This document discusses key variables in classifying party systems: the extent parties penetrate society, party ideologies, and parties' stance on the regime's legitimacy. It also discusses the number of parties and influential theorists like Sartori who classify systems by fragmentation (number of parties) and ideological polarization. Examples are given of moderate, polarized, and one/two party systems and how party membership, volatility, and cartel parties impact classifications.

1. VARIABLES IN THE CLASSIFICATION
OF PARTY SYSTEM
Presented by:
1) Lis
2) Leanne
3) Calum
4) John
1

2. VARIABLES IN THE CLASSIFICATION
OF PARTY SYSTEM
1) The Extent to which parties penetrate society
2) The Ideologies of the parties
3) The stance of the parties towards the legitimacy of
the regime
4) The number of parties in the system
2

3. The Extent to which parties
penetrate society
1) Venezuela and México have similar political systems
2) Are not usually considered similar political systems
3) The government of Nazi Germany was fascist, totalitarian
regimes.
4) the government Of United States it is a constitution based
Federal Republic; strong Democratic tradition
Lis Davies 3

4. The Ideologies of the parties
Klaus von Beyme has identifies nine party family
ideologies:
Liberal Radical or Socialist or Labour
Communist Conservative
Agrarian Regional or ethnic
Christian Democratic
Ecologist
Extreme Right
4

5. Giovanni Sartori
Italian political scientist
Party systems classified by two
dimensions fragmentation (the number of parties)
The ideological distance between
the parties, called polarisation

6. Moderate country
•Two party or multi-party system the
distribution of party power looks like a normal
curve with a slight skew
•Most of the country is moderate or moderate
leaning liberal or conservative
•Britain, Sweden and New Zealand

7. Polarized country
•The curve becomes one with two main humps
•Power is at the far political left and right
•Weimar Republic in 1930s

8. Vicious circle of
conceptualisation
General theory to be constructed
upon preliminary work of many
profound studies but studies are only
profound if there already exists a
general theory.

9. Fragmentation and polarisation
All systems defined by these two criteria
according to the paradigm set by Sartori
Polarisation determined by
centrifugal/centripetal tendencies.

10. Most studies conducted in nations
that conform to highest standards of
relevance/influence
such as sizable population,
demographic diversity and
remarkable properties
Niche for new parties varies
depending on low thresholds of
representation (Sweden) versus
higher ones (UK)

11. New Labour is a good example of
centripetal activity
Never before in history had the
general public felt that there was so
little to choose between. 1997-2005
Between 1987 and 1999 parties
converge by 50 percent according to
public opinion.

12. Disinterest discourages
fragmentation
From 1980 to 2000 Norway and the
UK lose half of parties’ members with
Germany sustaining a 30 percent loss
despite unification and Poland
recording a meagre one percentage
point of the population engaged as a
party member.

13. One/Two Party System
One party system need simply be one
where a single party has a monopoly on
any realistic hope of being included in
government.
Two party system is defined as one where
no party has the potential to interfere,
disrupt or prevent the two major parties
from governing independently

14. UK as a multiparty system (>2
parties)
In addition to Liberal Democrat
influence on Labour and
Conservative chances of victory,
regional parties in Scotland, Wales
and Northern Ireland further
fragment the major parties.

15. Party System Volatility
Polarisation a sign of a healthy
democracy but also heralds
systematic instability

16. Low fragmentation with high
polarisation
British political spectrum of Labour
versus Tories pre New Labour

17. High fragmentation with high
polarisation
Belgian governmental crisis of
regional differences

18. Katz’s and Mair’s cartel party
thesis
Parties run by administrations with
little concern for legitimately
representing voters and just to
collaborate with other major parties
to preclude the development of new
threats to their sphere of influence.