7/28/2019 Sartori Spartiesandpartysystems

1/2

Sartori's Parties and Party Systems (1976) is a clear dialogue with Duverger. If

Duverger claimed that electoral formula produces different party systems with plurality

(majority) voting resulting in bi-partism, while PR (and the second ballot) resulting inmultipartism. Duverger minimizes the impact of ideology. Sartori brings ideology back

in. He also considers party fragmentation (rooted in social cleavages) as important

explanatory variables of party systems.

Sartori's is an institutionalist approach. Parties are intermediate organizations that allow

mid-range analysis. He started as structuralism--functionalist (see Dr. Hega's class), butat the end, he is less so. Parties are important structures for their functions (aggregation,

forwarding, minimization of conflict, dissemination of information)

He sees classification of party systems based n a number of parties as useful. Number ofparties indicates to us to what extent political power is fragmented or concentrated. It

also allows us to see how many channels of reciprocal interaction exist in the society. If

thee is only one party, there is o reciprocity or expression of societal interest. In a country

with small ideological distinctions, parties are not fragmented -- they are unified, catch-all parties, oriented towards moderates (floating votes are moderates). In societies where

ideological divisions are although not very strong, but power is fragmented, there aremultiparty systems. In the societies were ideological differences are based on other (say

ethnic or class divisions), there is an atomized and extreme pluralism. Where there are

large ideological differences, and power is fragmented, there is a polarized pluralism.

Unlike Duverger, Sartori provides nuanced classification of arty systems:

One party

Hegemonic party

Both belong to non-competitive party system continuum. From top to bottom

repression (goal and function of one-party systems) decreases

Predominant party

Two party

Limited pluralism multipartism

Extreme pluralism multipartism

Atomization multipartism

All belong to competitive party systems, even the predominant party (since thereis a possibility of alternation, it just does not occur). From top to bottom expression (goal

and function of multiparty systems) increases

Party systems measure fragmentation of power-- in one party system there is a monopoly

of power, in atomized pluralism, there is total dispersion of power. Among pluralist

competitive party systems the number of parties depends on ideological

closeness/distance within society.

How to recognize polarized pluralism:

Anti-systemic party

1

7/28/2019 Sartori Spartiesandpartysystems

2/2

Bilateral opposition (cannot join each other)

Center party is forced from its position,

Ideological distance between parties

Centrifugal drive

Politics of over-promising

Polarized pluralism is baneful for democracy. It may contribute to democratic breakdown

(see Lipsius ad Valenzuela).

Moderate pluralism -- altering coalitions, but de facto 2 parties (right-center and left-

ceter)

2 party system

one party governs alone, but to indefinitely, there is periodic alteration of ruling party2 parties both cater to mainstream. They downplay differences. If the spread of opinion is

small, floating votes are moderate -- works the best. It occurs in culturally homogenous

societies that based on consensus on fundamental political principles. When there isideological distance, then 2 party system does not work (usually in more diversesocieties)

predomiannt party system -- consists of several parties, but one consistently wins.Although no alternation occurs, it is not ruled out. There are opportunities for dissent.

The system is competitive -- equality of opportunity for other parties.

One party systems and hegemonic party systems are on-competitive.

System change:

From competitive to non-competitive party system -- violent and discontinuous,But from non-competitive to competitive party system can go either way.

Bottom line:

Unlike Duverger, party systems are not a result of electoral formula. They are results of

fragmentation/concentration of power and ideological distances between electorate and

thus parties. When there is small distance and law fragmentation (as a result) -- inculturally homogenous societies, the result is bi-partism. When there is small ideological

distance and moderate fragmentation of power -- there is a moderate pluralist

multipartism. When there is small ideological distance but high fragmentation of power(different ethnic cantons), there is segmented (consocciasioanlist) pluralist multipartism.

When there is large ideological distance and high fragmentation of power, then there ispolarized pluralist multipartism.

2