Parties and Party Systems: Modernisation, Regulation and Diversity

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.

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.

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.

Party systems represent parts of political systems which arise as a result of interactions between political parties. Party relations produce characteristics which place a particular party system within the typology of party systems. A number of factors can be considered in explaining the nature of party competition, most often placed within the categories of institutional and sociostructural factors. This paper analyses the impact of full and partial social cleavages on party systems. Given that the theory of social cleavages has proved insufficient in explaining party differences and the dynamics of party systems, especially in new democracies, we will improve the analysis by including the concept of partial social cleavages. This research shows the unequivocal influence of dominant social cleavages on the situation and changes in party systems. Although in some cases no changes in the type of party system have occurred, it can be concluded that exactly in those cases there exist permanent and ingrained social cleavages, but also partial cleavages which affect the relations in the party system at the given time. Identity issues stand out as the dominant topic in political competition, especially in the countries where ethnic relations have not been resolved.

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.

Research on government formation in parliamentary democracies has presented contradicting evidence on the role of political veto institutions and parliamentary polarization on the formation of cabinet types. Institutional rules may either provide significant leeway for political parties or seriously constrain them when forming sustainable coalitions. In contrast to previous studies we argue that the effect of political institutions is conditional on the degree of polarization in parliament. We test our hypotheses using original data on 842 cabinet formations in 33 advanced democracies between 1945–2018. In line with previous research, we find that the institutional rules have a pronounced effect on the type of cabinet formed, but that institutional rules moderate the effect of party system polarization. Thus, our findings provide important new insights on cabinet formation which are particularly relevant for today's increasingly polarized parliaments.

This chapter sets out to analyse political parties in Central America within the context of the multiple, rapid and as yet inconclusive transitions affecting the region in the 1990s.1 Due emphasis is placed on the particularities and differences which have characterised the development of each country (historical, cultural, political and economic) as well as their external relations. By recognising these differences, the significant continuities and similarities between the party systems in each country can be identified. Lastly, a critical comparison of the current state of political parties in Central America is provided.KeywordsPolitical PartyPolitical SystemElectoral ProcessParty SystemArmed GroupThese 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.

Party politics in India display numerous paradoxical features, which reveal the blending of Western and modern forms of bureaucratic organization and participatory politics with indigenous practices and institutions. India's leading political party, the Indian National Congress, is one of the oldest in the world, yet it has not succeeded in providing the nucleus for an institutionalized party system which can be fitted easily into any one of the conventional categories of party systems known in the West. There has been a strong Marxist and Communist revolutionary tradition in modern Indian political history. However, unlike other such traditions in most parts of Asia, its dominant parties and movements have neither succeeded in threatening the stability of the Indian state nor been threatened with physical extinction as in Indonesia, but have instead been integrated in the form of reformist political parties within routine politics in the country. The diversities and social fragmentation of Indian society have produced a proliferation of regional and other political parties which often give to each state in the Indian Union a unique party system imperfectly integrated into the “national party system.” Some characteristically Indian features pervade virtually all parties in the country — factionalism, dynastic succession to leadership, and the presence of ideological differences among the parties without ideological cleavage in the party system.

This chapter describes the foundation, evolution, organization, and societal connections of Portugal’s main political parties, and reviews the main cleavages and lines of competition of the party system. It argues that Portugal is home to an institutionalized, consolidated, and nationalized party system of moderate pluralism, and that Portuguese parties have an electoral-professional organization with relatively weak roots in society. These features make the Portuguese party system stand out when compared to other third wave democracies, where party systems are generally less stable, more fragmented, and in which political parties include organizations that are less durable and professionalized than in older democracies. Perhaps surprisingly, the Portuguese party system closely resembles party systems in other Western European countries, where democracy was consolidated much earlier than in Portugal.

Contents: List of Tables and Figures Preface Acknowledgments Abbreviations for Post-Communist Political Parties, by Country Introduction 1 An Overview of Party Development (1850-1989) 2 A New Day: Parties in the Post-Communist Period (1990 to the Present) 3 The Party System: A Product of a Country's History and Culture? 4 The Party System: A Reflection of Social Cleavages? 5 The Party System: A Product of the Rules of the Game? 6 Political Party Development in Post-Communist East-Central Europe: In Search of General Patterns Notes Works Cited Index

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.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the political parties and party system in Korea and provide a basic analysis for comparative study among the Asian countries. First, I would explain the distinguishing characteristics of the political parties and party system in Korea. I will then show how this system evolved by using the concept of the cartel party and cartelized party system. Finally, the kind of measures that have been introduced to improve democracy and party politics will be discussed. Whether these efforts are working or not will be addressed from the perspectives of the two different party models.The nature of the political system in Korea can be gleaned by examining three main aspects of the cartelized party system, namely, national subsidies, electoral system, and entry barriers against new or minor parties. After an examination of some of the institutions of the cartelized party system in Korea, the Korean party system may be deemed, by and large, to be moving towards a plural competitive system, one that is more accommodating of new or minor parties.

In this paper, I first provide an idealized functional account of political parties and party systems. I argue that parties are difficult to regulate constitutionally because of their Janus-faced public-private character. The key function they perform, when functioning as they ought to function, is to facilitate a mutually responsive relationship between public policy and popular opinion by acting as an intermediary between a state and its people. They perform this intermediary function in a unique manner, because of their bi-directionality and their plenary character. When they perform this function effectively, political parties significantly reduce four key information and transaction costs which would otherwise make democratic governance impossible: political participation costs, voters’ information costs, policy packaging costs, and ally prediction costs. This idealised account helps us identify pathological parties and party-systems and ground four principles that constitutions should seek to optimise in relation to political parties. The second part of this paper outlines and defends these four principles. Here I argue that state constitutions: i. should guarantee maximum autonomy for the formation, organisation, and operation of political parties, moderated by the restrictions necessitated by their purpose of winning (a share in) state power (for fixed terms) in competitive elections by acting as intermediaries between the state and its people (the ‘purposive autonomy principle’); ii. should try to optimise the party system such that the total number of serious political parties is large enough to broadly represent every major ‘voter type’, but not so large that the information costs on judicious voters are too high (the ‘party system optimality principle’); iii. should ensure a separation of parties and the state (the ‘party-state separation principle’); and iv. should discourage the factionalization of political parties (the ‘anti-faction principle’). These political principles are drawn from the value of democracy itself. They are likely to bring real world political parties and party systems closer to their idealised form, thereby improving and deepening democratic governance. As such, they should—alongside other relevant political and constitutional norms—inform fundamental constitutional design choices.

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 Parties in Constitutional Theory