Caramani examines political parties not as isolated entities but as parts of a larger system, much

like planets within a constellation. Just as planets differ in size, distance, and influence, political
parties vary in number, strength, and ideological positions. Some party systems have many small
parties, others have a few dominant ones, and some, especially in authoritarian regimes, feature
one main party with smaller "satellite" parties. Over time, some party systems remain stable,
while others evolve or shift, depending on political and social changes. Additionally, the political
space itself can expand or shrink—for example, left-right ideological boundaries may shift, or
new economic and cultural issues may emerge, adding complexity to party systems.

In liberal democracies, the driving force behind party interactions is competition for power,
primarily through elections. The structure and behavior of party systems are shaped by this
electoral contest, where parties aim to maximize votes and control government. However, party
interactions are not solely about competition—they also involve cooperation, particularly when
parties form coalitions to govern together.

There are three key aspects to understanding party systems:

1. The existence of parties: Some parties, like socialist parties, exist in almost all
democracies, while others, like religious or regional parties, are found only in certain
contexts. This relates to the genealogy of party systems—how and why different parties
emerge.
2. The number and size of parties: Some countries have a two-party system (like the
U.S.), while others have multiple smaller parties (like Belgium or India). This is the
format or morphology of party systems.
3. Party behavior and interaction: In some systems, parties move toward the center to
attract more voters, while in others, they shift toward ideological extremes. This relates to
the dynamics of party systems.

A crucial point is that a party system must include multiple parties—a single party alone does not
form a system. Pluralism is essential for a functioning party system, as competition among
parties requires free elections and political diversity. Without pluralism, real electoral
competition cannot exist.

THE GENEALOGY OF PARTY SYSTEM

The ‘national’ and ‘industrial’ revolution
Most modern political parties and party groups emerged from the major social and economic
changes that took place between the mid-19th century and the early 20th century. According to
Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan (1967), these transformations can be understood
through two major revolutions:

1. The Industrial Revolution: This period brought rapid industrialization and urbanization,
changing the way people worked and lived. It led to the rise of a working-class
 population in cities, which in turn created class divisions and the need for political
representation of different economic interests.

2. The National Revolution: This refers to the formation of nation-states, where

governments became more centralized and liberal democracy developed. Important
political concepts such as parliamentary systems, individual civil rights, voting rights,
rule of law, and secular institutions became defining features of modern governance.

These revolutions led to deep social divisions, which Lipset and Rokkan referred to as cleavages
—conflicts between different social groups, such as workers vs. business owners, religious vs.
secular groups, and urban vs. rural populations. With the expansion of parliaments and free
elections, political parties emerged to represent these divisions and became key players in
modern political systems.
Cleavages and their political translation
Lipset and Rokkan (1967) distinguish four main cleavages (see Table 13.1). The two revolutions
have each Produced two main cleavages. Subsequent transformations have produced additional
cleavages, namely The ‘International Revolution’, triggered by the Soviet Revolution of 1917,
and the ‘Post-Industrial Revolution’ in the 1960s–70s, which led to a value cleavage Between
generations, and globalization since the late 1990s.
In the nineteenth century, socio-economic and Cultural conflicts emerged simultaneously with
democratic reforms. The fundamental features of today’s Party systems were set during the early
phases of Mobilization of, at first, restricted electorates (only Very few people had the right to
vote when liberals and conservatives dominated in the nineteenth Century) and, later, of
‘massifying’ electorates when Socialist parties mobilized the vast working class that Emerged
from the Industrial Revolution

The National Revolution produced from two cleavages:

Centre–Periphery Cleavage
As nation-states began to form in the 19th century, political power became centralized, with
governments establishing unified administrative structures, taxation systems, national languages,
and sometimes even state religions. However, many newly formed states were culturally and
linguistically diverse, leading to resistance from regional populations who feared losing their
autonomy. National elites, often from dominant ethnic or linguistic groups, imposed bureaucratic
and fiscal control over peripheral regions, integrating them into the new state system. This
process often led to tensions between the central government and regional populations.

The cultural aspect of this cleavage was particularly significant. Many peripheral regions had
their own distinct languages, traditions, and religious practices, which were often suppressed in
favor of national identity. Governments sought to unify citizens through compulsory education
and military service, reinforcing loyalty to the nation-state. A famous example comes from
Italy’s unification in the 19th century when its first Prime Minister, Massimo d’Azeglio, declared,
“We have made Italy, let us make Italians,” emphasizing the need to forge a common national
identity. Similarly, in France, historian Eugen Weber (1976) noted that in 1863, only 22% of
communes spoke French, showing how national language policies sought to replace regional
dialects.

Resistance to centralization led to the rise of regionalist political movements and parties that
continue to exist today. Examples include the Scottish National Party (SNP) in the UK, Basque
and Catalan nationalist parties in Spain, and the Bloc Québécois in Canada. These parties
advocate for greater autonomy or even independence for their regions. After democratization,
similar ethnic-based parties emerged in Africa, representing local identities and opposing
centralized rule.

State–Church Cleavage

In addition to centralization, nation-states in the 19th century also embraced secularism, limiting
the influence of the church in governance. The new liberal order promoted individualism,
republicanism, and free elections, abolishing the privileges of the clergy and aristocracy that had
dominated pre-modern politics. This created a deep divide between liberals, who sought secular
governance, and conservatives, who defended traditional religious authority.

One of the biggest battlegrounds for this conflict was education. Historically, the Catholic
Church controlled schools, shaping moral and political beliefs. Liberal governments introduced
compulsory state education to create loyal citizens and diminish the church’s influence. In Italy,
for example, the Catholic Church lost its territorial and political power when Italy unified
between 1860 and 1870. The government confiscated church lands, reducing its authority over
public affairs. Similar conflicts took place in other Catholic-majority countries like Belgium,
Switzerland, and Germany, where religious conservatives resisted secular reforms.

In some countries, religious groups even faced political exclusion. For example, in Italy and
France, Catholics were banned from voting and running for office by papal decree, preventing
the emergence of Catholic political parties until the 1910s. The Catholic Church remained hostile
to democracy until after World War II, when it accepted democratic governance, leading to the
rise of Christian Democracy as a major political movement. After the war, parties like the
Christian Democratic Appeal (Netherlands, 1972) and the Christian Democratic Union
(Germany) emerged, representing a compromise between religious and secular interests.

Today, similar tensions persist in Islamic-majority countries, where debates over secularism vs.
religious governance continue. In Turkey, Egypt, and Bangladesh, political struggles exist
between Islamist parties, which seek to integrate religious principles into governance, and
secular forces, which advocate for separation between religion and state.
An interesting case is that of countries with mixed Religious structures. In the Netherlands, there
was one Unified Catholic party and a number of Reformed Parties. In 1972, the religious parties
merged into the Christian Democratic Appeal. An inter-confessional Party also developed in
Germany (the Christian Democratic Union). In Switzerland, a major Catholic Party emerged
from the opposition to the Protestant Radicals/Liberals.

The Industrial Revolution produced two additional Cleavages:

Rural–urban cleavage
The rural–urban cleavage emerged as a major political and economic divide between agriculture-
based rural populations and industrial and commercial urban classes. The key conflict revolved
around trade policies—landowners and farmers supported protectionism, advocating for high
tariffs to protect local agriculture from foreign imports, while urban industrialists and traders
favored free trade with low tariffs to encourage competition and exports. As Rogowski (1989)
explains, weaker economic sectors lean towards protectionist policies to guard against foreign
competition, whereas stronger sectors push for open markets to expand their influence.
Agriculture was especially vulnerable due to technological advancements and increasing
productivity, leading to the rise of agrarian parties (also called peasant or farmers’ parties), which
sought to defend rural interests. These parties were particularly influential in Eastern Europe and
Scandinavia, and similar movements existed in Latin America and the U.S., such as the Populist
Party.

After World War II, agrarian parties declined or transformed—many disappeared altogether,
while others, particularly in Northern and Eastern Europe, shifted towards centrist politics,
abandoning their agrarian roots. However, rural-based conflicts have resurfaced in Latin
America, where governments have implemented protectionist measures to counteract the
influence of multinational corporations and globalization. Examples include gas and oil
nationalization in Bolivia and Venezuela. Similarly, in the 1990s, peasant uprisings in the
Chiapas region of Mexico highlighted ongoing rural struggles. In the European Union, farmers
continue to exert influence by lobbying for protective trade policies and government subsidies.
Workers-employers cleavage

The workers–employers cleavage is one of the most defining divisions in modern political
history, representing the struggle between industrial capitalists—who drove the Industrial
Revolution—and the working class, which emerged from it. This conflict between “capital” and
“labour” became the foundation of the left–right political spectrum, which still dominates
politics today. Even in countries like the United States, where a socialist party never gained
prominence, left–right divisions remain relevant. The Industrial Revolution had a profound
impact on Western societies, causing massive urbanization, restructuring families, and worsening
living and working conditions in industrial cities. These hardships led to worker mobilization
through trade unions, with socialism providing a powerful unifying ideology.

With the expansion of voting rights, socialist and labor parties gained political influence and
began advocating for workers’ rights. Their demands extended beyond civil and political rights
to include social and economic protections, as discussed by Marshall (1950) and Kitschelt
(1994). These demands included restrictions on child and female labor, fair wages, reasonable
working hours, job security, workplace safety, unemployment protection, progressive taxation,
accident insurance, and pension systems. Socialists championed state intervention in the
economy, supporting public investment and ownership of essential industries like transportation,
energy, and finance, laying the groundwork for Keynesian economic policies.

Many socialist and labor parties originated from trade unions, which were the primary
organizations representing workers before universal suffrage. Trade unions not only protected
workers’ rights but also built solidarity and provided essential services, helping shape the modern
labor movement. The long-standing workers-employers divide continues to influence economic
and social policies worldwide, especially in debates over workers’ rights, wages, and government
intervention in the economy.

The Soviet Revolution of 1917 produced a cleavage within the workers’ movement

The communism–socialism cleavage emerged after the Russian Revolution of 1917, which led to
the establishment of the Soviet Union and a single-party regime controlled by the Communist
Party. This event caused a split within socialist movements worldwide, as communist parties
broke away from socialist parties in different countries. The main point of division was whether
achieving proletarian power (the rule of the working class) required a violent revolution, as
advocated by the Soviet Communist Party, or If it could be achieved peacefully through
elections.

As the working class gained strength and mass organizations became more influential, there was
a reaction from the ruling classes. In response to the radicalization of workers’ movements,
fascist parties emerged across Europe during the 1920s and 1930s, eventually gaining power in
several countries. These parties strongly opposed communism, favoring nationalism over class
struggle and private property over collective ownership. Fascism was particularly supported by
the industrial bourgeoisie, who saw socialist policies as a threat to their businesses, and by the
aristocracy, who feared land redistribution and the loss of their wealth.

During the 1930s, fascist regimes dominated many European governments, presenting
themselves as the defenders of traditional hierarchy, private property, and national identity
against the growing influence of communism and socialism. This deep ideological divide
between communism, socialism, and fascism shaped political conflicts throughout the 20th
century, influencing World War II, the Cold War, and global politics.
Finally, the ‘Post-Industrial Revolution’ (Bell 1973) Created two more recent cleavages

Materialism–post-materialism cleavage

The materialism–post-materialism cleavage emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a generational

divide in values, influenced by the prolonged period of peace, economic prosperity, and security
after World War II (Inglehart 1977). The older generation, shaped by wartime struggles,
prioritized materialist values such as national security, law and order, full employment, private
property, tradition, and authority. In contrast, the younger generation embraced post-materialist
values, emphasizing tolerance, equality, personal freedom, environmental protection, and global
solidarity. This shift led to the rise of social movements like the civil rights movement in the
1950s, pacifism during the Vietnam War in the 1960s, feminism in the 1970s, and
environmentalism in the 1980s. By the 1990s, anti-globalization movements emerged, protesting
against the spread of Western economic and cultural dominance (Della Porta 1999). While these
values had limited impact on mainstream political parties, green parties became their most
significant political expression (Müller-Rommel and Poguntke 2002).

Globalization cleavage

The globalization cleavage Is another major divide caused by economic globalization, which has
created winners and losers in society. Some industries and individuals benefit from the expansion
of markets, while others suffer due to competition from cheap labor and foreign imports (Betz
1994). The “losers” of globalization, including small businesses, unskilled workers, and local
producers, have increasingly supported populist parties that advocate for trade barriers,
nationalist labor policies, and anti-immigration measures. This reaction has been reinforced by
cultural concerns, leading to a “cultural backlash” against multiculturalism and globalization
(Ignazi 1992; Inglehart and Norris 2018).

Populist movements have gained momentum in different forms across the world. In Europe,
right-wing populist parties like the French National Rally, Austria’s Freedom Party, and
Alternative for Germany have pushed nationalist agendas. Events like Brexit in 2016 and
Switzerland’s referenda on immigration reflect this growing discontent. In the United States, the
Tea Party movement promoted a similar nationalist, anti-globalization stance. However, in
Southern Europe and Latin America, populism has often taken a left-wing form, advocating for
inclusive policies and economic justice, as seen in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and parties like
Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece (Burgess and Levitsky 2003; Mudde and Kaltwasser
2013).

Moreover, security concerns, including terrorist attacks and the refugee crisis in Europe, have
further fueled populist movements, leading to a resurgence of law-and-order values. This
cleavage continues to shape global politics, driving polarization between nationalist-populist
forces and progressive, globalist movements.
Variations in Cleavage Constellations

Cleavages in society are not the same everywhere; they vary across different countries and over
time. Some cleavages, like the left–right divide, exist in nearly all political systems, but others,
such as state–church, rural–urban, and centre–periphery cleavages, are more specific to certain
countries. According to Caramani (2015), these differences shape party systems around the
world.

Cleavage Differences Across Countries (Space)

Why do some countries experience certain cleavages while others do not? There are three key
factors that influence this:

1. Social structures – A country’s ethnic diversity, religious composition, class relations, and
agricultural systems determine which cleavages are important.

2. Political mobilization by parties – Political leaders and elites play a major role in
deciding which social divisions become politically relevant (Rose 1976; Lijphart 1968b).

3. Interconnection of cleavages – Some cleavages can prevent others from developing. For
example, in many countries, agrarian concerns were absorbed by Catholic or conservative
parties, making separate agrarian parties unnecessary.

Some countries have homogeneous cleavage constellations, where a single cleavage dominates
politics—such as the left–right divide in the US. Others have heterogeneous constellations,
where multiple cleavages overlap, like in Belgium, Canada, India, the Netherlands, and
Switzerland (Lijphart 1984).
Cleavage Changes Over Time

For much of the 20th century, party systems remained remarkably stable. Even party labels—such
as liberal, socialist, and conservative—did not change, creating what political scientists call a
political imprint (Franklin et al. 1992). Lipset and Rokkan (1967) introduced the freezing
hypothesis, which suggests that the political divisions of the 1920s continued to shape the party
systems of the 1960s:

 “The party systems of the 1960s reflect, with few but significant exceptions, the cleavage
structures of the 1920s… The party alternatives, and in remarkably many cases, the party
organizations, are older than the majorities of the national electorates.”
—Lipset and Rokkan (1967: 50)

In the 1920s, the introduction of universal suffrage and proportional representation (PR) meant
that most political groups were fully mobilized, leaving little room for new parties to emerge. As
in any market, political systems had entry barriers, ensuring that existing parties maintained their
dominance over multiple generations.

However, in more recent years, political stability has started to break down. Some scholars, like
Dalton et al. (1985), argue that electorates are experiencing dealignment and realignment,
meaning that traditional party loyalties are weakening. Others, such as Bartolini and Mair (1990),
emphasize long-term stabilization despite temporary fluctuations in voting patterns.

In the last decade, Western political systems have undergone dramatic change, with the rise of
populist parties and the decline of traditional parties. According to Casal Bértoa (2017), levels of
political instability today are comparable to those seen around the two world wars, indicating the
“de-institutionalization” of party systems. This suggests that old cleavages are fading, while new
political divisions—such as globalization, identity politics, and populism—are reshaping party
landscapes.
The Morphology of Party Systems

The way political parties interact in a democracy depends on the structure of the party system.
The two main factors that shape this structure are:

1. The number of competing parties – How many political parties exist in the system?
2. The size of these parties – How strong or influential are they?

To understand the strength of parties, we can look at two key aspects:

 The percentage of votes they receive in elections.

 The number of seats they hold in parliament.

However, the electoral system plays a major role in determining how votes translate into
parliamentary seats. Some systems (like proportional representation) allow multiple parties to
gain seats, while others (like first-past-the-post) favor larger parties and create two-party
dominance.

Undemocratic Party Systems

Not all political systems allow fair competition among parties. Some systems restrict
democracy by limiting political choice. Two types of such systems are:

1. Single-Party Systems – In these systems, only one party is legally allowed to exist,
making real competition impossible. Examples include:
o The Communist Party of the Soviet Union
o The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in China today
o The National Socialist Party (Nazi Party) in Germany during the 1930s
o The Ba’athist Party in Iraq (until 1993) and in Syria (until 2011)

2. Hegemonic Party Systems – In these systems, other parties are allowed but are
controlled by the dominant ruling party. These regimes are usually authoritarian or
totalitarian, as seen in:
o Egypt and Tunisia before the Arab Spring (2011)
o Communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe before 1989

In democratic systems, multiple parties compete fairly, ensuring representation and choice for
voters. However, in authoritarian or hegemonic systems, elections may exist, but they do not
allow genuine competition.

 Dominant-Party Systems
A dominant-party system is one in which a single party remains in power for long periods, often
securing more than 50% of the seats in parliament for decades. While other political parties exist
and contest elections freely, they do not receive enough votes to pose a real challenge to the
ruling party. The lack of serious competition means that the ruling party does not need to form
coalitions to govern.
Examples of Dominant-Party Systems:
1. India (1947–1975):After gaining independence in 1947, the Indian National Congress
(INC), led by Jawaharlal Nehru, dominated Indian politics.The party secured over 50% of
the votes and remained unchallenged for almost three decades.However, the situation
changed in 1975–77 when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a state of emergency,
leading to significant opposition.

2. South Africa (since 1994):Following the end of apartheid, the African National Congress
(ANC) became the dominant force in South African politics. Under the leadership of
Nelson Mandela, the ANC played a crucial role in enfranchising the black population,
which helped the party maintain a strong majority.

3. Sweden (1945–1998):The Social Democratic Workers’ Party held power for most of the
post-World War II period, consistently winning close to 45% of the votes.

4. Mexico (1917–2000):The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) ruled Mexico

uninterrupted for over 70 years, from the revolution of 1917 until the election of 2000.

5. Turkey (since 2017): The Justice and Development Party (AKP) has been the dominant
political force, maintaining its control despite growing opposition.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Dominant-Party Systems:

Advantages:
 Political stability due to a single-party government.
 Continuity in policy-making and governance.
Disadvantages:
 Risk of authoritarian tendencies if opposition is too weak.
 Lack of accountability due to lack of political competition.

 Two-Party Systems

A two-party system is one in which two major political parties dominate the political landscape
and take turns governing. These parties have similar sizes (each receiving around 35–45% of the
votes), and small changes in voter support can shift power between them.
In such systems, elections are highly competitive, and power alternates frequently. Because both
parties are large, the winning party usually forms a single-party government without needing
coalition partners.
Examples of Two-Party Systems:

1. United States: The Republican Party and the Democratic Party have dominated since
1860.The First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) electoral system ensures that smaller parties rarely
gain significant representation.

2. Australia:The Labour Party and the Liberal Party are the two main political forces,
alternating in power.

3. Costa Rica and Malta:Two dominant parties receive close to 100% of the votes, leaving
little room for smaller parties.

4. Canada (before 1993):The Conservatives and Liberals were the main political parties
until the rise of the Bloc Québécois and Reform Party in the 1990s.

5. Germany (until the 2000s):The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Social
Democratic Party (SPD) controlled over 80% of the votes.
Features of Two-Party Systems:

 Frequent alternation in power, ensuring government accountability.

 The electoral system encourages moderation, as both parties need broad support to win.
 Small parties have limited influence and often struggle to gain representation.

 Multiparty Systems
A multiparty system has three or more major political parties, none of which has an absolute
majority. This system often results in coalition governments, where multiple parties must work
together to form a government.

Characteristics of Multiparty Systems:

 Governments are formed through coalitions.
 Proportional Representation (PR) electoral systems encourage diversity.
 Government changes happen through coalition shifts rather than elections.
 They are more representative of diverse groups, including minorities.

Examples of Multiparty Systems:

1. Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, and Scandinavia:These countries use Proportional

Representation (PR), allowing multiple parties to gain seats in parliament.

2. Italy (1946–1992):Highly fragmented, leading to frequent coalition crises.

3. Weimar Republic (Germany, 1919–1933):The political system was deeply divided,

leading to instability and the rise of extremism.
Types of Multiparty Systems (Sartori, 1976):

1. Moderate Multiparty Systems:Similar to two-party systems, but with small ideological

differences between parties.Example: Scandinavian countries.

2. Polarized Multiparty Systems:Large ideological differences, leading to radical opposition

and instability.Example: Weimar Germany (1919–1933), Italy (1946–1992).

Advantages and Disadvantages of Multiparty Systems:

Advantages:
 Greater political diversity and representation.
 More inclusive of minority groups.

Disadvantages:
 Coalition governments can be unstable.
 Policy-making can be slow due to negotiations between multiple parties.

3. Bipolar Systems

A bipolar system combines features of two-party and multiparty systems. While many parties
exist, they form two stable coalitions, which compete like two large parties. These coalitions
remain relatively stable over time, even though individual parties within them may change.
Examples of Bipolar Systems:

1. France (1958–2017):The left coalition (Socialists, Radicals, Communists, Greens) and

the right coalition (Gaullists, Liberals) alternated in power.This system changed in 2017
with the rise of Emmanuel Macron’s En Marche movement.
 2. Italy (1994–2018):The centre-left coalition (Social Democrats, Greens, Catholics) and the
centre-right coalition (Berlusconi’s party, post-fascists, Northern League) took turns in
power.In 2018, the rise of the Five-Star Movement disrupted this system

Counting Political Parties

To analyze party systems, scholars use two ways to count parties:

1. Numerical Methods – Measure party size and fragmentation:

Rae’s Fractionalization Index (Rae, 1971) – Measures how evenly votes are spread among
parties.
Effective Number of Parties (Laakso & Taagepera, 1979) – Counts significant parties based on
their vote share.

2. Qualitative Methods (Sartori, 1976) – Focus on party influence, not just size:
Coalition Potential – A small party is relevant if it can decide which party governs.
Blackmail Potential – A small party is relevant if it can pressure the government.
For example, in Germany before 2000s, the Liberal Party (FDP) had only 5% of votes, but its
pivotal role in coalitions made it highly influential.

The Influence of Electoral Laws on Party Systems

Electoral laws play a major role in shaping the number and size of political parties in a
country. The more fragmented a party system is, the more it affects political stability,
accountability, and representation. Political scientists have studied why some countries have
two-party systems, while others have multiple political parties. The most important factor
influencing this is the electoral system.

An electoral system is the process by which votes are counted and translated into parliamentary
seats. There are two main types of electoral systems:
 1. Majoritarian (or plurality) systems, where a candidate must win the most votes in a
single-member district (such as First-Past-the-Post, FPTP).
2. Proportional Representation (PR) systems, where seats are distributed based on the
percentage of votes each party gets in multi-member districts.

Duverger’s Laws and the Relationship Between Electoral and Party Systems

French political scientist Maurice Duverger explained this connection in his famous book
Political Parties (1954). He proposed two laws:

1. Majoritarian electoral systems favor two-party systems.

2. Proportional Representation (PR) systems encourage multiparty systems.

This happens due to mechanical and psychological effects:

 Mechanical Effect:
o In majoritarian systems, only the party with the most votes wins a seat, while all
other parties get nothing. This makes it difficult for small parties to survive.
o In PR systems, seats are distributed based on votes. Even small parties get seats
if they meet a minimum vote percentage, making the system more inclusive.

 Psychological Effect:
o Voters adjust their behavior based on the electoral system.
o In majoritarian systems, voters often avoid small parties because their votes
would be "wasted" if the party cannot win. Instead, they choose between the two
biggest parties.
o In PR systems, voters feel safe voting for smaller parties because their votes still
count toward seat allocation.

Political scientists like Rae (1971), Riker (1982), and Sartori (1986) questioned whether these
effects work at both local and national levels. They noted that if a country has regional parties
that dominate in certain areas, even an FPTP system can lead to party fragmentation at the
national level. For example, in India, regional parties like the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra or the
DMK in Tamil Nadu can still win seats despite the FPTP system.

Impact of Plurality Systems (FPTP) on Party Representation

Plurality systems like FPTP distort party representation in several ways:

 They favor large parties, giving them more seats than their actual vote share.
 They underrepresent small parties, making it harder for them to gain political
influence.

A good example of this distortion is seen in the 2015 UK elections. The least squares index of
disproportionality (LSq), developed by Gallagher (1991), shows that the UK had a high level
of disproportionality between votes and seats (15.0). Similar distortions are seen in other FPTP
countries like Canada, India, and the US.

Proportional Representation (PR) and the Number of Parties

PR systems generally lead to multiparty systems because they allow small parties to gain
representation. However, even PR systems can limit the number of parties if constituencies are
small. This is called the magnitude effect.

For example:

 In Spain, where constituencies elect few representatives per district, only the largest
parties win seats, leading to fewer parties in parliament.
 In contrast, countries like Netherlands and Israel, where constituencies elect many
representatives, have highly proportional systems, allowing even very small parties to
gain seats.

Understanding the Dynamics of Party Systems

Political scientists have often compared elections to markets, where political parties compete
for votes just like businesses compete for customers. This idea is based on Joseph
Schumpeter’s (1943) definition of democracy, which describes it as a system where leaders are
chosen through competition for votes.

In this analogy:

 Political parties are like businesses, trying to gain a bigger "market share" of voters.
 Voters are like consumers, choosing between different political "products" (parties and
their policies).
 Elections are like a marketplace, where parties compete by offering policies and
promises to attract supporters.

Schumpeter emphasized that the main goal of parties is to maximize votes, just as businesses
aim to maximize profits. The relationship between politicians and voters is similar to the
relationship between supply and demand in the economy—politicians offer policies, and
voters "buy" them by giving their votes.

This perspective helps explain why parties change their positions over time. Just like companies
adapt to consumer preferences, political parties adjust their strategies based on what voters
want. For example, if people become more concerned about climate change, parties may start
focusing on environmental policies to gain more support.
Thus, the dynamics of party systems are shaped by electoral competition, just as market
competition influences business behavior. This ongoing competition ensures that parties remain
responsive to voter demands, making democracy a constantly evolving process.

The Market Analogy in Politics

Anthony Downs, in his book An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957), introduced the idea
that political competition works like market competition. Just as businesses try to attract
customers by offering products, political parties compete for votes by offering policies and
promises. Downs argued that both parties and voters are rational actors who make decisions
based on what benefits them the most.

 Parties act like businesses, formulating strategies to maximize votes and gain power.
Their main goal is winning elections by appealing to the largest number of voters.
 Voters, on the other hand, behave like consumers, choosing parties based on which one
aligns most with their interests, values, and policy preferences. This means that voters
tend to support parties whose positions are closest to their own views.

This concept of proximity voting—where people choose the party that is closest to their beliefs
—forms the basis of Downs’ spatial model of party competition.

The Spatial Analogy in Politics

Downs built on Hotelling’s (1929) model of business competition, where companies

strategically place themselves in the best locations to attract customers. He applied this idea to
political parties competing for votes.

Imagine a village with one long street where two bakeries (A and B) are located. If both
bakeries offer the same quality of bread at the same price, customers will buy from the one
closest to them. If Bakery A moves slightly toward the center, it gains more customers, forcing
Bakery B to move closer as well. Eventually, both bakeries end up near the middle, competing
for the largest share of customers.

Similarly, in politics:

 Parties move toward the center of the political spectrum to appeal to the majority of
voters.
 This is because most voters are moderate, rather than extreme in their views.
 When parties move toward the center, their policies start to resemble each other—this
explains why major parties often seem very similar.

Smithies (1941) added another element: if too many parties move toward the center, new
extreme parties may emerge at the edges to attract voters who feel ignored. This is why, even
in a system where parties move toward the middle, there is always room for more radical
parties to gain some support.

Downs' Model and the Behavior of Parties

Downs applied this spatial competition model to real-world politics and made some key
predictions:

1. Parties will always try to win the "median voter"—the voter at the center of the
political spectrum. This is because, in most countries, voter distribution follows a bell-
shaped curve:
o Many voters are centrists (middle of the spectrum).
o Fewer voters are at the extremes (far-left or far-right).
o As Downs wrote: “If we know something about the distribution of voters’
preferences, we can make specific predictions about how ideologies change as
parties maneuver to gain power” (Downs, 1957: 114).

2. Parties that shift too much to the extremes will lose elections, since there are fewer
voters at the edges. However, in polarized societies, where many people hold extreme
views, parties may not move toward the center but instead stick to their ideological
base.
3. Centrist voters are the most flexible—they do not have strong ideological attachments
and can switch parties easily. This makes them the most valuable group for political
parties. As Bartolini and Mair (1990) explained, these voters are less loyal to any one
party, making them key targets in elections.

Why This Matters

Downs’ theory helps explain why political parties often appear similar—they are all competing
for the same group of moderate voters. However, it also shows why extreme parties emerge,
especially in times of crisis, when people feel that the main parties are too similar or
unresponsive.

This market-based view of politics remains influential, helping scholars and politicians predict
electoral trends and understand party behavior in democracies worldwide.

The Broader Application of Rational Choice Models

Rational choice models help explain many changes in political parties and party systems over
time. One major transformation is the shift from mass parties (which had strong ties to specific
social groups like workers or religious communities) to catch-all parties, which try to appeal to
a broad range of voters. This shift happens because parties want to maximize votes, so they
adapt their ideologies and broaden their appeal beyond traditional supporters.

Another key concept is dealignment, where voters become less loyal to specific parties. For
example, in the past, social democratic parties were strongly supported by workers. But as
these parties moved toward the center to attract middle-class voters, their connection to workers
weakened. This led to higher voter volatility—people became more likely to switch parties
between elections. Przeworski and Sprague (1986) described how socialist parties faced a
dilemma: if they moved to the center, they could attract more votes, but they risked losing their
core working-class supporters.

Rational choice models also explain historical changes in voting behavior. In the 19th century,
voting rights were limited to wealthier citizens, so politics was dominated by liberals and
conservatives. As more people—especially workers—gained the right to vote, new parties like
social democrats and agrarian parties emerged. Reformist socialists believed in gaining
power through votes rather than revolution, hoping that industrial workers' growing numbers
would naturally lead to socialist victories. However, industrial workers did not grow in
number as expected, which forced socialist parties to adapt their strategies.

Rational Choice in Different Electoral Systems

The impact of rational choice models depends on the type of electoral system. In First-Past-
the-Post (FPTP) systems (like in the US and UK), only two major parties tend to dominate
because small parties struggle to win seats. Instead of new parties emerging, FPTP systems often
lead to low voter turnout, as some people feel their vote does not matter (Aldrich, 1993).

In Proportional Representation (PR) systems, however, many parties can exist and compete,
leading to a more polarized political landscape. Since smaller parties have a chance to win seats,
there is less pressure for parties to move toward the center. Instead, parties may take more
radical positions to distinguish themselves. This is why PR systems tend to have more
ideological diversity compared to FPTP systems.

Empirical Research on Party Behavior

Modern research has confirmed many of these ideas. Budge (1994) and Adams et al. (2008)
found that parties shift their positions based on voter preferences. Adams and Somer-Topcu
(2009) showed that parties also adjust based on their competitors' moves.

To measure these shifts, researchers use:

1. Voter surveys, such as the World Value Survey and Eurobarometer, where people
place themselves on a left-right scale.
2. Text analysis of party manifestos, using software to analyze political messages
(Comparative Manifesto Project, Budge et al., 2001).
3. Expert surveys, where scholars assess party positions (Chapel Hill Project,
Steenbergen and Marks, 2007).
New Dimensions in Political Competition

While traditional politics focused on left vs. right economic issues (socialism vs. capitalism),
modern political conflicts include a cultural axis. Kriesi et al. (2012) described this as a divide
between:

 Green–Alternative–Libertarian (GAL) values (supporting globalization,

environmentalism, and multiculturalism).
 Traditional–Authoritarian–Nationalist (TAN) values (favoring national identity,
controlled borders, and economic protectionism).

This cultural divide has become especially important in elections, such as the Brexit
referendum (2016) and Donald Trump’s victory (2016). These events reflected a divide
between:

 Highly educated, pro-globalization voters (who benefit from economic openness).

 Less-educated, working-class voters (who feel threatened by globalization and
immigration).

As traditional parties focused more on cultural issues rather than economic concerns, they
created an opportunity for populist parties to emerge. Caramani (2015) found that right-wing
populist parties gained support by emphasizing economic and cultural threats, which
mainstream parties often ignored.

Conclusion

To fully understand party systems, we need to look at them from multiple perspectives. The
macro-sociological approach explains how parties emerge from social divisions, such as class,
religion, or ethnicity. However, this alone is not enough. We must also consider institutional
factors like electoral laws, which shape the number and size of parties. Additionally, actor-
oriented models help us understand how political parties make strategic decisions to win
votes and influence society. These perspectives are not mutually exclusive—they complement
each other.

As Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan (1967) argued, social cleavages form the
foundation of party systems, but parties also have the ability to reshape society through their
ideologies and policies. A party’s historical origins do not fully determine its future. Instead, its
success depends on its strategy and how well it adapts to changing political and social
conditions. Electoral laws play a crucial role in this process, as they set the rules of
competition and influence whether a system has many small parties or just a few dominant
ones.

Research on party systems must be both descriptive and explanatory. Before trying to explain
why a party system looks the way it does, we must carefully describe its features. Even
something as simple as counting the number of parties can be more complex than it seems.
Giovanni Sartori (1976) emphasized that merely counting parties is not enough—we must also
examine their influence and interaction.

Moreover, party systems should not be studied in isolation. Comparative analysis helps us
understand whether a country’s party system is stable or fragmented. Looking at a system over
a long period of time is essential to see whether changes are temporary or part of a larger
trend. A single election result may seem significant, but without historical context, we cannot
determine if it represents a major transformation or just a short-term fluctuation.

In summary, understanding party systems requires a broad and balanced approach that
combines sociological, institutional, and strategic perspectives. Only by considering these
different factors together can we fully grasp why party systems develop the way they do and
how they evolve over time.