Depending on the situation of political parties in the political system, the interaction between them, such as political parties themselves formed the party system. E.Vyatr defined under the party system a set of relations between the legally functioning political parties, which is manifested in competition or in a joint struggle for power or the exercise of power does not include either government institutions or non-partisan interest groups or other organizations of this type [1, p. 330-332]. It includes part of the party system, all legally existing political parties, including those that are very minor role because of its small size and weak effects, as well as ant systemic Party, because they are in a relationship with the other parties fighting the system and thereby constitute part of it, although dysfunctional in relation to the whole system. Thus, party systems are a set of stable relations and rela-tions of parties of various types with each other, as well as with government and other institutions of government.
Types of party systems differ in quantitative and qualitative criteria. In modern political science is the most common typology, based on the number of parties. On quantitative criteria consider the typology proposed by Duverger and Russian political analysts, V.P. Pugachev and A.I. Soloviev.
Thus, the number of active parties in the country highlights the following Duverger party systems:
- One-party, in which the current party is deprived of a competitor that could lead to her struggle for power;
- Two-party with two relatively equal values on the popularity of the competing parties;
- The number of multi-parties for more than
In contrast to this classification, the typology proposed by Pugachev and Solovyev, enables more detail to consider the party system. In turn, they emit a one-party (non-competitive) and multi-party system (competitive, adversarial) [2, p. 127].
Non-competitive one-party system - is that where the only party monopolizes political power. The party in a one-party system provides communication between leaders and masses, while Parliament and the electoral mechanisms or eliminated, or deprived of their true meaning. Characteristic of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, and is widespread in developing countries.
There are two types of one-party system:
- The despotic characterized in that it excludes even the nominal existence of other parties. In fact, these parties are part of the state An example is the Communist Party.
- Democratic species takes place, where in fact the current one party system disguised as a multi-party sys-tem, which is In her State Party exercises a total ideological and organizational control. Party satellites are integrated, as a rule, in organizations such as national or popular front. Their activity is tightly regulated.
Competitive or adversarial multi-party system - one where there are many parties, including opposition parties vying for power. It is divided into a system with one dominant (dominant) party and bipartisan multiparty an.
System with the dominant party - is a system in which for many years, despite the availability of basic democratic procedures and multiple parties, one party regularly wins elections and is dominated by the power structures. For example, the Social-Democratic Workers' Party of Sweden from 1932 to 1976 alone or in coalition, led in power. And in the last thirty years, this party is most often sought electoral success, getting the right to form a government.
Bipartisan (bipartisan) system - is a system in which the real struggles for power in the state are only two political parties. One of the parties in an election receives a majority of seats in Parliament forms the government, or leads to power and became President of the ruling. The other is the opposition. While in opposition, it monitors the activities of the ruling party, constructively criticize it and can not usurp the power in the country. The concept of "bipartisanship" does not mean that in a given society, there are only two political parties. There may be more, but the real contenders for power are the only two major, and the other party does not prevent them operate alternately.
There are two kinds of two-party system:
The classic version, in which the two major parties receive 90 percent of the vote, in connection with what other parties are denied access to
The classic version of bipartisanship may be "hard" and "flexible".
An example of a rigid two-party system is the existing system of governance in the UK. When making important political decisions all the deputies from each of the major parties - Lab our or Conservative - to vote strictly in accordance with the decisions of the party. Violation of party discipline is punished severely enough.
Flexible two-party system exists in the United States. There congressman can vote for more freedom and less take into account the position of the party leadership.
The system of "two and a half parties," or "two plus one party," or "two plus" in which close to two major parties appear a third, less severe, but able to influence the outcome of the struggle for Supporting one of the major parties, such third party influences on the final success of one of the strengths of the parties and thus defines the contours of the government coalition. Such a system exists in Canada, Austria, Germany and other countries.
Multiparty an system - a system in which more than two parties are able to exert a strong influence on the political process, but none of them are unable to govern itself, which leads to the formation of coalition governments that rely on heterogeneous and changing the parliamentary majority.
Such a party system tends to seek consensus and compromise, since neither party has any clear political domination. These inter-party agreements may be concluded for a period of electoral campaigns, as well as in Parliament to create a ruling coalition and form a coalition government. Each of these types of party systems has their advantages and disadvantages. Thus, the experience of Japan, Syria, Spain and other countries shows benefits in favor of a multiparty system with a monopoly of the ruling party. Politically stable development of the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Austria and some other states favors the dominant party without multinational. Bipartisan model, steady in the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia and some other countries, gives citizens a choice, the government - change of course, society - stability, but also hinders the emergence of the political market of new parties. If it works in societies with shared core values, almost brings socio-cultural contradictions to the acute political confrontation. Where a "third party" can still make significant adjustments to the established political order (ice select a significant share of votes in party, preferred by 70-80% of voters), in a society formed all the prerequisites for a stable political middle.
However, despite the fact that existing in a State Party is easy to calculate a quantitative method of typology of party systems is not perfect: showing the number of party institutions, he does not reveal how many parties actually included in the process of government decision making. Therefore, a typology of party systems on the quality characteristics of the parties is preferable. Quantitative typology describes the way of the party, established in the developed democracies: Australia, Japan, Western Europe, the USA, the typology proposed by American political scientist of Italian origin Sartori to classify party systems in developing countries - Latin America, Asia and Africa. It gives a more complex classification based on the ideological distance ("polarity") between the parties. In his major work "The parties and party systems," Sartori offers seven-classification [3, p. 46]:
- A system with one party;
- System with a hegemonic party;
- System with the dominant party;
- Two-party system;
- System of limited pluralism;
- System of extreme pluralism;
- atomized
In essence, we are talking about different types of single-party and multiparty system.
One-party system is characterized by a monopoly of power by one party. Creation of other parties is prohibited by law. In this system, the party merges with the state. Major policy decisions are made by senior party leaders, the role of government officials in the main executive.
Experience with single-party systems in the XX century has shown their inefficiency and anti-democratic. The monopolization of power to the one party inevitably leads to voluntarism and the predominance of command and control in the long run - to the exclusion of citizens from politics. One-party system existed under the totalitarian regime in the USSR and Nazi Germany, Albania, Romania. They now exist in North Korea and Cuba. System with the party-hegemony, there is at present in China, who until recently was in Mexico and most countries in Eastern Europe.
Here "kvazimnogopartiynost" also creates a tendency for merging of party and state apparatus, although not to the same extent as in the one-party system. As a variant of one-party system, the system does not provide sufficient opportunities to express different ideas and interests that led to its crisis.
System with the dominant party, a long stay in power for one party in the presence of ineffective opposition. These were the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan and the Social Democratic Party of Sweden. In India, the dominant party is the Indian National Congress.
The system of domination can form a stable single-party government, but carries the danger of inertia and stagnation for the ruling party.
Two-Party System (bipartizm) suggests that the country has two strong parties, each of which is capable of self-acceptance of authority and its implementation as a result of the election. These parties are periodically replacing each other in power.
Bipartizm not exclude the existence in the country and other, less influential parties. They also participate in the political process, but can not actually claim to power. The classical model of two-party system has developed in the U.S., where the alternate at the helm of state power the Democratic and Republican parties. In Great Britain after World War II and up until May 2010 a power struggle played out between the Conservatives and Lab our.
Sartori classification system should be supplemented "the two parties and a half." For it is also characterized by competition between the two major parties, but none of them can not win an absolute majority in the elections to Parliament and to form the Government should enter into a coalition with a third party. This party plays the role of the balance of advantage for one of the leading parties. Such a system exists in Germany, where leading CDU / CSU and the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) to form a government, just joined the unit with the Free Democrats. Such a system also exists in Canada, Australia, where the "third" parties have the opportunity to act as a regulator power. Recent elections in the UK also showed a tendency to a possible transition from the classical bipartisan to the "two and a half" parties.
Bipartizm allows for relatively stable government as it creates a one-party government, free from the instability of coalition agreements. Opposition parties are here in line with the same basic values.
Two-party system simplifies the process of articulating and aggregating interests, since each of the competing parties seeks to summarize the requirements of different social groups in order to maximize their electoral base. However, the two-party system has been criticized for being debarred from participation in decision making minor parties, expressing the demands of the minority. The main symptom of a system of limited or moderate, pluralism is the competition of several political parties, each of which is not in a position to win the most seats in Parliament and implement their own political power.
Typically, when such systems is acute problem of searching for allies and partners to build coalitions. In temperate pluralism, ideological differences between the parties are small. The system of moderate pluralism exists in countries such as Austria, Belgium, and the Netherlands, where three or four competing parties. The system of extreme (polarized) pluralism exists in countries such as Finland, Romania, etc. It has several features.
First, it involves parties who are opposed to the current system. These parties hold diametrically opposing ideologies - Trotskyism, anarchism, fascism, and others.
Second, it operates several political parties, united in two or more large blocks. These units contribute to the consolidation of political forces, to overcome fragmentation of the political process.
Third, access to government formation is possible only for parties of the center - right and left. The ends of the same party who are opposed to the current system can not take part in the formation of the Government.
Finally, for the atomized party system characterized by the existence of tens and even hundreds of parties (Malaysia, Bolivia). This system is ideologically diverse.
Practice has shown that there is no uniform standard in assessing the effectiveness of various party systems, although the most important reason to compare their activity is provided by the political system, sensitivity to social demands and needs of the population, including in decision-making process as many as possible powerfully impor-tant interests of the citizens, the ability of people to the democratic control over the activities of the ruling elites.
- Vyatr E. Sociology of political relations. – M.: Progress, 1979. –
- Pugachev P., Soloviev A.I. An introduction to political science. – M.: Aspect Press, 2001. – P. 284.
- Sartori J. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis // the theory of parties and party systems: A. Reader / Comp Isayev. B.A. – M.: Aspect Press, 2008. – P. 45-51.