CHAPTER 10
POLITICAL PARTIES
Shift to Political
Polarization
o U.S. political parties moved toward the center for
much of the 20th century.
o Polarization began with Reagan in 1980 (or
Goldwater in 1964), creating two hostile camps.
o Partisan voting increased, reducing ideological
overlap between parties.
o Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats
mostly disappeared.
Concerns About Polarization:
o Political scientists criticized the
decline of centrism despite earlier calls
for clearer ideological distinctions.
o While voters now have clearer choices,
the context has become hostile and
dangerous.
Moderation Still Exists:
o Some believe most U.S. voters and parties remain
centrist compared to other countries.
o Extremists often perform well in primaries but
struggle in general elections due to broader
factors like candidate personality, grassroots
efforts, and fundraising.
Historical Context of
Partisanship:
o Highly partisan politics is not new; mass
political parties emerged in the U.S.
during the 1800 election.
o Europeans later developed more structured
party systems.
o Political parties are essential tools of
democracy.
Essential Functions of
Political Parties:
o Bridge Between People and Government:
Parties connect citizens' needs to
government action, giving them influence
and legitimacy.
o Interest Aggregation:
Parties combine diverse interest
groups under a unified platform,
reducing conflict and promoting
cooperation.
o Integration into the Political System:
Parties help previously excluded groups
participate in politics, fostering
support for the system.
o Political Socialization:
Parties educate members on political
processes and build long-term party
identification.
o Mobilization of Voters:
Parties encourage voter participation
through campaigns and outreach.
o Organization of Government:
Winning parties gain control over
government positions and policy
direction.
Global Relevance of Parties:
o Even authoritarian regimes use parties
for control and legitimacy.
o Military dictatorships often eliminated
but later reintroduced parties as tools
of governance.
Key Contrasts Between U.S. and
European Parties
Centralization:
European Parties: More centralized, with leadership
controlling candidate selection and enforcing party
discipline. For example:
o Turkey: Party leadership determines and controls
candidate rankings.
o Britain: National headquarters influences
candidate selection, but local constituencies have
input.
U.S. Parties: Highly decentralized with weaker
party discipline. Candidates independently
raise funds and run their campaigns, often
ignoring national party platforms after
election.
Party Discipline and Policy
Implementation:
European Parties: Strong party discipline ensures
coherence in policy implementation. The ruling party
in a parliamentary system must resign if it fails to
secure votes for its agenda.
U.S. Parties: Weak discipline leads to fragmented
policymaking. Individual legislators often vote
independently from their party’s platform. Divided
government and ideological splits, like the Tea
Party’s impact on the GOP, further complicate policy
advancement.
Party Participation in
Government:
European Parties: The winning party forms the
government directly, with party leadership taking
cabinet roles. Clear accountability exists for
voters as the government reflects party control.
• U.S. Parties: Separation of powers limits party
control over government. Even when the same party
controls the presidency and Congress, individual
lawmakers may resist the president's platform,
weakening accountability and coherence.
Party Financing:
European Parties: Often financed through
small membership fees and public subsidies
proportional to electoral success. This can
disadvantage emerging parties but offers
transparency.
• U.S. Parties: Heavily reliant on wealthy
donors and Political Action Committees
(PACs). Campaign financing laws allow
massive private contributions, often with
limited transparency. Spending is
Electoral Accountability:
European Parties: Voters have a clearer choice
and know which party is responsible for policy
successes or failures due to strong discipline
and centralized control.
U.S. Parties: Accountability is blurred as
individual politicians often break from party
platforms and make independent decisions based
on local interests and donor influence.
•
Ideological Spectrum for
Classifying Parties:
• Left-Wing Parties:
Advocate for reducing class differences through
nationalization of major industries.
Example: Communist Parties historically aimed for
state control over the economy and society (e.g.,
USSR, China, Cuba).
Modern left-wing parties focus on redistributive
policies and social equality.
Center-Left Parties:
Support welfare states but oppose full
nationalization of industries.
Favor government intervention in markets to
reduce economic inequality.
• Example: Social Democratic Parties in
Western Europe (e.g., Sweden, Germany).
Centrist Parties:
Mix progressive social policies with
economic conservatism.
Support free markets but may back limited
welfare policies.
Example: Swedish and Italian Liberals.
Center-Right Parties:
Promote free enterprise while keeping parts
of the welfare state.
Favor reducing welfare spending without
dismantling it completely.
Example: German Christian Democrats.
Right-Wing Parties:
Advocate for minimal government
intervention in the economy.
Oppose strong unions and aim to reduce
welfare state provisions.
Example: British Conservatives under
Thatcher focused on deregulation and free
markets.
Far-Right Parties:
Nationalist, anti-immigrant, and often
anti-EU.
Focus on cultural preservation and national
sovereignty.
Example: Sweden Democrats.
Mass Party
Characteristics:
o Seeks broad membership from various social
classes.
o Open to all citizens and focuses on large-scale
participation.
o Emphasizes mass mobilization and grassroots
involvement.
Ideology: Often moderate, appealing to a wide range
of voters.
Cadre Party
Characteristics:
o Formed by a small group of elites or notables with
limited membership.
o Focuses on influencing policy through elite
consensus rather than mass mobilization.
o Often relies on personal networks rather than
broad public support.
Ideology: Can be both left or right but tends to
focus on leadership-driven policies.
Catch-All Party
Characteristics:
o Seeks to attract a wide range of voters across
different ideologies and social groups.
o Focuses on broad appeal rather than specific class
interests.
o Often downplays ideological differences for
electoral success.
Ideology: Centrist and pragmatic rather than
strongly ideological.
Types of Party Systems
One-Party System
Definition: Only one legal party exists, controlling all levels
of government and suppressing opposition. Often associated with
totalitarian regimes.
Key Features: No genuine political competition; government claims
to represent the people's true interests.
Examples:
o Soviet Union (Communist Party of the Soviet Union)
o China (Communist Party of China)
o North Korea (Workers' Party of Korea)
Dominant-Party System
Definition: Multiple parties exist, but one
dominates due to structural advantages like control
of media, resources, and electoral manipulation.
Key Features: Opposition exists but is heavily
disadvantaged or marginalized.
Examples:
o Mexico (PRI until 2000)
o Japan (Liberal Democratic Party)
o Russia (United Russia under Putin)
Two-Party System
Definition: Two major parties dominate the political
landscape, with limited influence from smaller
parties.
Key Features: Power alternates between the two major
parties; third parties rarely win but can influence
policy.
Examples:
o United States (Democratic Party and Republican
Party)
Two-Plus Party System
Definition: Two large parties dominate, but smaller
parties hold enough influence to impact coalitions
or policy.
Key Features: Smaller parties can become coalition
partners or disrupt majority control.
Examples:
o Germany (CDU/CSU and SPD, with Greens, FDP, and
The Left)
o Austria (ÖVP and SPÖ with the Freedom Party)
o Spain (PSOE and PP with smaller nationalist
Multiparty System
Definition: Several parties compete, often requiring
coalition governments.
Key Features: Representation of diverse ideological and
regional interests; can lead to unstable coalitions.
Examples:
o Sweden (more than 8 parties, including Social
Democrats, Moderates, and Greens)
o Netherlands (VVD, CDA, D66, and others)
Fluid Party System
Definition: Highly unstable systems where parties
frequently form, dissolve, and shift alliances.
Key Features: Weak institutionalization, personalistic
leadership, and rapid changes in party structure.
Examples:
o Russia in the 1990s before Putin consolidated power
o Italy during the post-WWII period with frequent party
fragmentation
Key Differences and
Implications:
Stability: Two-party and dominant-party systems tend
to be more stable but can limit ideological
diversity.
Representation: Multiparty systems offer broader
representation but risk government instability.
Electoral Systems Impact:
o First-Past-the-Post (FPTP): Tends to favor two-
party systems (U.S., UK).
o Proportional Representation (PR): Encourages
multiparty systems (Sweden).
• Each system shapes the way political competition,
governance, and public representation operate within
a country.
