Party system

Party Systems refers to the political system of elections, parties, issues, voters and rules-of-the-game as it operated over long periods of time. It is a political science term; the term electoral systems is also used. The "system" reveals how political parties control the government, how they mobilize a base of voters, and how they develop means for funding, information, and selection of candidates and office holders. Party systems are separated by Realigning elections or "critical elections" which destroy the old system and create a new one. The term "party system" is also used in Canadian politics and occasionally for other nations.

Definitions

In a one-party system, a ruling party is nominated in the constitution, and political opposition is banned. The party constitutes the entirety of the political system, and there is no political activity except among party members. There are one-party systems in Cuba, North Korea, China and Iraq. In a dominant-party system there are several parties, one of which is consistently able to win more parliamentary seats than a combination of all the others. There have been dominant-party systems in Mexico, Japan, Russia and India. In a two-party system, the other parties have no expectation of taking part in government and are consequently of little political importance. In a parliamentary democracy, such a system is stable only if each party can, from time to time, command enough parliamentary support to form a government. In a multi-party system no single party is expected to command a parliamentary majority over a combination of the others. Multi-party systems normally form coalition governments in which minority parties may hold the balance of power. There are multi-party systems in Israel, Germany and Italy.

U.S. Models

The concept of party system was introduced by English scholar James Bryce in American Commonwealth (1885).

American Party Systems was a major textbook by Charles Merriam in the 1920s. In 1967 the most important single breakthrough appeared, The American Party Systems. Stages of Political Development, edited by William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham. It brought together historians and political scientists who agreed on a common framework and numbering system. Thus Chambers published the book The First Party System in 1972. Burnham published numerous articles and books. The model appears in most political science textbooks and many history textbooks, and is included in the AP tests in history and government that 300,000 high school students take every year.

Closely related is the concept of critical elections (introduced by V. O. Key in 1955), and "realignments."

U.S. History

First Party System

In American history, the First Party System saw the creation of the world's first popular parties. All Americans were committed to the same set of republican values, but gtheir interpretation varies. Alexander Hamilton started them with the creation of a party that was (later) called the Federalist Party in 1790-92, as he created a nationwide network of supporters to stand up for his policies. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed Hamilton's policies and created what they called the Republican party about 1792-93 (historians a century later called it the "Democratic-Republican Party"). Soon the political system in each state was polarized along the same lines. The new parties created the "rules of the game" involving techniques to arouse and maintain the interest of citizens and their permanent loyalty to the party. The Federalists took the lead in creating party newspapers in every major city. State and local organizations were created. The Republicans selected their candidates for national office by a caucus of Congressman (the last time it worked was 1816). The Federalists had the first national convention, but lagged far behind in organizing skills. The peaceful transfer of power from Federalists to Republicans in 1800 set the standard. In terms of issues, the Federalists stood for a strong financial system (headed by a national bank), folding state debts into the national debt (so that bondholders would be onterested in the success of the national government), and a strong army and navy. The Republicans opposed all these points, and instead emphasized state's rights and a weak federal government. Foreign policy was a central concern. With Britain and France at war from 1793 to 1815, the Federalists favored Britain and denounced the French Revolution. The Republicans favored the French until Napoleon became dictator in 1799; they always opposed and feared the British. The Fedralists collapsed after 1816 and the Republicans lost their cohesion, breaking into four facgtions in 1824.

Second Party System

The Second Party System (1828-1854) revolved around the Democratic party founded by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, opposing the Whig Party founded and led by Henry Clay. Major issues included Jacksonian opposition to banks and modernization. New rules of the game included the extension of the franchise to nearly all white men (including many immigrants), the spoils system (the winning party gets the offices), and more democracy in state and local government, such as election of judges and local officials.

Third Party System

The Third Party System (1854-1896) was dominated by the new Republican party. The central issues involved slavery, union, Civil War, emancipation, Reconstruction. and civil rights for Freedmen (the freed slaves). Economic issues involved the modernizing programs of the GOP, such as national banks, high protective tariffs, land grants to railroads, and federal aid to education. Also of importance were corruption issues and civil service, and (at the state level) prohibition of alcohol. It was an era of high immigration, especially from Germany, Britain and Scandinavia, with a consensus that Chinese immigration should be ended and a growing debate regarding German-language private schools. New rules included suffrage for Freedmen but not for women; the women responded with a suffragist movement. The System collapsed in the Panic of 1893, a severe nationwide depression that was blamed on the conservative "Bourbon Democrats" led by President Grover Cleveland.

Fourth Party System

See Fourth Party System The political regime from the 1890s to the 1930s is called the Progressive Era by historians, who focus more on social and cultural issues, as well as state and local politics. Political scientists focus more on national party structures, Constitutional amendments (especially woman suffrage and the direct election of senators), primary election laws, and turnout patterns. Everyone agrees that the system collapsed when the Republican party took the blame for the Great Depression, and that Franklin D. Roosevelt replaced it with his New Deal Coalition, or Fifth Party System.

Major rules changes include the disfranchisement of blacks in the South, the enfranchisement of women (first in the western states, then nationally in 1920), the direct election of senators which took the choice away from state legislatures, federal election finance laws, and (in many states), the weakening of parties through the direct primary, voter registration laws, and (to a lesser extent), the initiative, referendum and recall. Many cities set up bureaus of municipal research to apply the Efficient Movement to the running of local government. In Wisconsin, the "Wisconsin Plan" of Charles McCarthy made university experts government consultants.

Other changes in the rules included the decline of partisan newspapers in the wake of Yellow Journalism. Big city papers now made their profits from advertising, which depended on the number of readers. By dropping a strict party affiliation, newspaper barons like William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer could double their potential circulation. The theme of corruption was used by Muckraking journalists to expose bad conditions in the cities, and their cover-up by political machines.

Fifth Party System

See Fifth Party System

Canada

The First Party System (1967-1917) collapsed in the wartime conscription crisis. In the Second Party System (1921-57), dominated by the Liberals under Mackenzie King, a series of new party formations resulted, including the Unionists in 1917, farmer and left-wing parties in the Prairies, and a French party in Quebec. The Third Party System (1957-1984) was more Conservative. A Fourth Party System, mostly Liberal, has existed since 1984.

Japan

Since World War II, Japan has had two party systems: the First Party System began in 1955, the Second in 1993.

European Union

The rich array of party systems evident in the European Union (EU) became even more diverse with the accession of ten new member states with their own party systems in May 2004. Among the new players in the "Europolity," there are several Communist successor parties. These parties have undertaken a variety of reform processes dependent on, among other things, the nature of the transition that their societies have undergone. They have therefore taken up different places in their respective national party systems. Subsequently, they have adopted different attitudes toward issues of European integration. The Polish, Czech, Slovak, and East German successor parties have encountered different experiences in this regard. While the German Party of Democratic Socialism (heir to the former Communist ruling party, the Socialist Unity Party) is already well integrated into the Europolity and has developed its own positions on most European policies, the defining issue for the three other parties has been the question of accession and membership. The attitudes of these three parties toward the EU's most significant policy areas are most often shaped by national policy preferences rather than by any acceptance of broader European goals.

Comparative and historical studies

Sartori (2005) explores the classification and functions of political parties using the central concept of the organizational network, which goes beyond the party itself to include the space that the party occupies. Historical types and sequences of party organization and organizational development can be differentiated, and also the central concept of the "mass party." Finally, while many different functions can be ascribed to parties, the functions that are central to the notion of party, and essentially irreplaceable, are those of participation, electioneering, and expression.

Caramani (2005) describes the electoral participation and voting patterns for European political parties, as well as their evolution since the mid-19th century from highly territorialized politics to nationwide functional alignments. Caramani gives an empirical analysis through time, across countries, and among parties. Through the inclusion of all of the most important social and political cleavages (class, state-church, rural-urban, ethnolinguistic, and religious), Caramani assesses the homogenizing impact of the Left-Right dimension that emerged from the national and industrial revolutions and the resistance of preindustrial cultural and center-periphery factors to national integration.

Students of presidential regimes claim that while the combination of plurality rule for presidential elections and concurrent electoral cycles favors bipartism, majority rule for electing presidents favors multipartism. A reverse causality also affects the relationship between party systems and electoral systems. Using a bargaining model of institutional change, Negretto (2006) shows that while dominant and large parties are likely to choose plurality rule and concurrent elections, small parties are likely to choose majority rule. Military rulers and military-civilian coalitions tend to follow the logic of electoral choice of small parties. These hypotheses are supported by Negretto (2006) in a statistical analysis of the determinants of electoral choice in 49 cases of constitutional change in Latin America during the 20th century.

In 1970, Richard Rose and Derek Urwin published a seminal piece on the stability of party support in Western democracies, "Persistence and Change in Western Party Systems Since 1945." Everywhere they looked, established parties seemed to reflect stability rather than change, lending credence to the notion that party systems were frozen. Numerous subsequent studies, however, have produced mixed results. Part of what seems to be fueling this debate lies in the disparate measures researchers use to gauge stability. Drummond (2006) is an update of Rose and Urwin's study, and addresses the issue of comparable results by maintaining the same data source and methods they used to gauge the stability of party support, extending the study. The results indicate that party system instability has been on the rise throughout much of the West since 1970, with statistically significant increases seen in Scandinavia and across all regions combined. Furthermore, the parties that seem to be experiencing the most change are not only the newest parties - as the frozen cleavages thesis might predict - but also those parties formed during the interwar period, the large majority of which showed much greater stability in 1970.

Bibliography: US

• Bartley, Numan V. "Voters and Party Systems: A Review of the Recent Literature," The History Teacher, Vol. 8, No. 3 (May, 1975), pp. 452-469. online at JSTOR
• Beck, Paul Allen. "Micropolitics in Macro Perspective: the Political History of Walter Dean Burnham." Social Science History 1986 10(3): 221-245. Issn: 0145-5532 Fulltext in Jstor
• Brady, David, and Joseph Stewart, Jr. "Congressional Party Realignment and Transformations of Public Policy in Three Realignment Eras," American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 26, No. 2 (May, 1982), pp. 333-360 online at JSTOR Looks at links among cross-cutting issues, electoral realignments, the U.S. House and public policy changes during the Civil War, 1890's and New Deal realignments. In each case the policy changes are voted through by a partisan "new" majority party. The Civil War and 1890's realignments were more polarized than was the New Deal realignment, and the extent of party structuring of issue dimensions was greater.
• Chambers, William Nisbet, and Walter Dean Burnham, eds. The American Party Systems. Stages of Political Development, (1967)
• Chambers, William Nisbet. Political Parties in a New Nation: The American Experience, 1776–1809 (1963)
• Gershtenson, Joseph. "Mobilization Strategies of the Democrats and Republicans, 1956-2000" Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 3, 293-308 (2003)
• Hofstadter, Richard. The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780-1840 (1970) excerpt and text search
• James, Scott C. Presidents, Parties, and the State: A Party System Perspective on Democratic Regulatory Choice, 1884-1936 (2000)
• Jensen, Richard. "American Election Analysis: A Case History of Methodological Innovation and Diffusion," in S. M. Lipset, ed, Politics and the Social Sciences (Oxford University Press, 1969), 226-43.
• Jensen, Richard. "History and the Political Scientist," in S. M. Lipset, ed, Politics and the Social Sciences (Oxford University Press, 1969), , 1-28.
• Jensen, Richard. "Historiography of Political History," in Jack Greene ed., Encyclopedia of American Political History (Scribners, 1984), 1:1-25. online
• Jensen, Richard. "The Changing Shape of Burnham`s Political Universe," Social Science History 10 (1986) 209-19 Issn: 0145-5532 Fulltext in Jstor
• Kleppner, Paul ed. The Evolution of American Electoral Systems (1981)
• Renda, Lex. "Richard P. McCormick and the Second American Party System." Reviews in American History (1995) 23(2): 378-389. Issn: 0048-7511 Fulltext in Project Muse.
• Sundquist, James L. Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States], (1983) online edition

external links

• lecture by W. Dean Burnham, 2006

National ands regional studies

• Bickerton, James, and Alain-G. Gagnon, eds. Canadian Politics (4th ed 2004)
• Daalder, H. and Peter Mair, eds. Western European Party Systems: Continuity and Change (1983)
• Hrebenar, Ronald J. Japan's New Party System (2000) online edition
• Lawrence, Ezrow. "The Variance Matters: How Party Systems Represent the Preferences of Voters." Journal of Politics 2007 69(1): 182-192. Issn: 0022-3816 Fulltext: Blackwell-Synergy
• Lewis, Paul G., and Paul Webb, eds. Pan-European Perspectives on Party Politics (2003)
• Mainwaring, Scott, and Timothy R. Scully. Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America (1996) excerpt and text search
• Mair, Peter, ed. The West European Party System (1990) online excerpt pp. 302-310
• Walch, James. Faction and Front: Party Systems in South India (1976)

Comparative and theoretical

• Bartolini, S. and Mair, P. Identity, Competition, and Electoral Availability: The Stabilization of European Electorates 1885-1985 (1990)
• Caramani, Daniele. "The Formation of National Party Systems in Europe: a Comparative-historical Analysis." Scandinavian Political Studies 2005 28(4): 295-322. Issn: 0080-6757 Fulltext: Ebsco
• Chhibber, Pradeep, and Ken Kollman. The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. (2004). 276 pp. excerpt and text search
• Dalton, R. J. and M. P. Wattenberg. Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies (2000)
• Drummond, Andrew J. "Electoral Volatility and Party Decline in Western Democracies: 1970-1995." Political Studies 2006 54(3): 628-647. Issn: 0032-3217 Fulltext: Ebsco
• Farrell, David M. Comparing Electoral Systems (London: Macmillan, 1998) online excerpt
• Inglehart, Ronald. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies (1997)
• Karvonen, Lauri, and Stein Kuhnle. Party Systems and Voter Alignments Revisited (2000)
• Lijphart, Arend. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-1990 (1995) excerpt and text search
• Seymour M. Lipset and Stein Rokkan, eds. Party Systems And Voter Alignments (1967)
• Mair, Peter, ed. Party System Change. Approaches and Interpretations (1997)
• Negretto, Gabriel L. "Choosing How to Choose Presidents: Parties, Military Rulers, and Presidential Elections in Latin America." Journal of Politics 2006 68(2): 421-433. Issn: 0022-3816 Fulltext: Blackwell-Synergy
• Rae, Duncan. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, (1971)
• Rommele, Andrea, David M. Farrell, and Piero Ignazi. Political Parties and Political Systems: The Concept of Linkage Revisited (2005) excerpt and text search
• Rose, Richard, and Derek W. Unwin, "Persistence and Change in Western Party Systems Since 1945," Political Studies 18 (September 1970): 287-319
• Sartori, Giovanni. Parties and Party Systems: A framework for analysis (1976; reprint 2005), classic theoretical model
• Sartori, Giovanni. "Party Types, Organisation and Functions." West European Politics 2005 28(1): 1-32. Issn: 0140-2382 Fulltext: Ebsco
• Webb, Paul, David M. Farrell, and Ian Holliday. Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies (2003) excerpt and text search

See also

See for the U.S.:

• First Party System, 1792-1820s
• Second Party System, 1820s-1854
• Third Party System, 1854-1896
• Fourth Party System, 1896-1932, also called 'Progressive Era
• Fifth Party System, 1932 to present, also called New Deal Era

External links

• detailed bibliography

---

---