1 / 11

Understanding Stability in Multiparty Systems: Analyzing Factors Beyond Number of Parties

This article explores the complexities of multiparty systems, examining the assumption that a higher number of political parties inherently leads to instability. While historical examples like Weimar Germany and the 3rd Republic of France illustrate potential pitfalls, contemporary evidence reveals that many nations with multiparty systems maintain stable governments. Factors such as political polarization and the methods of government formation critically influence stability. The role of heads of state, party discipline, and institutional frameworks are analyzed to understand how some countries effectively navigate multiparty challenges.

dustin-flowers
Télécharger la présentation

Understanding Stability in Multiparty Systems: Analyzing Factors Beyond Number of Parties

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Party systems: What difference does the number and kind of parties make?

  2. Stereotypes Multiparty systems are inherently unstable: • The more parties you have the greater likelihood that either • Cabinets will be short-lived Or • Regimes themselves will be susceptible to collapse (regime instability) instability

  3. Problem: is this valid? Available evidence suggests that is not: • The governments and regimes of most countries with multiparty systems are relatively stable • But some countries have not • Problem: what accounts for the difference?

  4. Polarized pluralism • Moderate v. polarized pluralism (Sartori) • Historically, certain countries with a large number of parties have suffered from chronic cabinet and sometimes regime instability: • Weimar Germany (1918-33) • 3rd Republic France (1875-1940) • Spain, 2nd Republic, 1931-1936 • 4th Republic France (1946-1958) • Italy, 1rst Republic (1945-1993)

  5. Explanations • All had not only a large number of parties, but were sharply polarized as well • Three of these had rather fluid, poorly disciplined parties • Spain, 2nd Republic • France, 3rd and 4th Republics • Only two, Weimar Germany and 2nd Rep Spain suffered regime collapse • Many Italian specialists doubt that Italy, despite frequent cabinet changes, was unstable

  6. Explaining stability • Depends on more than number of parties • Countries with multiparty systems find ways to cope: • Duty of heads of state (presidents or monarchs) to ensure that there is a government • Formal procedures • Use of formateurs and informateurs:

  7. Forming governments • Sweden and Scandinavia – role of parties themselves • Germany • Getting a government in the Netherlands • Role of the monarch • Informateurs • Formateurs • Getting a government in Belgium…

  8. The Federal Republic of Germany 1957-1983: SPD FPDCDU/CSU _______________________________ 1983-1989: G SPD FDP CDU/CSU _______________________________ 1990-present PDSG SPD CDU/CSU FDP __________________________________

  9. Sweden pre-1990: Left SDCentre Liberal Conservative __________________________________ From the 1990s: Left SDCentreLib Cons New Democ. ___________________________________

  10. Netherlands: Pre-2000 SP GL PvdA D66 CDA VVD CU SGP __________________________________

  11. Netherlands: from 2002 2002 SP GLPvdA D66CDA VVD LPF CU SGP __________________________________ 2008 PvdD SP GLPvdA D66CDA VVD TON PVV CU SGP _______________________________________

More Related