dit ional distaste for ideology (s ee p. 27) and an 'economic' theory of
abstract principle , Thatcher embrac ed 'convict ion polit ics' in pursu ing a mobilizing
munist Party (CCP) Congress at
The close of the 19th Chinese Com politics.
of a cadre party.
. Be1...
the Peop I e m . 2017 The CCP is an example
Jmg m
 strategy based on firm suppor t for cutting taxes, encouraging enterprise, promoting shift away from old class polarities and the emergence of new political issues such as
individual responsibility, tackling trade union power, and so forth. · the envi ronment, animal rights and feminism has perhaps rendered the conventional
ideas ofl eft and right redundant (Giddens, 1994).
Constitutional and revolutionary parties
The third type of classification distinguishes b etween constitutional parties and
revolutionary parties. Constitutional parties acknowledge the rights and entitlements
of o ther par ties and, thus, operate within a framework of r ules and constraints. In THE LEFT/RIGHT DIVIDE
particular, they aclmowledge that there is a division between the party and the
The left-rig ht political spectrum is a sh
orthand m ethod of describ
i ng political i deas and belie fs
state, between the party in power (the government of the day) and state institutions
summarizing the ideologic al positions
of p olitic ians, parties and
m ov ements. Its origins dat�
(the bureaucracy, judiciary, police, and so on) tha t enjoy formal independence and
_
back to the French Revolution and the
positions that groups adopted at the first
meet ing of
political neutrality. Above all, constitutional pa rties aclmowledge and respect the
the F rench Esta tes-G eneral
in F89. The terms 'left' and 'right' do n
ot have e xact m eanings,
r ules of el ectoral competition. They recognize that th ey can be voted out of power as
however In a narrow sens
. e , the lin ear politic al spectrum
easily as th ey can b e voted in. Mainstream parties in liberal democracies all have such (see Figure 11.1) summarizes different
attitudes to the economy and the role o
f the state : left-wing views support inte
a constitutional character. rvention and
collect1v1sm, right-wing views
Favour the market and individualism
This supposedly reflects
Revolutionary parties, on the other hand, are anti-system or anti-constitutional dee per 1deolog1cal or value differences, .
as listed below:
parties, either of the left or of the right. Such parties aim to seize power and
An alternative, horseshoe-shaped politi
cal spectrum (se e Figure 11.2)
over throw the existing constitutional str ucture using tactics that range from outright _ was devised in the post ­
World War II period to h1ghl1ght the totalit
arian and monistic (anti-pluralist) tenden
insurrection and popular revolution to the quasi-legalism practised by the Nazis cies of both
fascism and communism, by c ontrast with
the allege d tole rance and o
and the Fascists. In some cases, revolutionary par ties are formally banned by being penness of mainstream
creeds. Those, like Hans Eysenck (1964
), who have developed a two-dimensional political
spectr um (see Figure 11.3) have tried to
classified as 'extremist' or 'anti-democratic', as has been the case in post-World War II
compensate for the crude
ness and inconsistencies
of the conventional left-rig
Germany. When such parties win power, however, they invar iably become 'ruling' or
ht spectrum by adding a vertical autho
ritarian-libertarian one .
This enables positions on economic organ
regime part ies, suppressing rival par t ies and establishing a permanent relationship
ization to be disentangled from those relat
e d to civil
liberty.
with the state machiner y. In one-party systems, whether established under the banner
of communism, fascism, na tionalism, or whatever, the distinction between the party
and the state is so weakened that the 'ruling' party, in effect, substitutes itself for the Left Liberty Auth ority Right
government, creating a fused 'party-state' apparatus. It was common in the USSR, for Equali ty Hi erarchy
instance, for the General Secretary of the CPSU to act as the chief executive or head Fraternity Order
of government without bothering to assume a formal state post. Rights Duties
Progress Tradition
Reform Reaction
Left- and right-wing parties
Internationalism Nationalism
The fourth way of distinguishing b etween parties is on the basis of ideological

i
I
I
orientation, sp ecifically between those parties lab elled left-wing and those labelled
right-wing (see p. 249). Left-wing parties (pr ogressive, socialist and communist
parties) are characterized by a commitment to change, in the form of either social
Mainstream and populist parties
The final way of distinguishing between
parties takes account of contrasting
reform or wholesale economic transformation. These have traditionally drawn their approaches to how societies should be governed. This
is the difference between
support from the ranks of the poor and disadvantaged (in urban societies, the working so-called mainstream parties and the gr owing
number ofpopulist parties. Mainstream
classes). Right-wing parties (conser vative and fascist parties, in par ticular) generally par ties (sometimes termed 'conventional'
or ' traditional' parties) are parties that
uphold the existing social order and are, in that sense, a force for continuity. Their broadly accept the constitutional status quo
and so tend to operate within
supporters usually include business interests and the materially contented middle be s�en as the established rules of the polit what can
ical game. The vast major ity of the major
classes. However, this notion ofa neat left/right party divide is, at b est, simplistic and, parties of government across the glob e can,
in this sense, be classified as mainstream
at worst, deeply misleading. Not only are both t he left and th e right often divided
�arties, together with most established minor parties. These parties are 'conv
entional;
along reformist/revolutionary and constitutional/insurrectionary lines, but also all 111 that they are s trongly
orientated around the acquisition and maintenanc
e of power
parties, esp ecially constitutional ones, tend to be 'broad churches', in the sense that having pronounced 'catch-all' featur
es, and their leaders ac t ess ent
ially as politic�
th ey encompass th eir own l eft and r ight wings. Moreover, electoral comp etition has entrepreneurs. Mainstream parties hav
e, as a resul t, a marked tendency
towards the
the effect of blurring ideological identit ies, once-cherished principles commonly centre ground of politics, where th
ey beli eve most voter s can be
evid ent since th e
foun d. This has been
being discarded in the search for vo tes. The definitions of left and right have also 1980s in the growing convergence in the econo
changed over time, and often differ from one political system to the next. Finally, the centre-left and centre-right part mic platf orms of
ies around market-orientated policies. Howe
ver, in
250 POLITICS /// //////////////////////////////////////////////////#//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////#/////////////////////////////////////////////////////4:i',W///,W/Q///.
W ///

deemed to b e deceitful, arrogant and self-serving, at the heart of which lie mainstream
parties and conventional politicians; and second, they claim that the only legitimate
source of political and moral authority rests with 'the p eople' (Norris and Inglehart,
Line ar spec trum

2019). Parties such as the French National Rally (formerly the National Front), the
Liberalis m Co nse rvat ism Fasc is m Danish P eople's Party, Jobbik in Hungary and Poland's Law and Justice Party have
Com mun ism Soc ialis m
thus b een dubbed anti-party parties. This gives rise to a form of politics that tends
Figure 11.1 Linear political spectru
m to have a combative, even insurrectionary, character. Populist parties also rej ect
conve ntional politics' obsession with the centre gro und in favour of a more narro wly

focused electora l and political strategy. For example, right-wing populist parties,
which acco unt for the bulk of populist parties worldwide, target p eopl e who have b een
Horseshoe spec trum

'left b ehind' by conte mporary society, esp ecially thos e who have b een disadvantaged
Fas cism by the onset of globa lization (see p. 161). This includes people who have suffered from
Com mun ism
economic grie van ces such as stagna nt living standards and j ob inse c urity, and those

whose s ense of social esteem has been undermined by, for instance, the changing rol e
of women, the spread of minority rights and the ge n eral advance of lib eral va lue s.
Anti-party party: A party
In the process, politics has come to b e structured increasingly by the gulf b etween that sets out to su bvert
rival 'open' and 'closed' ideological le anings (see Figure l l.4). Finally, if they achieve traditional party politics
power, populist parties differ from mainstream ones in their desire to dismantle by rejecting parliamentary
Con servatis m
Soc ialis m 'politics as normal'. This is particularly the case when the y seek to subvert safeguards compromise 1n
on exe c utive po wer, such as institutional checks and balances, judicial indepe ndence emphasizing popular
and the rule of law. mobilization.

Li bera lism

trum
Figure 11.2 Horseshoe political spec Outward looking V Inward looking

Inclu sive V Exclusive

Two -dim ensi onal spec trum
Diversity V Homogeneity

Aut hority Cosmopolitanism V N ationalism

• Sta linis m Social liberalism V Social conservatism

e N ew Righ t Free trade V Protectionism

Pooled sovereignty V State sovereignty

Righ t
Left

Soc ial
• Figure 11.4 The open/closed divide
I
d emo cra cy

I�
./

e Ana rcho -cap italis m "KEY TH I N KE R

Liberty
l spectrum
THOMAS J E FFERSON (1743-1 826)
Figure 11.3 Two-dimensional politica US political philosopher and statesman. A wealthy Virginian planter who was Governor of Virginia

r traditionat working­ 1779-81, Jefferson served as the first US Secretary of State, 1789-94. He was the third president
serving to disengage cent
re-left parties, in particular, from thei of the USA, 1801 -09. Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and
ortunit ies that populist
par s :av� een :��:
class supporters, this has cre ated opp �� ;
ence o e -wmg o
wrote a vast number of addresses and letters. He developed a democratic fo rm of agrarianism that
r hr ug h merg
to exploit. This has occurred eith /
rough the ten ency £or sought to blend a belief in rule by a natural aristocracy with a commitment to limited government
e

o demos in Spain) or th
e t o h t e

arties (suc a Sy z in Gr or P . es to
ral issu
- ng l tform on social and cultu
eece and sometimes called Jeffersonianism. He also demonstrated sympathy for social
�opulist parties that e mbrace a right � � �
h s ri a laissez-faire,
ref o rm, fa vouring the extension of p u blic education, the abolition of slavery and greater economic
ionist econo mic polici es.
adopt leftist or interve nt eg u ality.
.
e about how soci ety
by tw o core claims they mak _
Source: PhotoDisc/

ist arties ar di ngu d

political establishment
d b� governed. First, they challenge th e authority of a
G etty Images
e sti ishe

!��j
I
 r

party post: contestants in a presidential election are usua lly party leaders, while
. . in parliamentary systems the leader of the largest party in the assembly normally
the fillmg of political
a cent ral fu nction (
Functions of p arties
p . r d fi d b y becomes prime minister. Cabinet and other ministerial posts are usua lly filled by
Although political litical syst em
. ld"mg of government power), thei. r i· mpact on the po
e e ne Pri mary election
senior party figures, tho ugh exceptions are found in preside ntia l systems such as t he
arti es a

offic d h w are
A primary election is

and mor e co p1 e . It
goes without saying that there USA's, which allow non-party ministers to be appointed.
e ie
d an intraparty election
t
y b
an
l
e

is sub t nti 1n �
parti· es· Constitutional parties
· g ab o ut the functions of
roa er
in which candidates
a l

dangers in generali" zm
s a

trayed as bastions of In most cases, parties therefore provide a training gro und for politicians, equipping
. m . a context of electoral compet I·1·ion tend to b e por are selected to contest
operatmg e lit mus test of a them with skills, knowledge and experience; and offering them some form of career
e . f such arties is often seen as th
a subsequent 'official'
c y ; i d d,
_ th str ucture , a lbeit one that depends on t he for tunes of the party. On the othe r hand, the
d :a oy a monop oly
: e other nd, regime parties that enj
X1s�:�: o election. During the
ee

h ealthy democratic sys em.

emo rac n

t of manipulation
mmonly portrayed as instr ume
of political power are more co d the wider impact
n s
stra11glehold that parties exe rt over gove rnment offi ces can b e criticized for ensuring
twentieth century,
that political leaders are drawn from a relatively small pool of talent: the senior
primaries became the

and political control.

Moreover, controversy ontinues ! ;: :��: ' figures in a handful of major parties. In the USA, howe ver, this stranglehold has been
r 'founding fathers
r
;erson an
o
principal nominating

it c p e . F instance , Tho�as �e
of p g them as weakened by the widespread use of primary elections, which reduce the control that device used in the
negative terms, seein
e d pa�ttes m _deeply
or

of the US Constitution por tray

ol i al arti s

general a party has ove r the process of candidate selection and nomination .
USA, also being used
b of
and political regim_e
ntat�on (see p. 255) A
a source of discord
to choose convention
ows:
m er

t· n &mc��ns are foll

s b e identified. The ma
functions of parties can nevertheles
delegates and party
as

Goal formulation leaders. Most US states

• representation Political parties have traditiona lly been one of the means thro ugh which socie ties hold 'closed' primaries,
t
• elite formation and recruitmen set collective goals and, in some cases, ensure that the y are carried o ut. Parties play in which participation is

a goal formulation this role b eca use, in the process of seeking powe r, the y formulate programmes of restricted to registered
supporters of the party;
egation government (through conferences, conventions, election manifestos, and so on)
• interest artic ulation and aggr 'open' primaries allow
with a vie w to attracting popular support. Not only does this mean that parti es are a
• socialization and mobilization maj or source of polic y initiation, it also encourages them t o formulate cohe re nt sets
all voters to participate,

• organization of government.
regardless of party
of polic y options that give the electorate a choice amongst realistic and achie vable
affiliation. Primary
goals. elections give rank­

This function is most clearly carried o ut by parties in parliamentary systems that and-file voters more of

are a ble to claim a mandate (see p. 222) to implement their policies, if the y a re a voice in party affairs
and lead to a more
electe d to powe r. Howeve r, it can also occur in presidentia l syst ems with usua lly
candidate-orientated
11011-programmic par ties, as in the case of the Republicans' 'Contrac t with America'
and less party-orientated
in the US congressional elections of 1994. Ne vertheless, the tendency towards style of politics.
de-ideologized catch-a ll parties, and the fact that electoral campa igns increasingly
stress personality and image o ve r policies and issues, has ge n e rally re duced the impact

that parties have on policy formulation . P arty programmes, moreover, are almost
certain to be modified by pressure from the civil service and interest gro ups, as well
as in the light of domestic and inte rnational circumstances. Po licy implementation,

on the other hand, is usually carried out by bureaucracies rather than parties, exce pt
in one-party syst ems such as those in orthodox communist states, where t he 'ruling'
party supervises the state apparatus at e very le vel.

Interest articulation and aggregation

In the process of developing collective goals, parties also help to articulate and
aggregate the various interests found in society. Par ties, indeed, often develop as
vehicles through which business, labour, religious, e thnic or other groups advance
ment
wi their olit1 a
Elite for mation and rec ruit
le for providing stat es
. .
Parties of all kinds are responsib � / o� ��;::;�i
e�". t e crea l O
or defend their various int erests. The UK Labour Party, for instance , was created
to thi clud p arties that are , effectiv '
Exceptions to the m such
by the trade union move ment with the aim of achieving working-class politica l
ical ve�icles :o
e

politicians and are used as po�it

s in

representation . Other parties have, effectively, recruited interests and gro ups in order
�; : �:: :::�:�ed :s the �eople
il

' Forza Ita lia , established m

as Silvio B e rlusconi s . ded in to broaden their electora l base, as the US parties did in the late nineteenth and early
. 2009 and Vladimir Putin's United Russia party, £oun .
d twentieth centuries with immigrant gro ups.
��it�:�: ::: :m mo�y, however, politicia11s
achie ve office by virt
ue of their
The fact that national parties invariably articulate the demands -of a multitude of
groups forces them to aggregate these interests by drawing them together into a
coherent whole, balancing competing interests against each other. Constitutional DO PARTI ES BREED D I SCORD AN D CONSTRA I N POLITICAL DEBATE?
parties are clearly forced to do this by the pressures of electoral competition, but
So c o mm o n a re p arties i n modern p o litics t ha t i t i s often fo rg o tt en h ow c o ntroversi a l they were when they fi rst emerged.
even monopolistic parties articulate and aggregate interests through their close
Al t h oug h s o me wel c o med t hem a s t h e a gents o f a new age of m a ss p o l i tics, o thers w a r ned t h at t h ey wo uld deepen
relationship with the state and the economy, especially in centrally planned systems. _ _
co nA1c t a nd subvert t he p o l 1 t 1 cs of 1 nd1v 1 du al consci o usness. The t rend to wa rds falling p arty members h i p a nd decl i n i ng
However, not even in competitive party systems are all interests articulated, those of _
party 1den t 1fic a t1 o n 1n t he m odern peri od h a s served to revive suc h c ri t i cisms.
the poor being most vulnerable to exclusion.
YES NO
Sacrificing personal conscience. B y thei r natu re, pa rties Forums of debate. The image of pa rt ies as a us tere,
Soci alization and mob ilization
as campaigning and electoral
Through internal debate and discussion, as well
a re collec t ive en t i t ies, g roups of people who a gree m o n o li t hic bodies, in w h i c h free deba te is sa c r ificed i n

cal education and socialization. a common pla tfo rm, a nd advance sh a red views and t he c a u s e of pa rty unity, i s a ccu ra te o n l y in t h e context
competition, parties are important agents of politi
to set the political agenda, and the
o pinions. Without unity and cohesion, parties have very of a uthorita ria nism. In o t her c i rcums tances, par ties
The issues that parties choose to focus on help vibra n t and mul tifa rious; indeed, the existence of
of the larger political culture (see
litt le rea son to exist. And yet t his uni ty comes at the a re

values and attitudes that they articulate become part p ri ce of person a l c o nscience, a s it is inconceiva ble th a t riva l factions and tendencies ensures u nending deba te
gation of an 'official' ideology
p. 195). In the case of monopolistic parties, the propa a ny member would genuinely support a ll of party's abou t policy issues a nd strategic concerns. Rather than
simply the ideas of a charismatic
I
(be it Marxism-Leninism, National Socialism, or
a

policies in a ll ci rcums ta nces. Over sm a l l a nd somet imes requ i ring members s a crifice persona l conscience,
al, if not its supreme, function.
leader) is consciously acknowledged to be a centr
I la ge m
to

r at te rs, p a rties t herefo re come to ' t hink fo r' their parties p rovide t h ei r members wit h an educ a t ion in

no less significant a role in members, w hether this comes a bou t t h rough party polit ics, helping t hem to s trengthen thei r knowledge
Mainstream parties in competitive systems play
cratic game, thus mobilizing
discipl i ne a nd the fear of punishment (including expulsion and sk i l l s and making them mo re eng a ged cit izens . Pa rty
encouraging groups to play by the rules of the demo
gence of socialist parties in the late
from the party) o r, mo re in s idiously, t h roug h a n emotiona l membership is th erefore an impo rtant veh ic l e for the
support for the regime itself.For example, the emer
rtant means of integrating the
or ideo logical attac h men t to the pa rty a nd i ts goals. aspect of person a l self- development.
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was an impo Disharmony and adversarialism. Pa rty politics is ba sed Engaging the people. Parties provide channel of
the capacity of parties to mobilize
working class into industrial society.Nevertheless,
a

on pa rtis a nship, a dherence and, maybe, even devo t ion c o mmunication t hrough which po l i tical l ea ders both
nce in many countries of partisan
and socialize has been brought into doubt by evide to a p a rticula r c a use or group . This inevitabl y breeds a mobilize ci t izens a nd respond to thei r needs and
ment with conventional pro­
dealignment (see p. 241) and growing disenchant t ribal ment a lity in whic h t he A a ws a nd failings of other c o ncerns. Th is applies most clea rly when the elect ora l
to some extent, they themselves
system parties. The problem that parties have is that, p art ies are ex aggera ted, while t hose of one's own p ro cess forces pa rties to compete for the popula r vote
ience of government, making
are socialized (some would say corrupted) by the exper
pa rty are consi sten t ly denied. Parties thus p romote a in o rder to win reta in governmen t power, but it c a n
an sympathies and attracting
or

them, it appears, less effective in engaging partis

one-sided view of politics in which polit ical issues and also occu r (a lbeit to a limi ted extent) in autho rita rian

more fully in Chapter 20.)

emotional attachments. (These issues are discussed
deba tes a re cons tantly distorted by considerat ions systems, th rough a ttempts by 'ruling' p a rties to m a in ta in
of pa r ty adva nta ge. Th i s tendency towa rds mindless l egitimacy. Th e need to engage wi th t he idea s a nd

a dversarial i sm - disag reement for t he s a ke of interes ts of t he people generates pressure within parties

Organization of gover n men t disag reement - is h ardly a sound ba sis for a dva ncing the to permit, even encou rage, internal deba te and a rgument
be ungovernable in the absence
It is often argued that complex modern societies would
public good. am o ng thei r members, rat he r th a n unc ritic a l obedience.

the formation of governments,

of political parties. In the first place, parties help with
Domination by the cunning and ambitious. Pa rt ies serve Cross-party interaction. Bipartisa nsh i p is more common
ble to talk of 'party government'
in parliamentary systems, to the extent that it is possi
to concen tra te politic a l power r a ther t h a n d i sperse i t. I n than is often supposed. For ins tance, the use of

e of stability and coherence,

(see p. 261). Parties also give governments a degre
t h e 'iron l a w of olig a rchy' (see p. 256), th is t endency i s p roportion a l elec toral sys t ems typically c rea tes a bias

from a single party and are, expl a ined in terms of organiz a tion. However, elite rule in favour of consensu s-bui l ding and alli a nces amongs t
especially if the members of the government are drawn a l so reAec t s the fac t t ha t , w i t h in pa rties , 'fo o t soldiers'
ments. Even governments that
pa rties based on t he fa ct tha t n o single party is li kely to
therefore, united by common sympathies and attach
to foster unity and agreement
a re required do little other than obey a nd follow, h ave sufficient pa rl iamen ta ry s trengt h to r u l e on it s own .
are fo�med from a coalition of parties are more likely
to

enc o uraged by the know l edge t hat loyalty and discipline The res u l ting coalit ion governmen t s a re held together
with his or her own priorities.
than those that consist of separate individuals, each wi ll be rewa rded, w hile dissent and, in p a rticular, c riticism by t h e fact that conAic t s between the p a rties invo lved

the two major branches of

Parties, furthermore, facilitate cooperation between
of t he leaders h ip will be punished. Those who cl i mb the a re resolved t h ro ug h a process of ong o ing c ros s -party

parliamentary systems, this is

government: the assembly and the executive. In
'g reasy pole' and gain a dva ncement within the pa rty dia logue . A simila r dynamic c a n devel o p in p res idential

t is usually formed from are therefo re likely, in Geo rge Wa shington's w ords, to systems due the phenomenon of c o h a bitati o n,
effectively guaranteed by the fact that the governmen
to

assembly. However, even in

be 'cunning, ambitious unp rincipled men' Political
a nd whereby t he execu tive is in t he h ands of one p arty while
the party or parties that have majority control of the
.

some influence, if not control,

part ies are, in t his sense, a p arti cula r example of t he the a ssembly is domina ted by another p a r ty.
presidential systems the chief executive can wield co rru ption of power (as discussed in C h a pter 20).
de, in competitive systems at
through an appeal to party unity. Finally, parties provi
inside and outside government.
least, a vital source of opposition and criticism, both
the electorate, this helps to
As well as broadening political debate and educating
 f!///////////1/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////#////////////////////////////////////////H//////////bV//A

efore , more by little more than the need to contest presidential elections, the y are highly
hly scrutinized and, ther
ensure that gov ern
ment polic y is more thoroug decentraliz ed and generally non-programmic. Traditionally, state-based or city­
e. base d par ty bosses (a legac y of the machine politics of the early twentieth century)
lik ely to b e workabl
act ed as power brokers and ex ercised a decisive influence at nominat ing conventions .
d oes power ri e,. Following protests and clashes at the 1968 D emocratic national convention in
Pa rty organ iza ti o n: where . h b
at p olitical �arties
play, c�nsid Chicago, however, a reform movement sprang up, aimed at wea kening the power of
B ecause of the crucial role th rgamzat i·o
:�� ;:�:�:: ot;ar:��
local party lea ders and strengthening the role of rank-and-file m emb ers.
he p ie
l' wi'thin part i es.The o
foc used on as a whol e.
. c1ues about the d'istn'but10n · of power within society
er s
.
w re ow

thus provides vital icipation nd This was accomplished largely through the wider use of nominating primaries and
. i es that broade n part
t as democratic b o d caucuses. These, first with the D emocrats and later with the Republicans, attracted
acc ess to
i fun .
a
C a nd ehtes .
omi nance of leaders
do they simply entrench the d
es c ion

a growing numb e r of issue a nd candidat e activists into party p olitics, lea ding to
art ?

p:::? Or
. . a1 party d emocrac
y (see p. 258) the nomination of more ideological candidates such as George McGovern for the
t o inve �;igate mte rn
One of the earliest attempts anization of Political
rt k n . Mosei· 0 strogorski s Democracy and the Org
m
D emocrats in 1972 and Ronald Reagan for the Republicans in 1980.Such tendencies
wa s und vidual interests had lost
. that th e repr esentat i· on of i'ndi generat ed concern , particularly amongst D emocrats, who feared that more op en
Parties (19 02), wh ich argued
e a e

by a caucus of
. m . flu ence of the party mach'm e and control exerted and participatory structures could simply result in the nomination of unelec table
out to th e growmg Mich els in
. Th' is vi· ew was mor e me
morablY expresse d by Rob ert 'outsider ' candidates. Both the main US parties responde d to this by mo dernizing
se pa y fi g Mich els
2) . th e £on� of th e 'iron law of oligarchy', or, as
m and strengthening their committe e structu res, espe cia lly at national, congressional
s
19�
ure
191 1) _
rt
( [
r
ties
nio

Political Par
says ohgarchy . Mic
' h els ( 1876-1936), a prominent and senator ial l ev els.Although this has b e en portrayed as a process of 'party renewal',
put it, 'he who says orgamzat10n of th e G erma n SPD·'
h e argued it is e vidence of the parties' desire to provide b etter electoral support for individual
. . th e powe r structure
elite th eonst, wish ed to analyse .ic orgamz n
. ation' power was co centrat
ed
ca ndidat es, rath er tha n of the em ergen ce of Europe an-style, party-fo cused elec tions.
, d p t th p ty' s for mally democrat
th
all group of party le
aders.
i e e ar

i n the ha nds of a sm
es
The - existence of fac tions and t endencies is as important as formal organization
at

lism and,
. he ' ' exPlain ed the inevita
bl e failure of democratic socia in determining the loc atio n of p owe r within a party. Whil e all parti es, e ve n those
h ,
F r Mi
of political democra
· s, however' point out that
cy. Cn· t ic with an apparently monolithic charact er, e mbrace some measure of political a nd
law
yth
t
h m
els
d t
c
d
o

indee d, xp ngle political

. . on the b asis of a si ideological rivalry, the degree to which this rivalry is reflec ted in conflict b etween
erahzat10ns made
e

M'iche1s' observations are gen

e lo e

i. onab e p . 1
sych o1o gica
. in time, and also rest on quest organized and coh e rent groups is cr ucial in det ermining the degre e of authority of
party at a particular mom ent. , and
l

d to b e more faction-r idd

es hav e often prove party l eaders. In some cases, fa ct ions can br ea k away from part ies in the manner
theories. In prac.tice, party eht
en

. els suggested.
ntial and qui escent, than Mich that Europ ean communist parti es oft en em erged out of socialist parti es in t he years
mass memb erShips less defer e
II
following the 1917 Russian Re volut ion. Factionalism is often link ed to the weight
that parties place on political ide as and ideological direction. Whereas pragmatic Machine politics: A style
right -wing parti es usua lly m erely have to balance or conciliate rival tenden ci es, of politics in which party

CH Y more ide olo gical part ies of the left oft en have to deal with op en disagre em ent ' bos ses' control a mass
TH E IRO N LAW O F O LIGAR a nd institu tionalized r ivalry. Tog eth er with th eir in cli nation t o endorse int ernal organization th rough
', form u l ate d
. . e 'iro n l a· w of olig a rchy
Oli ga rchy is governm e n t
.
o r d o min at i o n b
Y th e few · Th
o li tica l
democrac y, t his has generally mad e socialist parties mor e diffi cult to lead than patronage and the
n i. n evi tabl e te n d e ncy fo P
196 2) ' s uggests th at th ere is a .
lib er al or conse rvative parties.
distribution of favours.
r

by Rob ert M.1ch e Is ([19 11] · · p ato ry o r d e m crati c

. rg niz tion s, to b . rch·i c . p a rt1c1
e oliga
o
. by imp lication ll Caucus:_A meeting of
o rga niz a ti o ns, a nd
· th e m .
d .isg u1se Perhaps a more significant consideration, however, is the extent to which parties
a o a a

es; th e y ca n o nly
c n n ch e ck oliga rchic te nd e nci party members held
structu
have a secure hold on power. Factionalism is, in a sense, a luxury that only long­
res a ot

in supp ort of his l a w : to nominate election

Mic h e ls a dva nce d a num b
e r of arg u m e n ts
time parties of government can afford. This is why monopolistic communist parties candidates, or to discuss
er exp ertise
h e n ee d for sp eci a liz ati o n
. Eli te me mbers h ave g reat were able to k eep factionalism at bay only by exercising ruthless discipline enforce d
• Elite g rou P s re sul t fro m t . legislative proposals
niz ati o n a l skill s t h a n thos e
po ssessed by ord i n a ry m
mb e rs.
through the strictures of democratic centralism. It also explains the deeply fact ional in advance of formal
a nd b etter org a
e

. . .
es th e i r ch a nc e s
iv e g roups b ec a us
e t h ey re cog niz e
th at th is imp rov nature of 'dominant ' par ties such as the Lib eral D emocratic Part y (LDP) in Japan proceedings.
• Lea d e rs form c h
and the Italian Christian D emocrat ic Par ty (DC). The UK Conservative Party is
o es

of r e m a inin g in pow er.

. . h etic a nd are , th erefor
e,
an example of a party with an ethos that once str essed, above a ll, deference and
Democratic centralism:
te n d to b e a p at
of a n org a n i zation The Leninist principle of
R a nk- a nd-fi l e m e mber s
loyalty. Howe ver, th e Par ty b ecam e increasingly factionaliz ed in t he 1980s and 1990s
•
ep t s u b ordin atio
n a nd ve n era te l ead ers. party organization, based
g e n e ra lly dispose d to a cc
through a combination of its more ideological character a nd its prolong ed electoral on a supposed balance
ry features
b d h he democratic and participato success after 1979. Bottom-up pressures thus gave th e Conser vative Part y a more between freedom of
Attem�ts h in th e USA democratic character than its formal leader-dominated structure suggested was
� : : r est examples of this occurred
t

or m. �n: �e::re :::

a e
discussion and strict unity
a e en

of parti es throug re . from th eir Europ ean possible. The most conspicuous casualty of this process was Margaret Thatcher, who
. of action.
· to gether
�;::::�:�t:: interests held
s

; :;: �:. :� ��:�: e �!aii�::: 0::::

�:�� e r n
 '/'//rrr,rr,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,.,.,.,,.,,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,,.,,,.,._,.,,.,.,.",.,..,,.,.,.,.,.,.
.................. 7•..-..-..............-...... ..-............. ..-..-... --... . --............ ..-.. .. .... . . . . . ... . . . . ._ . • .

was forced to stand down as part y leader in 1990 despite having won three successive The major party systems found in modern politics
are, never theless, as follows:
general elections. Albeit to different degrees, all subsequent Conservative leaders
• one-party systems
have experienced difficulties in confronting factional resistance inside and outside
• two-party systems
Party democracy
Party democracy is a of Parliament.
form of popular rule that • dominant-party systems
operates through the
• multiparty systems.
agency of a party. There PARTY SYSTEMS
are two models of party
Political parties are important not only because of the range of functions they carry
democracy. In the first
out (representation, elite recruitment, aggregation of interests, and so on), but also
One - party systems
�trictly speak ing, the term one-party system is contradictory since
Cintra- party democracy),
because the complex interrelationships between and among parties are crucial in _ 'system' implies
parties are democratic
i�te�action amongst a number of entities. The
structuring the way political systems work in practice. This network of relationships . erm is, never theles s, helpful in
agents, in that power
distmgur_shmg between political systems in which
t

within them is widely and is called a party system. The most familiar way of distinguishing between different a single party enjoys a monopoly
of power through the exclusion of all other part
evenly dispersed. This types of party system is by reference to the number of parties competing for power. ies (by political or constitutional
means) and those systems characterized by a
implies, for instance, On this basis, Duverger (1954) distinguished between 'one-party', 'two-party' and competitive struggle amongst a
number of part _ es. Because monopolistic parties
that there should be 'multiparty' systems. Although such a typology is commonly used, party systems � effectively function as permanent
governments, with no mechanism (short of a coup
broad participation in the cannot simply be reduced to a 'numbers game'. or revolution) through which they
can be removed from power, they invariably develop
election of leaders and an entrenched relationship with
As important as the number of parties competing for power is their relative size, as the st te mac ine. This allows suc
selection of candidates. � � h states to be classified as 'one-p
reflected in their electoral and legislative strength. As Sartori (2005) pointed out, ar ty states: their
In the second model, machmery bemg seen as fus d 'party-state' appar
� � atus. Two rather different types of
democracy dictates that what is vital is to establish the 'relevance' of parties in relation to the formation one-party system can be identified, however.
policy-making power of governments and, in particular, whether their size gives them the prospect of
The first type �as been found in state socialist regim
should be concentrated winning, or at least sharing, government power. This approach is often reflected in _ have drre es where 'ruling' communist
par�ies cted and �ontrolled virtually all the institutions
in the hands of party t he distinction made between 'major', or government-orientated, parties and more and aspects of
society.Such p_artles_ ar s bJect
members who are peripheral, 'minor' ones (although neither category can be defined with mathematical � � to strict ideological discipline, traditionally linked t
o
elected and, therefo re,
accuracy). A third consideration is how these 'relevant' par ties relate to one another. �en�ts of�arxrsm �Le�mism, and they have highly structured internal organizations,
publicly accountable .
Is the party system characterized by cooperation and consensus, or by conflict and m hne with the pnnciples of democratic centralism
. These are cadre parties, in the
In this view, the first
polarization? This is closely linked to the ideological complexion of the party system, s�nse that membership is restricted on political and
ideological grounds. Almost
model may lead to the SIX per cent of the Chinese popu
and the traditions and history of the parties that compose it. lation are members of the Chinese Communist
tyranny of non-elected
constituency activists. The mere presence of parties does not, however, guarantee the existence of a party
system. The pattern of relationships amongst parties constitutes a system only if
it is characterized by stability and a degree of orderliness. Where neither stability
nor order exists, a party system may be in the process of emerging, or a transition
from one type of party system to another may be occurring. For instance, this can
be said of early postcommunist Russia. The collapse of communist rule in 1991
and the initial banning of the CPSU was always going to make the emergence of a
competitive part y system a difficult, perhaps tortuous, business. Russia's problem
was a proliferation of par ties and political groupings, none of which came close to
establishing a mass membership or a nationwide organization. No fewer than 43
Party system: A relatively parties contested the 1995 parliamentary elections, with the largest of these, the
stable network of Russian Communist Party, gaining just 22 per cent of the vote. The subsequent
relationships between introduction of measures such as electoral thresholds and registration on the basis
parties that is structured of petitions greatly reduced the number of parties, meaning, for instance, that just
by their nu mber, size and seven parties contested the 2011 Russian Duma elections. However, some have
ideological orientation. argued that, in an age of partisan dealignment and volatile voting patterns, party
Threshold: A minimum systems are generally losing their 'systematic' character, making it more difficult
level of electoral support to distinguish one system from another. Moreover, where subnational bodies exert

needed for a party to be
eligible to win seats.
significant influence, different part y systems may operate at different levels within
the political system.
Robert Mug abe wa s one of the longest-sta nding politica l lea ders in Africa to oversee a
one-pa rty system. He was president of Zimba bwe from 1987 to 2017.

P arty (CCP),
CP
b oth the state machine and soci
appara
A cent
and soci ety, a nd ens
n omenklatura syste m. This is a system of vetted a
ll
a se
party s
the L eninist claim th
the workin g masse
that they fulfil th e ir rev
���3;;n :: :ther hand, offered
from th:�uling' party dominating
mere1y concealed th e
The second typ e of
an
Zimbabwe , one-party ru e e ve
::0 ::;�';�,
thro
Vanguardism: The Leninist
belief in the need for a
party to lead and guide
the proletariat towards
the fulfilment of its
\
I revolutionary destiny.
I
W,W/////////////////#//�W/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////#//////////////////////////////#/////////////////////,0'/#A
• Power alternates b etwe en these parties; b oth are 'electable: the opposition s erving
. pulat ion b elonged to the
a nd around mne p er c ent of the Soviet po as a 'government in the wings'.
. l-t i me offic ials, th e
onsists f well-paid ful
I his typ f party, th e party core c
SU.
ara�us' and ex ercise
sup ervision over Th e UK and the USA are the most frequently cited examples of states with two-party
e par� ap? ar� t, �r app
e o Party government
u h
n t
wh syste ms, though others have included Canada, Australia and, unti l the introduct ion
Party government is a
al mst itut ions.
n t
tchi k i, o r
system through which
of electoral reform i n 1993, N e w Zea la nd. Archetypa l exampl es of two-party politics
y
. through which communist part ies control the state, econom
single parties are able
� d c are, neverth el ess, rare. The UK, for insta nce, often portrayed as th e model t wo -party
. orga ns to 'higher ' one
s, is th e to form governments
ure the sub ordination of 'lower' system, has con formed to its thre e de fining crit eria only fo r particular (and, some
r evi e
h, ffectively,
and carry through policy
ppointments in wh
· ificat ion fo oth the
would argu e, untypical) p eriods of its history. Even the apparent Labour-Conse rvative
ic e
b programmes. Its key
d candidates· The J ust
m . p fille d by party-approv e two-partyism of th e early post -World War II period (po wer alternating four times
r
es in
features are as follows.
, . . .
a nd its sup ervision o
f state and social institut ions, li b etween 1945 and 1970) was punctuated by 13 years of continuous Conservative rule
are
p
osts
f
or
p _r
1
(1) Major parties possess
' tariat' in providing
e 'vanguard of th e prole
at the party acts s th
o ow er
( 1951-64), a p eriod during which t ime Lab our's electability was called into question.
no o
mo
a clear programmic
s Wl' th the ideolog�ica 1 1eadership ' and guidance n eeded to ensu Moreover, despite p ersistent maj or party dom inat ion of the House of Commons in the character and thus
re
as, ho weve r, b een cri
ciz
olutiona? destmy. V:anguardism h
. .
UK, it is more doubtful that a two-part y system has existed ' in the country' sinc e 1974. offer the electorate
ti ed
. th e se ed from which
Stalinism later grew. Trotsky
b g d l elitist and providmg
a meaningful choice
at, far
This is suggested by the decline of combined Lab our-Conservative support (down
tion by sugg esting
an alt ernative interpreta
between potential
nopo ly
�power from over 95 p er c ent in the early 1950s to consistently b elow 75 p er c ent since 1974).
S ovie t development, its formal mo
governments. (2) The
o
bu uc cy. Even the seemingly incontrovertible two -partyism of the USA - which, for instance, governing party enjoys
burgeoning influence of the state . s ees the Republicans an d D emocrats usua lly holding b etwe en them all the seats
rea ra
.
i -colo nial na�ionahsm
sufficient ideological
-p ty y i s associated with ant in the H ouse of Representatives and t he S enate - can b e qu est ioned. On the one
and organizational
babwe,
world. n Ghana , Tanzania and Zim
s stem
dation in th e developin g
one ar
c n li l . hand, the presi dent ia l system a llows one party to capture the White House (the unity to deliver on its
movement that
an m d ep e ndenc e
h , u1· ' t y develop ed out of
manifesto commitments.
so
presidency) while the other controls one or both houses of Congress, as, for instanc e,
d state o
o
:;,,;,�7n�;,d n;'::/: t��! :: �:,:�:�:::;::,:::,� il o ccurred b e tween 1984 and 2000, mean ing t hat it may not b e possible to identify a
(3) Responsibility
; , is maintained by
op e
clear government- opposit ion divi de. O n th e oth er hand, 'third' party candidates are
. and ZAPU' b oth for
maJ. or parties, ZANU
the government's
h g f th e tw sometimes of significance . Ross P erot ' s 16 p e r cent of th e vote i n the 1992 presid entia l
mer
ug elop ed as little more th.an
·
s, sueh parties have dev
accountability to the
o
.
r er o
election not only highlighted th e decline of the Republi can and D emo cratic parties,
gue�n11a groups In other case
h t e me
ed to co nsolidate po
wer, as with electorate through its
h which a national leader has t ri ' but a lso, arguably, proved decisive in securing victor y for Bill Clinton.
�:�:�:l
Popul
::��t
M m
P eople ' s P ty in
of th e R evolut ion in Z
ar B an g lad h i n th e 1980s and P res
aire, 1965-97 .
es
ident Mobutu s
Two-party polit ics was once portrayed as the surest way of reconciling responsiveness
mandate, and by the
existence of a credible
. with order, representative governm ent with effective governm ent. Its key advantag e
opposition that acts as a
11 b een built around th e domm
ove ent
.
ar
balancing force.
is that it ma kes possible a system of party government, supposedly characterized
ant
id nt
�7:- r i deolo gic
e
�;r:\�::�::a��c �!:l:/:!:�;a�: w�::v: �' t:e t ;! :t:�: by stability, choi ce and accountability. The two maj or parties are able to offer the
e
�
lead er. Kwame Nkru
possessed from the vi e ws of that . electorate a straight forward choic e b etween riva l programmes a nd alternative
e
w m 1966, is often seen
ma
. peo p1 es p y (CP P) in Gh u i hi e h
Convention ' · Tanzania governments. Voters can support a party knowing that, if it wins the el ect ion, it will
· s Nyer�re m
s ov rt ro
have b een Ju1m
ana nt l
er, but oth er examples
art
as th e mo del such lead _ eakly
have the capacity to carry out its manifesto promis es without having to negotiate or
y, t�ese partle� are
a nd Rob ert Mugab e
in Zimbabwe. Not uncommonl arty
compromise with co alition partners. This is sometimes seen as one of the attractions
m comm um� �
.
or gamz ed (ver y d iffere
nt from the tight discipline found Ju of maj or itarian ele ctora l syste ms t hat exaggerate support fo r larg e parties. Two -party
t one
h y-� ng.
e process of po
a p eripheral role i n th
states), and the� P_lay, at .b est, onl systems have a lso b een praised for delive ring strong but accountable government
c
thoritariamsm se e (
.
Their monopolistic position, nev yerthe1 ess, helps to entrench au based on relentless comp etition b etween the governing and opposition parti es.
.
er of cor ruption.
p. 121) and to k eep alive the dang Although government can govern, it can never relax or b ecome complac ent
b ecause it is constantly confronted by an opposition that acts as a government in
waiting. Two-partyism, moreover, creates a bias in favour of moderation, as the two
, . , art'es that
nated by two _maJ or �
Two-party systems
p olistic in that it is domi
contenders for power have to battl e for 'floating' votes in the centre ground.This was,
A two-p yr y �
w inni ng gov�rn�n e nt po
wer. I n its classical orm, a for example, reflected in the so -call ed 'socia l-democratic consensus' that prevail ed i n
duo
of
is
pe
s stem
pr
a t
have a roughly qu
th e UK from th e 1950s to th e 1970s.
by three cntena :
os ct
two -party system can b e identified
e al
. j oy sufficient
ies may exist, only two parti es en Howe ver, two-party politics and party governm ent have not b een so well regarded
• Although a numb er of 'minor' part . .
strength to have a realist
ic prospect of wmnmg governmen since the 1970s. I nstead of guaranteeing moderation, t wo -party systems such as the
electoral and le gislative
t
UK' s have displayed a p eriodic t endency towards adversary po lit ics (see p. 361). This
power. . . maJ. On· t )· is refl ected in i deologica l polarization and an emphasis on conflict and argument,
(usually on the basis of a legislative y '
• The larger party is abl e to rule alone
opposition.
th e oth e r provides the
 Y///r,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,.,,,,.,,,.,,,,,,,,,,.,,.,,,,,.,,.,,.,.,.,.,,.,,,.,,,,,.,,.,,,,,.,,.,,.,.,,,,,,.,,,,.,,,.,.,,,,.,,,.,.,,,,.,.,.,,,,,.,,,.,,,.,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,__,,,.,,,,.

rather than consensus and compromise. In the UK in the early 1980s, this was best
demonstrated by the movement to the right by a 'Thatcherized' Conservative Party
and the movement to the left by a radicalized Labour Party, although a new, post­
SO UT H AF RICA: A O N E-PAR TY STATE?
Thatcherite consensus soon emerged. Adversarial two-partyism has often been
explained by reference to the class nature of party support (party conflict being Events: I n April 1994 , South Afric
a held its fi rst non ­

seen, ultimately, as a reflection of the class struggle), or as a consequence of party racial elect i on . The African N at
i onal C ongre ss (ANC)
democratization and the influence of ideologically committed grass-roots activists. w on the elec tion , gai n ing 63
per cent of b o t h vote s
and s e at s. T h e fol lo wi
ng mo n t h , Nelson M
an dela w as
A further problem with the two-party system is that two evenly matched parties i naugurated as the president
o f S outh Afr i ca. The
are encouraged to compete for votes by outdoing each other's electoral promises, ANC subseque ntly develo ped in
to the rulin g p arty o f
perhaps causing spiralling public spending and fuelling inflation. This amounts p ost-aparth eid South Africa. It
has had a succe ssion
to irresponsible party government, in that parties come to power on the basis of o f c o mforta ble maj oriti
e s in t he N ati o nal Assemb ly,
election manifestos that they have no capacity to fulfil. A final weakness of two-party based on elec to ral supp o rt that
has ran ged fro m 70 per
systems is the obvious restrictions they impose in terms of electoral and ideological ce n t 1n 200 4 to 62 per ce nt in
2014 . This has bee n a
choice. While a choice between just two programmes of government was perhaps rem ar kable ac h ieveme nt for a p
oli ti cal m oveme nt that
sufficient in an era of partisan alignment and class solidarity, it has become quite had bee n ban ned u ntil
1990 , and w hose early po st ­
inadequate in a period of greater individualism (see p. 179) and social diversity. apartheid leaders hi p h
ad m ostly bee n either in prison o
r
i n exile si n ce the early 1960 s .

Sign_ifica nce: W hat acc ou nts for th e ANC

Dominant- party systems 's p r e ­
do mi nant p ositio n i n S outh Afric
Dominant-party systems should not be confused with one-party systems, although an polit ic s ? The key However, the ANC faces at least three m ajor challe nges.
explanat io n is the leadi ng role
they may at times exhibit similar characteristics. A dominant-party system is t he party pl ayed i n the First, th e party' s abil ity defi n e itsel f i n terms of th e
campaig n against ext reme Afri
to

kaner n at i onalism an d struggl e for liberati on certai n decline over time . Not
competitive in the sense that a number of parties compete for power in regular and i n helpin g to pro m ote re s istance
is to

to th e p olicie s of on ly is the propo rti on of the ANC's membership (and,

popular elections, but it is dominated by a single major party that consequently aparth eid . I n desc ribin
g itse l f as a 'liberat i on m ovem e nt 1n due course, leadersh ip) with di rect experie nce of anti­
enjoys prolonged periods in power. This apparently neat definition, however, runs rather than a conve
'
ntion al p o lit ical p arty, aparth eid activism steadi l y dimi nish i ng, but also the ANC
th e ANC
into problems, notably in relation to determining how 'prolonged' a governing period con ti nue s to p ortray itself as t he
leader o f South Africa's is i n creasi ngl y bei n g vi ewed by people m o re as a vehicle for
must be for a party to be considered 'dominant'. Japan is usually cited as the classic ' national dem o crat ic rev oluti on'.
Th is p osit i on has bee n govern ment than as vehicle for liberation Sec ond, an d
example of a dominant-party system. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has been bol stered by t wo facto rs First,
.
a

. the ANC r espo nds to in co mm on with other dom inant parties, the ANC
,
in power since its foundation in 1955, with the exception of the period between 1993 an d acc o mm odates,
has

a broad divers ity of i been affli cted by factional is m and, at t imes, tumultuou s
n tere sts and
and 1994 and again from 2009 to 2012. In its early decades, the LDP 's dominance was voices. Of particu lar sig n ificance
i n t h is respect have i nter nal confli cts. The most dram atic of these was between
underpinned by the Japanese 'economic miracle'. However, it has also reflected the bee n the ' tr ipartite' alliance t he
ANC forged with the supporters of Thab o Mbeki, wh o became South Africa' s
powerful appeal of the party's nee-Confucian principles of duty and obligation in the Con gress o f Sout h African Trade
U nions (CO SATU ) second post-apart heid preside nt, serving fro m 1999
still traditional Japanese countryside, and the strong links that the party has forged an d th e S outh Africa
to

n Co mmu n i st Par ty (SAC P), an 2008, and suppo rters of Jaco b Zuma, who defeated Mbeki
d
with business elites. These advantages have enabled the LDP to withstand challenges the ANC 's will i n g n e ss
in 1994 to form not a
si n gle-party in 2007 in the contest for the preside ncy of the ANC an d
from, for example, economic stagnation, deep factionalism and the advance of the g overn me n t but a g overn me n t o f
nat i onal u nity, incl udi n
g went on to beco me the president of South Africa i n 2009.
Democratic Party of Japan, which, in 2009, became the first opposition party since th e ( New) Nat i onal
Party (whic h had aband o ned it
s Third, even though post-aparth eid S outh Africa has clearly
1945 to win a parliamentary majority. supp ort for apart heid)
an d the l n katha F reed
o m Party embraced l iberal-dem ocratic pri n ciples and· structures,
Ch1sto ncal ly, t he vo ice o f Zu lu
nation alism) Sec ond th e ANC's d o mi nan ce has fostered develo pme nts that
The Indian National Congress enjoyed an unbroken spell of 30 years in power, the ANC has placed
a heavy emp has i s o are m o re co mm only associated with on e-party states. In
commencing with the achievement of independence in 1947. Until 1989 it had � nationai
rec on ciliat i on , seeki
ng to forge a sin gle particular, the ANC's apparent electo ral i nvul nerability has
South African
endured only three years in opposition, following Indira Gandhi's 1975-77 state of i de nt ity and s e n se o
f purp ose am o ng st a diverse a blurred t he dist i nction between the party and the state,
nd
emergency. The African National Congress (ANC) has similarly been the dominant s p lint ered p o pulation
. M ade p oss ible by the ANC creating sig nifican t scope for corruption and other cr imes
's
party in South Africa since the ending of apartheid in 1993, its position being based l ong- s tan din g c o mmit me n t to
.
no n - racialism, th i s w Jaco b Zuma's preside ncy, for example, was bedevilled by
on its pre-eminent role in the long struggle against white rule (see p. 263) . The reflected in th e e
sta blis h men t in 1995
as

of t h e Truth and m ounti n g allegat ions of c orrupti on, whi ch eventually forced
best European examples of a dominant-party system are Sweden, where the Social Rec on ciliat i on Co mmi ssio n, w hi
ch sought to heal t he h im to re sign i n 2018, bei ng repl aced by Cyril Ramaphosa.
Democratic Labour Party (SAP) held power for 65 of the previous 74 years until its wounds of t he aparth eid era by
expos i ng the cr ime s an d Shortly after h i s re s ig nation, Zum a was in for med that he
defeat in 2006; and Italy, where the Christian Democratic Party (DC) dominated i njustice s co mmitted by all s ides
o f t he st ruggle, rath e would face 18 charges of corruption, including several
every one of the country's 52 post-World War II governments until the party's than by handin g do w n
punish ments.
r

hu ndred counts of fraud and m oney lau n dering.

effective collapse amidst mounting allegations of corruption in 1992-94.
 264 P O L I T I C S
Coalition
A coalition is a grouping
of rival political actors
brought together either
through the perception
of a common threat, or
through a recognition
that their goals cannot
be achieved by working
separately. Electoral
coalitions are alliances
through which parties
agree not to compete
against one another, with
a view to maximizing
their representation.
Legislative coalitions are
agreements between
two or more parties
to support a particular
bill or programme.
Governing coalitions
are formal agreements
between two or more
parties that involve a
cross-party distribution
of ministerial portfo lios.
A 'grand coalition' or
'national government'
comprises all major
parties.
The most prominent feature of a dominant-party system is the tendency for the
Germany, for example, ten
p olitical focus to shift from competition between parties to factional conflict within ds to have a 'two-and-a
CD U and SDP typically -half-party system, in
the dominant party itself. The DC in Italy, for example, functioned as little more than have elector�I strengths that the
the Conser vative and . rou ghly equivalent to those
a coalition of privileged groups and interests in Italian society, the party acting as a Lab ur parties Ill the UK. Howev of
..
coal1t10 er, they were forced int
ns with the small Free D
o
broker to these vario us factions.The mo st powerful of these gro ups were the Catholic emocrat Party by the �or
prop ortional electoral syste kin_ gs of the mixed-me
o
Church (which exercised influence through organizations such as Catholic Action), m (see p.235) Ital·1an multip .. mbe
a Iarger number of relat · >1rh
- ·,,ri sm trad1t10 na11 y involves
r
the farming community and industrial interests. Each of these was able to cultivate ive! y sm all .
parties. Thus even the D
. . lg
achIeVll C rareIy came close to
40 per cent of the vote.
voting loyalty and exert influence on DC's members in the Italian parliament.
Sartori (2005) �stm . gm.
multiparty system, which shed between two typ es
he termed the 'mo derate' of
Factions were also an integral institution in the Japanese p olitical process. Within .
In thIS and 'p oIanze . d' p I . syst
categorization, mo derate . ts Ill ural 1st ems.
luralis exisr.n . coun
the LDP, a perennial struggle for p ower took place, as various subgroups co alesced Netherlands and Nor wa , tries such as Belgium the
wh ere 1 eoIogICal diffierences
�d '
aro und rising or p owerful individuals. Such factionalism was maintained at the local slight, and where there is . between maj or p arties
a general me . n to are
y;
the centre gro und.Polar 1·mat10 form coalitio · ns and move towards
level by the ability of faction leaders to provide political favo urs for their followers, .
ized pl uralism, on the othe
and at the parliamentary level thro ugh the allocation of senior government and I. deological differences r hand, exists · when more marked
separate maJ.or parties . , so
party offices. Altho ugh the resulting infighting may have been seen as a means of stance. Evidence of pola me f wh"ICh adopt an anti-syst
rized pluralism . . em
can be found Ill
o
guaranteeing argument and debate in a system in which small parties were usually government was formed . . Italy, wh ere in 2018 a
by tw0 nv al p opulist parties, the F ·
marginalized, in Japan factionalism tended to revolve more aro und personal the anh. -IID. mig
rant League (formedy kno ive star Movement and
differences than p olicy or ideological disagreement. One example of this was the wn as the Northern Leag
The strength of multipa r ue) (see p.464).
conflict between the Fukuda and Tanaka factions during the 1970s and 1980s, which ty systems is that they cr .
within government and . . eate mternal checks and
continued long after the two principals had left the scene. exh·I b·tI a bias balances
Ill favo ur of d
compromise. The pro ebate, conciliation and
. cess of co alirwn icormat10 . n and
Whereas other competitive party systems have their supporters, or at least apologists, mamtenance ensure a br the dynamics . of c
oad responsive . oalition
few are prepared to come to the defence of the dominant-party system. Apart from competing views and ness that cannot but take acco unt
contendmg . .mterests of
a tendency towards stability and predictability, dominant-partyism is usually seen D emocrats act as a mo . Thus, in Germany, t
deratmg .
· m fl uence on h e libe ral Free
as a regrettable and unhealthy phenomenon. In the first place, it tends to ero de the socialist SPD. Where SP both the conser vative
D-Green coalit10 . . ns CD U and the
important constitutional distinction between the state and the party in p ower. When (provinces), the Green have bee� £ormed in the
presence has heI pe d to Lander
governments cease to come and go, an insidio us process of p oliticization takes place p olitical agenda. Simi . push environmental issu
lar! the m ulhpa es up the
thro ugh which state officials and institutions adjust to the ideological and p olitical make coalition governme�t rty features of the Swe
dish system, which
more common than not,
priorities of the dominant party.Second, an extended period in power can engender build a broad welfare co have enco uraged the SAP
nsensus, and to p ursue mo to
complacency, arrogance and even corruption in the dominant party. The course of business interests. derate p olicies that do not
alienate
Italian and Japanese politics has, for example, regularly been interrupted by scandals,
The principal criticisms
usually involving allegations of financial corruption. Third, a dominant-party system of multipartr_ s
of coalition form
ystems relate to the pitf
ation The p ost-election alls and difficulties
is characterized by weak and ineffective opposition. Criticism and protest can more · nego t·iat·wns and horse-tr
place when no single . ading that take
easily be ignored if they stem from parties that are no longer regarded as genuine party Is strong eno ugh to
(as in Israel and Italy) govern alone can take
rivals for power. Finally, the existence of a 'permanent' party of gove rnment may somefrmes months, to co weeks, or
governments may be mplete. More sen.o usly, co
corrode the democratic spirit by enco uraging the electorate to fear change and to fractured and unstabl e, alition
amongst coalition part paying greater attent10 . n to
ne rs than to the t squabbles
stick with the 'natural' party of government. the cIass1.c example of asks of government. Italy .
this; its p ost-1 945 governm Is usually cited as
ents haVlllg.
10 months. It wo uld last ed, on average, only
associated with instabili ' nevertheless, be a mist . ake to
suggest that coalitions are
ty;, as the record of stable always
Multipa rty systems
A multiparty system is characterized by competition amongst more than two parties, . Ge
m and effiect·ive coalition gov
rmany and Swe ernment
den clearIY demonstrates. .
reducing the chances of single-party government and increasing the likelihood experience is peculiar In some respects, m fact, the Italian
.Ideol , ow·mg as much to the .
of coalitions. Howeve r, it is difficult to define multiparty systems in terms of the ogical comple
co untry,s p o 1·Ihcal culture
xion of its party system as and the
number of major parties, as such systems sometimes operate through coalitions to the dynamics of multip
A final pro blem is that artyi sm.
including smaller parties that are specifically designed to exclude larger parties from the tendency to wards m .
mean that multip oderat10n and c
arty systems are so dom . ompromise may
government. This is precisely what happened to the French Communist Party (PCF) are unable to offe mated by the polit"ICaI cent
r clear ideolog1c . . s. Co re that they
in the 1950s, and to the Italian Communist Party (PCI) througho ut its existence.Ifthe to be characte al aIternative alirwn p o 1·Ihcs .
rized by negot·Ia t·10n and ten ds, naturally;'
likeliho od of coalition government is the index of multipartyism, this classification rather than by conciliation, a se:i-rch £or
J:
conviction and the olitic . common ground,
contains a number of subcategories. as being imp s of prmc1p . le.
licitly corrupt, in at This process can be criticiz
.
parties are enco uraged to ed
abandon po 1·1c1e . s
.,
and principles in their quest for power. It can also lead to the over-representation
Emmanuel Macron in 2016 to support his successful 2017 presidential bid.However,
of centrist parties and centrist interests, especially when, as in Germany, a small
although En Marchel resembles other such parties, in being leader-centric and
centre party is the only viable coalition partner for both of the larger conservative
rej_ecting the authority of established parties, it is centrist, liberal and pro-European,
and socialist parties. Indeed, this is sometimes seen as one of the drawbacks of
bemg, perhaps, an example of anti-populist populism. (Leader-centric politics is
proportional representation electoral systems, which, by ensuring that the legislative
considered in greater depth in Chapter 14.)
size of parties reflects their electoral strength, are biased in favour of multiparty
politics and coalition government. Most of t�e existing parties that have grown in electoral terms in recent years,
.
especially m Europe, have been right-wing populist parties, whose appeal is often
based on their strong anti-immigration stance. During 2016 and 2017, almost
one in five �uropeans voted in national elections for parties of the populist right,
A CRISIS OF PARTY POLITICS? compared with roughly 10 per cent in 2000 and just 2 per cent in 1980.Nevertheless,
On the face of it, to suggest that party politics is in crisis is preposterous. Rather
the populist upsurge has not only had an impact on newly founded and once­
than declining, the number of political parties across the globe continues steadily
fringe parties; some mainstream parties have clearly benefited from an injection of
to grow. Throughout the democratic world, the path to political power is exclusively .
pop�hsm . For example, Donald Trump's success in winning the Republican Party's
through a political party. Thus, for anyone with political ambitions in democratic . nomination in 2016 meant that, in the presidential election itself, the
presidential
societies, whether liberal or illiberal, the first step to realizing those ambitions was, is,
appeal of the Republicans extended deep into so-called Rust Belt states such as
and is likely to remain joining, or possibly founding, a political party (Pettitt, 2014).
Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, traditionally safe territory for Democratic nominees.
And yet, there is clear evidence in recent decades of the decline of political parties as
Similarly, the victory of the veteran left-winger Jeremy Corbyn in the UK Labour
agents of representation, meaning that they have become less effective links between
Par�'s 2 ? 15 leadership election saw the party's membership swell to over 528,000,
government and the people. This can be seen in the decline of both party membership
making it the largest mass movement political organization in Europe. However,
and partisanship, reflected in partisan dealignment.
many question _ whether the incorporation of populist leadership is the best way of
For example, by 2007 fewer than 1 per cent of people across the UK belonged to . a mamstream party. Instead, it may, in the long run, be a recipe for chaos
salvagmg
political parties, down from 7 per cent some 50 years before. Membership of the and disorder, so deeply do populist and mainstream political sensibilities clash.
Labour Party fell from more than 1 million in 1956 to around 166,000 in 2009, How can the decline of mainstream parties be explained? One of the problems that
while Conservative Party membership fell from an estimated 2.8 million to around
such parties suffer from is their real or perceived oligarchical character. Parties
250,000 in the same period. A seemingly inexorable rise in the age of party members
are seen as bureaucratized political machines, whose grass-roots members are
is as significant, the average age of Conservative Party members in 1998 having risen either �nactive, or engaged in dull and routine tasks (attending meetings, sitting on
to 63. Dramatic electoral swings against governing parties have intensified such
committees, and so on).In contrast, social movements or single-issue protest groups
concerns. Notable examples of this include the slump of the French Socialists in
have been more successful in attracting membership and support, particularly from
1993 from 282 seats to just 70, and the virtual annihilation in the same year of the
amongst the young, partly because they are more loosely organized and locally based,
Canadian Progressive Conservatives, who were swept out of office, retaining only
and partly because they place a heavier emphasis on participation and activism.The
two seats. Falling voter turnout also illustrates the declining capacity of parties to
public image of parties has been further tarnished by their links to government and
mobilize electoral support. For instance, Wattenberg (2000) found that, in 19 liberal
to P��fessional politicians. As political ' insiders: parties are tainted by the power,
democracies, turnout had declined on average by 10 per cent between the 1950s
ambit10n and corruption that is often associated with high office. In other words,
and the 1990s, the trend having been particularly prominent in the USA, Western
parties are not seen as being 'of the people' ; too often, they appear to be consumed
Europe, Japan and Latin America.
by political infighting and the scramble for power, so becoming divorced from the
However, if there is a crisis in party politics, it centres not on all parties, but on concerns of ordinary people.
a certain type of party, that is, the mass or mainstream party. Indeed, the decline
in party membership and partisanship may merely be one aspect of a wider trend
towards anti-politics (see p. 460), which has also witnessed the birth of new parties,
or the emergence of parties from the political fringe. What these newly founded and
once-fringe parties usually have in common is an antipathy towards conventional
centres of power and opposition to established parties of government, linking this
development to the advance of populism. Examples of relatively new political parties
include Syriza in Greece, which came to power in 2015 having been founded in 2004;
the Five Star Movement in Italy, which entered government in 2018 having been
created in 2009; and En Marchel (On the Move!) in France, which was founded by
 ············---·--·------- - ----------- - --------- - - �
-

QU ESTI O N S FO R D I SC U S S I O N
1 Why is it sometimes difficult to distinguish between political parties a n d i nterest groups?

2 Are all modern political parties essentially catch -all parties?

3 ls it possible to have 'post-ideological' parties?

4. H ow do populist parties differ from mainstream parties?

5. ls representation the primary function of parties?

6. Could government function in contemporary circumstances in the absence of political parties?

7. Why do political parties so often tend to be leader-dominated?

8. Should parties be controlled, so far as possible, by their grass-roots members?

9. By what criteria should party systems be judged?

10. Are one-party system s necessarily tyra n n ical?

11. Are two-party systems the surest way of reconciling representative government with effective government?
12 I s multiparty politics and coalition government to be preferred to single- party government?

13. How have modern parties adj u sted to the decline of class and other loyalties?
14. I s the age of party politics over?

F U RTH E R R EAD I N G -
Cross, W. P., R. S. Katz and S. Pruysers (eds), The Personalization of Democratic Politics and the Challenge for Political Parties
(2018). An assessment of the extent of personalization in politics and an evaluation of its implication for all areas of
political life.
Dalton, R. and D. Farrell, Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy (2011). An examination
of the link between parties and representative government that focuses on their impact on the electoral process and
on government.
Golosov, G. V., 'Factors of Party System Nationalization' (2016). Presents evidence that political decentralization has a
negative impact on party system nationalization.
Green, J. and W. Jennings, The Politics of Competence: Parties, Public Opinion and Voters (2017). A study of five countries
which considers the conditions under which parties gain or lose ownership of key political issues.
Pettitt, R. T., Contemporary Party Politics (2014). A systematic and comprehensive introduction to contemporary party
politics i n democratic states.
Scarrow, S., Beyond Party Members, Changing Approaches to Partisan Mobilisation (2015). An empirical study of the decline
of party membership in nineteen countries.

� Visit www.macmillanihe.com/companion/Heywood-Politics-Se to access extra resources for

\:::r:)(
this chapter.