Политические партийные системы в демократиях

Political groupings in a democracy

A party system is a concept in comparative political science concerning the system of government by political parties in a democratic country. The idea is that political parties have basic similarities: they control the government, have a stable base of mass popular support, and create internal mechanisms for controlling funding, information and nominations. The party system concept was originated by European scholars studying the United States, especially James Bryce, Giovanni Sartori and Moisey Ostrogorsky, and has been expanded to cover other democracies. Party systems can be distinguished by the degree of political fragmentation, proportionality of seats to votes ratio and barriers to entry to the political competition.

One party system: a system in which a single political party has the right to form the government, usually based on the existing constitution, or where only one party has the exclusive control over political power. Example: China
Dominant party system: a system where there is "a category of parties/political organizations that have successively won election victories and whose future defeat cannot be envisaged or is unlikely for the foreseeable future". Example: Russia
Two party system: a system where only two parties or alliances, typically placed either side of the center, have a realistic chance of forming a majority. Other parties are very minor or solely regional. Example: United States, United Kingdom
Multi party system: a system in which multiple political parties have the capacity to gain control of government offices, separately or in coalition. Example: Sweden, Ireland
Non partisan system: a system of government or organization such that universal and periodic elections take place without reference to political parties. Example: Micronesia

Democratic party systems in most European states have increasingly fragmented over time. That means that the number of relevant parties surged, while the average size declined. Hence, the effective number of parties increased.

The 2009 Bundestag election in Germany was characterized by widespread public apathy and record low voter turnout. Weldon and Nüsser (2010) argue that it solidified a new stable, but fluid five party system that they see as a defining feature of the emerging German political system. The three minor parties each achieved historical bests at the polls with steep losses for the two traditional Volksparteien. They report that the increased volatility and fluidity of the party system is structured along the left right ideological spectrum with the parties divided into two major camps and vote switching much more likely within the respective camps rather than between them. The 2009 election also marked a devastating defeat for the SPD, leading some commentators to speculate about the end of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) as a "catch all party" and, against the backdrop of recent poor performance of center left parties all across Europe—perhaps even "the end of social democracy". The 2013 election saw the first time that the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) that had been represented in parliament since 1949 and formed part of government as a coalition partner to either SPD or CDU (Christian Democratic Union, the major conservative / center right party) for almost all of the period from 1949 to 1998 and again from 2009 to 2013 fell below the 5% threshold for parliamentary representation. The same election also saw the rise of the "Alternative for Germany" (AfD) party that ran on an anti Euro platform and failed to enter parliament on their first federal election just barely with 4.8% of the vote. After this election the second "große Koaltion" (big coalition of the major parties CDU and SPD) since 2005 was formed. Prior to that Germany had only had one big coalition that governed from 1966 to 1969, preferring coalitions of one big and one small party at the federal level instead. Whether this shift proves temporary or permanent remains yet to be seen

Finland was a Grand Duchy controlled by Russia until 1918. Nationalistic demands from the peasants and workers for greater use of the Finnish language led to the first political party: the Finnish Party in 1860. In response, the Swedish speaking aristocracy, landowners and businessmen formed their own political party. Thus emerged the first party system.

Following the collapse of the military dictatorship in 1974, the centre right New Democracy and centre left PASOK came to dominate the Greek party system. PASOK and New Democracy had a combined vote share of 80 percent or more in every election between 1981 and 2000. Following the 2008 recession and the ensuing sovereign debt crisis in the country, the populist left Syriza came to challenge the dominance of PASOK and New Democracy, increasing its vote share in every election from 2009 until eventually winning power in 2015.

Swiss Federal Assembly is organized by political groups.

According to recent scholars, there have been four party systems in Canada at the federal level since Confederation, each with its own distinctive pattern of social support, patronage relationships, leadership styles, and electoral strategies. Political scientists disagree on the names and precise boundaries of the eras, however. Steve Patten identifies four party systems in Canada's political history. Clarkson (2005) shows how the Liberal Party has dominated all the party systems, using different approaches. It began with a "clientelistic approach" under Laurier, which evolved into a "brokerage" system of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s under Mackenzie King. The 1950s saw the emergence of a "pan Canadian system", which lasted until the 1990s. The 1993 election — described by Clarkson as an electoral "earthquake" which "fragmented" the party system — saw the emergence of regional politics within a four party system, whereby various groups championed regional issues and concerns. Clarkson concludes that the inherent bias built into the first past the post system has chiefly benefited the Liberals. The first party system emerged from pre Confederation colonial politics, reached its zenith from 1896 to 1911, and lasted until the Conscription Crisis of 1917. It was characterized by local patronage administered by the two largest parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives. The second system emerged following the First World War, and reached its peak in the period between 1935 and 1957. It was characterized by regionalism and saw the emergence of several protest parties, such as the Progressives, the Social Credit Party, and the Co operative Commonwealth Federation. The third system emerged in 1963 lasted until 1983, and began to unravel thereafter. This period saw the traditional two parries challenged by a strong third party, the New Democratic Party. Campaigns during this era became more national in scope due to the advent of electronic media, and involved a greater focus on leadership. The dominant policy of the era was Keynesian economics. The Election Act of 1974 was introduced during this period, allowing candidates party affiliation to appear on ballots, therefore an increased importance of party labels. This led to a shift from a candidate centred system to a party centred system, resulting in party leaders and the label of the candidate to play a major role in the deciding factor for voters. Leon Epstein characterized Canada as a "two party plus" system, as only the Liberal and Conservative Party could form government, with the NDP present but not winning many seats. The fourth party system began with the 1993 election, which saw the decline of the Progressive Conservatives and NDP and rise of the Reform Party of Canada and the Bloc Québécois, and eventually led to the PCs merging with the Reform descended Canadian Alliance. It saw most parties move to one member one vote leadership contests, and a major reform to campaign finance laws in 2004. The fourth party system has been characterized by market oriented policies that abandoned Keynesian policies, but maintained the welfare state. It was the elections of both 1997 and 2000 that showed that there was significant transformation in Canada's party system, showing they have undergone a transformation into a genuine multiparty system. According to Jared Wesley and Clare Buckley, there are two ways of comparing provincial party systems in Canada: "conflict intensity", which is the extent to which parties challenge each other on priorities and opinions, some party systems features more competition when it comes to party options; and competitiveness, a measure of how close the average election is in terms of outcome, an uncompetitive system would show dominance in one party but competitiveness is good in sense that it gives a better sense of democracy.

Nunavut and the Northwest Territories do not have political parties, and instead operate under consensus government. All candidates run and are elected as independents, and the newly elected legislature decides among itself which members will make up the executive council. Due to their smaller populations, many argue that the absence of political parties makes it easier for voters to decide the person they are voting for. Other argue that it makes it harder for voters to recognize the goals and priorities of candidates, and that the lack of an opposition makes it harder for identify issues during debates.

Pridham, Geoffrey. The Nature of the Italian Party System (St. Martin's Press, 1981)

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. 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, 1890s and New Deal realignments. In each case the policy changes are voted through by a partisan "new" majority party. The Civil War and 1890s realignments were more polarized than was the New Deal realignment, and the extent of party structuring of issue dimensions was greater. Burnham, Walter Dean. "Periodization Schemes and 'Party Systems': The 'System of 1896' as a Case in Point" Social Science History, Vol. 10, No. 3, 263–314. Campbell, James E. "Party Systems and Realignments in the United States, 1868–2004", Social Science History Fall 2006, Vol. 30 Issue 3, pp. 359–386
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)
Hofstadter, Richard. The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780–1840 (1970)
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), 226–243. 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. Jensen, Richard. "The Changing Shape of Burnham's Political Universe", Social Science History 10 (1986) 209–219 Fulltext in Jstor
Renda, Lex. "Richard P. McCormick and the Second American Party System." Reviews in American History (1995) 23(2): 378–389. Fulltext in Project Muse. Sundquist, James L. Dynamics of the party system: Alignment and realignment of political parties in the United States'' (1983)