The BAPS, Self Learning Materials follows the UGC prescribed State Model

Syllabus under Choice Based Credit System (CBCS). This course material is
designed and developed by Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU),
New Delhi and K.K Handiqui Open University.
 Bachelor of Arts
POLITICAL SCIENCES (BAPS)

BAPS-8
Political Processes and Institutions in
Comparative Perspective

Block-2
ELECTION & PARTY SYSTEM

UNIT-3 DEFINITION AND PROCEDURES: TYPES OF

ELECTION SYSTEM (FIRST PAST THE POST,
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION, MIXED
REPRESENTATION)
UNIT-4 PARTY SYSTEMS: EVOLUTION, THEORIES AND
TYPES
UNIT-3 DEFINITION AND PROCEDURES: TYPES OF
ELECTION SYSTEM (FIRST PAST THE
POST, PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION,
MIXED REPRESENTATION)

Structure
3.1 Objectives
3.2 Introduction
3.3 Defining an Electoral System
3.4 Types of Election System
3.4.1 Plurality System
3.4.2 Majority System
3.4.3 Proportional Representation System
3.4.4 Mixed Representation System
3.5 Different Electoral System: An Assessment
3.5.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Plurality and Majority System
3.5.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Proportional Representation
System
3.5.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Mixed Representation System
3.6 Summary
3.7 Exercise
3.8 Reference

3.1 OBJECTIVES
Elections are hallmark of democratic systems. This unit examines the election
systems that are in practice across the world. After going through this unit, you would
be able to:
 Explain the meaning of election system
 Describe and explain different types of election system
 Compare different election systems that are practiced in the world.
 Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different election system
 Briefly point out Proportional Representation System

3.2 INTRODUCTION
Election is the process by which people choose, by voting representatives to act on
their behalf, to represent them in a legislative body. It may be parliament or even a
1
local body. This process of choice by elections is now almost inseparable from
representative democracy.

In the twentieth century, elections have come to base on the principle of universal
suffrage; one person one vote and one vote one value; extensive popular participation;
secret ballot; electoral fairness, competition and choice. Elections, when they are
conducted on the basis of these principles, are the central mechanism through which
the project of representative democracy can be realized. They perform the functions
of choosing representatives, making government, ensuring governmental
accountability and public representation, providing education to the public and
shaping public opinion, facilitating legitimacy for the government, influencing public
policy and political parties and creating a dialogue between voters and political
parties. Indeed, Elections are the most significant means of realizing the aspirations of
the people in a democracy. These enable every adult citizen of the country to
participate in the process of the government formation.

3.3 DEFINING AN ELECTORAL SYSTEM

Broadly speaking, an electoral system refers to the set of rules that regulates the
mechanics of elections. These rules deal with all aspects of elections such as right to
vote; right to contest elections; electoral machinery for conducting elections; nature
of voting; structure of the ballot; election campaign; expenditure and financing,
district magnitude; electoral threshold; date of voting; fairness in counting votes;
resolution of electoral disputes and so on. In this respect, an electoral system is a
broader concept. In a technical sense, an electoral system refers to legal mechanism
that converts votes into seats. Electoral systems are ‘rule for soliciting citizens’
preferences over parties and candidates and for converting those votes in to
representation’ (Carey, 2018 p.85)

An Electoral System consists of three components: Structure of the ballot, Electoral

formula and Districting and district magnitude. Ballot Structure signifies the number
of votes a voter can cast or the number of choices a voter can express. Ballots can be
categorical, permitting a voter to vote for only one candidate and therefore cast a
single vote only or dividual permitting a voter to divide votes among different
political parties or candidates. Ballot can also be ordinal allowing voters to rank order
the candidates against the list of candidates in the electoral district.

Electoral formula refers to a particular mechanism for converting votes into seats. In
other words, it represents the way votes are translated into seats. Generally, there are
three such mechanisms for converting votes into seats; those are Plurality,
Majoritarian and Proportional system.

2
Districting refers to the process of dividing the territory into discrete constituencies or
electoral districts; from which voters elect their representative or representatives to
the legislature. Electoral district is referred as constituency in India and Britain.
District Magnitude refers to the number of seats that are to be filled from each
electoral district or constituency. In other words, it represents the number of
candidates who are to be elected from any electoral district. It varies from single
member district to multimember district system (allowing election of more than one
candidate).

3.4 TYPES OF ELECTION SYSTEM

Electoral Systems or Election Systems that are currently in use vary across the globe.
There are many ways on the basis of which, electoral system can be classified.
Classifying them on the basis of Structure of the ballot, electoral formula and district
magnitude; we get four broad categories: Plurality System, Majority System,
Proportional Representation and Mixed -member Representation. Further, different
types of systems fall within each of these types.

3.4.1 Plurality System (First-past-the-post system)

Plurality System is one of the oldest and most prevalent systems of representation. It
is often referred as First Past the Post System. It implies that the winner is the
candidate who receives the maximum number of votes. Suppose, if there are two
candidates for one seat and between them one is supposed to be elected for the same
seat, then there will be no problem in deciding the winner. But, when there are more
than two candidates in a single member constituency and the voter is required to vote
for one candidate only, then the system of First Past the Post is applied to decide the
winner. So, it implies that any candidates obtaining the largest number of votes will
be declared. Examples are Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha election in India. It is also
used in Philippines and Venezuela and also for the members of lower houses of the
legislature of Canada, United Kingdom and United States.

In this system, there are single member constituencies and voters have a single vote
which they cast for candidates rather than political parties. This system is based on
the principle that the candidate with the most votes wins, irrespective of the
percentage of votes this constitutes. For instance, in an election, in which four
candidates have received 33, 30, 27 and 20 per cent of votes respectively, the winner
is the candidates who received 33 per cent of the vote. As the number of candidates
increases, the minimum number of votes that may be sufficient for winning election
decreases. This method is called the first-past-the-post system because it resembles a
race in which one whoever reaches the victory post first is declared the winner
irrespective of the time taken by him.

3
3.4.2 Majority System
In order to ensure that the candidate who is declared as elected has secured more than
fifty percent votes; some methods have been used in this regard. The majority system
with its two variants: two round system (2RS) and alternative veto system-ensures
that the winning candidate has obtained absolute majority in the votes casted, that is
fifty per cent plus one more vote.

In the two-round system, two rounds of voting take place depending on whether the
formula of an absolute majority is achieved on the first round. If an absolute majority
is obtained by a particular candidate in the very first round of voting, he or she is
declared winner. But, if no candidate secures an absolute majority in the first round,
all candidates below the top two are excluded from the competition and then a second
round of voting is held between the top two candidates of whom one will secure an
absolute majority of votes. In this system, there are single member constituencies and
voters vote for candidates rather than political parties. Although voters who have to
vote for a single candidate, may switch from one party at first round to a different one
at the second, they cannot divide their vote in any one round ( Gallagher &
Mitchell,2018).In this respect, two round system falls within the category of
categorical ballot or run-off system. It is employed in France, Iran, Mali and Vietnam.
In alternative veto system, there are single member constituencies and is based on
preferential voting, meaning that voters rank all candidates in order of preference
rather than voting for just one in a particular constituency. They mark 1 beside their
first choice, 2 beside their second choice, and 3 beside their third choice and so on.
Votes are counted on the basis of first preferences and winning candidates requires to
secure an absolute majority. If no candidate secures a majority of the voters’ first
preferences, the last placed candidate is excluded and his or her votes are
redistributed to the remaining candidates according to the second preferences. This
process of eliminating the bottom candidate and redistributing his or her votes to the
remaining candidates continues until one candidate secures an absolute majority (at
least 50 percent plus one of the votes cast) to become the winner. In this system,
structure of the ballot is ordinal and voters vote for candidates rather than for parties.
It is known as preferential voting system in Australia and as Instant run-off voting
(IRV) in United States.

3.4.3 Proportional Representation

The system of Proportional Representation was invented in the 19th century. It was
adopted by European democracies about the end of the century or in the early decades
of the 20th century (the United Kingdom and France being the main exception). It
also became much preferred electoral system for many national parliamentary
elections.

Proportional Representation is based on the principle that the percentage of seats for
each party should be in direct proportion to its percentage vote share secured in the

4
national election. It means that the share of seats in legislature for each party is more
or less equal to its vote share. In a purely proportional system, a party, for instance,
that secures 30 percent of the national vote receives 30 percent of the seats in the
legislature.

The major reason, many countries have adopted Proportional Representation, is as the
term indicates, to avoid the disproportionalities inherent in majoritarian system and to
achieve a relatively high degree of proportionality between votes cast and seats won.
However, as we shall see later, no form of Proportional Representation produces
absolute proportionality in practice. This system is particularly adopted in
multimember constituencies to secure a fair representation for both majority and
minority.

The Proportional Representation system has two main types, namely Single
transferable vote System (STV) and List System.

Single transferable Vote System:In this system, there are multimember

constituencies and voters vote for candidates, not for parties. From each party there
may be as many candidates in the contest as there are seats to fill in a particular
constituency. Like alternative vote system, it employs preferential voting, means that
voters (having a single vote only) rank the candidates in order of preference rather
than voting for just one in a particular constituency. The winning candidates require
to obtain a particular quota, generally known as Droop quota, which represents the
minimum number of votes that the candidates must secure in order to become the
winner. The Droop quota is:
q = [V/ (M+1)] +1

Here, q means the electoral quota; V represents the total number of valid votes cast;
M is the district magnitude that is total number of seats to be filled in the
constituency.

For example, in the constituency where 100,000 valid votes are cast and district
magnitude is four; the Droop quota is:
q = [100,000 / (4+1)] +1
= (100,000/5) +1
= 20,000 +1
= 20,001

In this case, the four seats are captured by only those four candidates who satisfy the
electoral quota, that is who secure 20.001 or above 20,001 of votes. Under Single
transferable Vote System, votes are counted on the basis of first preference. The
candidates obtaining the votes more than the quota on first preferences are elected
and their surplus votes (the votes above the quota) are transferred to the remaining

5
candidates according to second preferences in order to fill all the seats in the
constituency. If no candidate secures the required quota or seats are still unfilled even
after transferring the surplus votes on first preferences; the last placed candidate is
excluded and his or her votes are transferred to the remaining candidates according to
second preferences. This process of transferring the surplus votes of elected
candidates or the votes of excluded candidates continues until all the seats are filled in
the constituency. The Single transferable Vote System thus relies on ordinal ballot
structure. This method is used in the elections to India’s Rajya Sabha, with each state
assembly as one multiple member constituency and each MLA has one transferable
vote. It is also used for our State Legislative Council; for the Senate of Australia and
for parliamentary elections in Malta and Ireland.

List System: In this system, there are either multimember constituencies or single,
national constituency, that is the whole country is regarded as a single constituency (
as in Netherland, Israel and Slovakia ).Each party prepares a list of candidates for all
the seats or less than the number of seats to be filled and presents the list before the
voters. Generally, the voters vote for parties, not for candidates means that they vote
for party’s submitted list of candidates rather than for an individual candidate. Seats
are allocated to the parties in direct proportional to the total number of votes they
secure in the national election. It means that each party receives more or less the same
share of seats in legislature as of total votes it has secure and then fills these seats
from its published list. If a particular party, for example secures 20 per cent of the
total vote in an election to a 160 seats legislature, it receives eight seats
(160/20)which are then awarded to its top eight candidates on its list. List system is
the pure form of Proportional Representation system.

Israel, South Africa and Spain use what may be described as a closed list system; in
which each party provides a ranked list of candidates for the seats in the legislature.
And voters vote for the party with having no choice to vote for individual candidates
on the list or to alter the order of selection of candidate on the list prepared by the
party. Each party allocates the total seats it gains to the candidate on its list in rank
order. For example, if a particular party wines nine seats in the national legislature,
the top nine candidates on its list capture those nine seats.

Colombia, Finland, Indonesia, Chile, Denmark and Netherland use the open list
system; in which party presents an unranked list of candidates for the seats in the
legislature, voters vote for the individual candidates from the party list of their choice
and the candidates who secure the most votes in the party list receive the seats the
party wins.

3.4.4 Mixed Representation

It is also called as mixed member system, it refers to an electoral system in which
some seats of legislature are filled by plurality or majority formula using single

6
member districts (constituencies) and other seats are filled by proportional
representation system. For instance, in Germany, 50 percent seats of national
legislature are filled by plurality formula in single member districts while remaining
50 percent seats are filled by party list variant of proportional representation system.
Mixed representation aims to achieve a balance between accountability of
representatives associated with single member plurality system and more fair
representation associated with proportional representation system. In mixed
representation system, voters cast two votes known as candidate based vote and party
based vote at the candidate tier (plurality) and party list tier (proportional
representation) respectively. There is dividual ballot structure as the voters can
casttheir vote at the candidate tier for a candidate of one party and their list vote at the
party tier for a different party if they wish to do so (Gallagher and Mitchell,2018)

The Mixed Representation is of two types: mixed member proportional system

(MMP) and mixed member majoritarian system (MMM).In mixed member
proportional system, candidate tier and party list tier (acting as lower tier and higher
tier respectively) are linked in the sense that the list seats won at the total number of
seats won by a party and its list votes. The party or list tier, as a higher tier, acts as a
compensatory and corrective as the seats allocated at this tier are employed to
compensate the parties that have remained under represented at the lower tier and to
rectify disproportionalities that have resulted from lower tier. This system is used in
Germany and New Zealand .On the other hand, in mixed member majoritarian
system, the candidate tier and party list tier are entirely independent of each other in
the sense that there are separate seats for representatives from two tiers and there is
no mechanism about to achieve over all proportionality. This system is used in Japan,
Russia and Thailand.

3.5 DIFFERENT ELECTORAL SYSTEMS: AN ASSESSMENT

In the previous section, we studied about four broad types of electoral systems and
their variants that are in use across the world. Among these electoral systems, no one
is perfect as each of them carries strengths and weaknesses as well. The advantages
and disadvantages of each electoral system are mainly judged on the basis of two
criteria, namely stability (stronger government) and fair representation (more
representative government).The former is associated with plurality and majority
systems, while latter with proportional representation system. The mixed member
system is about striking a balance between the two (stability and representation).The
advantages and disadvantages of these electoral systems are discussed below:

3.5.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Plurality and Majority Systems

Following are the some of the advantages of plurality and majority systems:
1. These systems, particularly first-past-the-post system, have most simple
mechanics which are understandable for everyone and straight forward to
implement.
7
 2. Both plurality and majority systems ensure higher levels of candidate
recognition and voters’ identification with their representative than any other
system. Here, candidates are known to voters who have a strong relationship
with their representatives.
3. They enrich clarity of democratic responsibility and accountability by
providing citizens in each constituency one representative, who is certainly
and solely responsible for carrying out duties towards the constituency that he
or she represents.
4. They usually produce single party majority governments. Owing to a cohesive
majority in the legislature, such government tends to be more strong, effective
and stable.

Despite the above mentioned advantages, there are some disadvantages of both
plurality and majority system, those are discussed below:
1. In these systems, many votes become waste because the candidates who
secures maximum number of votes than other is winner. So, the votes secured
by all other losing candidates are ignored.
2. In plurality based FPTP system.it is not certain that the party which wins a
majority of the votes nationwide; will gain most seats in the legislature
because, it is the number of seats secured by the candidates of the party are
taken into account for allocating seats in the legislature.
3. In these systems, minority groups and women as well as small parties may
remain underrepresented in legislature.
4. These systems may encourage tactical voting; it means voters sometimes vote
against their own choices when they realize that their favoured candidates
belonging to a particular party has no chance of winning.

3.5.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Proportional Representation System

These are the advantages of Proportional Representation System:
1. Under this system, very less number of votes becomes wasted votes as all
parties gain seats in more or less strict proportion to their share of votes.
2. This system provides wider opportunities to small parties, women and other
minority groups to be represented in legislature.
3. It produces a highly representatives legislature reflecting the multiplicity of
interests and opinion.
4. Because of very less number of wasted votes, this system encourages a
higher level of political participation than plurality and majority systems.
Following are the disadvantages of Proportional Representation system:
1. There is no adequate link between representatives and their constituencies
because voters vote for parties or parties’ listed candidates.
2. This system makes government more unstable and weak as it provides
representation to almost all political parties and groups.

8
 3. They may create a situation where the parties constituting the coalition
government may not exercise power in proportion to their electoral strength.
While negotiating with larger parties, the small parties may gain
disproportionate power (power in excess of electoral strength) in ruling
coalition by pressurizing to abandon their support in favour of another
party.
3.5.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Mixed Representation Systems
Mixed Representation systems consist of some of the advantages of plurality based
first-past-the post system and some of list form of Proportional Representation
system. The advantages are:
A mixed member proportionality system produces a high degree of proportionality
and at the same time provides a directly responsible and accountable representative
for each electoral district.
1. Due to very few votes are wasted, levels of political participation tend to be
higher than in this system than FPTP system.
2. In this system, the presence of single member constituency component tends
to strengthen the electoral strength of two large parties that find it easier to
gain a good number of individual seats as well as produces high level of
candidate recognition.
3. It also provides voters a choice to cast their votes at the candidate tier for
the individual candidate of one party and their list, vote not necessarily for
that candidate’s party but rather for a different party.

Following are the disadvantages of Mixed Representation System:

1. The presence of single member constituency component contributes in
restricting the levels of proportionality. The Mixed member majoritarian
system produces more disproportionalities than mixed member
proportionality system.
2. It creates two unequal categories of representatives: one from the candidate
tier carrying out duties towards the constituency with having no security; and
other from the list tier occupying ministerial office and enjoying dominance
within the party.
3. This system produces low levels of candidate recognition than plurality based
FPTP system.

3.6 SUMMARY

We have different types of electoral systems; each system is marked by distinctive

features and procedures. None of them is absolute and perfect. Mitchell and Gallagher
has identified eight criteria for evaluating electoral systems which are: accuracy of
representation of voters ‘preferences; socio-demographic representation in legislature;
personal accountability of representatives to constituencies; high levels of political
participation; cohesive and disciplined parties; stable, strong and effective
9
government; identifiability of government options; and opportunity for voters to
remove government from office. The electoral systems prevail across the world don’t
satisfy all the criteria. The relevance, validity and reliability of an electoral system
depends on the context in which it operates and the priorities of the country and the
people of that country.

3.7 EXERCISE

1. What is an Election (electoral) system?

2. What are the different types of Election System?
3. Explain first past the post system
4. Briefly describe Proportional Representation System
5. Give a brief note on mixed member system.

3.8 REFERENCE

1. Downs, W.M (2011). ‘Electoral System in Comparative Perspective’ in

J.T.Ishiyama & M.Breuning (Eds.), 21st Century Political Science: A
Reference Handbook (Vol.1).London and New Delhi, sage.
2. Evans, J.A.J (2009). ‘Electoral Systems’ in J.Bara & M.Pennington (Eds.),
Comparative Politics: Explain Democratic System, New Delhi, Sage.
3. Farrell, D. (2001).Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. Basing
Stoke, Palgrave Macmillan.
4. Gallagher, M. & Mitchell. (2005).The Politics of Electoral System (Eds.) New
York, Oxford University Press.
5. Herron, E.S., R.J.Pekkanen & Shugart, M.S. (2018) The Oxford Handbook of
Electoral Systems (Eds.)
6. Heywood, Andrew. (2013) Politics, Palgrave Macmillan

10
UNIT-4 PARTY SYSTEMS: EVOLUTION, THEORIES
AND TYPES

Structure
4.1 Objectives
4.2 Introduction
4.3 Party and Party System
4.4 Principal Types of Party Systems
4.4.1 One Party System
4.4.2 Two-Party System
4.4.3 Multi-Party System
4.4.4 Dominant Party System
4.4.5 Two party vs. Multi-Party System
4.5Functions of Political Parties
4.6 Theories of Party Systems
4.6.1 The Human Nature Theory
4.6.2 The Environmental Explanation
4.6.3 Interest Theory
4.7 A critique of the Party systems
4.8 Whether Partyless democracy is Possible?
4.9 Summary
4.10 Exercise
4.11 Reference
4.1 OBJECTIVES
After going through this unit, you will be able to:
 Recall the origin of party system;
 Explain the meaning and nature of Party system and Political parties
 List out various types of party systems
 Describe the functions of political parties
 Evaluate the merits and demerits of various kinds of party systems
 Explain the drawbacks as well as indispensability of party system in a
democracy
4.2 INTRODUCTION
The role of party system in the operation of democratic polity is now generally well
recognized by Political Scientists and politicians alike. Democracy, as Finer observes,

11
“Rests, in its hopes and doubts, upon the party system." In fact, as democracy
postulates free organization of opposing opinions or 'hospitality to a plurality of
ideas'and political parties act as a major political vehicle of opinions and ideas, party
system is the sine qua non of democracy. Without party, the electorate would be
highly diffused and atomized, and opinions too variant and dispersed. The existence
of party-system is, therefore, necessary to bring public opinion to focus and frame
issues for the popular verdict. It is, therefore, very useful and interesting for students
of Comparative Politics to understand the origin, meaning, various kinds and merits
and demerits of the party system.

4.3 PARTY AND PARTY SYSTEM

In a system of democratic politics, political parties constantly interact and respond to
each other in a competitive struggle to share or influence the government. This inter-
party competition generates a systematic pattern or institutional arrangement of party
life and party interaction which is known as the ‘party system’. Party system
represents the whole political spectrum in which political parties are the constituent
units. There are significant variations in the arrangement, functions, and number of
political parties in a system. These and other similar characteristics are often used to
describe and classify the party systems of different polities. For instances, they have
been classified based on competitiveness of opposition (Robert Dahl, 1966); on the
degree of institutions (Mainwaring, 1999) and on the extent of citizen involvement in
politics (La Palambara, 1966).

Political party is a group of people that seeks to get its candidates elected to public
offices by supplying them with a label-a "party identification"-by which they are
known to the electorate. This definition is purposefully broad so that it will include
both familiar parties (Democratic and Republican in the US for instance) and
unfamiliar ones (Whig, Libertarian, Socialist Worker) and will cover periods in which
a party is very strong (having an elaborate and well-disciplined organization that
provides money and workers to its' candidates) as well periods in which it is quite
weak (supplying nothing but only the labels to its candidates.

This definition suggests three political arenas in which parties may be found. A party
exists as label in the mind of voters, as an organization that recruits and campaigns
for candidates, and as a set of leaders who try to organize and continue the legislative
and executive branches of government.

A careful look at the above-mentioned meaning of political party shows it‘s certain
hallmarks that distinguish it from similar groups such as temporary organizations,
interest groups or factions, etc. For instance temporary political organizations like
Food Price Committee or Famine Resistance Committee, etc., are formed for the
single purpose of supporting or opposing a particular temporary issue. Political
parties, on the other hand, have some degree of permanence. Secondly, political
12
parties are the only associational groups that are both open to all and have very wide
interests. This is because of the fact that they concern themselves with problems of
government and cannot concentrate on specific matters. They are open to all, because
they try to enlist the support of as many members of the polity as possible. It is in this
context that a political party is different from interest and pressure groups which work
only for the advancement of the cause of those groups.

Thirdly, parties must have definite aims and objectives. The objectives are often a
mixture of ultimate and immediate purposes. Party programmes contain ideas about
law and government, ideas about the shape of political things to come and each party
seeks to focus its own brand of political ideas. Fourthly, recognition, of material
advantages that go with the securing of the power of government, forms a part of
party programme. In fact, as we see in India today more often than not political
parties give priority to capturing power through they do this in the name of ideology
like opposing communication. In this sense as well, political parties are different from
interest or pressure groups as the latter do not nurse the constituencies for competing
at the polls to form the government. A political party is thus a coalition of group
interests pursuing general political policies. Pressure groups, on the other hand, are
the living 'public' behind the parties. Like interest and pressure groups, and unlike
political parties, factions are also not organized for political purposes. But at the same
time they do not possess ally continuous stable organizations. Factions may thus be
characterized as a group of persons serving sectional interests within a political party
rather than aggregate interests which parties usually champion for winning elections.
As the idea of a common interest and national unity sustains the constitutional appeal
to the polls, the logic of party system rejects the Marxian doctrine of class struggle.
This implies that parties transcend class-barriers and sectional interests by mutual
recognition of rights in the sense that in spite of their differences, political parties do
not disagree on everything. On the basic features of the system to which they belong,
there must be a consensus. Political parties may thus be defined as a group consisting
of cross-sections of human beings, more or less stable and organized, with the
objective, in accordance with the constitution, of securing or maintaining for its
leaders the control of a government, and of giving to members of the party, through
such control, ideal andmaterial benefits and advantages.

4.4 PRINCIPAL TYPES OF PARTY SYSTEMS

As political parties represent various opinions in a democracy, a variety of political
parties should characterize democratic system. In reality, however, number of viable
parties differs from country to country in accordance with legal requirements and
peculiar circumstances obtaining in a particular country. In Great Britain and the
United States, for example, a two-party system prevails, while in majority of
countries including India and France, multi-party system has come in to existence. On
the other hand, in authoritarian and Communist countries like China one-party system

13
operates. It, therefore, appears useful to examine the relative merits and demerits of
these types of party systems.

4.4.1 One Party System

The one party or single party system is found upon the assumption that the sovereign
will of the state reposes in the leader and the political elite. This authoritarian
principle found expression first in monarchies, later in dictatorships and more
recently in some democracies. As the dictatorship needs a monopoly of power for its
survival, it abolishes all political parties. Though elections are conducted even in such
a regime if only to show the facade of popular support, the voter's choice is limited to
only one candidate.

There may be some variations in the single party system prevailing in different
countries, but some of the common features of dictatorial parties in these countries
make them unique. These features are: (1) Such party is an official party in the sense
that it has a monopoly and is led by the same persons who rule; (2) membership of
such a party is usually made an essential requirement for acquiring at least important
government jobs; (3) this kind of party supervises the governmental efforts to
ideologically indoctrinate peoples; and (4) it is characterized by its elite personality.
The essential function of one-party system thus is not to elicit decisions from the
mass electorate on the big issue of politics, but to ensure discipline and obedience
among the people. In its organization and methods, it is more like an army than a
political party.

Obviously, therefore, a one-party system becomes necessarily totalitarian. As the sole

operator of a political system, the party extends its authority everywhere. The general
policy is decided by the dictates of the party. Every word the party declares is, like
the Delphic oracle, taken to be true. The source of all laws is the party, and no aspect
of individual and social life is immune from its potential control. Not surprisingly, a
single-party system involves the abolition of freedom of speech and expression, press
and association. Accordingly, the line of distinction between society and the state is
blurred and the latter completely swallows up the former. This type of party system
was found in Fascist Italy under Mussolini who assumed power in 1922
andsystematically destroyed all parties except his own Fascist Party. In Germany,
Hitler came to power in 1933 and destroyed all opposition. In 1934, the party purged
itself of scores of prominent members of the party by shooting them down under the
pretence that they were resisting arrest. Similarly, there was only Communist Party
rule in former USSR and there were several purges between 1936 and 1938 by the
Communist Party.

Single mass parties have, of course, come to power in some of the Afro-Asian states
in the post-colonial era these countries include Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Turkey and
Mexico, etc. In Turkey, for instance, the People's Republican Party operated from

14
1923 to 1946 without killing democracy. Tanzania under Julius Nyerere, who
founded African National Union, is another example of single-party democracy. In
that country, though TANU was the only recognized party, yet voters did have a
choice of candidates from within that party as in each constituency more than one
TANU candidate was allowed to contest. In Kenya, the government banned the only
opposition party, Kenya African People's Union in 1969, but allowed the members of
that party to compete in elections.

One can, therefore, divide one-party system into two sub types: (I) authoritarian one
party systems: and (2) non-authoritarian one-party systems. On the whole, however,
the emphasis of a one-party system is proverbially on the side of authoritarianism. It
proclaims its own brand of philosophy and a peculiar way of life to which the whole
society is forced to conform. As Barker observes, "The democratic criticism the one
idea state is not a criticism of its object. It is a criticism of its whole process of life."
In fact, the monopolization of legality that I empower a party to be the sole custodian
of truth spells a grave danger for civilization itself.

4.4.2Two Party System

A two-party system (Bi-Party system) is one where only two parties, despite the
presence of other parties, have substantial support of the electorate and expectation of
forming the government. Under this system, the majority of the elected candidates at
a given time belong to any one of the two major parties which form the government,
while the other party remains in the opposition. In such a system, there may exist
more than two parties, but actual or likely transfer of power takes place between two
giant parties only. The United States and the United Kingdom provide good examples
of two-party system. In the former, the Democratic and Republican parties are two
giant parties. In the UK, the transfer of power takes place between the two major
parties, the Labour and the Conservative.

There are, of course, certain differences between the American and British party
systems. While the American parties are not ideologically very much different from
each other-they are broker-bargaining parties to the point that each party achieves a
basically similar political consensus-the British parties, though also pragmatic, are,
generally speaking, ideologically distinct from each other. Recognizing these
differences the two party systems may be divided into (a) indistinct two-party system
in the US, and (b) distinct two-party system in Britain.

4.4.3 Multi-party System

A multi-party system is one in which more than two major parties exist, who struggle
with each other for power but no party can alone secure absolute majority to rule. In
countries like India and several countries on the Continental Europe, such a system
exists, though in a variety of forms.

15
One can discern two kinds of multi-party systems from the point of view of stability
of government: (a) unstable multi-party-systems; and (b) working multiparty systems.
As its name indicates, the former does not provide stability. India today provides one
of the best examples of this, where recurring 'hung' Parliaments due to plethora of
parties has caused political instability at the union level since 1996. France under the
Third and Fourth Republics provides another example of this kind of party system,
where governments formed by coalition of parties rose and fell with dismaying
regularity. Italy provides yet another example, where hardly any party since the
Second World War has been able to win a majority of the seats in the Italian
Parliament.

The working multi-party systems, on the other hand, behave like two-party system
and thereby tend to provide stability to government, even though they have more than
two major political parties. Former West Germany, before the rise of the Social
Democratic Party as the government party, had characteristics of a two-party system
as two of the three major parties, working together, provided the government and the
Social Democrats remained in the opposition. In Norway, Sweden, Belgium and
Israel also the existence of various parties have not caused instability.

4.4.4 Dominant Party System

Apart from these above mentioned three important types of party systems, another
notable party system also exists in some countries i.e. dominant party systems. In
dominant party system, several political parties exist but only one party has the
capabilities to form the government. Though democratic traditions prevail in this
system, still other parties have rare chance of coming to power. The emergence of the
dominant party system can be attributed to several factors such as popularity of party
leaders among the masses, its historical lineage, charismatic leadership, strong
organizational structures etc. The congress’s dominance in India from 1952-67 could
be seen as the dominant party system. The Bharatiya Janata Party which is in power
at the centre since May 2014 and in many states in India is also seen as dominant
party.

4.4.5 Two Party vs. Multi-Party

Democracy has functioned as successfully in multi-party systems as in two-party
systems. There are, however, certain relative advantages and disadvantages of a
particular system. To begin with, the supporters of multi-party system argue that : (a)
it more effectively corresponds to the division of public opinion especially in a plural
society like India; (b) it represents and satisfies the aspirations of diverse interest
groups; (c) under this system, a voter can choose among more parties and candidates
than available under the two-party system; (d) it reduces the fear of absolutism of the
majority; and filially (e) it is more flexible because under this system groups can be
freely organized, can unite and separate in accordance with the exigencies of the
circumstances.

16
In theory the multi-party system, has much in its favour, in practice not so much. As
we see in India today, inability of any single party to command absolute majority and
consequent inevitability of forming coalition government led to the crisis of stable
government in India. The members of the Council of Ministers instead of working
under the leadership of the Prime Minister seek guidance from their party bosses and
even a single Member of Parliament tries to blackmail the government by threatening
to withdraw its support. Not surprisingly, the government does not find enough time
to devote attention to the task of governance as it remains busy with keeping its
partners in good humour even at the cost of national interest. The major party is also
forced to abandon its electoral pledge to cobble a majority in the lower house of
legislature. The Cabinet in consequence comes to represent, not a general body of
opinions, but a patchwork of doctrines leading to a gap between the electorate arid the
government. Notwithstanding all these attempts, such a government falls sooner than
later as it is kept hostage by disparate elements trying to extract maximum pound of
flesh from the government. Once the government finds it impossible to concede there
absurd demands, the dissident party withdraws support from the government as the
Congress Party (1997) and All India Anna Dravid Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK)
(1999) have done in India in recent years forcing elections at the cost of great loss to
the nation. Government instability and multi-party systems are thus twins. Again, as
there are several parties competing with one another, there is no organized opposition
and it is riot possible to predict which parties are going to constitute the government
after the fall of the predecessor. Finally, the multi-party system intensifies the
complexity of choice. The general mass of electorate is bewildered by the presence of
a multitude of parties. Laski, therefore, concludes that the multi-party system "is fatal
to government as a practical art."

On the other hand, the supporters of two-party system argue that it enables the people
to Choose their government directly at the polls as voter is not perplexed by a
multiplicity of candidates and he can simply opt between the two. Secondly, it
provides unity of policy in the government since the party in power does not have to
depend upon ally other. This facilitates effectiveness of the government. Thirdly, two
parties hold each other in check and prevent either from being too extreme, since each
party shall try to win over the supporters of the other and to appeal to independent
voters. Fourthly, as democracy is supposed to be guided by the public opinion, the
two-party system provides an ideal condition for debating the issues between two
opposite camps. Laski, therefore, observes, "a political system is more satisfactory,
the more it is able to express itself through the antithesis of two great parties."

But the two-party system has to pay certain price for the stability provided by it. This
system implies that there are only two schools of thought in a country. In reality,
however, there is always a variety of opinions and ideas present in process of political
thought and discussion. This is seldom recognized in a two-party system. Certain
artificiality is thus inevitably introduced into this system leading ' to the establishment

17
of vested interests in public opinion which is best illustrated by the American spoils
system. In addition, the two-party system brings about the decline of legislature and
paves the way for cabinet dictatorship. The party in power backed by a solid majority
inside the legislature reduces the latter to its play-thing.

In view of the above-mentioned advantages and disadvantages of the multi-party and

two-party systems, it is not prudent to lay down a general rule concerning the
desirability of a particular type of party system in all countries. As such the merits
and demerits of the various party systems need to be seen in the context of various
social, economic and historical forces at work in a given country. The whole world
need not be patterned according to English or American way of life. In fact, what is
most crucial in this regard is the nature of political culture. If the splintering process
in the multi-party structure operates within a broad framework of normative and
institutional consensus, the party structure is not likely to experience enormous strain
as we find in tile case of Scandinavian countries.

4.5 FUNCTIONS OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Parties contribute to democratic government through the functions they perform for
the political system. These functions can broadly be divided under six categories:

Firstly, political parties unite sectional interests, bridge the geographical differences
and induce cohesion. In other words, various interests are aggregated through the
instrumentality of parties. This ensures both order and system maintenance.

Secondly, political parties contribute to democratic government by nominating

candidates for election to public office. In the absence of parties, voters would be
confronted with a bewildering array of self-nominated candidates, each seeking a
narrow victory over others on the basis of personal friendships, celebrity status or
name. Parties minimize this danger by setting up their candidates in different
constituencies. They carry out campaigns to win elections. They also defray the cost
of contesting elections where the candidate is a poor person.

Again, political parties help democratic government by structuring voting choice

reducing the number of candidates on the ballot to those who have realistic chance of
winning. Parties that have won sizeable portions of the vote in past elections are
likely to win comparable portions of the vote in future ones also. This discourages
non-party or non-serious candidates for running for the office. This in turn focuses the
election on the contest between parties and on candidates with established records,
which reduces the amount of new information that voters need in order to make a
rational decision.

18
In addition, parties also help voters to choose candidates by proposing alternative
programmes of government action in the form of party manifestos. 'The specific
policies advocated in an election campaign may vary from candidate to candidate and
from election to election, the types of policies advocated by candidates of one party
nonetheless usually tend to differ from those proposed by candidates of other parties.
In the case of the US, for example, even though the neutrality of the names of major
political parties, namely, Democratic and Republican suggests that they are
undifferentiated in their policies, in reality; however, these parties regularly adopt
very different policies in their platforms.

Besides, parties help co-ordinate the actions of public officials. A government based
on the separation of powers like that of the Unites States, divides responsibilities for
making public policy. The President and leaders of the House and Senate are not
required to cooperate with one another. Political parties are the major means for
bridging the separation of powers, of producing co-ordinate policies that can govern
the country effectively. Individuals of the same party in the presidency, the House,
and the Senate are likely to share political principles and thus to cooperate in making
policy. In a parliamentary political system, where the formation and continuance of
the real executive, i.e., the Council of Ministers, depends on the support of the
majority in legislature, political parties perform the task of disciplining the members
of the majority to keep them united for providing the life line support to the
government.This role of political parties has, in fact, made them informal
governments in democracies as the powers of the legislature has now been usurped, to
a great extent, by political parties.

Though victory is certainly the first commandment of a political party, in a

democracy defeat of party also does not mean its demise. In that case, a party
functions as a critic and watchdog of the government's policy. Political parties thus
play an extremely significant role in democracies.While, on the one hand, they have
to maintain and strengthen the structure of democratic norms and values; on the other,
they have to secure maximal community mobilisation for social and economic
development. Political parties have thus to induce both political and socio-economic
development.

4.6 THEORIES OF THE PARTY SYSTEMS

Political Scientists have offered several explanations for the origin of the party
system. These explanations can be broadly clubbed under three categories as
discussed below:

4.6.1 The Human Nature Theory

Under this category, three kinds of explanations have been put forward for explaining
the origin of the party system. Firstly, scholars like Sir Henry Main argue that what
causes parties to rise is the characteristic tendency of human nature towards
19
combativeness. In other words, human beings form parties to give organized
expression to their combative instinct.

The second category of explanation under the human nature theory identifies the
human temperament as the cause of the emergence of political parties. To put it
differently, the diverse temperaments of individuals lead them to form different
parties. For instance, while persons having liking for the established order join right
of the political divide, others opposing the existing order join left of the political
spectrum. In other words, those who do not support change in existing system form
one party, and those who want reforms and changes get together in another party.
Third explanation concerning the human nature of origin of parties runs in terms of
the charismatic traits of political leaders. Since the dormant masses need leadership to
articulate their latent feelings, formation of a political party depends upon the
availability of dynamic political leadership who can inspire masses to work towards
achieving the goals of a particular party.

4.6.2 The Environmental Explanation

In addition to the above mentioned explanations, considerable data is available to
show the role of the socio-economic environment in the evolution of the party system.
The modern Democratic Party system, for instance, is the result of at least two
significant political developments: the limitation of the authority of the absolute
monarchy and the extension of the suffrage to virtually all the adult population. It is
thus not surprising to find the historic roots of the party system both in the struggle of
the legislature to limit the king's prerogative and in the development of groups within
the expanded electorate taking sides in the battle or demanding recognition of their
interests. By 1680, the public policy of Britain had become the joint concern of both
King and Parliament, and the terms 'Whig' and 'Tory' were commonly applied to
those who, respectively attacked and supported royal policy.

4.6.3 Interest Theory

As usual, while the above-mentioned explanations are partly correct, no single
explanation is adequate or completely true. Combativeness, for instance, is only one
of the various motivations of human behaviour. Similarly, age is an uncertain element
as an indicator of political attitude and dynamic of political leader is not permanent.
In view of the inadequacies of the aforesaid explanations regarding the origin of the
party system, the "interest theory" is advanced as a widely recognized hypothesis.
This theory is based on the basic assumption that various parties are formed on the
basis of various interests. In other words, parties serve as convenient agencies for the
expression of individual and group interests. The nature, extent and degree of an
individual's political activities are motivated by the range of interests he develops.
These interests grow out of interaction of his/her personality with his/her cultural
environment. Birth, education of a chance experience may, thus, determine an
individual's interest' which, in turn, may determine party affiliations.

20
While the 'interest theory' recognizes the significance of economic interests in
influencing an individual or group's decision to join a particular part or combination
of parties, this theory does not agree with the Marxist assumption of economic
determinism and its concomitant dichotomy of social classes. In fact, to reduce social
tensions to two embattled groups of "haves" and “have-Nots" all along the economic
line is to oversimplify a complex one may, therefore, argue that the human beings
tend to support and vote for the political party that hold the prospect of achieving
their desired economic as well as socio-cultural objectives.

4.7 A CRITIQUE OF THE PARTY SYSTEMS

In recent years the party system has become the object of much criticism almost
everywhere. Firstly, under this system the perpetual struggle for political power turns
the legislature into a battle field and in the process national interests are ignored.
Secondly, it encourages insincerity as specious issues are often raised to divert public
attention. Thirdly, parties tend to become autonomous in the sense that principles and
national interests are subordinated for the sake of winning elections. Fourthly, parties
unnecessarily extend national political issues to local elections. Fifthly, the practice of
rewarding party members, known as the spoils system in the US, constitutes a
dereliction from principles. Sixthly, "party spirit is accused of debasing the moral
standards", as scruples are sacrificed at the altar of party interest. Seventhly, as parties
have to mobilize funds for contesting elections, they have to reward the donors after
winning the elections leading to corruption. Finally, parties are often run by leaders
and their small cliques in the name of masses thereby frustrating the will of the
people for better government.

4.8 WHETHER PARTYLESS DEMOCRACY IS POSSIBLE?

The aforesaid criticisms notwithstanding political parties are indispensable in modern
democracies. If democracy is regarded as a government by the people, then political
parties must be accepted as a necessary institution. Parties act as the major political
vehicle of opinions and ideas by framing issues for popular verdict. Parties also
bridge economic and geographic gaps of sectionalism and seek a compromise on
public policy. Besides, parties are eminent educators as they bring down political
issues to the common people. The party system also ensures responsibility as the
opposition parties keep a constant vigil on the government. Parties are thus the only
means through which the people, who are ultimate political sovereign, can control the
government. The party system alone provides a method of securing a change of
government by constitutional and peaceful means. That is why, despite the strong
disliking of the framers of the American Constitution, party system emerged in the
US within a few years of its operation. The talk of party-less democracy advocated by
Indian leaders like Jay Prakash Narayan is nothing but a utopia.

21
4.9 SUMMARY
A political party is an organization through which individuals and groups work to
secure political power and, if successful, to translate those policies and programmes
into reality. They have come into existence due to several factors that include human
distinct of combativeness, their temperamental differences, dynamic leadership,
social and political changes like limitations imposed on the monarchy and extension
of adult suffrage as also divergent interests of the people.

There are three principal kinds of party systems, namely, single party system, two-
party system and multi-party system. While one-party system is generally regarded
anti-democratic, bi-party and multi-party systems have their respective advantages
and disadvantages. What is crucial therefore is the political culture of a country that
determines the suitability of a particular kind of party system for that country. While
the party system has certain drawbacks, it is essential for the working of a democracy
as parties stand between the electorate and the government.

4.10 EXERCISE

1. What is party system?

2. What is Human Nature Theory?
3. What is Interest Theory?
4. What is One Party Political system?
5. What is Multi-Party System?

4.11 REFERENCE

Duverger, M. (1954), Political Parties, New York, Wiley

Heywood, Andrew. (2013).Politics, The Palgrave Macmillan
Mehra, A K., D D. Khanna and G.W. Kueck (Eds.) (2003), Political Parties and
Party Systems, Sage Publications, New Delhi, India.
Sharman, Campbell and Richard Johnston. (2015), Parties and Party Systems:
Structure and Context ; Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press
Ware, Alan. (1995). Political Parties and Party Systems; Landon, Oxford University
Press.

22