Party Systems

Approaches to the study of party systems are multiple, as are their definitions. In its simplest form, the party system is conceived of as a set of patterned relationships between political parties competing for power in a given political system. Such a notion assumes the existence of rules, norms, and regularities in party interactions, concerning mainly coalition-building efforts and electoral competition. This implies also that a party system is composed, [Page 1825]as any other system, of distinguishable parts and the empirically testable quality of its “systemness.” Below, some major features of such systems, for example, the kinds and numbers of parties involved, their evolution and organization over time, their social bases and dynamic processes, and their relationship to institutional aspects of electoral systems and government formation, are discussed.

An ambitious understanding of a system assumes that it displays features that do not belong to a single entity, that is, to one element alone of the system, and that the system exists only if it hinges on the patterned relationships of its component parts, hence creating systemic boundaries, clearly indicating what belongs to it and what is located outside it. A system is always composed of interacting participant units, in which the action of each and every participant affects the actions of all other participants. A systemic approach reveals how everything at the level of the system and its structural properties differs from the level of the interacting units. Systemic traits structure the interactions between parties and the games that parties play. These interactions hinge on party resources, preferences, and the constraints they face. Moreover, this implies that the interdependence of the units or their attributes is ordered, in the sense that developments are predictable and that not just anything can happen. This order tends toward self-maintenance, which supports the delineation and freezing of the boundaries of the system within which patterned relationships take place. Consequently, parties create a system only when their component parts interact in a patterned systematic way. The system works when parties within the system are dependent on each other and each party, as Giovanni Sartori's (1976) classic work puts it, “is a function (in the mathematical sense) of the other parties and reacts competitively or otherwise, to the other parties” (p. 44). In short, a party system is a system of interactions resulting from interparty competition.

Analyses of parties have been made prior to deliberations on party systems. Parties as political institutions began to draw the attention of the social sciences from the second half of the 19th century, whereas interest in party systems increased in the second half of the 20th century. Without an understanding of the ontology of parties, the systemic features of their interactions cannot be depicted.

Three aspects of party systems should be mentioned. First, behind almost every classification of a party system is the idea that they are structures of representation. Second, an equally frequent proposal submits that they are institutionalized channels of articulation. Finally, they are conceived as means of governability. In other words, the three most important functions are (1) to recruit and present candidates for public office who are likely to be accepted by voters; (2) to offer distinguishable policy packages, programmatic and ideological alternatives that take into account the preferences and values of citizens; and (3) to implement policies effectively and contribute to the overall stability of the system. The composite units of party systems are the most influential manifestation of popular organizations that articulate and press demands and deliver support to those who govern in contemporary democracies. These diverse functions offer challenges as often they are in conflict with one another. Achieving quality representation calls for a large number of parties satisfying the aspirations of even small social groups with clearly defined narrow issue profiles and specific aspirations. The more parties there are, the better the policy fit between groups of voters and their institutional representatives. At the same time, such a party system contributes to polarization, divisiveness, and ultimately to poor governability. If, in turn, we wish to achieve effective governability, we should opt for one-party dominance, with a consensus-driven, pragmatic party oriented toward the mobilization of resources to satisfy the needs of the majority. Such a solution, with a single-party monopoly, would satisfy the needs of political effectiveness but at the same time violate other important democratic values: plurality, choice, and open competition. Consequently, in reality, party systems ought to compromise on maximizing each of their basic functions and adopt more moderate, optimal solutions guaranteeing the accomplishment of different goals.

...