CHAPTER-II

POLITICAL PARTIES AND PARTY SYSTEMS: A

CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS

The political parties are lifeline of modern politics and are indeed critically
significant in democratic systems. They contest elections over the years. They woo
people daily through the means of mass media particularly radio, television, press
and propaganda. Their actions and reactions, their direction and control, become
more significant for government at work, than constitutional structures and
succession of Cabinets.1

The modern form of representative democracy brought party system as an

indispensable part in every political society. The political parties, in one form and
other, are omnipresent as well as are creatures (offshoot) of modern political system.
Whether one thinks of Anglo-American democracies or totalitarian system
particularly the Soviet Union, China, Fascist-Italy, Nazi-Germany, African states or
Latin American Republics, they exist everywhere.2 Therefore, political parties of
some kind exist from Brazil to Burundi and from Norway to New Zealand. They
may be authoritarian or democratic, which may seek power through elections or
through revolution and they espoused ideologies of the left, right or center or, indeed
disavow political ideas altogether. The growth of political parties and the acquisition
of party systems came to be recognized as a mark of political modernization. 3

The evolution of political parties, clearly implies that the masses must be
taken into account by ruling elites, either out of commitment to ideological notion,
that the people enjoy right to participate in the determination of public policy, the
selection of leadership or out of the realization that even a rigidly dictatorial elites

1
Sigmund Neumann, “Why Study Political Parties?”, in Sigmund Neumann (ed.), Modern
Political Parties, Approaches to Comparative Politics, Chicago: The University of Chicago,
1966, p.1.
2
Joseph La Palombara and Myron Weiner, “The Origin and Development of Political Parties”, in
Joseph La Palombara and Myron Weiner (eds.), Political Parties and Political Development,
Princeton: Princeton University, 1972, p.3.
3
Andrew Heywood, Politics, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, p.248.

53
must find the organizational means of assuring stable ‘conformance’ and control. 4
This phenomena lays stress on the maximization of political participation in the
sense that it enjoins upon the members of elite class to take masses at large in
confidence either for the sake of observing the myth that ‘voice of the people, voice
of the God’, or justify the very legitimacy of their leadership and authority.

A system of political party is a necessary condition of the existence and

operation of modern political system, which provides indispensable link between the
people and representative machinery of government. The people cannot govern
themselves freely unless it has ‘freedom of choice’-choice between different
candidates, who seek to be its representative and choice between different policies
for which, those candidates stood. The citizens must have alternative before it and
these alternatives offered by different political parties. This ‘freedom of choice’ or
citizen’s choice is a great thing, which make political parties inalienable. 5 Barker
says;

The ‘citizen’s choice’, as it may called, is the

tap-root of democracy. I must be free to choose
if I am to have a free government, and if I am to
free to choose I must have alternative before
me-the alternative offered to me by different
political parties.5a

Yet, one hundred and fifty years ago, their place and function were generally
unknown. In theorizing about parties, the study finds the four typical concerns of
theoretical analysis: origins, objectives, patterns (structures) and functions
(operations).6 As a matter of fact, Sartori states;

We cannot build theory of parties and of system

unless we establish what is not party and unless
we are clear headed about the essential, what,
7
for the parties.

4
La Palombara and Weiner, n.2, p.4.
5
Ernest Barker, The Party System, Bombay: Casement Publications, 1953, p.8.
5a
Ibid.
6
Carl J. Friedrich, Constitutional Government and Democracy, The Theory and Practice in
Europe and America, New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing, 1974, pp.430-431.
7
Giovanni Sartori, Parties and Party Systems, A Framework for Analysis, London: Cambridge
University, 1976, pp.63-64.

54
 The name ‘party’ came into use gradually replacing the derogatory term
faction, with the acceptance of idea that a party is not necessarily faction.
Etymologically and semantically seeking ‘faction’ and ‘party’ do not convey the
same meaning.8 Madison states that faction means number of citizens, whether
amounting to majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by
some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to rights of other citizens
or to the permanent and aggregate interest of the community. 9 Madison did not here
make any distinction between party and faction. The political scholars’ remark that
Madison definition historically fit many contending groups such as the Partricians
and Plebeians of ancient Rome, the Guelfs and Ghibellines of the middle age and so
forth, but these groups perhaps better be called faction. 10

The term party derives from Latin verb ‘partire’, which means ‘to divide’.
However, it does not enter in a significant way in the vocabulary of politics until the
seventeenth century. It implies that it does not enter the political discourse directly
from Latin, its longstanding predecessor with very much the same etymological
connotation is ‘sect’, which took from the Latin word ‘secare’ that means to serve,
‘to cut’ and thereby ‘to divide’.11

However, the political party basically conveyed the idea of ‘part’, and part is
not, in and by itself derogatory term like faction. Nonetheless, the part had long lost
its original connotation. The term ‘part’ enters in the French vocabulary/politics as
“partager”, which means sharing, as it enters in the English vocabulary as partaking,
that is, partnership and participation. When part becomes party, then term party is
subjected to two opposite semantic pulls, the derivation from ‘partire’, to divide, on
the one hand, and the association with taking part and thereby with sharing, on the
other. While, the word ‘party’ entered into the vocabulary of politics whereas ‘sect’
was on its way out and associated with religion especially with Protestant
sectarianism.11a Therefore, it should be clear that political parties do not relate with
those sects, cliques, clubs, factions and small groups that can be identified as the

8
Ibid, pp. 3-4.
9
Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1975, p.
10
Friedrich, n.6, p.444.
11
Sartori, n.7, p.4.
11a
Ibid.

55
antecedents of the modern party in most western countries. In England, it is possible
to trace incipient parties back to the early seventeenth century, in France the
development of small groups that were embryonic parties, materialized somewhat
later, but clearly preceded the French Revolution in 1789.12

It is generally explained that a political party, as an association, organized in

support of some principles or policies by constitutional means, it endeavour’s to
make the determinant of government. Without party organizations, there can be no
unified statement of principles, no orderly evolution policy, and no regular resort to
the constitutional devices of parliamentary elections, nor, of course, any recognized
institution by means of which a party seeks to gain or to maintain power. 13

This statement is based on two fundamentals of human nature: one that men
differ in their opinions and other is that, they are gregarious by nature. They try to
achieve those goals by coming together and acting together, which they cannot
achieve individually. The religious and communal loyalties and the attachment to a
dynasty or leader also helped the political parties to develop. The party enthusiasm
is maintained by such elements of human nature as sympathy, imitation, competition
and pugnacity (expressing an argument very forcefully or fight).14

In other words, the political parties find its roots in human nature, which
marked by diverse opinions and personal rivalries, that come to surface in the event
of clash of interests with regards to public business. The diverse and conflicting
interests in society lead to the formation of various groups, which are based on
different social and economic demands and expectations of the people. When, these
groups or associations organized themselves and represent demands as well as
aggregate the interests of the society known as political parties. These groups may
be considered as the ‘specialized aggregation structure’ of modern society. In a
competitive system, the political party aggregates certain interests into set of policy
proposals and then attempts to garner victory at polls, to install decision makers. 15

12
La Palombara and Weiner, n.2, pp.5-6.
13
R.M. Maciver, The Modern State, London: Oxford University, 1955, p.396.
14
A. Appadorai, The Substance of Politics, New Delhi: Oxford University, 2006, p.538.
15
Gabriel A. Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach,
New Delhi: Amerind Publishing, 1972, p.102.

56
 Edmund Burke states that political parties are group of men, united for
providing by their just endeavors, the national interests upon particular principles to
which they are all agreed. Reiterating the same idea, Friedrich characterized “a
political party as a group of human beings, which is stably organized”. It has
objectives of securing or maintaining for its leaders, the control of government or
rule over the political community, linked with another objective, namely that of
giving to members of such a party, ideological and material satisfactions, benefits
and advantages.16 Schumpeter, however, did not agree with the classical definitions
or traditional ideas on parties. Schumpeter argues that this idea is so tempting and
party cannot be defined in terms of its principles, because, principles or planks may
be characteristics of the party, that is important for its success as the brands of good,
as in a departmental store, but the departmental store cannot be defined in term of its
brands and a party.

According to Schumpeter, “political party is a group, whose members

propose to act in concert in competitive struggle for political power.” 17 Similarly, in
German definition, a battle fellowship in the form of a permanent association, to
obtain power over the state to realize political aims. 18 In other words, political party
is a group of persons, who organized themselves, with the aim of winning
government machinery by electoral or other means.19

Max Weber gives sociological explanation of party, is an associative type of

social relationships, memberships, which rests on formally free recruitment. The end
to which, its activity is devoted to secure power within a corporate group for its
leaders, in order to attain ideal or material advantage for its active members. 20 They
may consist of charismatic leaders, of traditional retainers or of the rational
adherents. By definition, a party can exist only within a corporate group, in order to
influence its policy or gains control over it. 21 So the political parties live in ‘house of

16
Friedrich, n.6. p.442.
17
Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, London: Allen and Unwin, 1966,
p.283.
18
Herman Finer, The Theory and Practice of Modern Government, London: Methuen and Co,
1965, p.240.
19
Heywood, n.3, p.248.
20
A.M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons (eds.), Max Weber: The Theory of Social and Economic
Organizations, New York: The Free Press, 1964, p.407.
21
Ibid.

57
power’. Therefore, they are only possible within communities that are societalized,
which have some rational order and a staff of persons available, who are ready to
enforce it.22 Jean Blondel states;

Political parties are groupings, but groupings of

a particular kind. Clearly, it is not sufficient to
say that they are ‘political’, while other groups
are not; politics being a procedure, a body is
political only to the extent that it participates in
the procedure of solution of conflicts.

However, sometimes, it is said that parties aim at taking over power, while
the group aims only at influencing decisions, which are taken by others. This
distinction is valid, which is based on decision makers and mere influential. 23 Jean
Blondel further adds;

We shall consider a political party as any group, which

is both, open in its membership and concerned
potentially with the whole spectrum of matter, which
24
related to the polity.

Moreover, there are various groups’, having different characters, some are
religious, economic, and educational or some are even political bodies, which
distinguish them from other groups of the society. The party is ‘self-governing club’
with voluntary membership, voluntarily deciding by its own motion, the objects for
which it exists by methods of persuasion and propaganda at the time of general
elections.25 Ernest Barker gives another explanation;

We may rather call party a ‘channel’ analogous

to a channel of water, which serves a mill and
turns the water-wheel, which works the mill;
and we may say, the party collect the currents of
opinion formed in water shed of society, direct
them along its channel towards the wheel of the
state and supplies the motive-force of thoughts,
ideas and policies, that make the wheel
26
revolve.

22
H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds.), From Max Weber: Essay in Sociology, New York:
Oxford University, 1976, p.194.
23
Jean Blondel, An Introduction to Comparative Government, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
1969, p.100.
24
Ibid., p.102.
25
Barker, n.5, pp.29-30.
26
Ibid., p.31.

58
 Neumann summarized that political party, generally, as the articulate
association of society’s active political members, those who are concerned with the
state (government) power, compete for popular support with another group(s),
holding different opinions. As such, it is great intermediary, which connected with
social forces and ideologies to governmental departments and link them to political
action within the larger political community. 27

It is, here hard to make differences between pressure groups or interest

groups. Although, specific interests may constitute the foundation of a political
party, the differences between or among political parties may be drawn on the basis
of specific interests. The channelizing of various interests in the society serves as the
broad basis of political party. The interests can either be individual or group. Usually
the interests of the group are one which struggle to translate themselves into type of
social control activity through the political process of government. 28 Neumann
clearly differentiates pressure group from political party; “fundamentally pressure
groups are representative of homogenous interests, seeking influence, on the one
hand, political parties seeking office and directed towards policymaking, combine of
heterogeneous group”, on the other.

The political party is an organization of numerous people, openly committed

on broad questions of policies and assumes direct responsibility of their policies, by
seeking to monopolize or share with other parties in the position of political power.
Whereas, pressure groups do not work of interest aggregation and strive to protect
and promote its specific interests without being ready to assume direct responsibility
for same.29

Maurice Duverger, a well known authority on the topic throws light on

another aspect of political party by defining that it is ‘communities’ and ‘social
group’. Duverger says;

27
Sigmund Neumann, “Toward a Comparative Study of Political Parties”, in Neumann, n.1, p.396.
28
Charles Merriam, Systematic Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1945, p.86.
29
A.R. Ball, Modern Politics and Government, London: Macmillian Publisher, 1971, p.79.

59
 A party is not community but a ‘collection of
communities’, a union of small groups,
dispersed throughout the country (by branches,
caucuses and local associations, etc.) and are
30
linked by coordinating institutions.
Duverger emphasized on the social composition of parties rather than their
doctrines. For present day, the political parties are distinguished far less by their
programmes or the class of their members than by the nature of their organization.
The political party is a community with particular structures. Sartori defines;

A party is any political group identified by an

official label, that present at elections and is
capable of placing candidates for public office
31
through elections (free or non-free).

Clearly, battery of scholars proposed numerous definitions that are quite

lengthy though short of being a synopsis of a description. In general, political parties
can be defined in terms of actors, actions (activities), consequences (purposes) and
domain. The political party can also be defined with exclusive respect to its
functions, to its structure or to both, or in the light of the input-out scheme, and in
still other ways. 32 From the above analysis, the definitions of political party are
limited to its one aspect or another. However, Joseph La Palombara and Myron
Weiner give very comprehensive and detailed definition of political party.
Palombara and Weiner define;

When we speak of political parties, we do not

mean a loosely knit of group of notables with
limited and intermittent relationships to local
counterparts. Our definition requires instead:
(I) continuity in organization, i.e., an
organization whose expected life span is not
dependent on the life of current leaders; (II)
manifest and presumably permanent
organization at local level, with regularized

30
Maurice Duverger, Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in Modern State,
(translated by Barbara and Robert North), London: Methuen and Co, 1967, p.17.
31
Sartori, n.7, p.63
32
Ibid., p.61.

60
 communication and other relationship between
locals and national units, (III) self-conscious
determination of leader, at both national and
local levels to capture and to hold decision
making power alone or in coalition with other,
not simply to influence of exercise of power; and
(IV)a concern on the part of the organization for
seeking followers at the polls or in some manner
33
striving for popular support.

It is crystal clear that political party without a well-knit organization, is

nothing and is neither able to present, nor to promote its programmes. Therefore,
without the proper organization, the people just make disorganized crowd. It is the
organization, which turned into permanently cohesive body that enables them to
acquire strength, so as to act in concert. From the above discussion, it is observed
that the notion of party vary from time to time and country to country. Generally, the
old conception that party is group of men professing the same political doctrine is
not true, now. The emphasis shifted from principles to organization. While, the
theory developed earlier one differs from them in several respects. For one,
everyone speak of government or rule of an organization, rather than of power
within it.34 David Hume, in his essay on parties made the shrewd observation that
programmes play an essential part in the initial phase, when it serves to bring
together scattered individuals, but later on organization come to the fore, the
platform becoming subordinate.35

Max Weber differentiates political parties from ‘Aristocratic’ faction. Weber

emphasizes the fact that political parties rested upon formally free recruiting. They
allowed anyone to join up. But many parties do not permit free recruiting, such as
Communist Party and others. The parties either, will, all free recruiting and then
these parties may be called constitutional parties or if they will not allow, and then
they are considered autocratic parties.36

33
La Palombara and Weiner, n.2, p.6.
34
Friedrich, n.6, p.442.
35
Duverger, n.30, p. XIV.
36
Autocratic parties:- These parties constitute, the organized following group, which gained
complete control of government, but which feels the need for large-scale popular support. If,

61
 Some of the scholars notably Gerhard Leibholz are of the view that the
political existence and operation of parties at the center of the political system is the
distinguishing feature of contemporary politics and that we should speak of a “party
state” or parteienstaat (French word) in contradiction to earlier forms of political
order. This typology is clearly derived from French politics; it has little application
to British and American development of parties or to the present behaviour of parties
in these countries or indeed in Germany and elsewhere. 37

Sigmund Neumann makes a dichotomist distinction between political parties

on the basis of functional aspect, which is of two types of parties with sharply
contrasting major functions: parties of representation and parties of integration. 38
There can be no question that a shift occurred in this direction that political parties
more concerned with integration than with the representation of individuals, but not
only have they continued to be concerned with both.

Besides this, American scholars treat political party as a machine (vote-

catching) or an agency to mobilize people’s support for a candidate at polls and
above all, a platform for taking part in struggle for power in democratic set up. In
recent years, the Marxian ideas on political party are contrary to liberal viewpoints
and the Marxist conception of party as class, give a new direction to political
parties. 39

Karl Marx in Communist Manifesto, states that “the united proletariat will
represent the overwhelming majority; its dictatorship will lead to dissolution of all
classes and therewith to the liberation of the society as a whole”. 40 Vladimir Lenin
modified Marxian ideas on political parties by adding that;

in its struggle for power, the proletariat has no

other weapon but organization, divided by rule
of anarchic competition in bourgeois world,
ground down by slave labour for capital,
constantly thrust back to the “lower depths” of

differences of opinion and clash of loyalty occur, of course, violently denounced by the
preponderant group and may be forcefully suppressed, in Friedrich, n.6, p.443.
37
Ibid., p.445.
38
Neumann, n. 27, p.402
39
Duverger, n.30, p. XV.
40
Neumann, n. 27, p. 397.

62
 utter destitution, savagery and degeneration, the
proletariat can become and will inevitably
become, an invincible force only when its
ideological unity around the principles of
Marxism is consolidated by material unity of an
organization, which unites millions of toilers in
the army of the working class.41

Lenin further says that the workers do not spontaneously become socialist,
but trade unionist and then revolutionary ideology is must in consequence be
brought to them by middle class intellectuals.42 Lenin favoured, Communist Party is
“a small compact core, consisting of reliable, experienced and hardened workers,
with responsible agents in the principal districts. They connected by all rules of strict
secrecy with the organization of revolutionists, can with the wide support of the
masses and without an elaborate set of rule, perform all the functions of trade union
organization and perform them more over in the manner the social democratic
desire”. Lenin’s party was nothing less than a project for taming human destiny. 43

Lenin describes Communist Party as the ‘vanguard of the revolution’ for the
working class. The party had three main characteristics. (I) the party was assumed to
posses in Marxism, a unique type of knowledge and insight; (II) Lenin’s party, being
in principles a carefully selected and rigidly disciplined elite, was never designed to
become a mass organization and (III) party was designed to be tightly centralized
organization44-‘democratic centralism’. 45 When, Lenin established a government in
Russia, he called it “a government for the working people by the advanced element
of the proletariat (the party), but not by the working masses”. In fact, the theory of
1902 was not yet the party of 1917, and the party in Lenin’s life time was not
Stalin’s party.

41
Vladimir Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, Selected Work, Vol.11, 1904, p.466.
42
C.L. Wayper, Political Thought, Bombay: B.I. Publications, 1987, p.226.
43
Grorge S. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, New Delhi: Oxford University and IBH
Publishing, 1975, p.733.
44
Ibid., p.734.
45
Democratic centralism was the key feature of the Communist party’s organization, based on
two principles. The first was that lower levels must accept decision made by higher levels. The
second was that each level was elected by the one immediately beneath, thus forming a pyramid
of indirect elections. But only one person would nominate for each election, but in reality this
candidate was chosen from above. So, it was centralism without democracy, in Rod Hague and
Martin Harrop, Comparative Government and Politics, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004,
p.203.

63
 Duverger rightly points out that, the ideas of Lenin seem to be concerned not
only with the leaders but also with the militants. They naturally give position of
control, because they alone dispose of sufficient leisure to fill those effectively. To
create a class of professional revolutionaries is equivalent to creating a class of
professional leaders of revolutionary parties, an inner circle, stirs up the masses and
finds upon the official duties, perform within the party. It is equivalent to create
bureaucracy, or an oligarchy. 46

Liberal scholars criticize Marxian ideas and did not find political party and
its role based on class antagonism. Duverger analyzed that Marxist opposition of
middle class to working class will also often be used in wider sense. Nevertheless,
this schema is true in one respect: the bourgeoisie and proletariat do not perhaps
constitute two classes. It defined strictly in economic terms, but they characterize
two states of mind, two social-attitudes and two ways of life, the distinction
between, which throws light on certain problems, concerned with the structures of
parties. 47

Indeed, Communist Party is not only vanguard of working class, but also
custodian of all power and any opposition to party suppressed by severe punishment.
Lenin argued for small party of professional revolutionists, who would lead the
masses because they are incompetent to find the correct road, without direction.
Robert Michels also discusses about the “incompetence of the masses” which
coincides with Lenin’s idea. The masses are incapable of taking part in the decision-
making process and desire strong leaderships. 48 Michels here, distinguishes the
character of political party on the ground of leadership. Michels is of view that;

Those who become full time officials of unions,

political parties or who serve as parliamentary
representatives, whilst belonging by social
position to the class of ruled, have in fact, come
to form part of the “ruling oligarchy”.49 It is
organization which gives birth to the

46
Duverger, n.30, p.155.
47
Ibid., 30. p.xv.
48
Robert Michels, Political Parties, (translated by Eden and Cedar Pal), New York: Dover
Publications, 1968, p.27.
49
Ibid., p.17.

64
 domination of elected over the electors, of the
mandatories, over the mandators, of the
delegates over the delegators, who says
50
organization, say oligarchy.

These words first published in 1911, which sum up Michels famous idea,
“iron law of oligarchy”. He examined the behaviour of the Socialist Parties of
Germany and elsewhere, which to be appeared, at that time, the most committed to
the extension of democracy.50a The iron law of oligarchy is rule by and for the few.
The power within parties, as within other organizations, end up at the top or in the
hand of leaders.51 The leaders have many resources, which give them an almost
complete advantage over members, who try to change policies. The assets of the
leaders can be counted as: (a) best knowledge; (b) command over the formal means
of communication with membership and (c) expert in the art of politics-(speeches,
writing articles and organizing group activities etc). These occupational skills
strengthened leader’s role in organization, in general and parties, in particular. As a
result, political parties formally committed to democracy generally dominated by
‘ruling elites’.52

In other words, every political party works under the stewardship of person
or leader, who can enthuse, influence, inspire, and control other persons, in a manner
that leader can guide or direct the thoughts, feeling and actions of other persons,
whom he leads.53

Despite this fact, the leadership is essential for the success and survival of
every organization. It is an organization that provides ‘strategic post’, which gives
power and advantage to leader(s), who cannot be checked or held accountable by
their followers. Therefore, leadership is essential phenomenon in every form of
social life. The process start in the consequence of differentiation of functions in
party, is completed by complex of qualities, which leaders acquire through their
detachment from the masses. At the beginning, the leaders arise suddenly; their

50
Ibid., p.15.
50a
Ibid.
51
Hague and Harrop, n.45, p.188.
52
Michels, n.48, pp.16-17
53
Suma Chitnis, “The Nature of Leadership; A Sociological Point of View”, in J.W. Airan (ed.),
The Nature of Leadership: A Practical Approach, Bombay: Lalwani Publication, 1968, p.3

65
functions are accessory and gratuitous, soon, they become professional leaders and
in the second stage of development, they are stable and irremovable. 54 Michels
further adds that;

The majorities are only the evidence of that

which is whereas; minorities are often the seed
of that which will be. In the life of modern
democratic parties, it is only a minority, which
participates in party’s decisions and most
important resolutions are taken by handful
members. The great majority of the members
will not attend meeting unless some noted orator
is to speak, or unless some extremely striking
55
war cry is sounded for their attraction.

Robert Michels observed that all phrases representing the ideas of rule of the
masses, in terms of civil rights, popular representation and nation, are descriptive
merely legal principles; do not correspond to any actual existing facts. They contend
that the eternal struggles between aristocracy and democracy, which we read in
history, have never been anything more than struggle between old minority and new
ambitious minority, which intent upon conquest of power, desiring either to fuse
with former, or to dethrone and replace it. On this theory, these class struggles
consist merely of struggle between successively dominant minorities. 56 Others
prominent scholars including Gaetano Mosca, Wilfredo Pareto, James Burnham, C.
Wright Mill and Lasswell also support the idea of ‘minority rule’ or ‘elite class’.
Above all, leadership is personalized; it finds that these trends are seen in almost all
political parties.

Robert Mckenzie observed that party leaders in the legislature are key actors
in parliamentary systems of Europe. The distribution of power within two parties as
Conservative Party and Labour Party of England were controlled by nexus of
parliamentary leaders. 57 It is interesting to note that, in the third world countries,
political parties are identified with single person, and his will is will of all party

54
Michels, n.48, p.364.
55
Ibid., pp.85-87.
56
Ibid., p.342.
57
Robert T. Mchenzie, British Political Parties, London: Heinemann, 1955, pp.365-366.

66
members. The name of the Indira Gandhi in India, Nasser in Egypt, Bhutto in
Pakistan, Soekarno in Indonesia are prominent, on the one side, and Mao in China,
and Fidel Castro in Cuba, on the other.

However, Michels’ laws explained the inevitable failure of democratic

socialism and indeed, exploded the myth of political democracy. But, critics point
out that Michels generalizations made on the basis of single political party at
particular moment in time, and also rest on questionable psychological theories. 58
Michels glittering generalization might be found to be an overstatement of the
undeniable existence of oligarchic, hierarchic and centripetal trends in every society.
But, it might be matched by data conforming the equally omnipresent democratic,
leveling and centrifugal force encountered even within present-day totalitarian order.
Michels deeply imbedded bias in favour of the predominant bureaucratic,
authoritarian values.59 Although, the oligarchic character of every party does not
prevent it from pursing democratic policies, in practice every party seeks to have the
label of a democratic character.

On the basis of above discussion, there are numerous ideas, views and
concepts on political parties, which are given by prominent scholars, notably De-
Tocqueville, Lord Byrce, Ostrogorski, Max Weber, Maruice Duverger, Robert
Michels, Sigmund Neumann, Myron Weiner, Giovanni Sartori and David Apter etc,
from time to time, according to circumstances that prevailed their respective periods.
There are wide variations between the two extremes of democracy and dictatorship.
The British, American, French, Indian and Scandinavian democratic structures differ
from totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany, Fascist-Italy, Soviet Union and Peronist
Argentina. In brief, the peculiar character of each party system must be explained in
terms of the political system of which it is an integral part, if not its kingpin.

What is common in all the political parties, beyond partnership in a particular

organization and separation from other, is their participation in the decision- making
process or at least an attempt at and a chance for such a mobilization. 60 In brief, it is

58
Heywood, n.3, p.256.
59
Neumann, n.27, p.407.
60
Ibid., p.395.

67
an organization concerned with the process of capturing power, running government
and providing an alternative.

Party Systems and Classification of Parties

A party system denotes the interaction among political parties. In democracy, they
respond to each other’s initiative in a competitive interplay. The political parties,
like countries copy, learn from and compete with each other, with innovations in
organization, fund raising and election campaigning, spreading across the party
system.61

The party system is the whole assortment of inner party rivalries in a single
country, at any single time. It is a web of competition, something related to
‘democratic competition’ for the right to rule.62 It implies a pattern of competition,
consisting of an interaction of its units (parties). This competition is political,
manifestly an electoral competition, whereby all the political parties take part in an
open, formalized genuine elections. 63 With the exception of single-party state,
several parties co-exist in each country: the form and modes of their co-existence
define the party system of particular country, being considered. Two series of
elements enter into this definition.

In the first place, there are the similarities and disparities that can be
discovered in the internal structure of individual parties, which makes up the system.
(A distinction will be made between system with centralized parties and those with
decentralized parties, between the flexible party and the rigid party and so on). In the
second place, a comparison between the various parties makes it possible to make
distinction among new elements in the analysis, that do not exist for each party
community, considered in isolation: number, respective size, alliance, geographical
localization, political distribution and so on. A party system is defined by a
particular relationship, amongst all these characteristics. 64

61
Hague and Harrop, n.45, p.194.
62
Douglas W. Rae, The Political Consequence of Electoral Laws, London: Yale University, 1967,
p.47.
63
Leslie Lipson, “The Two Party System in British Politics”, American Political Science Review,
Vol. XLVII, 1953, p.358.
64
Duverger, n.30, p.203.

68
 At last, each nation state has its own party system, which makes it possible to
classify and compare the countries by the type of party system, they possess. The
most obvious distinction rests upon the number of parties in each country. In
addition to number-based classification, party system can also be classified into
totalitarian and non-totalitarian, constitutional and non-constitutional, democratic
and non-democratic and so on. Moreover, these can also be classified as class or
ideologically basis. 65 Giovanni Sartori and Maurice Duverger, who were pioneers in
this field, presented comprehensive theories on parties systems.

Duverger’s Model

Duverger scheme of analysis is based on number of parties, which is influenced by

various factors. He classified party system into single, two and multi-party system.

Two Party System

It is not easy to differentiate between the bi-party system and multi-party system.
Because of number of small groups exist, alongside the major parties. Duverger
states;

The simple-majority, single ballot system

favours the two party system. An almost
complete correlation is observable between
the simple-majority, single ballot system and
the two party systems. The dualist countries
use the simple-majority vote and simple
66
majority vote countries are dualist.

Duverger is of the view that this electoral system is capable of maintaining

and establishing dualism, in spite of schisms in old parties and birth of new parties.
This is made possible by the process known as ‘fusion’ and ‘elimination’. Under the
fusion mechanism, if more than two parties are competing in a constituency, with no
one having a clear majority or chance of win, then like mind parties may reach an
agreement that one withdraw its candidate for some more of compensation in other
constituency. In that case, two-party system is restoring, as result of alliance or

65
Neil A. McDonald, “Party Perspectives: A Survey of Writings”, in Harry Eckstein and David E.
Apter (eds.), Comparative Politics, Delhi: Surjeet Publications, 2003, p.348.
66
Duverger, n.30, p.217.

69
fusion. The scholar, in his study, quoted the case of political parties of Canada, New
Zealand, Australia, Britain, South Africa, and America etc.

The elimination is the second way by which bi-partism is restored. It consists

of two factors: ‘mechanical’ and ‘psychological’. The mechanical factor refers to the
representation of third party (weak party), that is, its percentage of seats being
inferior to its percentage of the polls. The psychological factor work, where electors
realize that their votes are wasted if they continue to give them to third party. In
other words, if third party or weakest party insists to contesting, then it is gradually
deserted by electorates, which is called elimination. For example, elimination of
Liberal Party of England.67

At present, it is generally understood that, a bi-party system is duopolistic,

which dominated by two ‘major’ parties that have equal chance to win government
power. In its traditional form, a bi-party system can be defined by three criteria:
firstly, the number of ‘small’ parties may exist; only two parties enjoy sufficient
electoral and legislative strength to have a realistic prospect of winning government
power.

Secondly, the one of the major party is in a position to rule alone on the basis
of majority in the legislature, the others are in the opposition.

Thirdly, Power alternate between these parties; both are electable the opposition
serve as wings of government.68 For instance, UK and USA are most frequently
cited example, other have included Canada, Australia and New Zealand. However,
UK party system may turn to multi-party system or coalition era.

Multi-Partism

Duverger says that typology of multi-party system is difficult to establish because of

innumerable varieties. It can be imagined ranging from ‘three to infinity’ and within
each variety, innumerable patterns and shades of differences are possible. 69 The
scholar constructed a theoretical pattern that two-party system is natural and
tendency towards multi-partism is the result of two different phenomena; internal

67
Ibid., pp.218-227.
68
Heywood, n.3, p.260.
69
Duverger, n.30, p.228.

70
divisions of opinion and their overlapping. Duverger generalized for internal
division that there are divisions between moderates and extremists, the conciliatory
and the intransigent, the diplomatic and the doctrinaire, the pacific and the fire-
eaters, in all parties. This distinction is limited in its effect to creation of factions, if
they can no longer meet on common ground, which leads to ‘split’ and rise of Centre
parties.69a In this regard, he presented the case of political parties of Switzerland,
Denmark, and Holland etc.70

The overlapping is a phenomenon, which seems to be more widespread than

split. It consists of non-coincidence of number of different dualism of opinion with
such a result that their combination produces a multi-partite division stated by
Duverger. He refers the cases of France, Belgium, Spain and Italy. 71 Therefore,
Duverger’s multi-party systems arise either from ‘split’ or ‘overlapping’ in natural
two-way division. A split may come within either bourgeois or socialist parties and
may be encouraged by the electoral system. Overlapping comes about as a result of a
non-coincidence dualism in the society. Therefore, if the society is divided into
classes and two sections but classes and section do not coincide, there is strong
tendency for four parties to rise.72

According to Duverger, multi-party system has different varieties according

to number of rival parties, such as, tri-parties (three parties) quardi-partism (four
parties) and poly-partism (many). However, each of these systems have common
factor vis-a-vis the electoral systems. The scholar believes that “simple majority
system with second ballot and proportional representation encourage multi-parties.”
In Switzerland and Holland, the multi-party system is limited and orderly, in Italy it
is anarchic and disorderly, in Germany and France the situation is intermediate
between the two.73

69a
A splits opinion gives rise to Centre parties. There exists no center view, no central tendency, no
central doctrine, separate in kind from the doctrines of the Right or of the Left, but only a
dilution of their doctrines, attenuation, a moderate doctrine. Duverger quoted if the Liberal Party
spits into Liberals and Radical, then the former become a Centre party. Ibid., p.230.
70
Ibid.
71
Ibid., p.231.
72
McDonald, n.65, pp.348-349.
73
Duverger, n.30, pp.239-240.

71
 Nowadays, it is believed that, when more than two parties got almost equal
number of seats in the legislature and no party is in a position to form government
by its own strength, normally known as multi-party system. This system emerges
when; (a) three or more parties shared the bulk of the votes and public offices and
(b) no single party won absolute majority. In a way, most of the governments have
been coalition or fusion governments.74 Besides, in the multi-party system, there is
competition among more than two parties, reducing the prospect of single party
government and increasing the chance of coalitions. The post-elections
‘negotiations’ and ‘horse trading’ are basic tools to form the government.75

Single Party System

Duverger believes that dictatorship based on a party, as was the case in Germany
and Italy, today, which is a case in Soviet Russia, and the ‘People’s Democracy’,
which is a new kind of political system. Duverger found that single parties imitated
or retained structure that had their origin in multi-party system; the opposite course
was only followed afterwards. It is true that the totalitarian nature of a party drives it
to suppress all other parties if it can, but the tendency to unity is a consequence of its
totalitarian nature more than cause. Therefore, there are several single-party system,
not one.76

Duverger draws some general characteristics of the single party system; (I) it
is both an elite and bond. It refer to form ‘new elite’ and create a ‘new ruling class’,
which unite and shape the political leader, who is capable of organizing the country
because the masses cannot govern themselves, on one hand and decline of the
traditional social elite, on the other. (II) Single party system was worked out in Italy
and in Germany, which produced a theory that filled its own single party which
differs considerably from one other. (III) The party established direct and permanent
contact between the government and the country (masses) by the process of ‘people-
leaders’ (upwards direction) and leaders-people (downwards direction). The
downwards direction is more important because party spread the dictator’s orders
among the public. (IV) Single party is a natural consequence of Marxist doctrines
74
Austin Ranney and Kendall Willmoore, “The American Party System”, American Political
Science Review, Vol.XLVIII, 1954, p.480.
75
Heywood, n.3, pp.263-264.
76
Duverger, n.30, pp.255-257.

72
and structure of the Soviet Union. Hence, the retention of the Communist Party, the
fighting organization of working class in its effort to destroy its rivals as well as the
organization for seeing that they do not build up their strength again.

Duverger points out the differences between Communist optimism and

Fascist pessimism. 77 Furthermore, there is a variety of totalitarian single parties. All
single parties are not totalitarian, nor are all totalitarian parties are single parties.
These can even exist in even pluralist system as Communist parties in France and
Italy. The Turkish single-party system was never based upon doctrine of single
party. It was neither based upon cells, nor upon militia, and not even true branches.
It might rather be considering a caucus party in which leading strata were more
important than the members. 78

Jean Blondel suggests three ways for the development of one party system;
(I) it can be the result of ‘legal compulsion’ that is, the Constitution of the state
made provision of one party or allows only one party, as the case of Soviet Union
and other Communist states. (II) It arises from extra-constitutional repression of
opposition. This occurs, when opposition is harassed, either publicly through trials
or less openly by means of preventive action against potential opponents. (III) The
development of ‘one-party state’ is of the ‘natural kind’ in which only one party
exist because of the natural structures of the polity. This situation is more likely to
be maintained in relatively small states or in regions such as Brazilian party system
before 1930 and Northern Nigeria party system before the military coup of 1966. 79

In nut shell, there are various types of one party systems. Some arise in the
form of governing elites, which is merely a name for the ‘praetorian guard’ (loyal
supporter) of a dictator. In other cases, it may be more fully developed in terms of
doctrines and traditions. Duverger concluded that the Fascist and the Nazi parties
came into power with revolutionary movement. Soon, these became dedicated to the
prevention of change. However, the Communists are forever shaking up the regime
with purges or other actions of a comparable nature.80 In this context, Joseph La

77
Ibid., pp.257-262.
78
Ibid., pp.275-278.
79
Blondel, n.23, pp.144-145.
80
McDonald, n.65, p.349.

73
Palombara and Myron Weiner divided one party system into three categories on
empirical basis.

(I) One Party Authoritarian:- These are authoritarian political system dominated
by single, monolithic, ideologically oriented, but not totalitarian party. The classic
example of Spain under Franco and Falange, others are Mali, Ghana, Guinea, South
Vietnam and Cuba. Very often, the party and nation are led by a single dominant
figure (such as Nkrumah, Diem, Franco and Castro), who is supposed to personify
the goal of the nation.81

(II) One Party Pluralistic:- These are quasi-authoritarian systems dominated by

single party, which is pluralistic in organization. It is pragmatic rather than rigidly
ideological in outlook and absorptive rather than ruthlessly destructive in its
relationship to other groups. Some of the example of Mexico Republican Party,
Senegal, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone and Cameroun, also included in this category.
The differences between the two types of parties lies in the degree to which a
pragmatic rather than ideological approach. A strong commitment to ideology will
almost certainly lead, to form of ‘one-party state’ which is either authoritarian or
totalitarian.

(III) One-Party Totalitarian:- In this political system, the state itself is an

instrument of a monolithic party, which has one ideological goal, the total use of
power for the restructuring of the society’s socio-economic system. Communist
China, Soviet Union, North Vietnam, North Korea and East European states fall in
this category.82

For the deep understanding of the party system, Duverger assumes that
organization has great importance in modern political parties. It constitutes the
general setting for the activity of members and determines the machinery for the
selection of leaders and decides their power. Duverger finds out that every
organization is operating by direct 83 or indirect (structure) party.84 Duverger

81
Palombara and Weiner, n.2, pp.37-38.
82
Ibid., pp.38-40.
83
Direct Party- member themselves form the party community without the help of social
grouping, in similar way, in the unitary state. There is a direct link between the citizen and
national community, Duverger, n.30, p.5.

74
contrasted direct and indirect parties in horizontal plans and the ideas of basic
elements of organization referred to vertical plans. Duverger puts forward four-fold
elements, which helps to distinguish between democratic, fascist and communist
types of political party. These are (a) The Caucus (b) The Branches (c) The Cell and
(d) Militia. Therefore, each party has its own particular form of elements. 85

(a) The Caucus:- English political term, refers to committee, a clique or a coterie,
which consists of small numbers and seeks no expansion. In other words, it is a
group of notabilities chosen, because of their influence. There are direct and indirect
caucuses. They play very important role in decision making process and are
considered as chief election organizer or campaigners. For example, French Radical
Socialist, American Democrat and Republican etc.86

(b) The Branch: - It is, unlike caucus wide open and basic elements of the
organization. The caucus is a union of notabilities chosen only because of their
influence, whereas, branch appeals to the masses. The branches are built up within
the framework of the commune. In the large towns, it is based on the quartier or
ward. Actually, the branch is a Socialist Party’s invention, which desires to maintain
its intimate touch with people at large. 87

(c) The Cell:- It is an intervention of the Russian Communist Party, which is

constituted on the basis of occupation. It has much greater hold on its members than
branches. The secretary of cell can easily control the activities of each member. 88

(d) The Militia:- It is a sort of ‘personal or private army’, whose members are
recruited on military lines. They are subjected to same disciplines and training as
soldiers. The Fascist and Nazi Party in Germany and Italy respectively are the best
examples.

Furthermore, Duverger also presents a detailed analysis of party alliance,

which is based on electoral and parliamentary as well as governmental alliances. The

84
Indirect Party - It is made up of the union of the component, social group, like in confederation.
The citizens are joined to the nation through the intermediary of member states. Nevertheless,
this theoretical pattern is often modified in practical application, Ibid.
85
Ibid., p.17.
86
Ibid.
87
Ibid., pp. 23-27.
88
Ibid., pp. 27-29.

75
scholar tries to measure the strength of political parties on the ground of members,
voters and parliamentary seats. In this regards, he gives three fold classifications.

(I) Parties with Majority Bent:-have absolute majority in the Parliament.

(II) Major Parties:- They do not hope to attain absolute majority in legislature, due
to their strength. But their strength allows them to play an important role and
become part of alliance/coalition.

(III) Minor parties:- have not any role in government and in opposition.89

Duverger further divided political parties into two types, on the basis of membership
as Cadre Party and Mass Party.

(a) Cadre Party:- It is a grouping of notabilities, who are experts in techniques of

fighting elections (how to handle electors and organize campaign) and have ability
to gather financial sinews for the organization. More or less, they constitute the
structure of a political party. Therefore, what mass party secures by members, cadre
party achieves by ‘selection’. So, Communist parties have cadre of their own in
different organizations such as labour and peasant organization etc.

(b) Mass Party:- It, unlike cadre party, supports the principles of elections, so as to
win little of popular legitimacy. The recruitment of member is a fundamental
activity both from the political and financial point. Later on, regular subscription
replaced the capitalist financing of electioneering by democratic financing. 90

(c) Devotee Party:- The Leninist conception the party should not include the whole
of the working class. It is only an advance guard, fighting wing, the most
enlightened section of working class. The party as an ‘order’ is made up of best,
most faithful, most brave and most suitable members. For example, Fascist doctrines
are even more definite on this point.91

89
Ibid., pp.281-291.
90
Ibid., pp.63-65.
91
Ibid., p.70.

76
Table 2.1: Duverger’s Classification of Types of Party and Electoral Systems

Type of Party Cadre Party Mass Party Devotee Party

Basic Caucus Branch Cell/ Militia
organizational units
Class nature of Middle-class Working class Working /Middle
membership Class/ Class
Ideological Conservative and Socialist Communist/Fascist
direction center
Articulation Weak Strong Very strong
Centralization Weak Strong Very strong
Discipline Weak Strong Very strong
Leadership Oligarchic Very oligarchic Authoritarian
Elites Traditional Developed by Developed by party
party
Numbers of Small Very large Large
members
Enthusiasm of Low High Very high
members
Range of activity Strictly political Entire political Entire political,
and community personal and
life community life
Duration of activity Seasonal All year All year
Importance of Low High Very high low
doctrine
The number of Two-party Multi-party Multi-party system
parties a and the system favour system favours favours second-
type of ballot simple majority PR and vice-versa ballot system and
system and vice- vice-versa
versa
Growth of minor Hinders Aids Aids
parties
Frequency of Rare Common Common
alliances

Sensitivity to Low High High

sudden, deep
changes in opinion

77
 Distortion of High Low High
electoral opinion as
reflected in
national legislature
Political differences Decreased Increased Indeterminate
Degree of Low High High
demagogy
Influence of extra- High or Low High with list Low if there are
Parliamentary party voting small
over candidates constituencies
Antithesis of Largely Mutually Mutually exclusive
opinion coincident exclusive
Influence upon Accentuates local Strength national Indeterminate
geographic location differences uniformity
of opinion
Source: Aaron B. Wildavsky, “A Methodological Critique of Duverger’s Political Parties”, The
Journal of Politics, Vol. XXI, 1959, in Harry Eckstein and David E. Apter (eds.), Comparative
Politics, Delhi: Surjeet Publications, 2003.

As a matter of fact, Duverger’s study is divided into two parts. The first part
concerned with party structure, which includes cadre, mass and devotee parties. The
second section is related to party system viza-a-viz electoral system. Both divisions
are composed of clusters of elements, representing propositions, which form a
definable pattern (see table 2.1). However, it is observed that the many components
in particular classification are linked with another. Several critical questions emerge
at this point. Are the Duverger’s classifications useful for comparative study of
political parties? Even, Duverger’s divisions on party system is so narrow, that do
not apply on all the political parties across the world, which have for long been
subject of inquiry by political scientists. Finally, general theory of political parties
must differentiate between institution and practices, which have identical or similar
labels and yet manifest significant different behaviour. Unfortunately, Duverger’s
work hides these differences instead of revealing them. 92 Duverger evaluates both

92
Aaron B. Wildavsky, “A Methodological Critique of Duverger’s Political Parties”, in Eckstein
and Apter, n.65, pp.371-373.

78
democratic and dictatorial parties, but did not impose geographic limits on his study;
particularly his information on the parties in USA is not complete.93

Sartori’s Paradigm

Sartori believes that party system is classified by counting number of parties

whether one, two or more, than two is highly inadequate. Sartori states that;

Number of parties approach leads towards

frustration. Because, we are incapable of
deciding whether one is one, or two is two.
Moreover, no accounting system can work,
94
without counting the rule.

Sartori does not present simple classification of the party system. He avoids
purely numerical elements by adding other variables such as, strength of the party,
ideology in order to make study more scientific and empirical. This is the point at
which, the number of parties’ variables become secondary and ideology, variables
take precedence. Sartori broadly categorized party system into two folds.

(1) Competitive System

(2) Non-Competitive System

Under this scheme, he differentiated bi-party system and multi-party system on the
basis of ‘polarized pluralism’. Sartori says;

the classical distinction between two-party and

multi- party system could be fruitfully replaced
by a model, oriented distinction, between ‘bi-
polar’ and multi-polar systems, which firstly,
accounts for the positioning and pattern of
interaction of parties (regardless of their
numbers), secondly, breaks down, the
undifferentiated category of the multi party
95
system.

93
Frederick C. Engelmann, “ A Critique of Recent Writings on Political Parties”, Ibid., p.381
94
Sartori, n.7, pp.119-120.
95
Giovanni Sartori, “European Political Parties: The Case of Polarized Pluralism”, in La
Palombara and Weiner, n.2, p.139.

79
 In brief, the real participation in power and actual interaction of parties is
known as competition. He divided competitive system in following categories,
which are considered as classes, not types.

I. Polarized Pluralism

II. Two Party System

III. Predominant Party System

IV. Atomized System.

(I) Polarized Pluralism:- It may be the combination of bi and multi-party system,

that is supported by various features. It is further divided into following sub-
categories.

(a) Simple Two Party Pluralism

(b) Moderate Pluralism

(c) Extreme Pluralism

Table 2.2: Types of Party System and Criteria of Analysis

Party System Poles Polarity Drives

Simple Pluralism Bipolar None Centripetal
Moderate Bipolar Small Centripetal
Pluralism
Extreme Pluralism Multi polar Polarized Centrifugal
Source: Giovanni Sartori, “European Political Parties: The Case of Polarized Pluralism”, in Joseph La
Palombara and Myron Weiner (eds.), Political Parties and Political Development, New Jersey:
Princeton University, 1972.

According to Sartori, bipolar means, actual working of party system, which

pivots around the poles, (no matter whether the parties two, three, or four), in this
system, there is no center. The multi polar means, party system, pivots upon more
than two poles. In a way, this system has a “center”. According to forgoing
terminology, simple pluralism is related to English two-party system, which is bi-
polar and not polarized. Moderate pluralism operates on three-four party basis,
which is bi-polar and centripetal, whereas extreme pluralism is multi-polar,

80
polarized and likely to be centrifugal. 96 He conducted a comprehensive study of
Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Netherland and Switzerland in
this regards.

(II) Two Party System:- Sartori does not agree with previous explanations on bi-
party format, because it does not prevent existence of third party. Therefore, two-
partism must be assessed in terms of seats and not of electoral returns. In a nutshell,
two parties are in position to compete for absolute majority of seats. 97

(III) Pre-dominant Party System:- It is more-than-one party system in which

rotation does not occur, when the same party manages to win an absolute majority in
the Parliament, overtime.

(IV) Atomized Party:- It is fragmented leader by leader, with very small groups
revolving around each leader, generally members of Parliament. 98 In other words, it
enters the classification as a residual class to indicate a point at which we no longer
need an accurate counting. That is, as atomistic competition in economic (the
situation where no one firm/organization (has) any noticeable effect on any other
firm).99

Non-Competitive System
This model does not permit to contest elections, wherever legal ruling competition
ends and non-competition begins, wherever, contestants and opponents are deprived
of equal rights, impeded (to slow down), menaced (cause of serious harm),
frightened and eventually punished for daring to speak up. 100 He classified it into
following categories.

(1) Single Party System

(2) Hegemonic Party System

(1) Single Party System:- According to Sartori, “in this system only party exists,
and is allowed to exist”. This is so because of party vetoes both de-jure and de-facto.
He further categorized this system into three sub-systems.

96
Ibid., pp.138-139.
97
Sartori, n.7, pp.185-188
98
Ibid., p.75.
99
Ibid., pp.124-125.
100
Ibid., pp.217-218.

81
 I. One Party Totalitarian
II. Party Authoritarian
III. One Party Pragmatic

Table 2.3: Characteristics and Types of Single Party System

Criteria Totalitarian Authoritarian Pragmatic

Unipartism Unipartism Unipartism
Ideology Strong and Weaker and non- Irrelevant or very
Totalistic totalistic feeble
Coercion, High Medium Lower
Extraction
Mobilization
Policies v/s outer Destructive Exclusionary Absorptive
groups
Sub-group None Limited to non- Permitted or
independence political group tolerated
Arbitrariness Unbounded, Within predictable Bounded
unpredictable limits
Source: Giovanni Sartori, Parties and Party Systems, A Framework for Analysis, London: Cambridge
University, 1976.

First two subtypes are defined in Duverger’s and La Palombara and Weiner
classification. Third one, single party pragmatic, means that totalitarian and
authoritarian appear as different points of an ideological scale whose lowest point is
called pragmatism. More precisely, the totalitarian and authoritarian politics are
assumed to reflect different ideological intensities. 101

(2) Hegemonic Party System:- It simply refers to such a party system that neither
allowed for a formal, nor for a de-facto competition for power. Others parties are
permitted to exist but as second class, as ‘licensed parties’. Sartori further puts into
two sub-types.

I. Ideological Hegemonic Party

II. Pragmatic Hegemonic Party.102

He quoted the case of Poland and Mexican party system. So very briefly, Sartori
framework shows that how various types of party systems performed very
differently throughout the world.

101
Ibid., pp.221-223.
102
Ibid., pp.230-231.

82
Joseph La Palombara and Myron Weiner Party’s Configuration

Palombara and Weiner analysis on party system is based on competitive system and
non-competitive system.

Competitive System

In this system, various countries from different continents as Asia (India, Malaysia,
Ceylon, and Philippines), Africa (Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda) and Scandinavia etc.
are included for analysis. The competitive situation is based on internal
characteristics of the parties and on the way political power hold. For that, they
suggested ‘turnover’ and ‘hegemonic’ system for examination. 103

(1) Hegemonic System:- It is coalition dominated by the same/single party or one

party in exclusive control of government machinery over an extended period of time.
Palombara and Weiner referred the case of U.S. during the period of New Deal and
Fair Deal; Congress Party dominating Indian politics from independence in India
and post war politics dominated by Liberals in Japan etc.

(2) Turnover System:- In this model, there is relatively frequent changes in party
that governs or dominates the coalition. Palombara and Weiner quoted the example
of Canada.104 According to them, competitive system has second dimensions too, i.e.
ideological pragmatism. It is related to the central tendency of the parties. They
judge parties in terms of where they fall along this continuum (multi-party system).
The central tendency is further divided into four categories:

I. Hegemonic-Ideological

II. Hegemonic-Pragmatic

III. Turnover-Ideological

IV. Turnover-Pragmatic

Non-Competitive System

It is a one-party pattern hegemonic, but not turnover. It has following three types.

103
Palombara and Weiner, n.2, p.35.
104
Ibid.

83
(I) One-Party Authoritarian

(II) One-Party Pluralistic

(III) One-Party Totalitarian.105

These three types, have already been discussed in Durverger’s model. They are
related to political parties with the phenomenon of political development.

Jean Blondel’s Model of Party System

Jean Blondel highlights the fact that ‘more than one party system’ was prevailing
over thirty eight countries outside the Atlantic area at the end of the 1960, but these
cannot be grouped into a small number of types. The number, relative strength,
ideology and social structure generated variations, which influence party system. 106
Blondel suggests four types of party systems, as follow;

(1)Two Party System:- It is a balanced system between two major political parties.

(2) Two and Half Party System:- It is unbalanced system. In this model, third
party is much smaller than other two and first is substantially larger than the second.

(3) Multi-Party System with Dominant Party System:- It is much unbalanced

with four groups/political parties.

(4) Multi-Party System without Dominant Party System:- It is most unbalanced

system which will gradually disappear,106a except in very small and complex parties.
These kinds of the characteristics are of Atlantic party system.

Almond’s Aggregative Classification of Party System

The empiricists did not agree with the previous approaches of classification of the
party system. Gabriel A. Almond applied ‘input’ notion of the aggregative function
for criteria of party system divisions, which are categorized as below.

(1) Authoritarian Party System:- The absence of free party system and an open
electoral process, unusually reduced to the aggregative function to the formulation

105
Ibid., pp.36-40.
106
Blondel, n.23, p.154.
106a
Ibid., pp.164-170.

84
of policy alternative, within the authoritarian party and authoritative governmental
structures such as bureaucracy and army. 107

(2) Dominant Authoritarian Party System:- These are generally found in political
systems, where nationalist movement have been instrumental in attaining
emancipation. In emancipation period, nationalist party continues as a greatly
dominant party, which is opposed in elections by relatively small Left-wings or
traditionalists and particularistic movement.

(3) Competitive Two-Party System:- It is exemplified with UK and USA.

(4) Competitive Multi-Party System:- It is divided into two types; Working Multi-
Party System and Immobilist Multi Party System.

(I) Working Multi-Party System:- The relation between parties and interest of the
parties are more consensual, which make stable majority and opposition coalition
become possible. These types of party system exist in Scandinavian areas.

(II) Immobilist Multi-Party System:- The aggregation functions performed by

political parties are relatively narrow and coalitions are fragile, because of the
cultural differences between political movements, as in the case of Italy and
France.108

From above discussions, the party system is a network of relationships

through which political parties interact and influences the political process of the
country. The principal classification of parties have distinguished between cadre and
mass or later, catch-all parties, parties of representative and parties of integration,
constitutional or mainstream parties and revolutionary or anti-system ones and Left
wing parties and Right wing parties. On the one hand, the political parties are the
basic units of every party system, not only affect the functioning of the party system,
but also working of other structures including political system, on the other.

The number of parties or inter-reaction among parties are basic yardstick,

which determines it one party system, bi-party system or multi-party system, which

107
Gabriel A. Almond, “Introduction: A Functional Approach to Comparative Politics”, in G.A.
Almond and James S. Coleman (eds.), The Politics of Developing Areas, Princeton: Princeton
University, 1971, pp 40-41.
108
Ibid., pp.42-43.

85
may further be subdivided. Generally, it is well known truth that, in one party
system, ruling party effectively works as permanent government. The alternative
between two major parties is feature of bi-party system. A single major party holds
power for a long period, in dominant-party system. In multi-party system, no parties
have enough strength to rule alone. As result of this, system leads to coalition
government.

However, critics of political parties promote the idea of ‘party-less

democracy.’ The founding fathers of nation-state notably George Washington,
Thomas Jefferson; Conservative and Liberals as J.S. Mill etc. and leaders of mass
movement in India, Mahatma Gandhi, Jayaprakash Narayan and M.N. Roy are
inclined to express anti-party sentiments. They emphasize that political parties are
supposed to be inherently divisive of the organic unity of the national community. 109
The national interest used by one party to justify the suppression of rival parties.

But B.E. Brown rejected the idea of party-less democracy by saying that
“demands for party-less democracy are utopia. The political parties are the main
institutions through which responsibility of the rulers is enforced”. 110 However,
these initial reservations about political parties did not forestall their onward march
to becoming one of the major pillars of the nation-state along with bureaucracy,
because political parties are vital link between the civil society and state.111

In spite of this, whether, it is a bi-party or multi-party system, but value lies

in the fact that it encourages and effects the articulation and aggregation of the
public opinion into one and influences the actions and decisions of the state.112
Therefore, the political parties perform various functions. As follow;

 To organize the chaotic public will.

 To educate citizens to political responsibility (political education).

109
M.P. Singh and Rekha Sexena, India at the Polls: Parliamentary Elections in Federal Phase,
New Delhi: Orient Longman, 2003, p.268.
110
Bernard E. Brown, New Directions in Comparative Politics, Bombay: Asia Publisher, 1962,
p.24.
111
Singh and Saxena, n.109, p.269.
112
Ernest Barker, Britain and the British People, London: Oxford University, 1942, p.42.

86
 To the representative of the social interest groups, which help in bridging the
distance between individual and the great community.

 To represent the connecting links between government and political opinion.

(democracy are pyramids built from below).

 To select the leaders.

 Political parties are the broker of ideas, constantly clarifying, systematizing and
expanding the party’s doctrine. 113

 To organize voters into majorities behind platform and leaders.

 To work as broker, who arrange deal between different sections and finding
compromise that split the differences. 114

 To aggregate and articulate interests of the society.

 The political parties do political socialization and recruitment.115

 To make the government accountable.

 To provide alternative team to run government.

Above all, parties make democracy workable, successful and true

representative by selecting candidates for elections, organizing election campaigns;
maintaining party discipline, the formulating of policies and short term
programmes. The prime objective of party is to capture power and control
governmental machinery. Byrce, rightly says that;

Political parties are inevitable because

representative governments are not able to work
without them. The parties keep a nation’s mind
live, as the rise and full of the sweeping tide
116
freshens the water of long ocean inlets.

113
Sigmund Neumann, “Toward a Comparative Study of Political Parties”, in Eckstein and Apter,
n.65, pp.352-353.
114
J.A. Corry, Elements of Democratic Government, New York: Oxford University, 1947, pp.141-
142.
115
Almond, n.107, p.45.
116
James Byrce, Modern Democracy, London: Macmillan and Co., 1926, p.134.

87