The concept and typology of political parties and party systems

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Associate Professor at the Department of Foreign Languages Lviv Polytechnic National University

Public Relations and Regional Studies Lviv Polytechnic National University

The concept and typology of political parties and party systems

Kh.R. Martsikhiv Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences

V.Yu. Voitovych Student Faculty of International Relations

Анотація

Марціхів Х. Р., Войтович В. Ю. Поняття і типологія політичних партій та партійних систем. - Стаття.

Для сучасних держав роль політичних партій в організації державної влади є надзвичайно важливою темою, оскільки вони є основою належного функціонування якісної системи державного управління. Вони відіграють важливу роль у навчанні та просуванні кадрів у державній політиці, для чого вони є специфічним соціальним ліфтом. Тому вирішення проблем функціонування політичних партій в організації державної влади є, на нашу думку, доцільним питанням для тих країн, які будують демократію. Ретельне вивчення особливостей політичних партій є надзвичайно важливим для розуміння загальних тенденцій політичного процесу. Тому у статті розглянуто питання, пов'язані з визначенням сутності поняття «політична партія», також досліджено, що таке партійна система, її типологія та чинники, що впливають на її встановлення. Проаналізовано процес становлення теорії політичних партій та партійних систем. З'ясовано, що найуживанішим критерієм класифікації партійних систем є кількість партій, які змагаються, що вимірюється показником ефективної кількості партій. Визначено характеристики сучасних політичних партій, їхні функції в політичному процесі. Розглянуто проблеми функціонування політичних партій, оскільки існування та діяльність політичних партій більшості сучасних держав є загальновизнаною нормою та трактується як невід'ємний атрибут демократичного способу здійснення державного управління. Зроблено висновок, що все частіше політичні партії беруть участь у процесі прийняття рішень на всіх рівнях. Встановлено, що специфікою реалізації державної політики та метою соціального партнерства у світовій практиці є партнерство політичних партій та органів державної влади. Підтверджено, що співпраця державних установ та політичних партій для вирішення конкретних питань у світлі громадської думки є звичайною практикою демократичного політичного процесу.

Ключові слова: типи партійних систем, політичні партії, державна політика, державне управління, критерії партій.

Summary

Martsikhiv Kh. R., Voitovych V. Yu. The concept and typology of political parties and party systems. - Article.

The functioning of political parties in society is characterized. The study of this institution, a thorough study of the problems associated with it, is revealed. In modern conditions, the role of a political party in the organization of state power is considered as an extremely important topic for the countries of the post-communist camp, including Ukraine. Solving the problems of political structuring and establishing the institution of a parliamentary majority in political practice which led to a change in the role and social status of political parties, primarily their participation in shaping and identifying political will of citizens and implementing effective mechanisms of political accountability of parliament and government is analyzed. Political parties are investigated as the basis for the proper functioning of a quality system of public administration. A key role of political parties in training and promotion in public policy, for which they are a specific social elevator, is identified. The parties controlling mechanism of nominating their candidates in the elections is characterized. Parties' influence on the political views and orientations of people, especially young people is analyzed. Parties' function of political socialization of citizens is defined. The article considers issues related to the definition of the essence of the concept of a political party, as well as examines what is a party system, its typology and the factors influencing its establishment. The process of formation of the theory of political parties and party systems is analyzed. It has been found that the most common criterion for classifying party systems is the number of competing parties, as measured by the effective number of parties. The characteristics of modern political parties, their functions in the political process are determined. The influence of the party system on the formation of the principles of public administration in democratic and transitional societies is analyzed. The problems of functioning of political parties are considered, as the existence and activity of political parties of most modern states is a generally accepted norm and is interpreted as an integral attribute of a democratic way of public administration.

It is concluded that more and more often political parties are involved in the decision-making process at all levels. The specifics of the implementation of state policy and the purpose of social partnership in world practice are the partnership of political parties and public authorities. The cooperation of government institutions and political parties to address specific issues in the light of public opinion is a common practice in a democratic political process.

Key words: types of party systems, political parties, public policy, public administration, party criteria.

Problem setting. For modern states, the role of political parties in the organization of state power is an extremely important topic, as they are the basis for the proper functioning of a quality system public administration system. They play a major role in training and promoting personnel in public policy, for which they are a specific social elevator. Therefore, addressing the problems of the functioning of political parties in the organization of state power is, in our opinion, an appropriate issue for those countries that are building democracy.

The analysis of current research work and publications. The problem of functioning of political parties in the electoral process is not new to domestic and foreign jurisprudence, and, given its complexity and multifaceted, covered in the works of many domestic and foreign representatives of historical, general and branch legal sciences, in particular: M. Duverger, V. Zhuravsky, V. Kafarsky, O. Kovalchuk, V. Lapayeva, M. Primush, A. Romanyuk, J. Sartori, V. Shapoval, Y. Shvedy, O. Shumeldy, Y. Yudin and others. The role and place of political parties in the political system of society was thoroughly considered by one of the most influential political scientists of our time, the French theorist M. Duverger.It was in their works that A. Romanyuk, Y. Shveda, and P. Shlyakhtun analyzed in detail and thoroughly the various time stages and peculiarities of the formation of domestic parties and the relations between them. At the same time, there is a certain shortage of work that would be based on a systematic approach to analyzing the evolution of the party system, considering it from the perspective of interaction and interdependence of three components: political parties, relations between them and the conditions (institutional, political, social) of their functioning.

The purpose of this article is to study the role of political parties in the system of state power, to identify and eliminate obstacles to the quality functioning of political parties in Ukraine, able to participate constructively in the development and implementation of public policy.

The basis of this study is the theoretical and empirical developments of political science on the problem of typology of party systems. The goal will be achieved by performing the following tasks: to analyze the definition of political parties and party systems, and qualitative set out the typology of these concepts.

Basic part of research. In a society with diverse structured interests, there is a need for stable channels of communication between civil society and government institutions. These channels are formed through the activities of pressure groups, lobbies, and especially political parties.

In most modern states, the existence and activity of political parties is a generally accepted norm, interpreted as an integral attribute of a democratic way of exercising power. Democracy without political parties is incapable. The effectiveness of democratic institutions and the political stability of society largely depend on the type of party system established in the country, its consistency with socio-cultural and economic conditions, the political tradition of the people (Шведа, 2005, с. 8).

The famous French researcher of political parties M. Duverger rightly argued that the relationship between parties and government depends largely on the parties themselves, their strength, genesis, structure, autonomy, intra-party democracy, type of leadership, etc.

Despite the large number of existing definitions political parties, the classic definition is proposed in 1966 by M. Weiner and J. La Palombara, according to which the party is: 1) “a viable organization, i.e., the average length of political life which is longer than the duration the life of its leadership; 2) a local, well-organized and viable organization that maintains regular and diverse contacts with other organizations in the country; 3) a firm desire of state and local leaders to take power and exercise power, not just influence it; 4) the desire to gain the support of the people through elections or in some other way”. Based on this definition, it can be argued that Ukrainian political parties do not meet these criteria.

The structure of a political party consists of the following elements: 1) party core (party leaders, activists); 2) ordinary members of the party; 3) supporters of the party. political party power democratic

American political scientist J. Lapalombara identifies four features of political parties:

any party is a carrier of ideology or reflects a specific orientation, vision of the world and man;

it is a relatively long time to unite people; 3) each party seeks to secure the support of the people - from voting for it to active membership; 4) the purpose of the party - the conquest and exercise of power (Романюк, 2005, с. 37).

In fact, Social function is an important characteristic of parties. It reveals the content of party activities and the place of parties in the political system. Thus, the blocks of the greatest activity of political parties include: activities aimed at organizing political competitions in general and the election process in particular; participation of parties in the establishment of public administration bodies, in the development and implementation of political courses of the state; representative and socializing activities aimed at involving large sections of the population in policy and control over the activities of government agencies in the interests of certain groups (Колодій, 2003, с. 206).

According to R. Michels, one of the founders of the theory of political parties the negative features of a political party include, in particular,partology - the tendency to oligarchize its structure and activities. This tendency follows from the very nature of politics - the unity and struggle of common and partial interests. Its essence is that in the party, as in any other large organization, power is gradually concentrated in the hands of leaders, there is a gap and opposition of interests of leaders and ordinary members, there is a focus on intermediate rather than ultimate goals (Шляхтун, 2002, с. 280).

The classification of parties can be carried out primarily by their organizational status, according to which modern parties are divided into personnel, mass and electoral parties. According to their place and role in the political system, they are ruling, opposition and protest parties, and in non- democratic systems they are also inseparably dominant and illegal. Depending on the social base on which the parties are formed and whose interests they express, they are divided into national (exist mainly in the period of national movements, when broad national coalitions are formed), class (and parties of other social groups), intergroup and interclass, which express the interests of a particular conglomerate of stakeholders.

In accordance with what was the direct basis for the emergence of parties (the idea, the figure of the leader, the need to organize elections) distinguish ideological parties, the program of which to some extent is justified theoretically; pragmatic or electoral parties; charismatic-leading parties, in the formation and operation of which the main role is played by the personality of the leader.

The criteria for classifying parties are also: the relationship between party leadership and the masses, its relationship with the direction of social progress), methods of political struggle and the attitude of political rivals. These features determine the division of parties into democratic and authoritarian, revolutionary and reactionary, radical, liberal and conservative, as well as (as the most generalized division of parties according to their political courses) into “left”, centrist and “right”. The division of political parties, movements and other associations into “left”, centrist and “right”, which is common in the modern world, reflects the alignment of political forces in relation to the current state of affairs (status quo); indicates the commitment of parties to innovative (reformist or revolutionary) or, conversely, to conservation (conservative) or restoration (reactionary) political activity; characterizes their tactics, especially the choice of methods of political action (radical or moderate) and attitudes toward political rivals; characterizes the party's commitment to a particular ideology (Колодій, 2003, с. 210).

The right includes parties that focus on achieving economic efficiency by stimulating the “free game” of market participants with minimal state intervention in the economy, a more economical state, which can be achieved by regulating social benefits and assistance, limiting the number of social assistance recipients only the weakest and most disadvantaged groups). Right-wing parties are also suspicious of any alternative forms of collective governance, processes in reducing social inequality through the expansion of social programs. In power, the left adheres to models of collective selfgovernment in production and participatory democracy. The left wing traditionally includes the Social Democratic and Moderate Communist parties.

The center includes parties whose market and state regulatory preferences are not clearly defined or compromised. In the West, this spectrum of political space is most often occupied by liberals.

Along with a similar division in political science, there is the idea of the extreme left and extreme right, which include parties with special radical programs. Western European tradition refers to the extreme left flank of radicals, communists and anarchists. The far right is usually understood as nationalists and religious fundamentalists.

Thus, the types of political parties that exist in a given country are determined by the historical and socio-cultural conditions of political development, the historical experience of the people (Ще- дрова та Барановський 2011, с. 151).

The party system plays an important role in the implementation of politics, the formation and functioning of the political system. The stability and efficiency of the political system, first of all state institutions, the type of political regime, the mechanism and degree of development of democracy largely depend on its type (Шляхтун, 2002, с. 286).

Thus, the concept of “party system” can be defined as: the configuration of political parties that either compete or cooperate on the basis of stable views, subject to the process of institutionalization, determine the mutual relations between them both in the electoral and parliamentary arena (Шведа, 2004, с. 35).

An important influence on the configuration of the party system is exerted by the type of existing political regime and traditions in the state. However, as recognized by most researchers of the theory of party systems, the main factor that determines the type of party system is the dominant sociopolitical divisions in this society. The existence in the state of different, equally strong social conflicts that divide society along these lines of demarcation and are the social basis for the formation of a multiparty political system.

Quantitative criterion-based typology is the simplest and most common classification of party systems. However, the basis for classification cannot be the absolute (total) number of political parties operating in a given state. The basic condition for the calculation of parties is their potential ability to gain and participate in the exercise of power or “leadership potential”. Only with this in mind it is possible to approach the classification of existing types of party systems on the basis of a quantitative criterion.

The most common division of party systems is the division on the basis of qualitative criteria. One of these is the division into competitive systems and those that restrict or prevent competition. Party competition is an extremely important factor in the party system, which affects the nature of the party's implementation of its functions, the relationship between political parties. Very often a competitive system is identified with democracy, and a non-competitive system is identified with a lack of democracy. Most often, examples of a non-competitive party system are one-party states. Therefore, within the non-competitive type of party systems, one-party systems of non-democratic type (fascist, communist) and non-competitive systems of postcolonial states are distinguished. The system of party competition is based on the right to establish and operate political parties and is manifested in competitive elections and competitive leadership. As for the competitiveness of elections, this means that parties compete for the votes of voters. Depending on the existing conditions and the nature of the political system, this struggle acquires the features of the struggle of all against all or two or three blocs among themselves. A prerequisite for the existence of competition is the presence of at least two competing groups (Обушний, 2006, с. 259).

Democracies usually have a large number of registered political parties, but a minority of them has an influence on the development of state courses. These influential political parties, which take a real part in the struggle for power, the formation of governments, determine the type of party system that has developed in this country. Different typologies of political systems are proposed in political science. According to E. Vyatra, an important criterion for classifying party systems is the possibility or impossibility of changing one ruling party or coalition to another. On this basis, party systems are divided into alternative and non-alternative. The latter are established in countries with undemocratic regimes and are characterized by the absence of a real power struggle between political parties, which leads to the constant stay in power of one party. Non-alternative party systems are divided into: one-party, fictitious party (limited multi-party), hegemonic.

One-party system is inherent in totalitarian regimes (fascist and communist) and is characterized by: 1) unlimited rule of one party in fact, its structures replace it; 2) resolutions of the central bodies of the party serve as a surrogate for laws, are binding on the whole society, and party leaders are the first persons in the state; 3) the creation and operation of other parties is prohibited. A one-party system in the literal sense of the word is a system in which even the nominal existence of other parties is impossible. This type functioned in 20-40 years in fascist Italy, in 30-40 years in Hitler's Germany, in 20-80 years in the USSR and some other countries of the socialist camp (China, Vietnam, Romania). Today, some countries are in the process of eliminating the totalitarian legacy through the establishment of a system of fragmented multiparty system, as well as a system of one-party domination (China, Vietnam, some Central Asian countries, Belarus). One-party rule persists in Cuba, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and some "third world" countries (Iraq, Libya) Pinochet, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and other Latin American countries). It is characterized by the following features: 1) there are several parties in the country that formally continue to operate, but their scope of activity is very limited; 2) most political parties are dissolved; only the most loyal to the government remain, who play the role of satellites of the authoritarian elite and do not fight for power. They are forbidden to act in opposition and fight for power, they lose their basic functions, and the state is ruled by non-partisan forces.

The essence of the hegemonic system is to preserve (or restore) multipartyism as a screen for an authoritarian regime. Instead, one party is always in power, and all others are artificially removed from power by political manipulation. Such a system existed in Mexico, where during 1934-1997 power was in the hands of the Institutional Revolutionary Party. The party systems of those countries of Eastern Europe (till 1989) also belonged to hegemonic.), where formally there were several parties (Bulgaria, GDR, Poland), but they all played the role of satellites of the Communist Party.

Elements of civic life have survived in these countries, but the political mechanism has been very similar to that of one-party systems. At the present stage of development, alternative multi-party systems are being formed in these countries.

Alternative party systems are characterized by the presence of several competing parties in the country, each of which always has the opportunity to come to power as a result of winning elections. There are several types of alternative systems: with a dominant party; bipartisan; two- block; polarized and atomized.

The system with the dominant party looks like a hegemonic system, because if there are several political parties, one is in power for a long time. However, in this case, the inability of other parties to gain power is not due to artificial restrictions or harassment before and during elections, but to the low popularity of these parties, which is inversely related to the high level of voter confidence in the ruling party. Such a party system dominated during the second half of the twentieth century in Japan and is associated with the rule of the Liberal Democratic Party there. A typical example is India and Spain, where about 250 political parties and organizations are officially registered, eight are represented in parliament, and the government is formed by the winning Socialist Party.

Bipartisan system is one of the easiest and most effective for voters. Despite the existence of many political parties in the country, there are only two in power, replacing each other. The bipartisan system is characterized by the following features: 1) a democratic political regime; 2) the presence of an influential opposition party that was defeated during the elections; 3) the composition of the government is formed of one party that won the election; 4) is characterized by the presence of many political parties, but only two of them have a priority influence on the political system of the country. Such a system operates in the United States (Republican and Democratic parties), Great Britain (Labor and Conservative parties). Such party systems are characterized by age-old traditions of political struggle, and the electoral legislation of these countries contributes to the existence of such a system (more often - two) parties. This system involves the formation of a government by two political forces. An example is Germany (CDU / CSU / VDP bloc - SPD bloc / Green Party). It should be noted that during the 60's - first half of the 90's of the twentieth century. Germany represented a rather peculiar tripartite system, in which the fate of the government was often determined by a “third”, relatively small FDP party, which by joining one of the giant parties (SPD or CDU / CSU, whose bloc has long been associated with voters with one political force) tilted the scales in her favor.

In many countries of the world in one way or another there is a system of multiparty fragmentation, which the Italian political scientist G. Sartori divides into polarized and atomized. In his opinion, the polarized party system is characterized by the following features: 1) the presence in the country of many political parties that do not have an absolute majority and do not form stable coalitions; 2) the sharpness of ideological distinctions between them; 3) presence among non-systemic political parties; 4) formation of the government by centrist parties; 5) the presence of bilateral (bipolar) destructive opposition; 6) democratic political regime. Examples of countries with a polarized system in different years were France and Italy. The stability and effectiveness of the system of polarized pluralism is proportional to the stability and strength of the coalition of centrist forces.

The atomized party system is characterized by the following features: 1) there are many weak, unpopular parties fighting for their survival; 2) governments are formed on a non-partisan basis or on the basis of a broad coalition; 3) the existence of non-systemic political parties.

On the one hand, the system of multiparty fragmentation allows better representation of the interests of different social groups, as the government is formed by representatives of several political parties, but such governments are unstable and therefore not always can ensure political and economic stability in the country. Therefore, the legislation of many democracies deliberately tries to limit the number of political parties represented in parliament in order to structure the party system, imposing strict financial and procedural requirements on them. An example is the barrier of a few percent of the vote that parties must overcome in a parliamentary election. However, it cannot be said that such steps by the state threaten multiparty system and democracy in general. The practice of democracies shows that political parties are gaining more and more influence in the political system and remain perhaps the most important “link” between civil society and the state.

Conclusions

It is the type of political parties in the country to some extent depends on state policy. Every year, these associations become more important. However, the level of public trust in them is not increasing. Scientific interest in political parties is not waning, but this interest is uneven, with relatively little attention to the study of party systems

The most common criterion for classifying party systems is the number of competing parties, as measured by the effective number of parties. Developing the classification of party systems, scientists made their own, minor, modifications to existing typologies. In particular, the level of theoretical interest in the study of party systems remains limited, with almost no significant changes since the published work of J. Sartori. Thus, the evolution of the criteria for classifying party systems shows the efforts of scientists to minimize the statics of typologies, complementing and developing existing ones, providing the dynamics of the theory of parties and party systems.

Prospects for further research. The political system is the necessary mechanism by which the sovereignty of the people are ensured. In real political practice, often individual political parties, political leaders have appropriated and are assigning the functions of popular representation, resulting in the alienation of political power from those to whom power should rightfully belong.

Література

1. Гелей С.Д. Політологія : навч посіб. Київ : Знання, 2008.

2. Дзюбко І.С., Левківський К.М., Андрущенко В.П. та ін. Політологія : підручник. Київ : Вища школа, 2000.

3. Колодій А., Климанська Л., Космина Я., Харченко В., 2003. Політологія. Кн. перша: Політика і суспільство. Кн. друга: Держава і політик. Київ : Ельга, Ніка-Центр.

4. Обушний М.І. Партологія : навч. посіб. Київ : Арістей, 2006.

5. Романюк А. Партії та електоральна політика. Львів : ЦПД - «Астролябія», 2005.

6. Шведа Ю. Політичні партії : енциклопедичний словник. Львів : «Астролябія», 2005.

7. Шведа Ю. Теорія політичних партій та партійних систем : навчальний посібник. Львів : «Астролябія», 2004.

8. Шляхтун П.П. Політологія (теорія та історія політичної науки): підручник. Київ : Центр учбової літератури, 2002.

9. Щедрова Г.П., Барановський Ф.В., Карчевська О.В. та ін. Політологія : навчальний посібник. Луганськ : Вид-во СНУ ім. В. Даля, 2011.

References

1. Helei S.D., 2008. Politolohiia: Navch posib.[Political Science: Textbook]. Kyiv: Znannia. [in Ukrainian].

2. Dziubko I.S., Levkivskyi K.M., Andrushchenko V.P. ta in., 2000 Politolohiia: Pidruchnyk. [ Political Science: Textbook]. Kyiv: Vyshcha shkola. [in Ukrainian].

3. Kolodii A., Klymanska L., Kosmyna Ya., Kharchenko V., 2003.Politolohiia. Kn.persha: Polityka i suspilstvo. Kn. druha: Derzhava i polityk. [Book One: Politics and Society. Book second: State and politics]. Kyiv: Elha, Nika-Tsentr. [in Ukrainian].

4. Obushnyi M. I.,2006. Partolohiia : navch. posib.[Partology: Textbook]. Kyiv: Aristei. [in Ukrainian].

5. Romaniuk A., 2005. Partii ta elektoralna polityka. [Parties and electoral policy]. Lviv: TsPD - «Astroliabiia».[in Ukrainian].

6. Shveda Yu., 2005. Politychni partii: entsyklopedychnyi slovnyk. [Political parties: an encyclopedic dictionary]. Lviv: «Astroliabiia».[in Ukrainian].

7. Shveda Yu., 2004. Teoriia politychnykh partii ta partiinykh system : navchalnyi posibnyk. [Theory of political parties and party systems: a textbook] Lviv: «Astroliabiia». [in Ukrainian].

8. Shliakhtun P. P., 2002. Politolohiia (teoriia ta istoriia politychnoi nauky): pidruchnyk.[ Political science (theory and history of political science):textbook] Kyiv: Tsentr uchbovoi literatury. [in Ukrainian].

9. Shchedrova H. P., Baranovskyi F. V., Karchevska O. V., Mazur O. H., Mykhailovskaia O. H., Novakova O. V., Pashyna N. P., Probyiholova N. V., 2011. Politolohiia: Navchalnyi posibnyk.[Political Science: Textbook]. Luhansk: Vyd-voSNUIm. V.Dalia. [in Ukrainian].

Размещено на Allbest.ru