What are the main determinants of party systems? Are party systems in Western Europein the process of radical change?

Authors Avatar

What are the main determinants of party systems?

Are party systems in Western Europe in the process of radical change?

Introduction

      In this essay I intend to examine the reasons for party systems being in place, and what the different systems are. Then I will look at three Western European countries to see what party systems they have in place and whether or not their party systems are radically changing.

 

   Firstly, I think that it is necessary to classify what is meant by a party system. It is most commonly understood as being ‘the number of parties in competition’ (Mair 1997).

Historical factors have meant that European parties have developed differently,

 and these differences are sometimes due to differences in social structure, some social cleavages existed in certain countries and not others (e.g ethnic diversity).

According to Peter Mair they depend to what extent particular cleavages wee effectively politicized; factors such as religion or class have been much more exploited than others. ‘Considerable variations also exist in the persistence of cleavage lines in the party system’ (Mair 1990).    

     The system in place in countries can be said to distinguish between ‘more or less stable and consensual democracies, which were those normally associated with the two-party system, as opposed more or less unstable countries and conflictual democracies, which were those associated with the multi-party system’ (Mair 1997).

     In 1968, Jean Blondel devised a typology that looked at factors including the party’s relative size, and ‘their place in the ideological spectrum’, as well as the number of parties in competition. He found that there were four types: two-party systems, two-and-a-half-party systems, multi-party systems with a dominant party, and multi-party systems without a dominant party.

 Later Sartori (1976) developed a new typology which highlighted the importance of party numbers and ‘the ideological distance separating the parties in the system’ (Mair 1997). ‘Party systems could therefore be classified according to the number of parties in the system, in which there was a distinction between formats with two parties, those with up to some five parties (limited pluralism), and those with up to six parties (moderate pluralism); and according to the ideological distance separating the extreme parties in the system, which would either be small (moderate) or large (polarized)’ (Mair 1997:203). Using these two criteria Sartori found three types of party system- two-party systems, which were defined by a ‘limited format and a small ideological distance (e.g the United Kingdom); moderate pluralism, characterised by limited pluralism and a relatively small ideological distance (e.g Denmark); and, the most important for the typology, polarized pluralism, characterized by extreme pluralism and a large ideological distance (e.g Italy in the 1960’s and 1970’s)’ (Mair 1997: 203).  

Join now!

 

  By using the typologies that have been developed over the years, it can be said that the main determinants of party systems, are the number of parties in competition, but it must be taken into account parties ideological beliefs, and the relationship between the parties only constitute a system if it is characterized by stability and a degree of orderliness. The UK is an example of a two-party system, Labour and Conservatives have been the two major parties in Britain. Since 1963 the party system has been characterized by (1) stability of the main political parties, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay