Assessing African Party Systems after the Third Wave

Political parties are central actors in modern representative democracies and in the democratic decision-making process (e.g. by Kittilson and Scarrow Democracy transformed? Expanding political opportunities in advanced industrial democracies, 59–80, 2003). Therefore, they also play a crucial role in the consolidation of new and young democratic systems (e.g. by Pridham Europeanising party politics? Comparative perspectives on Central and Eastern Europe, 44–68, 2011; Designing democracy. EU enlargement and regime change in Post-Communist Europe 2005; Securing democracy. political parties and democratic consolidation in Southern Europe, 1–41, 1990). The role of political parties in the democratic process can be best described by drawing on their functions in a political system. In modern democracies, political parties are intermediary institutions, which do not only help to organize parliamentary majorities, but are also the main source and mechanism of candidate recruitment and interest aggregation and, furthermore, they fulfill a representative function which links voters to the state (by Hague and Harrop Comparative government and politics, 231–232, 2007; by Lawson When parties fail. Emerging alternative organizations, 13–38, 1988; by Poguntke Parteiorganisation im Wandel. Gesellschaftliche Verankerung und organisatorische Anpassung im Europäischen Vergleich 2000; and by Sartori Parties and party systems. A framework for analysis 1976). The extent to which political parties are actually able to fulfill these functions, depends not least on the level of intra-party democracy (IPD) and its structuring effect. This structuring effect refers to the relationship between the rhetoric of party platforms and models of intra-party organization (by Kittilson and Scarrow Democracy transformed? Expanding political opportunities in advanced industrial democracies, 64, 2003).KeywordsPolitical PartyLegal TextPolitical OpportunityModern DemocracyDemocratic ConsolidationThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

The topic of electoral volatility was not at the center of academic work in Latin America until Scott Mainwaring and Timothy R. Scully’s seminal 1995 work Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America (cited in Electoral Volatility as an Expression of Party System Equilibrium). Preceding analyses primarily focused on explaining the breakdown of democratic politics in the region during the 1960s and 1970s. Conventional wisdom that departed from the classic work of Sartori in Parties and Party Systems (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1976), maintained that stable party systems are crucial for the durability of democracies, focusing his attention on aspects such as party system polarization and fragmentation. Mainwaring and Scully shift the discussion, arguing that previous literature on the region neglected and inadequately conceptualized an equally important property of party systems: their level of their institutionalization. According to Mainwaring and Scully, party system institutionalization (PSI) is formed by four different dimensions. The first is stability in the patterns of party competition. Thus, institutionalized party systems are those in which actors develop expectations, orientations, and behavior based on the premise that practices and organizations will prevail into the foreseeable future. Mainwaring’s 2018 work, Party Systems in Latin America (cited in Electoral Volatility as an Expression of Party System Equilibrium), argues that this is the only relevant dimension in PSI, while considering that the other three are just underpinnings that facilitate it. So according to this work, an institutionalized party system is the one in which a stable set of parties interacts regularly in stable ways. This stability of interparty competition is traditionally measured with the Pedersen volatility index, a comprehensive measure of the net systematic shift in levels of electoral support for parties across elections. As volatility is negatively correlated with this important dimension of party system institutionalization, conventional wisdom holds that political representation deteriorates when there is persistent high volatility. To this debate, the well-cited 2006 article by Mainwaring and Torcal, “Party System Institutionalization and Party System Theory after the Third Wave of Democratization” (cited in Electoral Volatility as an Expression of Party System Equilibrium), adds the idea that this lack of stability in the patterns of competition in party systems, measured by electoral volatility, is a typical characteristic of new and developing democracies. According to that study, the most important defining characteristic of party systems in less developed countries is captured by their lack of institutionalization, in other words, the amount of electoral volatility in their party systems. Since the publication of these three contributions, the debate on party system dynamics in the region has focused on cross-national levels of electoral volatility, their relationship with other indicators of party system stability, and their consequences for democratic quality and performance, while also broadening the analysis to Europe.

This article is part of the special cluster titled Parties and Democratic Linkage in Post-Communist Europe, guest edited by Lori Thorlakson, and will be published in the August 2018 issue of EEPS This article introduces a special section on parties and democratic linkage in post-communist Europe. It sets out the main objectives and research questions that guide the four articles in this special section, presenting these in the context of the comparative politics literature on party and party system change and democratic development. It introduces the key arguments of the articles in the section, arguing that the contributions identify regionally distinctive patterns of party and party system behaviour in Central and Eastern Europe. These patterns have fuelled a quest for more suitable conceptual and measurement tools and call for diversity in comparative analysis, combining intra and inter regional comparison.

The main goal of this article is to highlight the Lithuanian political party system of legal regulation of formation of traditions and the disclosure of the legal framework in 1919–1940. This article discusses examination of the development of Lithuanian party system and identifies common patterns.The research is focused on the analysis of the legal regulation of the system of Lithuanian political party. The author discusses legal and historical issues and takes no notice of the issue of political considerations. The author also discusses the historical and political circumstances, which prompted the current legal framework, examines the influence of party system evolution of the statehood of Lithuania and the development of constitutionalism.There are a few authors, who made some researches on a few legal issues, e.g., in the monograph by Professor M. Romeris (“Lietuvos konstitucinės teisės paskaitos”, 1937), the development of political regime and its influence on the political party system was discussed. His monograph “Reprezentacija ir mandatas” (1926) studied the legal regulation of election and its influence of representation of citizenships in the government of the country. One of the most relevant to the subject of the research studies was conducted by E. Šileikis (“Politinių partijų instucionalizavimas”, 1997), where he presented the historical development of regulation of political parties in Lithuania and outlined the significance of modern political parties more extensively. In J. Bulavas’ monograph (“Rinkimai ir ‘tautos atstovavimas’ buržuazinėje Lietuvoje”, 1956), the legal status of political parties, military and emergency and high-security conditions in Lithuania during the interwar period were analyzed. His monograph „Klasės ir politinės partijos Lietuvoje 1919-1926 metais“ (1978) studied the legal regulation of the political parties in the independent Lithuania.This article analyzes the normative legal acts of the independence period of Lithuania, which have regulated the formation of political parties, the legal framework of their activities and meetings. These normative legal acts’ influence on the formation of the political party system of Lithuania is discussed. The research is made on the legalization process of illegal organizations and political parties. It pays attention to the changes of legal regulation of political parties and its dependence on the regime. Moreover, the article compares legal regulation in different periods of development of the regime of the Republic of Lithuania in 1918–1940. Furthermore, the comparison of the changes of legal regulation within the periods of 1918–1926 (the period of the democratic regime) and 1926–1940 (the period of the undemocratic regime) is made.

Political party systems are an important element of political systems in Africa and elsewhere. They form the central intermediate institution between the general population and the government. Party systems represent and aggregate diverse political views and group interests, and they form coalitions that then form governments with potentially important consequences of democracy and political stability. Unlike the case in the period directly after independence, African party systems have been overwhelmingly multiparty since the 1990s. As a result, the literature has grown significantly, although most works focus on political parties rather than party systems. Many efforts have been devoted to classification, referring to the legal context as well as, more specifically, the number of relevant parties, the levels of institutionalization, and, less often, the degree of ideological or other polarization. While levels of institutionalization and ideological differences are generally not pronounced, more than half of African party systems have been one-party dominant, of which most are authoritarian. In contrast, two-party and pluralist-party systems, which make up approximately one half of all multiparty systems, are generally more democratic. Besides determining classifications, most analytical work focuses on the determinants of African party systems using quantitative and qualitative as well as macro- and micro-level methodologies. Three determinants are debated: first, ethnicity, which has been cited as the main social cleavage behind African party systems; however, while ethnicity matters, its effects vary and are limited; second, political institutions, especially electoral systems for legislative elections, which only partly explain fragmentation or other features; third, the performance of political parties and rationalist approaches. Scholars largely agree that all of these elements need to be taken into account. While certain functions of party systems may facilitate democratization and political stability or other outcomes, little empirical work exists on the consequences of party systems. Some evidence suggests that highly institutionalized, moderately fragmented, and polarized systems promote democracy. Future research faces many challenges, in particular the development of integrated theory and more fine-grained data, as well as an increased focus on the consequences of party systems.

The article examines the peculiarities of the formation and development of multiparty system in the regions at the present stage of Russia’s political development. The article analyzes the processes of transformation of the Russian party system in the context of systematic changes in the mechanisms of legislative regulation of their party and political activities. The aim of the study is to determine the degree of influence of the regional party system on the exercise of political power in Russian regions. This is necessary to determine the main directions for improving the system of party legislation in the process of establishing a new political system. Conclusions. As a result of the conducted research, a number of unresolved contradictions in the formation and development of the modern Russian regional party system have been identified. These contradictions do not allow this type of party system to achieve the level of influence that would give them the opportunity to really and effectively participate in the current political process. It can be argued that the party systems that have developed today in the regions are lagging behind in their development in comparison with the all-Russian party system. The author concludes that in order to change the current situation, it is necessary to improve the quality of representation from political parties in regional and municipal authorities. In order for political parties in the regions to articulate the interests and needs of various social groups, they must have the necessary power resources in making decisions on the leadership and management of the region. One of such ways to increase the level of influence of the regional party system is, in the author’s opinion, the reform of party legislation in the direction of creating broader opportunities, both for creating parties of different political spectrum and for increasing their power capabilities.

ANY people believe there is some special connection be tween the democratic form of government and the party system, so that one cannot exist without the other. This belief is strengthened by the fact that the freedom to form as many parties as people want is seen to be incompatible with a to talitarian r?gime. An ideal Communist government is run by a single party composed of the working class; a Fascist government is similarly run by one party in the interests of the capitalist class. This type of thinking is based on a misconception of the true nature of democracy. It confuses cause and effect. There were parties before the advent of democracy. The first political parties in Britain, for example, are believed to have come into being in the reign of Charles II. This was long before the Reform Act of 1832, which was the bare beginning of change in the direction of democracy. At present there are political parties in countries which do not even admit the correctness of the thinking behind democracy. Has not the U.N.'s 17-nation committee on colonialism ruled that there is no self-government? let alone full democracy?in South ern Rhodesia because of the denial of equal voting rights to Afri cans? And yet Southern Rhodesia has political parties which fight and win elections and form governments. South Africa also has parties which have been governing the country for over 50 years against the will of the majority of the people. No one can suggest South Africa enjoys anything like democracy. The same conclusion is reached if we look at the circumstances M

Introduction The literature on party systems is composed of two related strands. Studies of emerging democracies typically ask whether the party system is institutionalized : are parties the primary legislative and electoral actors, with deep social roots and routinized patterns of interaction? Those of established democracies, on the other hand, are more concerned with whether the party system is in equilibrium : given status quo socioeconomic and political institutions, are the number of parties and ideological cleavages stable? As this volume’s editors propose, these two approaches are based on distinct conceptions about the role of parties in democracy. In a celebrated quote, Schattschneider (1942: 1) writes, “Political parties created modern democracy and modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of parties.” In new democracies, parties are seen as organizations whose existence – before, during, and after democratization – is crucial but fragile. Scholars of established democracies, by contrast, assume that parties are here to stay and focus instead on more granular distinctions in the character of the party system. My goal in this chapter is to integrate these two literatures through the lens of party system institutionalization in Japan. Japan has had the longest history of party politics in Asia, but its functions and salience have varied over time. Parties emerged during the autocratic Meiji period, and they played a valuable role in political liberalization. Despite being derailed by military governments during World War II, parties quickly became a focal point of legislative politics during and after the U.S. occupation. They took on many of the organizational characteristics of their prewar predecessors, and the primary partisan cleavage in Japan, interregional fiscal redistribution, retained its salience throughout. In this sense, the Japanese party system has been institutionalized for a long period of time: legislative politics – both in the autocratic and democratic periods – was the province of political parties that represented urban versus rural socioeconomic divisions in society.

Formulation of the problem. The urgency of a comprehensive study of the institute of political parties is conditioned by several illustrative circumstances. The past election campaign in the Ukrainian parliament in 2019 was marked by the fact that it was held under the old "rules of the game." It is known that the parliamentary election campaigns of 1998, 2002, 2007, 2012 also used a mixed system of elections, in which 50% of parliamentarians were elected in majority constituencies and 50% of people’s deputies were elected on a proportional basis for party lists. According to the current rules of elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, candidates for the People’s Deputies will be nominated by a political party, which were registered in accordance with the established procedure no later than one year before the elections. Despite the fact that the institute of self-nomination of candidates for the People’s Deputies remains, political parties have become the main political players, the only active actors in the electoral process of Ukraine and have received a strong impetus for their development. The purpose of this article is to reveal the history of political party formation in order to gain a better understanding of the essential nature of these important political entities and to identify promising moments in the development of parties in Ukraine. Analysis of recent research and publications. In the world and Ukrainian partology, it should be noted that well-known foreign experts J. Sartori, M. Duverge, A. Leiphart, S. Avineri, G. Almond, E. Wind, S. Lipset, S. Rokkan, S. Neumann in characterization the current state and prospects of the development of parties as political institutions indicate a direct connection and mutual influence between the party and electoral systems. Particular attention of domestic partologists M. Primus, N. Goncharuk, A. Pakharev, I. Kresina, O. Erzhov, V. Lytvyn, G. Malkin, Y. Shvedy focuses on the problem of the influence of the electoral process on the formation of the party system in Ukraine. Recently, in connection with the growing role of parties in the political life of our country, studies of new aspects of their activity have appeared: L. Gonyukova considers political parties as an institute of state policy and governance, O. Sakiri concentrates attention on the principles of constructing the image of a political party, O.Nikogosyan considers the peculiarities of the development of political parties and party systems in the post-communist space, A. Tetyanich explores the constitutional and legal principles of state control over the activities of political parties, etc. The article deals with the history of the formation and development of political parties as socio-political institutions, from the time of antiquity to the emergence of mass parties in the second half of the nineteenth century. The latest trends in the evolution of the institution of political parties as subjects of democratic politics in polyarchy systems are analyzed. It is noted that political parties have become the main political players, the only active actors in the electoral process of Ukraine and have received a strong impetus for their development. Modern political parties emerge as institutions of democratic politics, they "grow" from the bottom, are created by politically active citizens for the protection of their own interests, and therefore represent first and foremost an important segment of civil society, which unites it with public authorities. For a long time, the division of the parties into the left was adopted (the Communists, the Social Democrats were referred to here), the centrists (those who tried to defend the interests of the majority), the right (who stood for an elitist understanding of politics). However, as most political parties shifted to the middle class in the 20th century, only two of them became right-wing: center-right and center-left. At the same time, the ranking scale itself remained the same. At the end of the twentieth century. significant changes occurred in the political sphere of society. Political parties began to lose their traditional class character and appeal not so much to certain social strata as to all groups of the population. American political scientist J. Lapalambara called this type of political party a "grab all party" and then a "voter party". This trend is also confirmed in modern Ukraine (Party of Servants). Parties have stopped offering ways to develop society, politicians are only interested in voter votes, not ideological issues. It is concluded that modern Ukrainian parties need to go a long way in their development to meet all the criteria of a democratic political party. Ukrainian parties must undergo a transformation from political additions of oligarchic holdings to truly mass popular structures based on the principle of modernization, and then there will be a significant increase in real support. A promising direction for further research is to consider the organizational foundations of the functioning of political parties in polyarchies and under hybrid political regimes. Remarks are made about the prospects of party building in contemporary Ukraine.

One of the prime incentives for this dissertation was the renewed interest in the role of party agency for the emergence and structuring of party systems that came up in the course of the discussions about the third wave of democracy and the concomitant challenges to the theoretical fundamentals of common party system theory. In addition, scholarly discourse on the third wave brought up again the question as to how the party system as an independent variable impacts on processes of democratic consolidation, national integration and socio-economic development.Trying to examine the role of party agency in this regard and to assess the role of the party system as the independent variable, the dissertation deals with two regional and temporal contexts and a political phenomenon pertinent to these contexts that most often have ranked as unique or paradoxical in scholarly assessments. Academic accounts of post-colonial India are interspersed with references to a deviant case of, or an empirical anomaly to, party system and democratic theory, and the conventional vocabulary used to describe post-apartheid South African political development frequently resorts to such terms as political miracle or societal exceptionalism. A similar confusion and vagueness prevails with regard to the specific configuration of a democratic and competitive party system characterised by the towering and prolonged dominance of one party. The study is an attempt to shed light on these contexts and their party systems by departing from the conventional �paths� of party system theory as well as from the relativist assessments of post-independent India (1947-67) and post-apartheid South Africa (1994-). This is done by means of a diachronic comparison of the two countries� party systems with a distinct focus on the role of party agency in the shaping and maintenance of one-party-dominance and on the role of the two party systems as independent variables. Chapter 1 deals with the conceptual, theoretical and methodological problems, incentives and questions inherent in the kind of cross-national and diachronic comparison attempted in this study. Chapter 2 gives a brief outline of the regional settings at the time democratic party competition was beginning to take shape, outlines the institutional boundaries within which the two party systems were/are located, looks at the main characteristics of the electorate in post-independent India and post-apartheid South Africa and �takes stock� of the two party systems in terms of a broad outline of the dominant party and the relevant opposition parties. The next three chapters present the bulk of the empirical analysis and deal with the emergence, working and functions/effects of one-party-dominance in India and South Africa respectively. Each chapter refers to the basic outline of the analytical framework depicted above and combines theoretical arguments with empirical, as well as historical, givens of the two party systems under examination. Whereas chapter 3 examines how the two party systems were �shaped from above�, i.e. how party agency helped to achieve the dominant position of the INC and ANC respectively, chapter 4 examines the mechanisms of control employed to maintain dominance and the mechanisms of party competition prevailing in the two regional contexts. Both chapters deal with the party agentive factors identified in the analytical framework as responsible for the achievement and maintenance of one-party-dominance in the form of short analytical narratives. The last of these three chapters (chapter 5) sums up and discusses the effects and (redefined) functions of party systems in changing societies and gives an account of how both countries� party systems have fared with regard to these effects and in terms of fulfilling these functions. Chapter 6 takes up the differences and similarities of the two regional contexts as they have emerged out of the preceding three chapters, relates the �lessons� of the Indian experience to the prospects of one-party-dominance in South Africa by means of a comparison and reassesses the two key theses of the study, namely that a) party agency and strategy were among the most decisive factors in the formation and development of the two regional contexts� systems of one-party-dominance and are, in general, crucial for party system formation and development (they are especially relevant in the shaping of one-party-dominance in changing societies); and that b) systems of one-party-dominance have a potentially (but not necessarily) benign effect on processes of democratisation, national integration and democratic development in the crucial period of changing societies� transition to democracy and democratic consolidation.

This chapter examines characteristics and causal factors related to the Philippine party system. Using Mainwaring and Scully’s institutionalization framework as a point of departure the chapter first demonstrates that the Philippines is indeed under-institutionalized (inchoate) and discusses changes in the degree of institutionalization over time. It then presents an explanation for why the party system has developed as it has in the Philippines, an explanation which also accounts for the changes we observe over time. Specifically, the chapter argues that the development of the Philippine party system is tied to the manner in which democracy unfolded in the Philippines. Early decisions by colonial administrators and Philippine elite had the unintended consequence of entrenching a particular style of political party which has dominated the Philippines polity ever since. In the decades since, when the question of institutional reform has arisen the Philippines elite has consistently and sometimes strategically opted for outcomes that were inimical to greater party institutionalization.

This chapter discusses political parties and party systems, which form a crucial aspect of a modern representative democracy. The origins and natures of political parties, including their functions and organizations, are explained. Party systems govern the dynamics between parties and are considered as the mechanism to represent divergent interests in the society. How are social cleavages related to political parties? A measure of party system, the Effective Number of Political Parties, is introduced. Figures for Hong Kong are provided for comparative research. Finally, this chapter ends with an account on the decline on the importance and role of parties in the current era, accompanied by a discussion on this idea’s relevance to Hong Kong.

The first indicator of Autonomy as a dimension of political institutionalization is the recruitment pattern of political leaders into a national legislative body. In a country with a highly institutionalized party system, political parties play the central role in legislative recruitment. The growing body of literature on political recruitment in advanced democracies takes the statement that “parties are the principal ‘gate-keepers’ in the process of candidate selection” as an axiom requiring no further proof. In fact, there seems to be no major work in the area of recruitment studies challenging this thesis. “Outside the United States, where no primary elections are held, parties have complete control over eligibility and selection,” argues Moshe Czudnowski (1975, 225). Even in the United States “parties monopolize national elections, and independents are rarely elected” (Erickson, 1997, 34). The great majority of members of congress previously held party positions at the national, state, or local level (Czudnowski, 1975, 224). In their analysis of Western European governments, Gallagher, Laver, and Mair confirm that both selectors and candidates are well aware that “outside the party there is no … political career prospect” since “European parties keep candidate selection firmly under their own control” (Gallagher et al., 1995, 258, 254). The centrality of parties is an important feature of democratic nations in other parts of the world: “In common with other advanced industrial democracies with strong party systems, [in Australia] legislative recruitment depends on a party label; without it, election to the federal parliament is all but impossible” (McAllister, 1997, 17).1KeywordsPolitical PartyCommunist PartyParty SystemElectoral CycleParty MemberThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Since 2020, the world has been officially battling a COVID-19 pandemic. Even countries with established crisis management plans and years of experience in handling political and economic crises, have been shaken. In the midst of the pandemic’s rampant effects, how politicians handle the crisis is of crucial importance to the preservation, development, and protection of nations in the future. Who is in power determines not only the stability, but the political course of countries. Hence, what happens to the party system as a result of an exogenous shock is a question we need to answer. Importantly, we have little evidence on how the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic affected party competition. Building on the party systems literature, we examine the effect of the pandemic on electoral volatility, party system size, and the number of new party contestants. We hypothesise that, in countries where the incumbent government handles the crisis less effectively, electoral volatility tends to be higher, party system size tends to be larger, and more new parties tend to enter the electoral race. Drawing on evidence from national parliamentary elections held by electoral democracies from March 2020 to April 2022, the empirical results support our hypothesis.

Many accounts of democratisation in Africa from the early 1990s were infused with revived Afro-optimism at the outbreak of competitive elections in country after country on the continent. As noted by Huntington (1991:174) multiparty elections mean the demise of dictatorships and in many states the first years of the 1990s were heralded as the beginning of ac omplete political renewal (Ayittey 1992; Hyden and Bratton 1992; Joseph 1992). However, soon thereafter disputed elections in key states such as Kenya and Ghana in 1992, aborted processes in Togo and Cameroon, Zambia’s disappointing second elections in 1996, and breakdowns of the democratisation process in countries including Nigeria (1993), Angola (1992), and Gambia (1994) led to ah ost of pessimistic predictions: ac ontinuation of disorder and destructive politics (Chabal and Daloz 1999), no change at all (Akinrinade 1998), political closure (Joseph 1998), semi-authoritarianism (Carothers 1997), or ar eturn to ‘big man’, neopatrimonial, clientelist, informalised and disordered politics of the continent (Ake 1996; Bratton 1998; Chabal and Daloz 1999; Mbembe 1995; Villalon 1998). 1 While an umber of states have become either electoral or fully liberal democracies, many countries in Africa are still run by electoral authoritarian regimes. This article analyses the role of opposition parties’ behaviour in institutionalising democratic elections in electoral autocracies, and the effects of opposition choices on transformation of electoral authoritarian regimes to democracies. Specifically, the choices of opposition parties either to contest or boycott elections, and either accept or reject the outcome of the polls, are addressed in the analysis. The question is what type of opposition behaviour increases the likelihood of electoral autocracies becoming democracies and increasing participation, competition, and legitimacy? Political parties’ behaviour varies in important ways and that variation is taken as given in this article. One could legitimately also ask why opposition parties chose to act differently depending for example on the structural cleavages they represent (Lipset and Rokkan 1967), incentives of electoral systems they face (Sartori 1976; Lijphart 1984), the preferences of voters they seek to catch (Downs 1957), or because they are office-, voter-, or policy-seeking parties (Strom 1990). Seeking to explain the behaviour of opposition parties in Africa’s emerging democracies would be an interesting subject, but the focus on the con