83Received 01.07.2022. Revised 01.08.2022. Accepted 29.09.2022.
Abstract. The article explores the process of fragmentation of political party systems in 25 member countries of the European Union during the last three decades (since 1990s). The analysis starts with discussion on prerequisites of fragmentation through the theoretical lens of the works of S. Lipset/S. Rokkan and A. Lijphart. The main prerequisite is accretion of the system of cleavages in the societies in post-materialist age. Other – secondary – reasons include effects of proportional electoral systems, the rise of populism, volatility of party systems in post-communist countries. Further, the article presents the results of analysis of the Effective Number of Parliamentary Parties (ENPP) dynamics in all national elections since 1990; the average ENPP rose from 4.2 to 6.1. Though scenarios of the rise are similar in many respects (i.e., the simultaneous rise in the first elections after 2008–2009 economic crisis), certain distinctions can be found between “old” and “new” countries, systems of moderate and extreme pluralism. The concluding sub-chapter briefly discusses the “pros” and “cons” of party systems fragmentation for the European countries’ politics, which is considered irreversible because it is based on an accreted constellation of cleavages. On the one hand, more fragmented party systems provide for more nuanced representation of societal interests, and are, therefore, democratic and objective. On the other, it gives voice to illiberal populism and complicates the process of coalition building to form the executive; and, in addition, more plural executives tend to be volatile. Recent European political history presents plentiful examples of both. The ultimate challenge for European politicians is to learn to take advantage of the “pros” and tackle the “cons”.
Keywords: political parties, party systems, elections, populism, post-communist countries, European Union
REFERENCES
1. Lipset S.M., Rokkan S. Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives. New York, Toronto, The Free Press, 1967. 554 p.
2. Lijphart A. Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Heaven, Yale University Press, 1999. 351 p.
3. Taagapera R., Grofman B. Rethinking Duverger’s Law: Predicting the Effective Number of Parties in Plurality and PR Systems – Parties Minus Issues Equals One. European Journal of Political Research, 1985, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 341-352. Available at: https://www.socsci.uci.edu/~bgrofman/42%20Grofman.%20Rethinking%20Duverger's%20Law..pdf (accessed 12.06.2022).
4. Laakso M., Taagepera R. “Effective” Number of Parties: A measure with Application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 1979, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 3-27. DOI: 10.1177/001041407901200101
5. Sartori G. Parties and Party Systems. A Framework for Analysis. Vol. 1. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1976. 368 p.
6. Blondel J. Party Systems and Patterns of Government in Western Democracies. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 1968, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 180-203.
7. Makarenko B. et al., eds. Parties and party systems: current development trends. Moscow, ROSSPEN, 2015. 302 p. (In Russ.)
8. Crozier M., Huntington S., Watanuki J. The Crisis of Democracy. New York, New York University Press, 1975. 221 p.
9. Hooghe L., Marks G. Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. Journal of European Public Policy, 2018, vol. 25, iss. 1, pp. 109-135. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2017.1310279/
10. Kitchcelt H. Party Systems. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. Boix C., Stokes S., eds. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 522-554.
11. Dalton J., Farrell D., McAllister I. Political Parties & Democratic Linkage. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011. 238 p.
12. Kitschelt H. The Formation of Party Cleavages in Post-Communist Democracies: Theoretical Propositions. Party Politics, 1995, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 447-472. Available at: http://rochelleterman.com/ComparativeExam/sites/default/files/Bibliography%20and%20Summaries/Kitschelt%201995.pdf (accessed 12.06.2022).
13. Harper K.V. et al., eds. Democratization. Moscow, HSE Publishing House, 2015. 708 p. (In Russ.)
14. Farrell D. Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. 279 p.
15. Kirchheimer O. The Transformation of the Western European Party Systems. Political Parties and Political Development. La Palombara J., Weiner M., eds. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1966. Ch. 6, pp. 177-200.
16. Maraval J.M. Elections and the challenge of more democracy. Democracy in a Russian Mirror. Przeworski A., ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 147-172.
17. Mudde C. The 2019 EU Elections: Moving the Center. Journal of Democracy, 2019, October, vol. 30, nî. 4, pp. 20-34. DOI: 10.1353/jod.2019.0066
18. Mudde C. The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 2004, vol. 39, iss. 4, pp. 541-563. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x
19. Makarenko B. Populism and Political Institutions. A Comparative Perspective. Vestnik Obshchestvennogo mneniya, Jan-June 2017, no. 1–2 (123), pp. 8-21. (In Russ.) Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/populizm-i-politicheskie-instituty-sravnitelnaya-perspektiva/viewer (accessed 12.06.2022).
20. Fagerholm A. The radical right and the radical left in contemporary Europe: two min–max definitions. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 2018, vol. 26, iss. 4, pp. 411-424. DOI: 10.1080/14782804.2018.1515728
21. Fagerholm A. Radical right and radical left party ideologies: a pan-European mapping of necessary attributes, differences and similarities. European Politics and Society, 2018, vol. 19, iss. 5, pp. 540-55. DOI: 10.1080/23745118.2018.1474547
22. Marcos-Marne H. The Effects of Basic Human Values on Populist Voting. An Analysis of 13 European Democracies. Political Behavior, 13.02.2021. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09689-8
23. Meguid B. Competition between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success. American Political Science Review, 2005, vol. 99, no. 3. Available at: https://web.pdx.edu/~mev/PS475_FALL_19/Meguid_Niche%20Parties.pdf (accessed 12.06.2022).
24. Mounk Y. The week democracy died. Slate, 14.08.2016. Available at: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/08/the_week_democracy_died_how_brexit_nice_turkey_and_trump_are_all_connected.html?via=gdpr-consent (accessed 12.06.2022).
25. Eiermann M., Mounk Y., Gultchin L. European Populism: Trends, Threats and Future Prospects. Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, 29.12.2017. Available at: https://institute.global/insight/renewing-centre/european-populism-trends-threats-and-future-prospects (accessed 12.06.2022).
26. Mudde C. On Extremism and Democracy in Europe. London, Routledge, 2016. 163 p. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315622170
27. Bunin I. Elections of Macron or the Choice of France: French Politics in 2017–2018. Moscow, School of Civic Education, 2018. 200 p. (In Russ.)
28. Siaroff A. Comparative European Party Systems: An Analysis of Parliamentary Elections since 1945. 2nd ed. London, Routledge, 2019. 568 p.
Registered in System SCIENCE INDEX
No comments