Party Non-Systems

Abstract

This article makes a case for expansion of the conceptual framework for the classification of party universe types. In particular, it introduces the concept of ‘party non-systems’, defined as those party universes characterized by a fundamental absence of inter-temporal continuity in the identity of the main parties. At the heart of this concept is the explicit differentiation between intra- and extra-systemic volatility. Party non-systems are characterized by persistently high transfers of votes away from the main parties towards new and small parties (i.e. high extra-systemic volatility), an ever-changing constellation of parties without a stable ‘core’. It is argued that the difference between non-systems and all other party universe types is not only one of degree (in level of institutionalization), but also one of kind. This conceptual innovation is then applied to a number of Latin American cases (Guatemala, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia) at the low end of the institutionalization continuum to highlight important cross-country and inter-temporal differences in the nature of (core) party competition.

Electoral coordination and party system institutionalization

“…Party system institutionalization is the result of an equilibrium generated by the strategic behaviour of party elites and voters conditioned by the existing institutions (Sanchez, 2009). Our point of departure is the received wisdom within party politics and electoral studies that a competitive party system is a necessary ingredient of democratic politics only when both the party system and the individual parties are in equilibrium.…”

“…Recently, Tavits (2008), Sanchez (2009), Powell and Tucker (2014), Weghorst and Bernard (2014), Chiaramonte and Emanuele (2017) and Mainwaring et al (2017) have revisited the foundations of the Pedersen index. Their argument is that electoral volatility should be broken down into the volatility that occurs when voters switch their votes between existing (or established) parties and the volatility caused by the entry and exit of parties in the system.…”

Unpacking LogM: Toward a More General Theory of Party System Density

“…Belgium, with the regional split between Wallonia and Flanders, essentially has duplicated its party system with comparable parties in each part of its federal system. Brazil, and especially Ecuador, were, at least in the 1980s, typical of what Sanchez has called “party non‐systems” in having a party universe characterized by a “fundamental absence of inter‐temporal continuity in the identity of the main parties” (2009, 487). Mustillo notes, for example, that about 25 new parties were formed in Ecuador “each year in 1996, 1998, and 2002” (2009, 322).…”

Evolución de las percepciones de las élites políticas en democracias frágiles: los casos de El Salvador, Guatemala y Nicaragua

“…Por otro lado, en un país como en Nicaragua donde solo un partido es sólido, cuando este llega al poder la polarización puede suponer una progresiva cooptación del régimen y la laminación de la oposición. Cuando ello ocurre, las asimetrías de institucionalización entre el partido en el poder y la oposición suponen una amenazan a la democracia al generar configuraciones de poder asimétricas a favor del primero (Sánchez, 2009). El peligro de esta dinámica reside en que la incapacidad de la oposición para canalizar la disidencia dentro de los canales institucionales termine generando estallidos de protesta que pongan en cuestión al régimen y provoquen una crisis de gobernabilidad.…”

“…No en vano en Guatemala existe uno de los niveles de transfuguismo legislativo más alto de América Latina y cada presidente de la República, hasta la fecha, ha sido elegido a través de un partido distinto. En este sistema la coherencia política de los contrincantes es mínima, y los bloques intrapartidarios cambian y se readecuan continuamente aproximándose a una dinámica que puede calificarse de "inexistencia de sistema de partidos" (Sánchez, 2009).…”