Introduction
West European Political parties are analysed at length
in Chapters 3 and 4. The focus is on the single parties,
their continuity and social bases, but political parties
constitute party systems and require their own analysis.
Let us focus now on systems of political parties by
looking at the West European party system from the
perspective of stability. The well-known stability
hypothesis in comparative research claims that the West
European party systems are characterized by a high degree
of continuity. Thus, it has been argued that change
is not a typical feature of the party systems of Western
Europe. Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan state in
their analysis of the development of party systems since
these political systems were transformed into
democracies:
the party systems of the 1960s reflect, with
few but significant exceptions, the cleavage
structures of the 1920s. This is a crucial
characteristic of Western competitive politics in the
age of 'high mass consumption': the party
alternatives, and in remarkably many cases the party
organizations, are older than the majorities of the
national electorates [Lipset & Rokkan,
1967a:50).
Richard Rose and Derek Urwin came to the same
conclusion with a refined analysis of the development
after the Second World War:
Whatever index of change is used--a
measure of trends or any of several measures of
fluctuations--the picture is the same: the
electoral strength of most parties in Western nations
since the war had changed very little from election to
election, from decade to decade, or within the
lifespan of a generation. The consistency of this
finding increases confidences in the indicators used.
In short, the first priority of social scientists
concerned with the development of parties and party
systems since 1945 is to explain the absence of change
in a far from static period in political history
[Rose & Urwin, 1970:295].
This widely accepted interpretation of the
party systems in Western Europe may be challenged by
means of a new analysis of the data. Although we
focus in this book on the post-Second World War period we
include the between war years to test the Lipset-Rokkan
stability hypothesis as it relates to party systems. When
one sets out to inquire into how much party system change
has taken place in West European party systems since the
democratization of the political systems the notion of
party-system change becomes crucial. The concept of
party system change consists of two components: party
system and change or instability which both require
theoretical clarification.
A party system like any system consists of parts
and relationships between these parts: 'A system is a
set of objects together with relationships between the
objects and between their attributes' (Hall & Fagen,
1956:18). The parts of a party system are, of course, the
political parties, but the specification of relationships
is not as simple as the specification of the parts
(Daalder & Mair, 1983). Lipset and Rokkan as well as
Rose and Urwin approach the problem of party-system
change as a matter concerning the development of the
parts of the party systems. We suggest that the concept
of party-system change must be tied to that of
party-system dimensions, which cover the parts of the
system studied and the relationships between them. It is
a matter of research strategy which parts and which
relationships are to be singled out as crucial in the
analysis of party-system change. It seems appropriate to
base any judgement of the occurrence of change
and no change on an investigation of those dimensions
of party systems in Western Europe that- according to a
factor analysis--explain most of the variation.
The concept of change or stability in relation to
party systems stands for properties of the development
over time in the party-system dimensions. The
development since 1920 of these party-system dimensions
may be described by means of regression equations in a
time series analysis of the various national party
systems. Important distinctions between developmental
properties may be introduced and operationalized in
relation to the estimated values of these regression
equations. Following Rose and Urwin, we argue that it is
illuminating to distinguish between two different types
of party-system change or instability: trend and
fluctuation (Rose & Urwin, 1970:29 1).
Dimensions of Party Systems
It is generally agreed that a party system is an
entity that is different from a political party or a
simple set of political parties, as a party system
involves organization. A party system consists of a
set of political parties operating within a nation in an
organized pattern, described by a number of
party-system properties. This is where the
agreement ends, as scholars do not identify the same set
of properties.
There are a number of relevant party-system properties
and little justification for the use of one or two of
these to the exclusion of the others. The study of party
systems faces a conceptual problem about what the
semantically relevant properties of party systems are.
A semantically relevant property is a property that
typically occurs in a set of phenomena and that
characterizes part of the similarities and differences
between phenomena in that set, which makes it useful for
definition purposes (Achinstein, 1968).
Various definitions, stating the necessary and
sufficient conditions for the application of the term
party system have been suggested. The proposals for a
definition of the concept of party system include:
In the second place a comparison between the
various parties makes it possible to distinguish new
elements in the analysis that do not exist for each
party community considered in isolation: numbers,
respective sizes, alliances, geographical
localization, political distribution, and so on. A
party system is defined by a particular relationship
amongst all these characteristics [Duverger,
1954:203).
The subject of 'party systems' is concerned
with the interaction patterns among significant and
genuine electoral organizations in representative
governments--governments in which such systems serve
pre-eminently (whether well or badly) the functions of
providing a basis for effective authority and for
defining choices that can be resolved by electoral
processes [Eckstein, 1968:438].
The network of competitive relationships
between political parties is what I mean by the term
political party system. The party system is not
literally a collection of parties--men, institutions,
activities. It is instead the competition between
these parties within a single political regime, and it
is this system of competition (the party system) which
gives to democratic political parties their unique
importance [Rae, 1971:47].
Parties make for a 'system', then, only when
they are parts (in the plural); and a party system is
precisely the system of interactions resulting from
inter-party competition. That is, the system in
question bears on the relatedness of parties to each
other, on how each party is a function (in the
mathematical sense) of the other parties and reacts,
competitively or otherwise, to the other parties
[Sartori, 1976:441.
The definitions fall into two sets; the
proposals of Eckstein, Rae, and Sartori are general since
they state that a party system is more than the sum of
its parts; on the other hand, the suggestion by
Duverger may result in an infinite enumeration of
properties. We need a set of minimal properties by which
to characterize a maximum amount of actual party-system
variation. Perhaps at the present stage of knowledge
concerning political parties the search for a definition
stating the necessary and sufficient properties is
premature. The best strategy is to try to derive a
tentative list of semantically relevant properties, even
though such a list would need revision before a
definition is arrived at.
Most typologies of party system identify one or two
dimensions along which various party systems are
classified. Number of parts in a party system is a
property that is almost always considered a basic
dimension; Duverger is famous for his classification
scheme of the single-party, the Anglo-Saxon two-party,
and the multi-party system (Duverger, 1954:203). In the
same vein Blondel talks of two-part systems,
two-and-a-half-party systems and multi-party systems with
or without dominant parties (Blondel, 1968:187).
Sartori's mode includes besides party
fragmentation (number of parties) ideological
distance (Sartori, 1976:282-93). Mogens Pedersen
states that polarization and fragmentation have,
of tradition, been identified a the party system
dimensions and adds a typology based on volatility
to the growing literature on party systems (Pedersen,
1979:3). The Lipset and Rokkan model focusses upon the
cleavage lines that distinguish the various parties in a
party system from each other (Lipset and Rokkan, 1967a:33
50). Thus, typologies of party system identify either
relationships between the constituent parts of the system
or properties of the parts of the system. However, the
basic conceptual problem is still unresolved: How many
dimensions are to be included in a party-system model
(Gross & Sigelman, 1984)?
A number of indicators are used to characterize party
systems. What is the proper procedure for identifying
the party-system dimensions employed to describe party
systems? We argue that those properties that explain
most of the variation in a set of party system constitute
the dimensions. The derivation of the concept of party
system thus depends on which party systems are
studied--at the present state of knowledge. As knowledge
grows it might be possible to identify by definition a
set of properties appropriate for the analysis of all
kinds of party system. We confine ourselves to the
identification of the properties that explain much of the
variation among the party systems we study, viz., the
West European ones. Thus, the dimensions we focus upon
are the semantically relevant properties of the concept
of party systems as it relates to Western Europe.
Using factor analysis of the indicators on a number of
party-system properties we derive those dimensions that
explain the variation among West European party systems.
What are the basic dimensions when relevant party-system
properties are operationalized by means of indicators
measuring party-system variation in Western Europe? It
should be emphasized that the factor analysis considers
only system properties, since the focus of analysis is
the party system not the political party. Moreover, the
selection of party-system indicators has been made
considering existing typologies; thus, we arrive at the
following sets of indicators corresponding to the one- or
two-dimensional models previously referred to: number of
parties, ideological distance between parties,
realignments behind the parties, and cleavage lines in
the party system.
Indicators
A number of indicators are connected with the
number of parties and the strength of parties. The
indicators we considered in this connection are:
1. Number of parties; i.e., the number
of parties that have taken part in parliamentary
elections and become represented in parliament,
irrespective of how small they are--also certain
non-represented parties like the minor communist
parties have been taken into account; operational
definition: parties included in Mackie and Rose:
International Almanac of Electoral History (1982).
2. Number of relevant parties;
Sartori (1976:122-3) lays down certain rules for what
parties are to be counted as relevant within a party
system: on the one hand the parties must show
continuity over time, on the other hand they should
have a coalitional potential (applies to small parties
in the political centre) or a blackmail potential
(applies to large extremist parties).
3. The fractionalization index is
where:
F =
1-·pi2
[pi = the proportion of
seats held by party i] [4]
Rae is the one to whom the credit for this
index is due which measures both the number of parties
and their size. Much has been written about this
index' but we agree with Pedersen who writes: 'It
might be a good idea, therefore, if students of
systems would decide to stick to one measure--namely,
F [i.e., Rae's]. Instead of inventing new
indices of fragmentation, one could instead
concentrate on the task of delimiting the contexts in
which F can legitimately be used' (Pedersen, 1980:397;
see also Laakso and Taagepera, 1979).
4.The aggregation index is where:
the
share of the largest party;
the number of parties. [5]
An index with this designation was
constructed by Mayer (1980:517) and it measures the
share of the largest party in relation to the number
of parties (we have modified Mayer's original
formula).
A set of indicators expresses the ideological distance
within a party system; as a rule the distance on a
right-left scale is referred to. Even if one-dimensional
measures like the right-left scale are criticized, they
catch an essential dimension within the party systems.
The starting point is to classify parties on a right-left
scale, a problem attended with great difficulties. We
have used a scale of seven degrees: the extreme right is
given the value--3, the political centre is given the
value 0, and the extreme left the value + 3. As
indicators we use:
5. Right-left score: this value shows
the point on the right-left scale a party system
reaches at a certain election, and this value is
weighted on the basis of the electoral strength of the
parties.
6. Polarization index: here we use the same
index as Taylor and Herman (1971) and Sigelman and
Yough (1978); a system is polarized maximally when 50
percent of the electorate is at the respective pole,
whereas there is no polarization if all are in the
political centre. Our formula for the polarization
index is:
P = ·nfi
(xi- X)2 [6]
where n isthe number of parties,
fi is the share of vote of the respective
party, xi is the right-left score of the
respective party and X is the right-left score the
party system.
7. The share of communist parties as
well as the share of communist parties, fascist
parties, and discontent parties; Sartori (1976:132-4;
317-8) regards the size of anti-system parties as a
measure of ideological distance; we use the two
indicators as measures of the
[8.] size of anti-system
parties.
These measures may be compared with other measures
stated in the literature. We tested our classification of
parties on a right-left scale against the one employed by
Janda, 1980 (BV 514/15): r = .92 (N = 3 5) in relation to
a scale employed by Castles and Mair (1984) we have a
correlation with our measure of: r = -.92 (N= 79); we
find a similar correlation when comparing with De Swaan's
classification from 1973: r = -.90 (N=60). De Swaan makes
some pertinent comments on difficulties of classifying
parties in this way (De Swaan, 1973:132-43). Moreover we
have tested the distance between different couples of
parties on the right-left scale, as it has been estimated
on the basis survey data described in Inglehart and
Klingemann (1976:255) and in Sani and Sartori,
(1983:322-23); the correlation between our values an
their values is r = .77 (N= 9) and r = .95 (N= 21)
respectively; the correlation with the distances reported
in Castles and Mair (1984) i r = .86 (N= 113). Concerning
the values for the right-left score of the party systems
we tested our values against the values stated by Sigelma
and Yough (1978:377); r = .91 (N= 12). We have also
tested our value for the polarization index against other
values stated in literature; the testing gives the
following connections: compared to Sigelman an Yough
(1978:377), r = .87 (N = 12), compared to Sani and
Sartori (1980:11), r = .74 (N= 10) for the respective
period, i.e., the 1960s an the 1970s.
There are indicators that somehow reveal the dynamics
of party systems, i.e., they express changes within a
party system. We take two indicators into account:
9. Volatility: the formula for
volatility is given by Pedersen (1979:4) as
Vi, = 1/2 * ·n
| Æ pi ,t | [7]
where n is the number of parties
participating in elections at the time t and/or
t-1, and delta pi stands for the
change in the share of the vote of the party over the
two elections. This measure shows net changes for all
the parties within a party system between two
elections; gross changes are possible to estimate
estimate only on the basis of survey data. Pedersen
(1979:4) names the concept volatility, but it has been
used by other scholars under other designations
(Przeworski, 1975:53; Dodd, 1976:88).
10. Party changes; this is a measure
analogous to volatility, but it refers to changes in
the number of parties within a party system from one
election to another (here we have avoided dividing the
absolute value by two).
A large number of indicators may be devised that
measure the occurrence of social cleavages in the
party system. This was the focus of the famous Lipset and
Rokkan analysis in their introduction to Party Systems
and Voter Alignments (1967). According to them, the
modern party systems of Western Europe are the result of
a process through which various cleavages in society are
transformed into the various voter alignments of the
party systems.
The idea of some kind of relationship or
correspondence between party system and social cleavages
recurs among several scholars. Bingham Powell refers to
the 'relationship between party systems and societal
cleavage structures' (Powell, 1980:13), and Hans Daalder
states that 'European countries reveal considerable
differences according to the character and the intensity
of the cleavage lines that form the basis for political
conflict and political organization' (Daalder,
1966a:67).
We use the following indicators to cover as much as
possible the idea of the social orientation of party
systems. All these indicators are based on a
classification of nearly all political parties in ten
party types, see Chapter 3. Thus, we have:
11. Ethnic and religious score,
i.e., the shares of ethnic and religious parties.
12. Conservative and liberal score,
i.e., the shares of conservative, liberal and agrarian
parties.
13. Working-class score, i.e., the
shares of communist, socialist and left socialist
parties.
14. Bourgeoisie score, i.e., the
shares of conservative, liberal and agrarian
parties.
Factor Analysis
A factor analysis has been made comprising the
preceding indicators for the purpose of deriving the
basic dimensions of the party systems of Western Europe.
A priori it is difficult to hypothesize about how many
factors the analysis will arrive at and which factors
will be interpretable theoretically. Since the dominant
mode of analysis concerning party systems is the one- or
two dimensional model, it would be an interesting finding
simply to arrive at more than two interpretable factors
(Table 5:1).
|
TABLE 5.1 Factor Analysis of Party
System Indicators (Varimax
Rotation)
|
|
Variables
|
Factor 1
|
Factor 2
|
Factor 3
|
Factor 4
|
Factor 5
|
|
Number of parties
|
0.865
|
-0.046
|
0.038
|
0.109
|
0.20
|
|
Number of relevant parties
|
0.881
|
-0.173
|
0.139
|
-0.074
|
-0.154
|
|
Fractionalization index
|
0.884
|
0.047
|
0.199
|
-0.044
|
0.027
|
|
Aggregation index
|
-0.914
|
-0.069
|
-0.073
|
-0.206
|
-0.10
|
|
Right-Left score
|
0.166
|
-0.285
|
0.09
|
0.80
|
-0.178
|
|
Polarization index
|
0.039
|
0.404
|
0.68
|
0.356
|
0.108
|
|
Communist-party share
|
0.132
|
-0.051
|
0.93
|
0.096
|
0.012
|
|
Anti-system score
|
0.231
|
-0.07
|
0.942
|
0.04
|
0.084
|
|
Volatility
|
0.025
|
0.165
|
0.179
|
-0.271
|
0.834
|
|
Party change
|
0.107
|
-0.122
|
-0.015
|
0.025
|
0.905
|
|
Ethnic and religious score
|
-0.019
|
-0.954
|
-0.127
|
-0.169
|
0.012
|
|
Conservative and liberal score
|
-0.134
|
0.796
|
-0.026
|
-0.519
|
0.077
|
|
Bourgeoisie score
|
-0.015
|
0.90
|
-0.088
|
-0.355
|
-0.031
|
|
Working-class score
|
-0.02
|
-0.029
|
0.204
|
0.963
|
-0.056
|
|
Percent explained
variation
|
29.5
|
22.1
|
16.1
|
11.9
|
8
|
Note: The factor analysis is based
on data covering all national elections in
sixteen European democracies roughly between
1920 and 1984 (N = 272).
Source: The indicators we give an account
of are based on data from 272 elections in
sixteen West European party systems at the
most for the period 1920-84. Our most
important source has-been Mackie and Rose.
The International Almanac of Electoral
History (1982) and its yearly updatings in
European Journal of Political Research. We
have also used Rokkan and Meyriat,
International Guide to Electoral Statistics
(1969: Greece: 1926-64, Italy: 1919-21.
France: 1919-36. For the election results in
France after 1960, checks have also been made
against Borella (1977), Steed (1979), various
issues of Cahiers du communisme (Elections
legislatives). As far as possible, occurring
joint-lists have been broken down on the
respective parent party; the estimates made
in this connection are based on comparisons
of the shares of the parties at the regional
level. This procedure has been followed for
Belgium, Norway and Sweden.
|
We arrive at five factors and these factors
may be interpreted as the dimensions of Western European
party systems.
1. The first factor is the amount of
fractionalization of party systems; both the
Rae fractionalization index and number of parties
'load' significantly on this factor.
2. Factor 2 deals with the extent of the
functional orientation of the party
system: the higher the ethnic and religious score the
less the functional orientation of the party system,
the higher the score for conservative liberal and
agrarian parties the more functionally orientated is
the party system.
3. The polarization of a party system comes
out as the third factor. Both the polarization index
and the communist-party share load on this factor.
4. Factor 4 consists of the extent of the
radical orientation of a party system as
measured on the one hand by the working-class score
and on the other hand the right-left score.
5. The last, and fifth factor, is the
volatility of a party system.
A typical theme in the study of party systems is the
use of one- or two-dimensional models. The factor
analysis indicates that any such model would be
inappropriate for the study of party-system variation
Western Europe. There is no factor that has a
significantly high eigenvalue (explained variation) than
the other factors. Moreover, the ranking order of the
factors is not stable as we move from orthogonal solution
to an oblique solution, although the factors are the
same. Thus, there are no one- or two-party system
dimensions that may be singled out as more important than
any other.
West European party systems may be approached as
consisting of five separate dimensions:
fractionalization, functional orientation, polarization,
radical orientation and volatility. These five
dimensions cover somewhat more than 85 percent of the
variation in the data and all dimensions have an
eigenvalue greater than one. We regard functional
orientation, fractionalization, radical orientation,
polarization, and volatility as the semantically relevant
properties of the concept of a party system; these
properties may be employed to test the hypothesis that
the West European party systems are characterized by
stability or continuity. They may be described either by
means of factor scores or by the selection of one
indicator for each dimension among those indicators that
show high factor loadings. Although it creates some
problems, we choose the second method because it is not
the case that one single indicator taps all the variation
in the factor at stake. The selection of the indicators
on these five dimensions include:
|
fractionalization
|
=
|
fractionalization index
|
|
functional orientation
|
=
|
bourgeois score
|
|
polarization
|
=
|
polarization index
|
|
radical orientation
|
=
|
working-class score
|
|
volatility
|
=
|
volatility index
|
Now let us proceed to inquire into the development of
West European party systems over time to pinpoint seminal
trends.
Development of West European Party
Systems
The longitudinal analysis of aggregated
cross-sectional data is based on Table 5:2. It covers
twelve five-year periods, and two different methods of
calculating the variation in party-system dimensions are
employed.
TABLE 5.2 General Development of the
Set of West European Party Systems
1920-1984 (Mean Values)
|
|
|
Fractionali-
zation
|
Functional orientation
|
Polarization
|
Radical orientation
|
Volatility
|
|
Time period
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
|
1920-24
|
0.759
|
0.766
|
49.2
|
45.5
|
2.57
|
2.48
|
32.9
|
31.6
|
11.7
|
12.5
|
|
1925-29
|
0.757
|
0.752
|
44.4
|
45.2
|
2.14
|
2.32
|
30.4
|
32.4
|
10.4
|
10.4
|
|
1930-34
|
0.746
|
0.741
|
45.5
|
45.2
|
2.73
|
2.55
|
30.2
|
31.9
|
12.2
|
11.5
|
|
1935-39
|
0.733
|
0.735
|
45.8
|
45.8
|
2.48
|
2.55
|
31.5
|
33.3
|
13.2
|
12.0
|
|
1945-49
|
0.736
|
0.731
|
31.9
|
36.5
|
2.47
|
2.34
|
40.9
|
38.2
|
18.5
|
20
|
|
1950-54
|
0.72
|
0.723
|
44.3
|
38.0
|
2.49
|
2.49
|
35.8
|
37.8
|
11.8
|
10.4
|
|
1955-59
|
0.7
|
0.702
|
39.3
|
37.7
|
2.6
|
2.51
|
37.1
|
37.3
|
6.8
|
6.7
|
|
1960-64
|
0.701
|
0.711
|
44.7
|
37.0
|
2.56
|
2.54
|
37.0
|
38.3
|
7.3
|
7.0
|
|
1965-69
|
0.711
|
0.714
|
35.4
|
34.1
|
2.58
|
2.39
|
39.3
|
40.2
|
8.0
|
7.7
|
|
1970-74
|
0.735
|
0.735
|
35.5
|
35.5
|
2.7
|
2.71
|
39.3
|
38.1
|
10.1
|
10.6
|
|
1975-79
|
0.737
|
0.725
|
32.4
|
34.2
|
2.55
|
2.64
|
42.1
|
40.6
|
8.4
|
8.5
|
|
1980-84
|
0.716
|
0.723
|
33.3
|
33.4
|
2.54
|
2.76
|
38.7
|
41.3
|
9.9
|
11.1
|
|
|
Notes: (1) = Values based on all elections
(N= 272)
|
|
|
(2) = Values based on mean values for all
party systems (N =11 - 6)
|
Fractionalization: A typical feature of West
European party systems before and after the Second World
War is the variety of political parties. The
fractionalization index displays high values for all
intervals of time since 1920. The extent of
fractionalization was highest in the early 1920s,
decreasing during the 1930s and reaching its lowest
values in the 1950s. Since 1960 the amount of
fractionalization has been increasing, though there are
signs indicating that it culminated in the early
1970s.
Functional Orientation: It used to be the case
that European party systems as a whole were characterized
to a significant extent by a functional orientation, as
the aggregated share of the votes for the conservative,
liberal and agrarian parties amounted to almost 50
percent of the total vote. Since the Second World War,
however, there has been a downward trend as the &hare
of the ethnic and religious parties has increased at the
expense of the traditional bourgeois parties.
Polarization: Polarization, or the distribution
of the electorate along the classical right-left scale,
is a clear property of European party systems during ill
the time periods. However, the amount of polarization
cannot be described as exceptionally high, because
theoretically it is conceivable hat party systems reach
as high a degree of polarization as 9.0. Generally
speaking, an increase seems to have occurred in
polarization since the 1960s. Of course, we find a high
degree of polarization during the 1930s.
Radical Orientation: For the set of European
party systems, generally, a steady and continuous growth
in left-wing parties has taken place. When the European
political systems were democratized in the early decades
of the century, the left-wing parties secured hardly one
third of the total vote; it seems as if the Second World
War had a significant impact on the attractiveness of
left-wing parties since during the post-war time
intervals they receive roughly 40 percent of the total
vote.
Volatility: The maximum and minimum values of
volatility are theoretically 100 and 0, respectively.
During all the intervals of time we observe the
occurrence of net changes in voter support for political
parties, but European party systems can hardly be
characterized as extremely volatile, as the index ranges
from roughly 6 to roughly 18. However, there is an
interesting variation over time. The Second World War
broke normal ways of party functioning, which had the
result that the electorate immediately after the war
faced some difficult choices as to how to realign itself
towards old and new parties. Consequently the period
1945-49 has the highest degree of volatility. The 1950s
give the impression of firm voter alignments, whereas we
observe a clear increase in volatility between 1965 and
1974. The data indicate that the level of volatility is
still high in the early 1980s.
The data presented hitherto neglect what to some
scholars is most interesting concerning the party systems
of Western Europe: the variation between nations. We turn
now to the analysis of the ways in which national party
systems vary in the five dimensions derived (Table
5:3).
[Table 5.3 has been omitted]
Variation Between Nations Pre-1945 and
Post-1945
Fractionalization: The degree of
fractionalization does not vary much, because the
European party systems are typical multi-party systems.
There is a set of national party systems that are very
much fractionalized comprising Finland, the Netherlands,
and Switzerland as well as France and Germany before the
Second World War. Inversely, the set of nations that
score low--relatively speaking--consists of Austria, the
United Kingdom, Ireland, and the Federal Republic of
Germany after the Second World War.
Functional Orientation: The functional
orientation index captures a variation between two kinds
of alignment: either the voters support traditional
bourgeois parties--conservative, liberal or agrarian
parties--or they support non-functionally oriented
parties--ethnic or religious parties. The index reveals
significant variations in the way the non-leftist vote is
distributed between these two blocs. In some nations the
traditional bourgeois parties are strong: Greece, France,
the UK, and the Nordic countries. Some national party
systems are dominated by the existence of ethnic or
religious parties: Austria, Belgium, Italy, the Federal
Republic of Germany, and the Netherlands.
Polarization: The variation in polarization is
striking as a few nations are twice as polarized as some
others. Polarization is a typical feature of France,F
inland, the UK as well as Germany before the war. On the
other hand, polarization assumes no great importance in
Ireland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Belgium. The
index is however heavily influenced by the strength of
extremist parties. If, e.g., the Austrian Social
Democratic Party is classified as a semi-communist party
during the First Republic, then the score for Austria
would have been much higher.
Radical Orientation: A party system may be
characterized by the numerical strength of left-wing
parties. Actually, the extent of variation in the
electorate concerning the orientation towards socialist
and communist parties including left-socialist parties)
is great. Radical orientation has not been a typical
feature of Greece (except in the 1980s), Ireland, and
Switzerland, whereas the contrary is true of the Nordic
countries as well as Austria, France (after 1945), Italy
(after 1945), and the UK (after 1945).
Volatility: It is necessary to make a
distinction between volatility before and after the
Second World War, because the inter-nation variation is
not the same. Volatility pre-1945 is an aspect that
distinguishes Greece, France, Germany, Ireland, and the
United Kingdom. We find a low degree of volatility among
nations such as Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium, Finland,
and the Netherlands. After 1945, volatility was high in:
Greece, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Denmark,
and Italy; the set of nations with a low degree of
volatility includes Austria, Sweden, Switzerland, and the
United Kingdom.
Party-system Change
The fundamental problem in the study of West European
party systems pertains to the extent to which the
party systems are characterized by change or
stability. It is argued that the national party
systems are moving towards a higher degree of instability
(Pedersen, 1979:24; Borre, 1980:162-3; Maguire, 1983;
Shamir, 1984). We present data on the extent of
party-system change and instability in European
democracies for two periods covering 1920 to 1984. Before
we interpret these data we deal with what party-system
change and party-system stability are, and how party
system change or stability is to be measured. A solution
to these problems is a necessary step towards an
empirical analysis. Actually, the concept of party-system
change or stability presents intricate problems of both a
conceptual and an operational nature.
There are no standard definitions of the concepts of
party-system change and party-system stability; it may
even be argued that these terms are ambiguous. Moreover,
in the literature on party systems it is not clear how
the concepts of party-system change and party-system
stability are interrelated or how they are to be
operationalized. Our suggestion is that these concepts
should be clarified by substituting the more precise
concepts of trend and fluctuation, concepts which may be
operationalized by identifying them with specific
properties of a time-series regression equation. Any
judgment as to the occurrence of a party system trend or
fluctuation should be based on an investigation of those
dimensions of party systems in Western Europe
which--according to our factor analysis--explain most of
the variation. The concepts of trend and fluctuation may
be introduced in relation to the equation:
PSDit =
f (Time),
where PSDit, is party-system
dimension i at election t.
The estimation of this regression equation on a time
series results in values which identify the occurrence of
a trend or a fluctuation. The concept of trend may be
identified with a specific range of values of the
significance level of the time-series equations
describing the development in each country: a trend
exists when the significance level is lower than .01. For
each equation that fulfils this criterion on a trend, we
look at the Beta-weights to get more information about
the nature of the trend. The value of the Beta-weight
reveals the direction of the trend, whether it is
positive or negative.
The concept of fluctuation may be identified with the
values for the standardized coefficient of variability,
which the estimation of the same regression equation
provides. We select the standardized CV-measure because
the usual CV-measure is sensitive to a variation in the
number of cases, i.e., number of elections in different
countries. The standardized CV-measures are arrived at by
dividing the CV-value with the maximum value of CV. The
SCV varies between 0 and 100 percent, and we may select a
range of SCV-values which can be identified as the
indicator on the occurrence of a fluctuation: a SCV-value
below or around 3-4 percent indicates no fluctuation
while SC V-values over this range show fluctuations.
Trends
The occurrence of trends and the nature of a trend in
party-system properties depend upon the period of time
selected, in particular the choice of the starting point
for the analysis. It is quite possible that a trend that
occurs during one period may be followed by an opposite
trend during the next period, which means that in the end
little or no trend has occurred over the two periods of
time. We investigate the amount and nature of trends in
the party system dimensions for three periods: pre-1945,
post-1945 and 1920-84. The division of the time period is
based on the assumption that the Second World War may
have had consequences for the structure of the party
systems in Western Europe. Table 5:4 has the data for the
pre-1945 time period as well as the post 1945 time
interval.
[Table 5.4 has been
omitted]
Pre-1945 Trends
The national party systems vary in both the
existence and the nature of trends. Change occurred
in seven of the thirteen party systems that can be
described by means of the party-system dimensions. The
set of party systems that experienced trends during the
pre-1945 period comprises: Denmark, the UK, Germany,
Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Ireland. The
magnitude of trends differs between these countries.
The Danish party system experienced trends in three
dimensions: functional orientation, polarization and
radical orientation. The increase in radical orientation
is inversely related to the decline in functional
orientation, because the steady growth of the Danish
Social Democratic Party took place at the expense of
traditional Bourgeois parties. Along with the increase in
the electoral support for leftist parties came a rise in
polarization.
In the UK, Sweden and Germany we find sharp
Beta-weights for two party-system dimensions indicating
considerable change in the national party system. The UK
displays significant trends in polarization and radical
orientation; this reflects the decline of the Liberal
Party and the development of a two-party system
characterized by the competition between right and left.
The sharp rise in electoral support for the Social
Democratic Party in Sweden comes out nicely on the
measures of trend in radical orientation and functional
orientation, the Beta-weight for radical orientation
being positive and the Beta-weight for functional
orientation being negative. The changes in the scores on
functional orientation and polarization in the German
party system is a function of the coming to power of the
Nazi party; it expanded at the expense of the bourgeois
parties and its rise heightened the level of
polarization.
In Ireland and in the Netherlands two opposite trends
occurred, increasing the amount of functional orientation
in one country and decreasing the extent of functional
orientation in the other. In Ireland the expansion of the
Fianna Fail at the expense of the Fine Gael is noticed in
the positive trend, whereas the decline of the
traditional bourgeois parties and the rising electoral
support for the religious parties explains the negative
trend in the Netherlands. The party system of Switzerland
is characterized by a change in polarization, reflecting
the rising electoral support for the Socialists.
A typical feature of the development of the West
European party systems during the inter-war period is
hardly the lack of trends. On the contrary we find two
trends that spelled out change: the increase in electoral
support for leftist parties and the decline in support
for traditional bourgeois parties. These trends neither
are the only signs of change nor occur everywhere, but
they should be noticed in a debate concerning the amount
of change in the party systems of European
democracies.
Post-1945 Trends
Regarding the question of the occurrence of trends it
may be asserted that most national party systems have
experienced trends in one or two of their party-system
dimensions during the period after the Second World
War. Actually only Austria and Sweden display no
party system trends. In Belgium, Finland, Greece,
Ireland, Italy and the UK the party systems show trends
in no less than three dimensions, whereas we find two
instances of party-system trends in Denmark and Germany.
Even a short glimpse at the significance levels and the
Betaweights of the regression equations summarizing the
post-war development hardly give the impression of no
change.
The party system of Belgium has experienced a profound
reorganization since 1945; the fractionalization
increased while the radical orientation and the
polarization decreased, indicating the rise of ethnic
alignments as a dominant characteristic of the party
system. In the Federal Republic of Germany, the extent of
radical orientation increased, whereas the amount of
functional orientation diminished, at the same time as
the general level of fractionalization declined. The
movement of the German party system towards a large
socialist party and a large religious party besides a
small liberal party means a very different kind of party
system compared with the remnants of the party systems of
the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich still operating
in the late Forties. The change in the Italian case stems
largely from the expansion in the electoral support for
the Communist Party, as the scores on both radical
orientation and polarization display a positive trend. At
the same time the level of volatility declined; it seems
as if the electorate became more firmly organized along
the left-right dimension. In Denmark we find two
significant trends; on the one hand the degree of
functional orientation decreased and on the other the
extent of fractionalization increased. It is not
difficult to interpret these change scores, as the
Glistrup phenomenon has attracted traditionally bourgeois
voters at the same time as other new parties were
founded.
Concerning the data on the French system, the
difference between the Fourth and the Fifth Republic
comes out nicely; the amount of functional orientation
rose indicating the coming of the Gaullist phenomenon,
and the level of polarization increased, because of the
rise of the Socialist Party at the expense of centre and
left-wing extreme parties. Party-system change in Finland
is a function of the increased fractionalization and
polarization of the party system which result from the
rise in electoral support for a number of discontent
parties (Vennamo's SMP) belonging to the right wing. In
Greece, the party-system experienced a trend in the
amount of functional orientation because the centre union
fell apart after the end of the dictatorship, while the
amount of radical orientation increased due to the rise
of the PASOK. There were actually two different types of
party systems in Greece during that period: before the
dictatorship the centre of gravity focussed upon the
competition between two functional parties, the
conservatives and the liberals, and after the
dictatorship the centre of gravity became the left-right
dimension.
Our measures of party-system change capture the
re-entrance of the Liberal Party into the British party
system; the extent of functional orientation is up,
whereas the degree of radical orientation declined due to
reduction in the electoral support for the Labour Party.
The decline of Labour and the introduction of the
Liberal-SDP Alliance also meant less polarization. We
note a few other trends on the European scene. In the
Netherlands, the trend after 1945 is opposite to the one
that took place before 1945, the Liberal Party increasing
at the expense of the religious parties. The degree of
fractionalization diminished in Ireland, and this measure
captures the tendency towards a three-party system in
Ireland.
Party Systems Trends 1920-1984
We have hitherto looked at the existence, direction
and magnitude of trends for two periods of time, pre- and
post-1945, because it is an appropriate assumption that
the Second World War functioned as a watershed in
European politics, breaking up the normal modes of
operation of political parties. We now inquire into the
existence, direction and magnitude of party-system trends
from roughly 1920 until the middle of the 1980s (Table
5:5).
|
TABLE 5.5 Party-system Change
1920-1984
|
|
(Significance Levels and
Beta-weights)
|
|
Party systems
|
Fractionali-
zation
|
Functional orientation
|
Polarization
|
Radical orientation
|
Volatility
|
|
Austria
|
0.001
|
0.003
|
0.296
|
0.00
|
0.006
|
|
|
-0.747
|
-0.675
|
|
0.857
|
-0.638
|
|
Belgium
|
0.044
|
0.371
|
0.041
|
0.002
|
0.847
|
|
|
|
|
|
-0.639
|
|
|
Denmark
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.001
|
0.00
|
0.003
|
|
|
-0.749
|
-0.83
|
0.585
|
0.686
|
0.539
|
|
F R Germany
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.015
|
0.415
|
0.111
|
|
|
0.93
|
-0.814
|
|
|
|
|
Finland
|
0.001
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.026
|
0.667
|
|
|
-0.659
|
-0.704
|
0.898
|
|
|
|
France
|
0.073
|
0.138
|
0.00
|
0.002
|
0.297
|
|
|
|
|
0.88
|
0.689
|
|
|
Greece
|
0.116
|
0.086
|
0.001
|
0.00
|
0.141
|
|
|
|
|
0.71
|
0.764
|
|
|
Ireland
|
0.002
|
0.199
|
0.186
|
0.888
|
0.00
|
|
|
-0.619
|
|
|
|
-0.736
|
|
Italy
|
0.027
|
0.00
|
0.057
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
-0.874
|
|
0.947
|
-0.937
|
|
Netherlands
|
0.093
|
0.087
|
0.157
|
0.00
|
0.213
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.763
|
|
|
Norway
|
0.167
|
0.00
|
0.81
|
0.007
|
0.632
|
|
|
|
-0.833
|
|
0.644
|
|
|
Sweden
|
0.043
|
0.025
|
0.002
|
0.096
|
0.013
|
|
|
|
|
-0.654
|
|
|
|
Switzerland
|
0.001
|
0.00
|
0.019
|
0.793
|
0.961
|
|
|
0.719
|
-0.86
|
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom
|
0.27
|
0.029
|
0.248
|
0.095
|
0.275
|
Note: Significance levels are given
all cases whereas the Beta-weights are given
in parentheses when the significance levels
are below 0.010.
|
Using the same measures we find that all
party systems have experienced change in one or more
dimensions. In two countries, Denmark and Austria,
trends have occurred in no less than four or five
dimensions; a few party systems display trends in three
party-system dimensions: Finland and Italy. Typically,
trends occur in the extent of radical orientation of the
party systems, as no less than eight out of fourteen
party systems have experienced that kind of trend; in
seven countries- Austria, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy,
the Netherlands, and Norway--there has been a positive
change with an increase over time in the electoral
strength of leftist parties. Belgium is the negative case
where the Socialist Party has declined substantially. The
second most important change dimension is the degree of
functional orientation, which is characterized by the
general decline in the electoral support for the
traditional bourgeois parties--the conservatives, the
liberals and the agrarians--in: Austria, Denmark,
Germany, Finland, Italy, Norway and Switzerland. Trends
also characterize fractionalization and polarization, the
first kind of trend occurring in six nations and the
second kind taking place in five nations. In some
countries (Denmark, Finland and Switzerland)
fractionalization is up, whereas in some (Austria,
Germany and Ireland) it is down. Most nations that have
experienced trends in the extent of polarization display
an increase in that dimension, with the exception of
Sweden. Four party systems show a trend in volatility, as
it increased in Denmark and decreased in Austria, Ireland
and Italy.
Fluctuations
By using the SCV index on the five derived dimensions
of the various party systems of Western Europe, we arrive
at an overview of how various party systems differ in
fluctuations as well as how each national system
developed over time (Table 5:6).
[Table 5.6 has been
omitted]
Fractionalization: It is not true that party
systems have become generally more unstable in
fractionalization. In some countries it is true: Belgium,
Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. However, we also
find party systems which have become more stable:
Austria, Ireland and Sweden. National party systems do
vary in the extent of fluctuation Switzerland opposite
obtains.
Functional Orientation: Where the post-war
period is compared with the pre-war period we may
establish that the fluctuation in functional orientation
from election to election decreased in several countries
including Finland, Greece, Ireland, Norway and Sweden.
The opposite tendency is to be found in Belgium, France
and the Netherlands. A few countries fluctuated much in
functional orientation, -viz., Italy, Gerinusy, the
Netherlands, Austria and France. In Switzerland, Finland
and the UK the combined strength of traditional bourgeois
parties has been stable.
Polarization: The extent of polarization varies
little from election to election in all party systems
with the exception of Germany, Greece, France, Italy and
Belgium. The data indicate clearly that the extent of
fluctuation in polarization decreased since the Second
World War in most nations. There is only one case of an
increase in variation from election to election:
Finland.
Radical Orientation: The share of the vote for
leftist parties varies extensively in Greece and Ireland,
whereas there is a little fluctuation in radical
orientation In countries like Austria, Finland,
Switzerland and Sweden. It appear. that the amount of
fluctuation in radical orientation decreased when the
period post-1945 is compared with the period pre-1945.
Actually, the overall impression is one of stability,
though a few nations diverge from this impression.
Volatility: Volatility is a highly fluctuating
dimension of party systems. There is a set of nations
characterized by a high level of fluctuations: Italy,
Germany, Austria and Switzerland. The general impression
is one of a high level of variation in volatility in all
the nations, but there is a set characterized by somewhat
less fluctuation: the Netherlands and Sweden. A
comparison of the pre-war figures with the post-war
figures reveals that the amount of volatility is more
fluctuating in the post-war period.
The overall impression which these data convey is that
of stability in the sense of a lack of fluctuations. In
most countries most of the party- system dimensions vary
little from one election to another. There is one
significant exception: volatility. The level of
volatility in all systems is anything but stable; the
extent of net electoral changes in the electoral strength
of the political parties hovers considerably over
time.
Party System Fluctuations: Overall Measure
We now proceed to an overall measure of party system
stability on the basis of the results from the analysis
of the extent of fluctuation in the five party-system
dimensions. Table 5:7 presents the summing up of the SCV
measures for each country for three periods.
|
TABLE 5.7 Party-system Fluctuations:
Overall Measures
|
|
(Expressed as T-scores)
|
|
Party system
|
Pre- 1945
|
Post-1945
|
1920-1984
|
|
Austria
|
53.9
|
51.6
|
52.2
|
|
Belgium
|
50.3
|
50.6
|
47.9
|
|
Denmark
|
44.7
|
43.9
|
44.3
|
|
F.R Germany
|
55.1
|
59.2
|
64.4
|
|
Finland
|
44.2
|
45.8
|
45.4
|
|
France
|
46.2
|
51.3
|
50.1
|
|
Greece
|
65.5
|
66.7
|
62.3
|
|
Iceland
|
54.6
|
48.0
|
47.2
|
|
Italy
|
-
|
50.6
|
58.9
|
|
Netherlands
|
44.1
|
49.6
|
45.7
|
|
Norway
|
46.0
|
47.0
|
46.4
|
|
Sweden
|
44.5
|
41.6
|
42.0
|
|
Switzerland
|
50.1
|
45.8
|
44.9
|
|
United Kingdom
|
50.7
|
48.3
|
48.3
|
Note: The overall measures have been
arrived at by aggregating and standardizing
the CV scores for each period and each
party-system dimension.
|
There are significant variations in the
occurrence of fluctuations in he national party systems
in Western Europe; look at the difference between the
maximum and the minimum values, Germany with 64.4 and
Sweden with 42.0. However, these aggregations of the
measures of the extent of fluctuations in party-system
dimensions for three periods have shortcomings. They may
fail to recognize changes in party system fluctuation for
small spans of time like five-year periods. They may
present too simplistic a view of fluctuation, because
some national party systems may show differing amounts of
fluctuation in various party-system dimensions, which
differences the overall measure fails to catch.
Party-system fluctuation as gauged by the overall
measure mmarizing the occurrence of fluctuations of the
various party-stem dimensions is a function of
volatility. The level of volatility explains party-system
fluctuation and we may use this relationship between
volatility and party system fluctuation to derive a scale
that measures party-system fluctuation, the mean value of
volatility for each five-year period. Table 5:8 covers
the cross-sectional variation as well as the longitudinal
variation in party system volatility.
From the Table 5:8 it appears that party-system
volatility in Western Europe varies with the period of
time selected. The amount of volatility is high after the
First World War and before and after the Second World
War. From 1950 and up until 1970 there was a general
decrease in volatility compared with earlier periods of
time. Since the early Seventies volatility increased in
general, which has been noticed by several scholars.
Conclusion
The party systems of European democracies are
different. To account for the differences, one needs a
five-dimensional model covering:
(1) Fractionalization, i.e., the
variation in the number and strength of the
constituent parts of the party systems
(2) Functional orientation, i.e., the
variation between traditional bourgeois parties and
religious and ethnic parties
(3) Polarization, i.e., the variation in the
ideological distance between the political parties
along the right-left scale
(4) Radical orientation, i.e., the variation
in the strength of leftist parties
(5) Volatility, i.e., the variation in net
mobility between political parties.
A party system is a system of elements with
relationships. We have identified five party-system
properties that explain most of the variation among the
set of party systems studied. Some of these properties
refer to the elements of party systems (functional
orientation and radical orientation), whereas the others
refer to relationships (fractionalization, polarization
and volatility).
The basic problem in the study of West European party
systems concerns change. Our findings are summarized in
Figure 5:1. Since it is not clear how the concepts of
change and stability in relation to the concept of party
system are to be defined or operationalized, we have
substituted the concepts of party-system trend and
fluctuation for these ambiguous terms. The findings
indicate that the widely accepted hypothesis that West
European party systems are characterized by stability,
i.e., no change is not in accordance with the data.
Actually, more than half the party systems score high or
medium on the trend scale when the time period since the
democratization of the polities is considered. It is true
that there are fewer trends occurring after the Second
World War. Moreover, the various party systems differ in
the amount of fluctuation in both time periods.
FIGURE 5.1: Party-system Trends and
Party-system Fluctuations
1920-1984 and post-1945
The variation in trends and in fluctuation do not
co-vary. There are countries which experienced few or no
trends but are characterized by fluctuations. There are
also countries that display trends in several
party-system dimensions but are not characterized by
fluctuations. Regarding 1920-84 and the period after the
Second World War, it is evident that one may find seminal
trends in West European party systems and also that some
of these party systems are characterized by fluctuations.
The party-system stability hypothesis, presented in
Chapter 3, must be qualified, if not rejected.
We have dealt extensively with the political parties
in Western Europe and their relationships to social
cleavages. Moreover, we have analysed the various
national party systems at length. It is time to move on
to the next level of analysis, the governmental level. We
may assume that the structuring of polities as well as
the occurrence of issues in national policy-making have
an impact on political stability.