Comparitive Politics Unit 12: Social Cleavages and Party Systems

Political Parties

“A group of people that includes those who hold office and those who help get and keep them there”

They can help
• Structure political competition
• Recruit/train political elites
• Mobilize voters
• Link voters and representatives in
accountability relationships

Political parties are detrmined by
• Social cleavages → determine the demand for parties
• Electoral institutions → determine the supply-side, the number of parties
that have a chance of winning

One-party dominant system

• Multiple Parties may legally operate but only one party has a realistic chance of winning power

  • Examples:

    • Japan (LDP)

    • Mexico (PRI)

    • South US before 60's (Dem)

Two-Party Syetem

• Only two major political parties have a realistic chance of holding power

• Examples:

  • USA

  • UK

Multi-Party System

• More than two political parties have a realistic chance of holding power

  • Examples:

    • France

    • Netherlands

Cleavages (social, political, economic, religious, postmaterial, etc.)

▪ “Deep and persistent differences in society” (Rokkan)
▪ Typically relatively stable, can change but over time

• Drive the demand for Parties

Cleavages	Parties
Regional vs National	Independence Parties
Religious, ethnic, linguistic	Parties based on group identity
Class	Left-Right Parties
Post-materialist/ Values	Green parties, National Front
Cultural/identity-based	Far-right populist

Cross Cutting Cleavages

• When membership in one group is not related to (uncorrelated with) membership in another group

• When individuals who are members of the same group or social category on one dimension of interests or identity, such as ethnicity, are members of different groups on another dimension, such as social class, their competing interest on the second dimension may undercut their primary allegiance to interests arising on the first dimension (Dunning and Harrison 2015)

• Opposite of Reinforcing Cleaveges

Reinforcing Cleavages

• When membership in one group is related to (correlated with) membership in another group.

Ex: Bosnia & Herzegovina

Duverger’s Law

Majoritarian Electoral Systems always produce 2-party system because of the

• Mechanical effect
• Strategic effect

Mechanical Effect

• Majoritarian electoral systems disproportionally reward large parties and punish small parties more than in PR systems

Strategic Effect

• In majoritarian systems, voters who prefer small parties still vote for bigger parties because:

  • They don’t want to waste their vote

  • Knowing this, candidates don't want to waste their campaign

Strategic Voting

Voters vote for most preferred candidate who has a chance of winning

Sincere Voting

Voters, vote for most preferred candidate

Consociationalism/power-sharing institutions

Ethnic minorities pose a risk to societies if they are excluded from political institutions

Consensus institutions increase representation for minority groups; protect minority rights.

Extreme-form of consensus institutions that guarantees power sharing among ethnic groups

 

Key Institutions:

• Presidentialism

• PR

• Federalism

 

Critique:

• Refines ethnicity in politics

• Federalism can strengthen regional parties who push for independence

Ex: Weimar Germany led to Hitlers rise