Current literature on parties and party systems has been dominated by the analysis of practices in Western Europe and the United States. Yet, it is not possible to use Western approaches in the study of Latin American or Eastern European party systems. Do institutionally weak party systems function in different ways from well-established systems?
This working paper, from the Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies, addresses this question, examining the implications for democracy of differences in party systems institutionalisation. It argues that we need to rethink some important theoretical and comparative issues related to our broad understanding of party systems based on the experience of new democracies around the world. Drawing upon empirical evidence from Western Europe, Latin America, Southern Europe and East Central Europe, it establishes a contrast between cases of both strong and weak institutionalisation. Most of the advanced industrial democracies have relatively good institutionalised systems, while third-wave democracies have poorer institutionalised systems. An institutionalised party system is one in which actors develop expectations and behaviour based on the premise that the fundamentals of party competition and behaviour will prevail into the foreseeable future.
The paper proposes that party system institutionalisation should be analysed in four dimensions: The stability of patterns of electoral competition; the strength of party roots in society; the legitimacy of patterns; and the structuring of party organisation. Other findings of the paper include:
- Systems are more institutionalised when party structures are firmly established, territorially comprehensive, well organised, have clearly defined internal structures and have resources of their own
- In institutionalised party systems, parties have strong roots in society
- A more institutionalised party system helps foster accountability. In fluid party systems there is less institutional control over leadership recruitment than in more institutionalised ones
- Democracy is generally more consolidated when actors accord legitimacy to parties, since they constitute the main mechanism for competing for state power
- Democratic politics in fluid party systems are characterised by more personalised, weaker mechanisms of accountability, greater electoral volatility, more floating voters and more uncertainty
- In an institutionalised party system there is stability in the identity of the main parties and the ways in which they behave. Institutionalisation does not preclude change, but it limits it.
Given profound changes in the number and nature of contemporary party systems, attention must be paid to the level of institutionalisation as well as to the number of parties. Institutionalisation should be regarded as a continuous variable. Other suggestions of the paper are that:
- By expanding the cases around which we theorise from the advanced industrial democracies to newer, less consolidated democracies, variance in party system institutionalisation becomes extensive and of primary importance
- Analysing the party systems of third-wave democracies draws attention to considerable variances in party system institutionalisation and the consequences resulting therefrom
- Because parties typically rank among the least trusted of democratic institutions, even in long-established democracies, it is important to avoid unrealistic expectations in measuring the legitimacy of parties and elections.
