Party System Institutionalization and Party System Theory After the Third Wave of Democratization*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
19-Katz-3336-Ch-18.qxd 11/22/2005 8:19 PM Page 204 18 PARTY SYSTEM INSTITUTIONALIZATION AND PARTY SYSTEM THEORY AFTER THE THIRD WAVE OF DEMOCRATIZATION* Scott Mainwaring and Mariano Torcal The main argument of this chapter is that the analyze two empirical manifestations of the level of institutionalization is a critical dimen- variable strength of party roots in society. First, sion for understanding party systems. Until the considerable theoretical and comparative liter- mid-1990s, the literature on parties and party ature presupposes that programmatic or systems neglected this fact, as most work on ideological linkages are at the root of stable these subjects implicitly assumed a high level of linkages between voters and parties. In these institutionalization of the party system. Yet theories, voters choose a party or candidate on without focusing on institutionalization, it is the basis of their ideological or programmatic impossible to account for important characteris- preferences. In most post-1978 democracies tics of party systems in most post-1978 democ- and semi-democracies, however, program- racies and semi-democracies. Voters, parties, matic or ideological linkages between voters and party systems in most post-1978 competi- and parties are weak. Weak programmatic and tive regimes are qualitatively different from ideological linkages between voters and par- those of the advanced industrial democracies. ties are a key part of weaker party roots in We focus on the first two dimensions of party society. system institutionalization that Mainwaring The other empirical manifestation of weak and Scully (1995) and Mainwaring (1999: 22–39) party roots in society that we address is that developed: the stability of interparty competi- linkages between voters and candidates are tion and the depth of party roots (or anchoring) more personalistic in most post-1978 competi- in society. In these two dimensions, there are tive regimes than in the advanced industrial persistent and large differences in institutional- democracies. Outside the advanced democra- ization between most post-1978 democracies cies, more voters choose candidates on the and semi-democracies and the advanced indus- basis of their personal characteristics without trial democracies. Most of the advanced indus- regard to party, ideology, or programmatic trial democracies exhibit far greater stability in issues. The high degree of personalism reflects interparty competition than most post-1978 weak party roots in society and runs counter to democracies. what one would expect on the basis of most of In addition, party roots in society are far the theoretical literature on voters and party stronger in most of the advanced industrial systems. Personalism taps an important crite- democracies than in most post-1978 democra- rion for assessing the institutionalization of cies and semi-democracies. Much of the litera- political parties: the depersonalization of par- ture assumes strong party roots in society. In ties and party competition (Mény, 1990: 67). fact, party roots in society range from strong In the conclusion, we argue that weak institu- in most of the advanced industrial to weak tionalization has negative consequences for elec- in most post-1978 competitive regimes. We toral accountability. Weakly institutionalized 19-Katz-3336-Ch-18.qxd 11/22/2005 8:19 PM Page 205 PARTY SYSTEM INSTITUTIONALIZATION AND PARTY SYSTEM THEORY 205 party systems are more vulnerable to allowing some points in greater depth and for a wider anti-party politicians to come to power. Many range of countries rather than provide a super- such anti-party politicians (e.g., President ficial discussion of all four dimensions. Our Alberto Fujimori in Peru, 1990–2000; President analysis is limited exclusively to democracies Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, 1998–present) and semi-democracies;1 parties that function in have had adverse effects on democracy. We authoritarian regimes fall outside our purview. also argue that weak institutionalization ham- pers electoral accountability, which is a key underpinning of democracy. COMPARING PARTY SYSTEMS: THE Until the 1980s, the theoretical literature on LEVEL OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION parties and party systems focused on or implicitly assumed well-institutionalized sys- tems. There were few democracies and semi- A party system is the set of parties that interact democracies with weakly institutionalized in patterned ways. This definition implies party systems. Since the beginning of the third three boundaries between systems and non- wave of democratization (Huntington, 1991), systems. First, as Sartori (1976) pointed out, a however, weakly institutionalized party sys- system must have at least two constituent ele- tems have become commonplace in competi- ments; therefore a party system must have at tive political regimes. These systems have least two parties. Second, the notion of pat- different characteristics and dynamics than terned interactions suggests that there are well-institutionalized systems. Social scientists some regularities in the distribution of elec- need to modify the dominant theoretical litera- toral support by parties over time even if some ture to understand these less institutionalized parties rise and others decline. Third, the idea party systems. of a system implies some continuity in the This chapter builds on Mainwaring and components that form the system. Therefore, Scully (1995) and Mainwaring (1999: 22–39), ‘party system’ implies some continuity in the which spawned most of the contemporary parties that form the system – that is, the insti- work on party system institutionalization. tutionalization of political parties. We add to these earlier works in four ways. Party systems vary on many dimensions, First, we provide more systematic empirical but social scientists strive to identify the most evidence by using cross-national surveys to important among them to facilitate categoriza- demonstrate some of the earlier propositions tion and comparison. How, then, should social about party system institutionalization. Based scientists compare and classify party systems? on survey data, we also develop new indica- Sartori’s (1976) seminal book identified two tors to assess the strength of parties’ program- dimensions of party systems as particularly matic roots in society. Second, we analyze a important: the number of relevant parties and broader range of countries than these earlier the degree of ideological polarization. However, works and other previous work on this subject. he inadequately conceptualized an equally Third, we analyze some new aspects of party important property of party systems: their level system theory that these previous works did of institutionalization. not address in detail; in particular, we question In his discussion of the difference between the assumption of programmatic/ideological consolidated party systems and non-systems, linkages that permeates some of the literature. Sartori (1976: 244–8) was prescient in recogniz- Finally, we present more rigorous tests of some ing the importance of party system institutional- empirical propositions while dropping some ization (which he called ‘consolidation’). earlier and harder-to-test claims about conse- However, we disagree with three aspects of his quences of low institutionalization. The second conceptualization of institutionalization. First, half of the chapter, while building conceptually he posited a dichotomy between consolidated and theoretically on Mainwaring and Scully systems and non-systems, whereas we find it (1995) and Mainwaring (1999), presents new much more useful to conceive of institutional- arguments and evidence. ization as a continuum. Nothing in the definition Unlike Mainwaring and Scully, we do not of ‘system’ justifies a rigid dichotomous demar- compare party systems on all four dimensions cation between a system and a non-system pro- of party system institutionalization. Given vided that there is some pattern in interparty spatial constraints and because of the difficul- competition and some continuity in the main ties of obtaining comparable valid empirical parties of the system. These two criteria are easy information for all four dimensions for a wide to meet in a minimal way. Sartori’s dichotomous range of countries, we preferred to develop categories ignore important variance within 19-Katz-3336-Ch-18.qxd 11/22/2005 8:19 PM Page 206 206 HANDBOOK OF PARTY POLITICS each of those categories. Moreover, a dichotomy institutionalization means that political actors requires a precise and inevitably arbitrary cut have clear and stable expectations about the point: a case must be categorized as consoli- behavior of other actors. In Huntington’s (1968: dated or as a non-system. 12) words, ‘Institutionalization is the process by Second, Sartori set an excessively high which organizations and procedures acquire threshold for what constitutes a party system. value and stability’. An institutionalized party For example, he claimed that Colombia did not system, then, is one in which actors develop have a party system in the 1970s when in fact it expectations and behavior based on the had one of the oldest party systems in the premise that the fundamental contours and world. The Liberals and Conservatives had rules of party competition and behavior will been the main electoral contenders for decades prevail into the foreseeable future. In an institu- whenever elections were relatively free and fair, tionalized party system, there is stability