Dominant Party Systems:
Some Approaches to the Methodology of the Study
Dr. Sci. (Hist.), Head of Department, Professor, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University), MFA of Russia, firstname.lastname@example.org_id: 444059 |
The article examines the key criteria for the concept of the dominant party, such as its ability to consistently and steadily win the elections, the significant duration of its stay in power, as well as its personnel control of the Cabinet of ministers. In the sociopolitical discourse the dominant party enjoys a privileged ideological position and has more opportunities compared to its competitors to appeal to voters. Along with that the party dominance reveals itself not only in its external manifestation (the stay in power), but also in the substantial one – the ability to exercise an effective political choice. The article analyzes the factors of sustainability of the dominant party systems: the historical merits of the dominant party; the ruling party’s ability to effectively take advantage of the electoral system; its strong relationships with the most affluent social groups and major corporations, as well as with the predominant ethnic or linguistic social groups; a privileged access of the ruling party to media resources. These factors are also effective in the polycentric political systems without any dominant party. However, under the dominant party systems they manifest themselves in a complex way, providing the ruling camp with a multi-layered protection due to a synergy effect. Particular attention is paid to the phenomenon of clientelism, widely used by the ruling party as a strategy of political mobilization. While the scope and durability of the pork-barrel politics make this phenomenon socially significant and, accordingly, subject to public control, clientelism complies with the standards of democratic process, even in spite of its possible negative effects on the public good. However, if discrimination arose by clientelism reaches the level that denies clients the right to choose, this is certainly not consistent with the rules of democracy.
Bogaards M. Counting Parties and Identifying Dominant Party Systems in Africa. – European Journal of Political Research. 2004. Vol. 43. P. 173-197. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354068807083825
Brownlee J. Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2007. 280 p.
Cox G. Making Votes Count. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 1997. 344 p.
Dunleavy P. Rethinking Dominant Party Systems. – Dominant Political Parties and Democracy: Concepts, Measures, Cases and Comparisons. Ed. by M. Bogaards, F. Boucek. L.: Routledge. 2010. P. 23-44.
Greene K.F. The Political Economy of Authoritarian Single-Party Dominance. – Comparative Political Studies. 2010. Vol. 43. No. 7. P. 807-834. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0010414009332462
Greene K.F. Resource-Theory of Single-Party Dominance: The PRI in Mexico. – Dominant Political Parties and Democracy. Ed. by M. Bogaards, F. Boucek. L.: Routledge. 2010. P. 155-174.
Hilgers T. Clientelism and Conceptual Stretching: Differentiating Among Concepts and Among Analytical Levels. –Theory and Society. 2011. Vol. 40. No. 5. P.567-588. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11186-011-9152-6
Hilgers T. Democratic Processes, Clientelistic Relationships, and the Material Goods Problem. – Clientelism in Everyday Latin American Politics. Ed. By T.Hilgers. Palgrave Macmillan US. 2012. P. 3-22.
Kaßner M. The Influence of the Type of Dominant Party on Democracy. A Comparison Between South Africa and Malaysia. Springer. 2014. 386 p.
Lipset S. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. NY: Doubleday. 1963. 477 p.
Magaloni B. Credible Power-Sharing and the Longevity of Authoritarian Rule. – Comparative Political Studies. 2008. Vol. 41. No.4-5. P. 715-741. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0010414007313124
Pempel T. Foreword. – The Awkward Embrace. Ed. by H. Giliomee, C. Simkins. Cape Town: Tafelberg. 1999. P. VI–IX.
Poroshin A.V. Dominant Party Authoritarian Regimes: Key Characteristics and Reasons for Stability. – Business. Society. Government. 2011. No. 7. P. 156-178. (In Russ.)
Reuter O., Turovsky R. Dominant Party Rule and Legislative Leadership in Authoritarian Regimes. – Party Politics. 2012. Vol. 20. No. 5. P. 663-674. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354068812448689
Sartori G. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Vol. 1. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press. 1976. 343 p.
Schumpeter J. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. N.Y.: Harper. 1947. 178 p.
Shefter M. Political Parties and the State: The American Historical Experience. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1994. 316 p.
Suttner R. Party Dominance ‘Theory’: Of What Value? – Politikon. 2006. Vol. 33. No. 3. P. 277-297. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02589340601122901
Trantidis A. Clientelism and the Classification of Dominant Party Systems. – Democratization. 2015. Vol. 22. No. 1. P. 113-133. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2013.825608
Universal and corruptionist norms of interactions in russian politics. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No4
Political Parties in Russia: from Competition – to Hierarchy. – Polis. Political Studies. 2008. No5
«Preventive democracy»: concept. prerequisites of emergence. prospects for Russia. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No6
Is other democracy possible?. – Polis. Political Studies. 2014. No1
Kozyreva P.M., Smirnov A.I.,
Crisis of Russia’s multiparty system. – Polis. Political Studies. 2014. No4