Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T19:10:29.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Party System Fragmentation has Altered Political Opposition in Established Democracies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2013

Robin E. Best
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the consequences of increased party system fragmentation for oppositions, their respective governments and representation more generally, focusing on 18 established democracies. Two of the findings presented here suggest that there is reason to be concerned about the future of parliamentary representation in established democracies. Firstly, an increasing proportion of votes now go to parties that do not receive a proportionate share of legislative representation, implying that a growing degree of organized opposition is extra-parliamentary. Secondly, the findings show that parliamentary oppositions have generally become more fragmented than their respective governments. This suggests that the composition of governments may not be keeping up with current trends in electoral preferences and, in some cases, that governmental majorities have become smaller and more tenuous. Thus, the overall picture is one of a growing and increasingly fragmented opposition, against a smaller and relatively cohesive government.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 48 , Issue 3: OLD AND NEW OPPOSITIONS IN CONTEMPORARY EUROPE Special Issue to Commemorate the Centenary of the Birth of Ghiţă Ionescu , July 2013 , pp. 314 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Robin E. Best is a Research Assistant Professor of Political Science at Binghamton University (State University of New York). Contact email: rbest@binghamton.edu.

References

Albertazzi, D.Mueller, S. (2013), ‘Populism and Liberal Democracy: Populists in Government in Austria, Italy, Poland and Switzerland’, Government and Opposition, 48(3): 343–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, M.M. (2012), ‘Not Always Second Order: Subnational Elections, National-level Vote Intentions, and Volatility Spillovers in a Multi-level Electoral System’, Electoral Studies, 31: 170–183.Google Scholar
Benoit, K. (2002), ‘The Endogeneity Problem in Electoral Studies: A Critical Re-examination of Duverger's Mechanical Effect’, Electoral Studies, 21: 35–46.Google Scholar
Best, R.E. (2010), ‘Increasing Irrationality? The Equilibrium Relationship between Electoral and Legislative Party System Size, 1950–2006’, Electoral Studies, 29: 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, R.E. (2011), ‘The Declining Electoral Relevance of Traditional Cleavage Groups’, European Political Science Review, 3: 279–300.Google Scholar
Best, R.E. (2012), ‘The Long and the Short of it: Electoral Laws and the Dynamics of Party System Size in Western Democracies, 1950–2005’, European Journal of Political Research, 51: 147–165.Google Scholar
van Biezen, I. (2004), ‘Political Parties as Public Utilities’, Party Politics, 10: 701–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Biezen, I. (2010), ‘Campaign and Party Finance’, in L. LeDuc, R.G. Niemi and P. Norris (eds), Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective, 3rd edn (London: Sage): 65–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A.Turgeon, M. (2004), ‘How Good are Voters at Sorting out the Weakest Candidate in their Constituency?’, Electoral Studies, 23: 445–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blondel, J. (1997), ‘Political Opposition in the Contemporary World’, Government and Opposition, 32(4): 462–486.Google Scholar
de Boef, S.Keele, L. (2008), ‘Taking Time Seriously’, American Journal of Political Science, 52: 184–200.Google Scholar
Bowler, S.Lanoue, D.J. (1992), ‘Strategic and Protest Voting for Third Parties: The Case of the Canadian NDP’, Western Political Quarterly, 45: 485–499.Google Scholar
Casal Bértoa, F. (2013), ‘Post-Communist Politics: On the Divergence (and/or Convergence) of East and West’, Government and Opposition, 48(3): 398–433.Google Scholar
Cox, G.W. (1997), Making Votes Count (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Dahl, R.A. (1966) (ed.), Political Opposition in Western Democracies (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J. (1984), ‘Cognitive Mobilization and Partisan Dealignment in Advanced Industrial Democracies’, Journal of Politics, 46: 264–284.Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J. (2004), Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion in Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J. (2007), ‘Partisan Mobilization, Cognitive Mobilization and the Changing American Electorate’, Electoral Studies, 26: 274–286.Google Scholar
Beck, P.A.Flanagan, S.C. (1984) (eds), Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Denemark, D.Bowler, S. (2002), ‘Minor Parties and Protest Votes in Australia and New Zealand: Locating Populist Parties’, Electoral Studies, 21: 47–67.Google Scholar
Detterbeck, K. (2005), ‘Cartel Parties in Western Europe?’, Party Politics, 11: 173–191.Google Scholar
Duverger, M. (1963), Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State (New York: John Wiley) (first published 1954).Google Scholar
Franklin, M.N., Mackie, T.T.Valen, H. (1992) (eds), Electoral Change: Responses to Evolving Social and Attitudinal Structures in Western Countries (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
de Graaf, N.D., Heath, A.Need, A. (2001), ‘Declining Cleavages and Political Choices: The Interplay of Social and Political Factors in the Netherlands’, Electoral Studies, 20: 1–15.Google Scholar
Helms, L. (2004), ‘Five Ways of Institutionalizing Political Opposition: Lessons from the Advanced Democracies’, Government and Opposition, 39(1): 22–54.Google Scholar
Indridason, I. (2012), ‘Expressive Motives, Third-party Candidates, and Voter Welfare’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, published online early, 4 November, http://jtp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/11/01/0951629812460121.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. (1977), The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Publics (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Ionescu, G. Madariaga, I. de (1968), Opposition (London: Watts).Google Scholar
Katz, R.S.Mair, P. (1995), ‘Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy’, Party Politics, 1: 5–28.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, H. (1994), The Transformation of European Social Democracy (New York: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Knutsen, O. (2006), Class Voting in Western Europe (London: Rowman & Littlefield).Google Scholar
Laasko, M.Taagepera, R. (1979), ‘“Effective” Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe’, Comparative Political Studies, 12: 3–27.Google Scholar
Lundell, K. (2011), ‘Accountability and Patterns of Alternation in Pluralitarian, Majoritarian and Consensus Democracies’, Government and Opposition, 46(2): 145–167.Google Scholar
McDonald, M.D.Mendes, S.M. (2002), ‘Parties in Parliaments and Governments, 1950–1995’, Binghamton University Political Science Department, working paper, www2.binghamton.edu/political-science/research/index.html.Google Scholar
Mackie, T.T.Rose, R. (1991), The International Almanac of Electoral History (Basingstoke: Macmillan).Google Scholar
Mair, P. (1997), Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Meguid, B.M. (2005), ‘Competition between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success’, American Political Science Review, 99: 347–359.Google Scholar
Merolla, J.L.Stephenson, L.B. (2007), ‘Strategic Voting in Canada: A Cross Time Analysis’, Electoral Studies, 26: 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudde, C. (2007), Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe (New York: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassmacher, K.-H. (1989), ‘Structure and Impact of Public Subsidies to Political Parties in Europe: The Examples of Austria, Italy, Sweden, and West Germany’, in H.E. Alexander (ed.), Comparative Political Finance in the 1980s (New York: Cambridge University Press): 236–267.Google Scholar
Paltiel, K.Z. (1989), ‘Canadian Election Expense Legislation, 1963–85: A Critical Appraisal or Was the Effort Worth it?’, in H.E. Alexander (ed.), Comparative Political Finance in the 1980s (New York: Cambridge University Press): 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierre, J., Svå´sand, L.Widfeldt, A. (2000), ‘State Subsidies to Political Parties: Confronting Rhetoric with Reality’, West European Politics, 23: 1–24.Google Scholar
Powell, G.B.Whitten, G.D. (1993), ‘A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context’, American Journal of Political Science, 37: 391–414.Google Scholar
Scarrow, S.E. (2006), ‘Party Subsidies and the Freezing of Party Competition: Do Cartel Mechanisms Work?’, West European Politics, 29: 619–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strøm, K. (2002), ‘Parties at the Core of Government’, in R.J. Dalton and M.P. Wattenberg (eds), Parties without Partisans (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 180–207.Google Scholar
Stubager, R. (2013), ‘The Changing Basis of Party Competition: Education, Authoritarian–Libertarian Values and Voting’, Government and Opposition, 48(3): 372–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taagepera, R.Shugart, M.S. (1989), Seats and Votes (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
de Vries, C.E. (2013), ‘Ambivalent Europeans? Public Support for European Integration in East and West’, Government and Opposition, 48(3): 434–461.Google Scholar
de Vries, C.E.Hobolt, S.B. (2012), ‘When Dimensions Collide: The Electoral Success of Issue Entrepreneurs’, European Union Politics, 13: 246–268.Google Scholar
Warwick, P.V. (1994), Government Survival in Parliamentary Democracies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar