Varieties of Democracy

  • The lecture reviews Italian politics, focusing on the party system in the First Republic and its transformation into the Second Republic, examining key electoral reforms and their impacts.

Italian Party System in the First Republic

  • Key parties:

    • DC: Democrazia Cristiana (Christian Democracy): A centrist, governing-oriented party that dominated Italian politics for decades. They played a crucial role in the reconstruction of Italy after World War II and were central to numerous coalition governments.

    • PCI: Partito Comunista Italiano (Italian Communist Party): The largest communist party in Western Europe, it represented a significant portion of the electorate. Despite its size, it was largely excluded from government due to Cold War politics and its ideological opposition to the dominant DC.

    • PSI: Partito Socialista Italiano (Italian Socialist Party): A center-left party that, from the 1960s, became governing-oriented, often forming coalition governments with the DC. However, it was later plagued by corruption scandals that led to its decline.

    • MSI: Movimento Sociale Italiano (Italian Social Movement): A far-right party with roots in Italian Fascism, it was a significant opposition force but was often ostracized due to its ideological alignment with Italy’s dictatorial past.

    • PRI: Partito Repubblicano Italiano (Italian Republican Party): A minor, governing-oriented party that typically aligned with the DC in coalition governments, advocating for republican ideals and moderate reforms.

    • PSDI: Partito Social-Democratico Italiano (Italian Social-Democratic Party): Another minor, governing-oriented party that allied with the DC, supporting social-democratic policies and reforms.

    • PLI: Partito Liberale Italiano (Italian Liberal Party): A small, governing-oriented party that promoted liberal economic policies and typically sided with the DC in coalition governments.

  • The political spectrum ranged from left (PCI, PSI) to right (MSI), with DC, PRI, PSDI, and PLI occupying the democratic center, creating a complex and often fragmented political landscape.

The Italian Polarized Pluralism

  • Key characteristics:

    • Presence of more than 5 relevant parties: This high number of parties made coalition formation complex and governments unstable.

    • Presence of relevant anti-system parties: Parties like the PCI and MSI questioned the existing political order, contributing to political tension and polarization.

    • Existence of bilateral oppositions: Deep divisions between parties on fundamental issues led to persistent political gridlock.

    • The center of the system is occupied: The DC’s dominance of the political center limited the ability of other parties to gain power and influence.

    • Polarization (large ideological distance): Significant ideological gaps between parties made consensus-building difficult.

    • Prevalence of centrifugal drives over the centripetal ones: Factors pulling parties apart were stronger than those drawing them together, leading to political fragmentation.

    • Ideological patterning: Parties aligned along clear ideological lines, reinforcing divisions and making compromise challenging.

    • Lack of alternation in office (peripheral alternation): The DC’s long-term dominance meant that other parties rarely had the chance to lead the government, leading to voter dissatisfaction.

    • Politics of overpromising: Parties often made unrealistic promises to gain support, contributing to a lack of public trust in the political system.

The Electoral System Reform

  • First Republic: Proportional Representation (PR). PR led to fragmented governments and political instability, as it allowed numerous small parties to gain representation.

  • 1993: Referendum introduces a new electoral system, the Mattarella Law which is a mixed electoral system, aiming to stabilize the political system by reducing the number of parties in parliament.

  • Mattarella Law: 75% of seats are assigned to candidates competing in single-member districts by the winner-take-all rule, encouraging the formation of pre-electoral coalitions; 25% of seats are distributed to parties by PR, ensuring some level of proportionality.

  • Since 1993: Variety of mixed electoral systems with strong majoritarian incentives, sufficient for the formation of pre-electoral coalitions, leading to more stable governments but also limiting representation for smaller parties.

Fragmented Bipolarism

  • The creation of two main coalitions of parties makes the bipolar pattern of competition very clear to the voter, simplifying the electoral choice and promoting government stability.

  • Each coalition consists of a variable but usually large number of parties. Thus, party fragmentation is still very high, requiring complex negotiations to form and maintain coalition governments.

The Bipolar Party System in Italy’s Second Republic

  • The party system is divided into Left, Right, and Center-Left/Center-Right coalitions, with various parties within each, continuing the trend of coalition governments but with a more defined bipolar structure.

Electoral Change in the Second Republic

  • Electoral volatility index shows change in voting patterns over time from 1948 to 2022, indicating a shifting political landscape and changing voter preferences.

The Three Consecutive Elections with the Highest Volatility in Europe (1946-2022)

  • Italy (2013-2022), Greece (2012-2015), and Iceland (2013-2017) had the highest electoral volatility, reflecting significant political and economic upheaval in these countries.

Party-System Format in the II Republic

  • Data shows seat and vote percentages for various years ('94, '96, '01, '06, '08, '13, '18, '22), illustrating the changing strength and influence of different parties over time.

Voter Turnout in Italian General Elections

  • Voter turnout in Italian general elections from 1948-2022, including a note that residents abroad are included in this period, showing trends in civic engagement and participation in the democratic process.

When is a Democracy Strong?

Types of Democracy (Almond, 1956)

  • Anglo-American type:

    • Secular, homogenous political culture, fostering stability and consensus.

    • Actors and associations: interdependent but autonomous – bargaining, promoting cooperation and compromise.

    • Centripetal, moderate, stable, leading to predictable and consistent governance.

  • Continental-European type:

    • Fragmented, non-overlapping political culture, creating divisions and conflicts.

    • Actors autonomous, but with conflicting visions – conflict, resulting in political gridlock and instability.

    • Centrifugal, polarized, unstable, leading to frequent changes in government and policy.

Verzuiling Nederland Example

  • Example of social groups in the Netherlands (Liberaal, Socialist, Katholiek, Protestant) and their affiliated parties, newspapers, television, and schools, illustrating how deeply divided societies can function through cooperation and compromise.

The Politics of Accommodation

  • Key aspects:

    • The business of politics: focusing on practical solutions and compromise.

    • The agreement to disagree: accepting fundamental differences and finding common ground.

    • Summit diplomacy: resolving conflicts through high-level negotiations.

    • Proportionality: distributing resources and power fairly among groups.

    • Depoliticization: removing contentious issues from the political arena.

    • Secrecy: conducting sensitive negotiations behind closed doors.

    • The government’s right to govern: maintaining authority and stability.

Consociational Democracy (Lijphart, 1968)

  • Plural society plus political elite behavior (coalescent vs. adversarial). This model suggests that cooperation among elites can stabilize deeply divided societies.

  • Could explain the so-called “working” multi-party systems. Consociationalism offers insights into how some multi-party systems maintain stability despite societal divisions.

  • Focus: a stable democracy; ‘the application of the consociational model must be necessary means for the attainment of stable democracy’. Consociationalism is seen as a tool to achieve and maintain democratic stability in divided societies.

Structure of Society vs. Elite Behavior

  • Matrix showing types of democracy based on the structure of society (Homogeneous vs. Plural) and elite behavior (Coalescent vs. Adversarial):

    • Homogeneous & Coalescent: Depoliticized democracy, characterized by consensus and stability.

    • Homogeneous & Adversarial: Centripetal democracy, where competition leads to moderate policies.

    • Plural & Coalescent: Consociational democracy, where cooperation among elites overcomes societal divisions.

    • Plural & Adversarial: Centrifugal democracy, prone to instability and fragmentation.

Examples of Countries within the Matrix

  • Homogeneous & Coalescent: Scandinavia, known for their strong social safety nets and political consensus.

  • Homogeneous & Adversarial: UK, US, France (V), where competition between parties leads to policy debates and shifts.

  • Plural & Coalescent: Belgium, Austria, Netherlands, Switzerland, where consociational practices have fostered stability despite societal divisions.

  • Plural & Adversarial: Weimar Republic, France (III/IV), Italy (I), which experienced political instability due to deep societal divisions and lack of elite cooperation.

Beyond Consociational Democracy (Lijphart, 1999)

  • A new typology:

    • Broader scope, encompassing a wider range of democratic systems.

    • Institutional rather than political cultural factors, focusing on how institutions shape democratic performance.

  • Polar types: Majoritarian vs. consensus democracies. Lijphart contrasts systems that concentrate power with those that share it.

  • Focus: performance. The typology evaluates how well different democratic systems perform in terms of representation, accountability, and stability.

Easton's Systemic Scheme (1953)

  • Diagram illustrating the political system as a process with inputs (demands, support) from the environment, conversion within the political system (decisions or policies), outputs, and feedback. This model provides a framework for understanding how political systems respond to societal needs and demands.

Institutional Features: Majoritarian vs. Consensus Models

  • Comparison of majoritarian and consensus models across various institutional features:

    • Executive: Concentration of executive power in single-party majority cabinets vs. Executive power-sharing in broad multi-party coalitions. Majoritarian systems concentrate power, while consensus systems share it more broadly.

    • Executive-legislative relations: Executive dominates legislature vs. Balance of power in executive-legislative relations. Majoritarian systems give the executive more power, while consensus systems balance the power between the executive and legislature.

    • Party system: Two-party system vs. Multiparty system. Majoritarian systems tend to have two dominant parties, while consensus systems have multiple parties.

    • Electoral system: Majoritarian and disproportional electoral system vs. Proportional representation (PR). Majoritarian systems often lead to disproportional results, while proportional representation aims for fairer representation.

    • Interest group system: Pluralist vs. Corporatist. Majoritarian systems tend to have pluralist interest group systems, while consensus systems often have corporatist systems.

    • Type of government: Unitary and centralized government vs. Federal and decentralized government. Majoritarian systems often have unitary governments, while consensus systems tend to be federal.

    • Legislature: Unicameralism vs. Strong and incongruent bicameralism. Majoritarian systems often have unicameral legislatures, while consensus systems tend to have strong bicameral legislatures.

    • Constitution: Flexible and easily amended vs. Rigid and difficult to amend. Majoritarian systems often have flexible constitutions, while consensus systems have rigid constitutions.

    • Judicial review: Parliamentary sovereignty vs. Constitutional court. Majoritarian systems often have parliamentary sovereignty, while consensus systems have constitutional courts.

    • Central bank: Dependent on executive vs. Independent of executive. Majoritarian systems often have central banks dependent on the executive, while consensus systems have independent central banks.

Democratic Electoral Systems Around the World (1946-2011)

  • Trends in Electoral Systems (1950s-2000s): Increasing use of mixed electoral systems, while majoritarian ones are fading. Proportional systems support broader party representation. The shift towards mixed systems reflects a desire to balance proportionality with government stability.

  • Party System Size by Electoral System (2000s): Majoritarian vs. Proportional. Proportional systems tend to support larger party systems, while majoritarian systems favor two-party dominance.

  • Electoral: Parliamentary

Simplified Map of Electoral Systems by Region (Bormann & Golder 2013)

  • Regional variation in electoral systems: North America (Majoritarian), Europe (Mixed), Africa (Majoritarian/Pro