Political Science

Political
Development
BLOCK II
Representation and Political
Participation
51
Approaches to
Studying Comparative
Politics
REPRESENTATION AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

As individuals, few of us have much influence in politics. In order to have an
impact on policies, we join others with like-minded interests or programmes. We
use our democratic rights of assembly and freedom of speech to create or join
groups to influence public policies or acquire power to shape those policies.
In this block, we turn to another equally significant aspect of Comparative
Politics, institutions and processes that link society and the governments. The
first three units of this block examine the role of two major actors, political
parties and pressure groups, and the last unit focuses on how electoral systems
affect the actors involved in the political process.
Political parties are the most organised, the most powerful and seemingly
inevitable organisations. Though they do not find a formal mention in most
constitutions, they have become vital to a democracy. How did political parties
come to occupy such an important position in modern political systems? How are
they different from other political groups in society? What are party systems and
what accounts for their variations? These are some of the questions taken up in
Unit four and five of this block.
Another important institution that bridges society and the government is the
pressure group. Unlike political parties, pressure groups seek to influence the
powers which shape public policy rather than capture power. What are these
organisations or groups? What methods do they adopt to influence public
policy? What is their role in democratic politics? Do they have a role in
nondemocratic politics as well? These are the questions taken up in Unit 6.
A hallmark of modern democracy is the holding of free and fair elections. This
means that the right to vote (suffrage or franchise) is open to all citizens and that
votes are counted fairly. This having been said, there are clearly variations. The
complicated question of electoral rules, which decide how votes are cast,
counted, and translated into seats in a legislature are discussed in Unit 7 of this
Block. As you will notice, these systems vary widely and make a huge difference
in the distribution of political power.
52
UNIT 4 FUNCTIONING OF THE POLITICAL
PARTIES*
Structure
4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Political Parties: Meaning and Origin
4.3 Functions of Political Parties
4.3.1 Organisation and Modernization of Traditional Societies
4.3.2 Political Socialisation
4.3.3 Political Recruitment
4.3.4 The Formation and Running of Government
4.3.5 Making and Shaping Government Policies
4.3.6 Coordination
4.3.7 Representation
4.3.8 Control over Government
4.3.9 Making Public Opinion
4.4 Political Parties under Different Political Systems
4.5 Challenges to Political Parties
4.6 Let’s Sum Up
4.7 References
4.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises
4.0 OBJECTIVES
Political parties have become indispensible for the existence and functioning of
modern political society. In this unit, we examine the origins, characteristics, role
and functions of political parties in different contemporary political systems.
After going through this unit, you should be able to:
· Describe the characteristics of a political party
· Explain the origin of political parties
· Describe the functions performed by a political party
· Explain the functioning of political parties under different types of
political systems
· Identify the challenges faced by political parties in contemporary times.
*
Dr. Vikash Chandra, Assistant Professor, Dept of Political Science, Kashi Naresh Government
Post-Graduate College, Bhadohhi, Uttar Pradesh
Representation
and Political 4.1 INTRODUCTION
Participation
Modern democracies have representative governments, i.e., a government where
citizens elect people to represent them and make laws on their behalf. Elected
representatives are held accountable by the people for their activity within
government. It is in this process of representing the opinions of citizens and
acting as the agencies of people’s political participation that political parties
perform the role of intermediaries, facilitating the relationship between citizens
and institutions of the states.
Underscoring the importance of the political parties, John Stuart Mill (1806-
1873) noted that “a party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform,
are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life.” Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), a founding father of the United States of America, similarly
acknowledged the importance of political parties when he wrote: “If I could not
go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all”.
In performing the mediating function between the citizens and institutions of the
state, political parties also find a place in non-democratic systems. Authoritarian
and totalitarian governments such as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Communist
Soviet Union and China are identified with single political parties. On the whole,
political parties have become the sine qua non in any modern political system.
4.2 POLITICAL PARTIES: MEANING AND ORIGIN

Political parties have been understood and defined differently. Edmund Burke
(1729-1797), an Irish statesman, defined a political party as "a body of men
united, for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some
particular principle in which they are all agreed.” In the 20th century, scholars
have advanced a variety of definitions of a political party. German political
scientist Sigmund Neumann (1904-1962) referred to political parties as “the
articulate organization of society's active political agents, those who are
concerned with the control of governmental power and who compete for popular
support with another group or groups holding divergent views. It is the great
intermediary which links social forces and ideologies to official governmental
institutions and relates them to political action within the larger political
community”(1969, p.71).The Italian scholar and staunch advocate of political
parties, Giovanni Sartori (1924-2017), defined a political party as “any political
group identified by an official label that presents at elections, and is capable of
placing through elections candidates for public office” (1976, p.62).Similarly,
American political scientist Robert J. Huckshorn (1928) regarded a political party
as “an autonomous group of citizens having the purpose of making nominations
and contesting elections in the hope of gaining control over governmental power
through the capture of public offices and the organization of the government”
(cite in Katz 2020, p.214).
While these definitions demonstrate difference in the interpretation, we can
identify five distinct elements of a political party from them. First, the presence
of a group of people is a necessary condition for a political party. The
54
membership of a party varies from a few hundred to millions according to the Functioning of the
Political Parties
appeal of the party and the size of the country. Secondly, principles, norms and
ideas are core element of a political party. Political parties are propounded on and
represent a particular ideology, identity, region and issue, which provide a
normative and ideational foundation to political parties. It is the adherence to
principles which distinguishes a party from another. While earliest political
parties such as the Liberal Party, Labour Party, Conservative Party, Socialist
Party and Communist Party were based on ideology, political parties in the
Developing World and newer parties of Europe and America are based on
distinct identities and issues such as ethnicity, race, and region and environment.
Thirdly, political parties generally have a permanent organisation with
authorised members holding official positions in the organisation. The
officeholders may be selected by top leadership or elected by party members. But
there is continuity in the organisation, i.e., the life span of an organisation goes
beyond the life of the current or one generation of leadership. Fourth, political
parties come into being with specific goals. The main goal of a political party is
to capture political power through the electoral process. To achieve their goals,
they strive to gain and retain a degree of popular support. Finally, political parties
seek to form government and control political power by constitutional and
legitimate means, i.e., by contesting elections and not through extra-
constitutional means like a coup.
Contrary to this liberal viewpoint of party as an agency of organized public

opinion that takes part in electoral struggle for power, a Marxist views it in terms
of ‘class’ antagonism. Citing the example of the Communist Party, the leader of
the Russian revolution, Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) characterized party as “a
small compact core, consisting of reliable, experienced and hardened workers”
whose basic aim is the revolutionary overthrow of bourgeoisie class and
establishment of dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin regarded the communist
party as “the vanguard of a class, and its duty is to lead the masses and not
merely to reflect the average political level of the masses.”
Political parties came into being at a particular historical juncture of the
development of a state. American political scientists Joseph LaPalombara and
Myron Weiner argue that a political party emerges when the political system
reaches a degree of complexity. They argue that “the political party materializes
when the tasks of recruiting political leadership and making public policy can no
longer be handled by a small coterie of men unconcerned with public
sentiments.” (1969, p.04). Political parties also come into being when the ruling
class begins thinking that people should participate in the system. The change in
the thinking of the ruling elite may come as a result of the rising democratic
consciousness, the increasing desire to select leaders or to control people uprising
against them.
Along with the ‘when’ question, it is also crucial to understand ‘how’ parties are
established. French political scientist and politician Maurice Duverger (1917-
2014) has given an authoritative explanation of the historical origin of political
parties in his book Political Parties: Their Organization and Activities in the
Modern State (1954). He offers a two-fold explanation of the origin of political
55
Representation parties. The intra-parliamentary origin or what he calls “the electoral and
and Political
Participation parliamentary origin of parties” refers to those parties which have an origin
within the parliament and assembly. Here a group of parliamentarians come
together to maximise the prospect of winning the election, and form an electoral
committee at the election time. These practices get institutionalised, eventually
leading to the foundations of a political party. The extra-parliamentary origin
refers to those parties which have their origin outside the parliaments and
assemblies. They come into being when economic, religious and gender
restrictions from voting rights are removed. Social groups such as philosophical
societies, workers union, and newspapers associations played a significant role in
establishing such political parties. The British Labour Party, for example, was
created in 1899 by the Trade Union Congress as its electoral and parliamentary
organisation. Similarly, agriculture and peasant organisations played a significant
role in establishing parties in Austria, Canada, Switzerland, central European and
Scandinavian states. European socialist parties and nationalist parties like Indian
National Congress were also born out of social movements and struggles.
Check Your Progress Exercise 1

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) What is a political party?

.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
2) How do parties of intra-parliamentary and extra-parliamentary origin
differ?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
4.3 FUNCTIONS OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Political parties perform a wide range of functions which have been organised
and discussed by different scholars. The American political scientist Charles E
Merriam (1894-1953) has identified the five distinct functions of the party as
follows: selection of official personnel; formulation of public policies;
conductors or critics of government; political education including nationalization
of opinion; and intermediation between individual and government. (Scarrow
1967, p.770) In the same way, British scholar Alan R. Ball has clubbed the
functions of political parties into four groups: representative functions; electoral
functions, governing function, and formulation of policy, (1987, 3-5) while
Italian political scientists Stefano Bartolini and Peter Mair have grouped the
functions of parties into two broad categories: representative and institutional
56 functions.
4.3.1 Organisation and Modernization of Traditional Societies Functioning of the
Political Parties
Organising diverse and fractured societies and their modernisation is a crucial

function of political parties. Modernisation is a process in which a society
marches from the traditional to the modern stage of development. In this process,
a traditional society tries to inculcate the defining economic, social and political
attributes of modern society. The modernisation function of political parties
begins with organising a fractured society into an organised polity. To this end,
they bridge the differences among people and social groups. In other words, this
function starts when a party starts nation-building in a fragmented or loosely
organised society. Once the polity is organised, the political parties play a
linchpin role in selecting the model of modernisation and political development.
The path or model of economic, social and political development a newly
established state will adopt is decided by political parties. The Indian National
Congress (INC) is a familiar example. Since its establishment in 1885, the INC
played a pivotal role in organising deeply divided Indian society to fight against
the British colonisers. In the post-Independence period, the INC determined
India’s modernisation path.
However, it is not only a case with the post-colonial states. In Europe and
America, parties have shaped and determined their modernisation in the 17th and
18th centuries. Expanding on the political party's role in organising a fractured
polity, nation-building and its modernisation, American scholar Robert Dix
opinion that “institutionalization of parties and party systems is crucial in the
maintenance of the tenuous new democracies” seems to hold true (Dix 1992,
p.490).
4.3.2 Political Socialization

Political parties are regarded as agents of political socialization. Political
socialisation is a process in which people are familiarised with the political
culture, political norms and values of their country and these virtues are
transferred from one generation to another generation. Political parties function
as a channel that communicates political culture from one generation to another.
They educate people in various ways. First, at the time of election, political
parties and their representative meet voters to inform them about their
programmes and policies to convince them to vote in their favour. Secondly,
ruling parties make people aware of the government's programmes and policies
on any given issue. In recent years, social media has emerged as a crucial tool of
political socialisation. Thirdly, through agitation, dharnas or protests, the
opposition parties point out the shortcomings of the government's programmes
and policies and present alternatives to the government's policies. This enables
people to become aware of the government and its policies. Fourth, the political
socialisation function is also performed by leading and participating in debates on
television and radio and advertisements in electronic and print media. Fifth, by
issuing the election manifestos before the elections, political parties let people
know what they intend to do if they win the election. Through these practices,
people become aware of their political system, its institutions and processes.
57
Representation 4.3.3 Political Recruitment
and Political
Participation
Political recruitment is the function of political parties in which they select
people from society for a political role in the party and government. The process
of political recruitment begins with political socialisation and providing formal
membership of the party. The recruited members are trained in the party's
ideology and later selected for contesting elections. These members hold official
positions in government when the party wins general elections. Formal
recruitment begins with the filing of nomination for contesting the election by the
party member. This function “selection of leaders” is not limited to the
democratic political systems. Underlining the comprehensiveness of the political
recruitment functions of the political parties, Joseph LaPalombara and Myron
Weiner note that “whether the country is relatively democratic India or relatively
un-democratic Ghana, a long-established democracy like Britain or a thriving
totalitarian state like the Soviet Union, the party is likely to be intimately
involved in political recruitment—the selection of the political leadership” (1969,
p.3). By political socialisation and recruitment functions, political parties make
the polity more inclusive and representative.
4.3.4 The Formation and Running of Government

The formation of government is the ultimate goal of a political party. This
function differentiates political parties from other social groups like interest
groups or civil society organisations. To capture political power, political parties
enter the election process and contest elections. In this process, they field
candidates and campaign in their favour. They strive to form a government by
achieving wide public support. If they fail to gain a majority on their own, they
try to form a government by forming coalitions with like-minded parties. Such
coalition forming function can be seen widely in India, Australia and Brazil.
Given their social diversity, electoral system and multi-party system, obtaining
the desired majority by any party has become difficult. Once political parties gain
a required majority in elections, they strive to form a government. They appoint
elected members in the ministries and departments. In this way, the elected
members of political parties run government and directly participate in the
government's policies and programmes making process.
4.3.5 Making and Shaping Government’s Policies

At first glance, it seems that policymaking is the government’s function.
However, a close look reveals that people occupying political positions in the
government come from the ruling party. In this sense, the government can be
called ‘party-government.’ At the broader level, the government’s programmes
and policies on critical issues are made according to the broader consensus
reached in the party, reflecting their ideology and policy consensus. Alan R. Ball
has rightly described “the formulation of policy” as an essential function of
political parties.
Policymaking and policy-shaping are two distinct functions. In policymaking,
political parties are directly involved in the process, though they perform this
58
function behind the scenes. In policy-shaping, parties influence the policy- Functioning of the
Political Parties
making process. The ruling party exclusively performs the policy-making
function, while both the ruling and opposition parties perform the policy-shaping
function. In general, the ideology of the ruling party plays an important role in
policy formation with most Left and Centre parties preferring proactive
intervention in economy and social welfare and the Right and Far-Right parties
preferring liberalization and privatization.
4.3.6 Coordination
Political parties perform coordination or mediating function between government
and society. Through the coordination function, political parties provide stability
to the political system and establish and maintain coherence in the society and
government. The coordination function takes place at least at three levels:
coordination between government and society, coordination within government,
and coordination within society. According to American scholar Kay Lawson,
the coordination between society and government takes four forms: electoral
linkage, participatory linkage, clientelist linkage and directive linkage (Pettitt
2014, p.14). Details of these four linkages can be seen in the functions of political
parties in the democratic political systems in section 4.5. The coordination within
government occurs at two levels: among the three organs of the legislature,
executive and the judiciary and among national, regional and local levels of the
government. Coordination between ministries and organs of government is
realised through bodies like party meetings, parliament and its committees and
policy committees, while coordination between different levels of government
takes place in inter-governmental bodies like India’s National Development
Council and Australia’s Premiers Conference and party meetings organised at
various levels in the party. There are many civil society organisations like interest
groups and non-governmental organisations that coordinate society. Along with
other civil society organisations, parties function as a mechanism of coordination
within society. Modern political parties have different occupational wings such as
trade unions, farmers, women and the youth wing which are indulged in this
process. These specialised occupational wings offer coordination among voters
of that particular occupation with the party.
4.3.7 Representation
In modern states, people do not have time, training and ability to represent
themselves in diverse aspects of political and social life. Therefore, political
parties function as agents of the masses and represent them. They speak at
various places and forums like media, parliaments, assemblies and electoral
campaigns on behalf of their supporters and party members. The representation
function of political parties is close to the “interest integration function”
described by Almond and Powel, the American political scientists who came up
with a variety of cultural and functional ways to measure the development of
societies. Through common programmes, political parties bring many interest
groups together. The success of the government formation function largely
depends on the interest integration function of the political parties because if they
59
Representation fail in getting votes from diverse interest groups in their fold, they will fall short
and Political
Participation of the required majority.
The representative function of political parties is extensive and diverse because
the representation takes many forms: ideological representation, regional
representation, representation of identities and representation of interests. A good
number of political parties represent the common ideology of their core voters
and supporters. Such parties include Liberal and Conservative parties of the
United Kingdom, Communist Party of China, Democratic Party in the United
States of America, and Fascist parties of Italy and Germany. Some parties focus
on regional representation. Such parties’ core vote is based in a particular region;
they prefer to identify themselves with the region’s culture, language and religion
and speak for that region. India’s Telangana Rastra Samiti which championed the
cause of separate statehood for Telangana or the National Conference striving for
the autonomy for the state of Jammu & Kashmir are examples of parties that
represent the demands of their region. Some parties represent particular
identities. The Bahujan Samaj Party in Uttar Pradesh and the Shiv Sena in
Maharashtra are examples of parties which represent the interests of Dalits and
Marathis, respectively. Although these parties succeed in garnering support from
voters of other identities, a large chunk of votes comes from their core identity-
based voters. A few political parties also represent particular interest. The interest
can be in the form of issues, such climate change, nuclear disarmament etc. The
Green Party of Europe and the Nuclear Disarmament Party (1984-2009) in
Australia fall in this category.
4.3.8 Control over Government

The role of political parties goes beyond the ruling party. They also work as the
opposition. This role is exclusively found in democratic political systems. As an
opposition party, the political party try to put control on the tyranny of the
government. They criticise the government for its programmes and policies
which they think are not in the best interests of the people and the state. They
organise protests, marches, and door to door campaigning to spread awareness of
the wrong policies and priorities of the governments. In turn, governments take
the opposition party's role seriously, allowing their ministers and other party
members to respond to the opposition party's allegations.
However, the most recurring role of the political parties as the opposition has
evolved in the United Kingdom. Here the opposition party is known as Her
Majesty’s Opposition. Functioning as an opposition party, the concerned political
party forms a Shadow Cabinet. The Shadow Cabinet of the opposition remains
ready to take charge if the ruling loses the majority in the legislature. In other
democracies, the opposition parties try to remove the ruling party and assume
that role. To this end, they bring a no-confidence motion in the Parliament. Once
the ruling party fails to prove the majority, the opposition takes the opportunity to
form the government.
60
4.3.9 Making Public Opinion Functioning of the
Political Parties
Public opinion-making is primarily a democratic function of political parties.

Political parties are directly associated with citizens through political
socialisation, electoral and public opinion-making functions. Political parties
function as agents of public opinion-making. They try to mobilise and convince
citizens to stand with their position on any given issue. For instance, take the
issue of the 123 Agreement, also known as the India-US Civil Nuclear
Agreement, which was covered extensively in Indian media. Not only the
political parties but also Indian society was deeply divided. The main opposition
party, the Bharatiya Janata Party and Marxist parties were opposing the deal as
well as shaping public opinion in their favour. It is believed that the Indo-US
civil nuclear agreement was one of few issues on which Indian people were
aware of and shaping foreign policy issue since Independence. Although parties
perform the public opinion-making function, they most extensively engage in this
function during elections as public opinion is more likely to turn into votes at this
time.

1) The functions of political parties are not limited to electoral politics. Do you
agree?
...................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
4.4 POLITICAL PARTIES UNDER DIFFERENT

POLITICAL SYSTEMS
The role and functions of political parties vary with the type of political system.
Their functions in non-democratic political systems differ from their functions in
democratic political systems. The functions of political parties differ even among
the non-democratic political systems like fascist and communist political
systems. The difference in functions and roles is primarily rendered by the
difference in political culture, the degree of socio-political development, the
number of political parties and intra-party culture.
The role of political parties in a democracy is very comprehensive. American
political scientist E. E. Schattschneider has observed that “the political parties
created democracy, and modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of the
parties.” (Katz 2020, p.216). First, the electoral function is the most important
function of parties in a democracy. A competitive party system is found in the
democratic political systems, where various political parties vie for votes in
61
Representation elections to control political power. Political parties compete with each other to
and Political
Participation increase their membership and mass support base. Second, parties socialise the
citizens, recruit and train them for holding political positions in the government.
Political parties in democratic political systems mainly use persuasive means to
mobilise support. After elections, bargaining among elected members takes place
in the democratic political system to occupy political positions in the
government. Given the democratic compulsions, often the top leadership is
compelled to make their ministries more representatives in terms of region,
occupation, gender and identities. Third, the role of political parties does not end
with the formation of the government. Even after selecting elected members for
political positions in government, parties function as watchdogs and keep an eye
on them and the government. They even reshuffle ministers from one ministry to
another, if found necessary. Fourthly, political parties create a strong linkage
between governments and voters. According to Kay Lawson, four linkages are
most important: electoral linkage, participatory linkage, clientelistic linkage, and
directive linkage (Pettitt 2014, p.14). The electoral linkage keeps the elected
representative responsive to the voters and supporters of the party. By elevating
the citizens’ role from mere voters, the participatory linkage allows them to play
an active role in governments. The clientelistic linkage provides a bargaining
opportunity to voters and the party- the party provides some services or facilities
in exchange for votes. Through the directive linkage, those in power (former
party members, but now in government) try to control citizen’s behaviour
through coercion, education or both. Fifthly, the proper functioning of a
democracy cannot be imagined without opposition parties today. Controlling the
government as an opposition party is exclusively found in the democratic
political systems.
Given the difference in political parties and political culture, the role and
functions of parties in developing political systems varies from those of the
advance or well-established democracies described above. In general, parties in
developing systems strive for modernisation and political stability. However,
political parties in some developing states have deferred playing in the election
by the rules. Such parties have willingly or unwillingly challenged the stability of
the system. Nevertheless, through the well-thought recruitment functions, parties
in most of the states have succeeded in providing stability to the political system
by making the council of ministers more representative and diverse in terms of
region, identity, gender, and race.
Political parties play a slightly distinct role in the non-democratic political
systems such as authoritarian, communist and fascist systems. There are three
types of authoritarian political systems: monarchy, military and civilian. In
authoritarian political systems, political parties are the instrument of governing
the polity. They legitimise the ruling class and shield their regime. Political
parties perform five interrelated functions in authoritarian political systems
(Hague, Harrop and McCormick 2019, p.282). First, the political parties help in
solving intra-regime conflicts. In the absence of political parties, the dictator's
regime may be destabilised. Secondly, political parties help balance threats to the
regimes coming from other potential challengers like the military. Thirdly,
62 political parties assist the dictator in managing elections. The dictator's party help
him in bribing voters, capturing polling booths, and manipulating elections. Functioning of the
Political Parties
Fourthly, functioning as an instrument of propaganda, political parties take the
message of the ruling class and extend their influence to the remote areas of the
political system. Finally, political parties in the authoritarian regimes perform
socialisation function. But they do not seek merely to educate people but educate
in such a way that people support the regime, its ideology and prevent the
chances of revolt against the regime.
In Communist political systems, inter-party competition is absent because either
other parties are not recognised or lack enough support to compete with the
dominant communist party. The communist political parties are usually organised
on the principle of democratic centralism. Therefore, a strict hierarchy is
maintained in the party. The political parties in the communist political system
play a vital role in modernising, socialising, recruitment, and opinion-making.
The communist systems' political party try to build the newly established
communist states in line with communist ideology and philosophy. They shape
the government's policies and programmes but not as opposition but from within.
To enhance and maintain the legitimacy of the communist regime, they socialise
and re-socialise citizens. They use persuasive as well as coercive means to attain
their goals.
Fascist regimes assign great importance to the leader and party. As these systems
are totalitarian, they try to control all aspect of citizen's life. Therefore, the fascist
parties focus on the socialisation function. Through socialisation, the ruling elites
try to legitimise the leaders and their ideology to deter and debarred any chance
of opposition. To this end, the ruling party does not hesitate to coercing its
citizens to follow the party, and its leaders dictate. Fascist political parties seek to
modernise the state in line with fascist ideology. They try to shape public opinion
favouring the fascist state and strongly discourage criticism and counter-opinion.
The political party also functions as a coordination mechanism between people
and government. As in the Communist systems, political parties in the fascist
systems socialise citizens and discipline in line with the party’s ideology, if
necessary.

1) How does the role of political parties differ in democratic and non-democratic
political systems?
...................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
63
Representation
and Political 4.5 CHALLENGES TO POLITICAL PARTIES
Participation
Political parties have been facing several internal and external challenges for a
long time. Internally, the party’s organisation and succession have been issues of
concern. Parties, especially in developing countries, lack internal democracy.
Organisational elections do not take at regular interval. Few leaders make
decisions at the top level while others follow. A charismatic leader occupies the
top position for an extended period, either without elections or merely with token
organisational elections. In some cases, dynastic succession at top leadership
takes place. Members of a family or clan occupy the top leadership position of
the party. In this context, Spanish sociologist and political scientist Juan J. Linz
(1926-2013) has aptly noted that the level of peoples’ involvement and
ideological and emotional attachment political parties commanded a century or
even two or three decades has eclipsed. Few external developments in the 21st
century have further complicated the matter, leading to a decline in the people’s
trust in the political parties.
Declining people’s trust in political parties is a noticeable challenge. With rising
awareness, peoples’ expectations from political parties have increased. In the age
of mass communication and social media, people are overtly expressing their
anguish and dissatisfaction with parties. Several factors have contributed to the
growth of this dissatisfaction. First, the opposition for the sake of resistance is
one of them. Often political parties embarrass the same policies and programmes
when in power which they used to oppose while in opposition. In India, one can
take the Bhartiya Janata Party's opposition to Foreign Direct Investment in retail.
It opposed the FDI in retail while in opposition but carried forward the policy
when it came into power since 2014. Secondly, the media also fuels this growing
dissatisfaction. There is a tendency to paint leaders as power-seekers and
creatures who work for self-perpetuation in power. Lastly, the inability of
political parties to adapt to the changing social and cultural aspects of the states
and cope with citizens’ changing demands is widening the trust deficit. These
factors have cumulatively contributed to reducing the public trust in political
parties.
The rise of election management firms is posing a significant challenge to
political parties. Several political parties have begun to delegate the crucial
election management function to professional election management firms. Until
recently, this was predominantly practised in the developed democracies of
Europe and America. This is no longer the case now. Political parties in the
Developing World, in their quest for political power through elections have
started hiring election management firms. These firms take the required
information from political parties and make election strategy for them. Taking
private data from social media giants like Facebook and WhatsApp, these firms
treat people like groups and not citizens. The entry of election management firms
is promoting unethical data transfer. The rising role of the firms may make
political parties less responsive and accountable towards citizens because parties
may regard firms as more crucial in winning elections than providing services to
the citizens. The expansion of the role of these firms may create a gap between
64 political parties and citizens.
The increasing influence of social media is another factor that is further subsiding Functioning of the
Political Parties
peoples trust in political parties. With the expansion of Internet services, the role
of social media has expanded manifold in the last one or two decades. Social
media has made the relationship between political parties and citizens a two-way
process. The functioning of the political parties is significantly affected by this
technological revolution. Instead of directly interacting with citizens, political
parties use social media to reach people and mobilise people in their favour.
Information is sent via social media. Consequently, the direct contact between
citizens and political parties is gradually declining, especially when there are no
elections. Political party’s engagement with citizens is declining because the
party's role as a link between society and government is being performed by the
Information Technology cells of political parties.
In recent years, the IT Cells have made social media a favoured instrument of
political parties to spread information to further their parent parties’ image
among citizens and targeted groups. To this end, political parties do not hesitate
in spreading baseless fake news against their opponent parties. To gain an
advantage over oppositions, political party's IT Cells have become a source of
misinformation and distorted information against their opposition to malign the
image. Fact-checking websites are exposing this propaganda and misinformation
spreading strategy of political parties. Consequently, a section of citizen is
getting disillusioned from political parties. Citizens have started expressing their
anguish openly on social media. It will lead to a further decline in people's trust
in parties, which will hamper the party's socialisation and recruitment functions.

1) What are the challenges to the functioning of political parties in contemporary
times?
...................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
4.6 LET US SUM UP

Political parties are difficult to define but relatively easier to understand. The five
elements or characteristics are identical to political parties: group, permanent
organisation, principles, goals, and means. Although political parties play
important roles and functions in all political systems, yet, their functions differ
from one political system to another. In democratic political systems, they focus
on electoral and coordination functions, while in authoritarian systems, they
strive to legitimate the regime and function as a saviour of the regime. Many non-
democratic regimes could have succumbed in the absence of political parties. If
65
Representation we trust Lenin, even the revolution in the bourgeoise society could have been
and Political
Participation difficult, if not impossible, without the communist party’s linchpin role in
bringing proletariat consciousness among the working class.
Nevertheless, despite their linchpin roles, political parties are facing some severe
challenges both internally and externally. Internally, even while functioning in
democratic political systems, parties are coping with a democratic deficit. The
lack of regular organisational elections and hereditary succession at the top
position like the president and general secretary are top internal challenges.
Externally, the rise of election management firms, expanding role of social media
and the widening trust deficit between parties and the citizen voters compelled
the parties to improvise their functioning. The improvisations like the use of
social media may potentially address some crucial challenges. However, the
establishment of IT Cells, in this way or another, is further extending the trust
deficit between voters and them.
4.7 REFERENCES
Apter, David. (1969). ‘The Political Party as a Modernizing Instrument’. In Jean
Blondel (ed.), Comparative Government: A Reader. London: Palgrave, pp. 86-95.
Ball, Alan R. (1987). British Political Parties: The Emergence of a Modern Party
System. London: Macmillan.
_________. (1993). Modern Government and Politics. Chatham: Chatham
House.
Duverger, Maurice. (1967). Political Parties: Their Origin and Activity in
Modern State. Cambridge: University Printing House.
Hague, Rod, Martin Harrop and John McCormick. (2019). Comparative
Government and Politics: An Introduction. London: Red Globe Press.
Katz, S Richard. (2020). ‘Political Parties’. In Daniele Caramani (ed.),
Comparative Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
LaPalombara, Joseph and Myron Weiner.(1969). ‘The Origin and Development
of Political Parties’. In Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Weiner (eds.), Political
Parties and Political Development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Neumann, S. (1969). ‘Toward a Comparative Study of Political Parties’. In Jean
Blondel (ed.), Comparative Government: A Reader. London: Palgrave.
Pettitt, Robin T. 2014. Contemporary Party Politics. New York: Palgrave.
Weiner, Myron and Joseph LaPalombara. (1969). ‘The Impact of Parties on
Political Development’. In Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Weiner (eds.),
Political Parties and Political Development. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
66
Functioning of the
4.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS Political Parties
EXERCISES.
1) Highlight five elements of political parties.
2) While writing the difference between two types of political parties, focus on
when they came into being, their organisational aspect, and social base.
1) If you agree, then (i) Highlight political party’s functions like nation-building
and modernisation, political socialisation, and controlling the government as
opposition. (ii) Also focus on coordination, public opinion-making, and
representation functions.
If you disagree, then (i) highlight political recruitment, (ii) formation of the
government, and (iii) making and shaping of government’s policies functions.
1) (i) Focus on the number of political parties and competition for a vote in
electoral politics. (ii) Which functions they focus on and which not. (iii) Whether
they use persuasive, coercive instruments or a mix of both to achieve their goals.
1) (i) Discuss the internal challenges like lack of internal democracy and
hereditary succession on the top post. (ii) Show in detail how widening trust
deficit, increasing role of election management firms, and expanding social
media are posing challenges to political parties.
67
UNIT 5 PARTY SYSTEMS*
Structure
5.0 Objectives
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Classification of Party Systems
5.2.1Two-Party System
5.2.2 Two-and-A-Half-Party System
5.2.3 Multi-Party System
5.2.4 One-Party System
5.2.5 Dominant Party System
5.2.6 Institutionalized vs. De-institutionalized Party system
5.3 Factors affecting Parties in a System
5.4 Let Us Sum Up
5.5 References
5.0 OBJECTIVES
The interactions among political parties and their relations with the political
system define the party system in a country. This unit provides an analysis of
party systems and illustrates various settings under which they operate. After
going through this unit, you should be able to:
· Define party system
· Explain the major types of classifying party systems
· Describe the features of different party systems
· Identify the factors affecting the party system.
5.1 INTRODUCTION
In the previous unit of this block, we have defined a political party and examined
the varied functions they perform in a political system. As we saw, political
*Dr. Tulika Gaur, Guest Faculty, Non-Collegiate Women's Education Board, University of Delhi,
Delhi
parties, except for those in the single-party system, constantly seek to gain Party Systems
political power at the national, regional or local levels, in every state. In this
process, they respond to each other’s initiatives in a competitive power struggle.
This competitive interplay between parties conceived as a set of interactive
structures is known as a ‘party system’. The interaction between parties in a party
system is impacted by various factors: such as the number of parties interacting
with each other, size of parties, level of competitiveness etc. Students of
comparative politics are interested in party systems mainly because the number
and kind of parties contesting elections affects not only the choices which voters
confront, but also government formation and the ease which political executives
can formulate and implement public policies.
Students of political science have been classifying party systems for almost as
long as they have been studying parties. Classification of party systems however
has been difficult both because of the variety of political parties and the
dynamism of the political system. For a long time, the general trend of
classifying party systems was based on the ‘number approach’ (which limited the
classification of party systems to one-party systems, two-party systems, and
multi-party systems based on the number of parties operating in the system), until
Sartori (1976) added degree of polarization as other criteria based on which party
systems were either extreme or moderate. This unit will introduce you to some of
the typologies of party systems. It will also describe the features of important
party systems and examine the interaction between the party system and the
wider political system.
5.2 CLASSIFICATION OF PARTY SYSTEMS

Various attempts have been made by several political scientists to classify party
systems based on different criteria. The most enduring ones have been those
proposed by two French political scientists, Maurice Duverger and Jean Blondel.
Duverger (1954) pioneered the classification of party systems based on the
number of parties existing in a system. He identifies 'single-party system' and
'pluralist-party systems'. In the first category, he included the single-party system
and the dominant party system and in the pluralist party systems, he included
two-party system and multi-party systems. Also, based on the nature of parties of
which a party system may comprise, Duverger classifies party systems as
‘disciplined/rigid’ and ‘undisciplined/flexible’. Considering the composition of
an absolute majority in a system, he classifies party systems as:
· party systems with an absolute majority consisting of a single party.
· party systems where the absolute majority does not belong to anyone
party but rests with a coalition of different parties.
· party systems where the absolute majority is formed with the help of
minor/smaller who get to play a significant role in either government or
opposition.
· party systems where the absolute majority is formed with the help of
minor/smaller parties but with no distinct role for them in either
government or opposition.
69
Representation A decade later, Jean Blondel (1968) carried forward the work of Duverger by
and Political
Participation introducing additional categories. Blondel used the share of the vote won by
parties from 1945 through 1946 to construct a fourfold typology. He
distinguished two-party systems, two-and-a-half party systems, multi-party
systems with a predominant party and multi-party systems without a predominant
party. His typology of party system distinguished one-party dominant systems,
two-party systems, moderate pluralism, and extreme multi-partyism. Blondel’s
typology was based on the analysis of the clusters in the average share of the vote
won by the largest two parties and then considering the ratio of the first party's
share to that of the second and third parties. His analysis showed that in the two-
party systems (prevailing in the United States, New Zealand, Australia, the
United Kingdom, and Austria), the two party share was 90 per cent and above
and closely balanced between the two parties. In the next cluster, the share of the
two-party ranged from 75-80% of the vote cast but there was a wider average
difference (10.5%) between the first and second parties (the Federal Republic of
Germany, Canada and Ireland). Taking account of imbalance in the share of the
vote, Blondel categorized these as two-and-a-half rather than three-party systems.
Giovanni Sartori (1976) introduced a new element into the classification of the
party system. Not satisfied with the systems based purely on the ‘numbers
approach’, Sartori analysed how far away parties in system stood from each other
in terms of ideas, the intensity of the conflict between them and their role in
government. In his typology, Sartori took only those parties that mattered, that is,
large or small parties were to be counted only if they affected party competition.
Using this approach, Sartori came up with the following four types of party
systems:
1) Predominant Party System in which one party dominates the government in
spite the existence of large number of parties. A predominant party could emerge
due to factors such as popularity among the masses, its historical lineage,
charismatic leadership, strong organizational structures, etc.
2) Two-Party System in which political power is shared between two relatively
powerful political parties.
3) Limited Pluralism in which the neither of the two dominant parties have a
clear cut majority and seek support of other like-minded parties. The coalition
government could be seen as ‘feeble government’ but it may not necessarily be
short-lived government. Sartori had included the German Federal Republic,
Sweden, Belgium, Ireland, and Denmark as examples of limited or moderate
pluralism.
4) Extreme Pluralism is a system where the supporting parties occupy extreme
positions and are largely polarized. The presence of ‘anti-system’ parties,
bilateral oppositions, and centripetal competitions are some of the features of this
type of party system. With deep cleavages and low consensus, the extreme or
polarized pluralism does not offer a legitimate party system in world politics.
As you can see, Sartori’s typology is also based on numbers (properly counted)
whose principal distinction was not number, per se, but rather, the degree of
polarization and party competition. This enabled comparative political scientists
70
to explain why certain kinds of multi-party systems led to cabinet instability and Party Systems
system collapse, while others did not.
The party system is a dynamic element of a political system. Since the 1980s,
parties and party systems have undergone significant change in Europe and those
that transited to democratic systems (about which you will be studying in Block
IV of this course). As Peter Mair (2002) pointed out, there are fewer and fewer
current instances of pure two-party competition and none of polarized pluralism.
Instead, party systems in most liberal democracies fit into the increasingly
crowded category, moderate pluralism. The most recent approach to classify
party systems has been in terms of institutionalization (Siaroff, 2013) explains
institutionalization as the level of organization in parties, the extent of their
associations with the society, consistency in ideologies of parties, interparty
competition; and the extent to which political parties and elections have high
legitimacy in a country.
For the sake of ease in understanding the various kinds of party systems
prevailing, we will classify the party systems as under:
1. Two-Party System/Bi-party System
2. Two-and-A-Half-Party System
3. Multi-Party System
4. One-Party System/Single-Party System
5. Institutionalized vs. de-institutionalized Party System
Check Your Progress 1
ii) Check your answer with the answer given at the end of the unit.
1) What is a party system?

……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
2) What is the Sartori’s contribution to analysis of party systems?
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
5.2.1 Two-Party System

Also called the bi-party system, this system is characterised by the dominance of
two ‘major’ political parties which stand equal chances of grabbing the political
power and forming the government. Several other smaller parties may exist in the
system, but the centre-stage is shared by two parties. The two dominant parties
are usually backed by a majority of electorates which implies that the rest of the
parties in the system remain in minority. Power keeps shifting from one of the
71
Representation dominant parties to the other, leaving the rest with an almost negligible role in
and Political
Participation the formation of the government.
Two-party systems work on the foundation of mutual acceptance and coexistence
between both parties which openly accept each other and their position with full
respect. In this context, Siaroff (2013) identifies two variations in this system.
First, as ‘Competitive party system’ which exhibits clear alternation in power as
the two parties stand equal chances of winning. A good example of such a system
is the party system in the USA where both the houses of Congress in general and
the Senate in particular witness a high level of competition between the two
parties. Malta and most of the erstwhile British colonies, mainly the Caribbean
countries also have a similar party system. The second variation is an 'imperfect
or imbalanced two-party system', where despite the presence of two major
parties, one party has a better chance of winning than the other. For instance,
Botswana and some state legislatures of the USA are systems where one party
has more chances of winning than the other. Hence, functions more as a
dominant party system to some extent (Siaroff, 2013).
The two-party system can comprise of parties exhibiting two opposite ideologies
or sharing similar ideology but having distinct electoral support The presence of
Labour and Conservative parties in the UK, until the emergence of the Social and
Liberal Democratic Party in the late 1980s, is a classic example of a two-party
system based on competing ideologies. On the other hand, in the USA, the
Democratic and the Republican parties initially had different ideologies/political
orientations but with time they both have become flexible and accommodative of
varying interests. Both the parties differ in their approaches to achieve the
accepted democratic norms in the country and give the citizens a clear choice as
per their preferences.
A bi-party system results in a ‘party government’ which implies that the
government is formed by a single party and will account for a stable and
accountable government. This system gives a clear straightforward choice to the
public while giving strength to the government as well as opposition to fulfil their
mandates. A strong government faces a strong opposition which ensures a sense
of accountability in the government and continuous zeal in the opposition to
enhance their chances of grabbing power.
However, a bi-party system may result in ‘adverse politics’ where parties are
aware and assured of their position in the political system and hence, may try to
get into power by all means thus corrupting the system Both the parties may tend
to be driven by interests of a small, wealthy elite prevailing in the country. For
instance, in the USA two-party system may provide ample opportunities for
debate, but issues favouring the elite class always get speedy consent than those
about the common man.
5.2.2 Two-and-Half-Party System

In this system, there are two major parties and one or more than one smaller yet
significant party/parties. "A two-and-a-half-party system is where the two main
parties get at least 80 per cent of the seats but not more than 95 per cent and
72 where the system does not meet the criteria of one-party predominance. There is
no fixed pattern of outcome in a two-and-half-party system as the outcome will Party Systems
depend on the third party's support without which the formation of government is
impossible. This system may rarely exhibit a single-party majority and the
formation of the government will largely depend on the political equation created
between the parties in the system.
Some regard the two-and-half-party system as a transitional phase between the
bi-party system and multi-party system. Siaroff (2003) cites the emergence of the
Liberal Democratic Party in the 1970s in the UK and the rise of the New
Democratic Party in Canada in the early 1980s to argue that most of the two-
party systems have now become two-and-half-party systems in the true sense.
The emphasis in the two-and-a-half-party system remains on 'half', the third
element/party which might play the role of kingmaker in a political system. There
surely remains an asymmetry between the parties. The first party remains
substantially larger than the second, and the third party is much smaller than both
first and the second party. Siaroff (2003) places this third party in a position
where it works as a ‘hinge’ or a ‘wing’. As a ‘hinge’ this third party directs the
formation of government in one direction or the other because it shares
commonalities with the other two parties in the system. This way they play an
important role in the government as well. On the other hand, as ‘wing’, the third
parties act as a mere support system of either of the major parties and may or
may not get to play a part in the government. The Free Democratic Party (FDP)
in Germany, for instance, works as a hinge party. It does not hold huge electoral
support (only 13.2 per cent of seats) nor does it get to hold the Chancellor Post,
yet it remains the most significant factor in determining the outcomes of the
elections in Germany. Depending on its coalition with the Christian Democrats
(CDU) and Social Democrats (SDP); the FDP has been in government for about
41 of the 53 years since 1949, with its periods in opposition being only about one
term at a time. On the other hand, since the 1980s in Portugal, the Nationalist
Popular Party and the Communist party are winged parties of two main parties,
the Social Democratic party (PSD) and the People’s Party (CDS), respectively.
The presence of ‘half parties’ creates a more consensual political system rather
than a majoritarian one. The dependence of main parties on the ‘hinge’ or
‘wings’ increases the extent of accountability and restraints on the major parties
which otherwise may act as absolute powers in a single-party majority situation.
Hence, a two-and-half-party system accounts for a more democratic procedure in
the formation of government than the single-party or the bi-party system.
5.2.3 Multi-party System

A multi-party system has three or more political parties. It can be categorized as a
stable and unstable multi-party system. The Netherlands, Switzerland are some of
the examples of the former while France and Italy exemplify the latter. The party
system in Switzerland has nine political parties though only four parties enjoy
majority electoral support. The government in Switzerland is normally formed as
a coalition of these four parties with the rest of the smaller parties playing a
significant role in forming coalitions in different parts of the Swiss Federation.
France and Italy have been the most remarkable examples of the 'unstable multi-
73
Representation party system'. France witnessed the formation of at least 26 governments during
and Political
Participation 1944-1958. Similarly, Italy had 38 governments between 1948 and 1975. In both
these countries, smaller parties (French Communist Party in France and Italian
Communist Party in Italy) played an important role in distancing the larger
parties from the governance, and hence, had to rely on coalitions which due to
rising internal differences proved to be highly unstable (Haywood 2013). Another
way of categorizing a multi-party system is ‘moderately/limited’ and ‘highly
‘fragmented multi-party system. The former may comprise three to six relevant
parties. In this deconcentration, the top two parties are limited to less than 80 per
cent of the seats. Coalition government remains to be the only way forward. The
highly fragmented party system may have more than six relevant parties. An
outcome of this system with frictions among medium and small parties is a weak
coalition government of three or more parties. Brazil, Israel, Belgium, Denmark,
Finland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, India, and Indonesia had highly fragmented
multi-party systems (Siaroff, 2013).
Multi-party systems are also categorized as 'moderate' and 'polarized' multi-party
systems. Moderate multi-party systems exhibit ideological similarity, that is, the
difference between various parties' ideologies is very moderate (Sartori 1976).
Here, there is a higher tendency among the parties to come to a compromise in
case of differences or disputes resulting in a much more stable and strong
government. A polarized multi-party system, on the other hand, comprises
parties with wide and strong ideological differences. This makes the parties
refrain from reaching a middle ground. In such systems, there may even be
political parties holding 'anti-system' stance making resolution of disputes or
differences difficult. The Communist Parties in France, Italy and Spain, for
instance, have created more disputes and resulting in unstable governments in
these countries (Haywood, 2013).
A multi-party system is the most efficient system in sustaining democracies. The
presence of multiple parties enables a system of internal checks and balances for
the governments ensuring greater accountability in return. It creates an
atmosphere of discussions and debates and makes policymaking a more inclusive
phenomenon. Since there is a greater possibility of coalition governments and
lesser feasibility of a single party achieving a majority in a multi-party system, it
ensures that the government policies and decisions address the diversity of
interests and concerns pertaining to all the groups/segments/sections of that
country. A multi-party system not only ensures accountability of the government
but also creates a wider platform for public opinion.
Despite its democratic credentials, the multi-party system has some
shortcomings. The first and the most important one remains to be the instability
induced in the governance due to coalitions. Multiple parties have different
interests and achieving cooperation and consensus among them might be a
difficult task. Further, during the process of achieving consensus, various
malpractices and compromises may take place which may corrupt the entire
political system of a country.
The multi-party system also delays and sometimes derails the processes of policy
negotiation and implementation. As mentioned above, the difficult task of having
74 the consent of all plagues the smooth functioning of the government most of the
time. A lack of clear ideological orientation also is one of the shortcomings of a Party Systems
multi-party system as the parties are more focused on forming a government
through unholy coalitions or compromises. A multi-party system thus can
become more a system of achieving greater numbers than a system of
representing a diversity of interests.
5.2.4 One-Party System

The one-party system, also called a single-party system, implies the system in
which only one party exists and is legally allowed to exist, which controls the
government. However, according to Duverger, there can be different forms of the
one-party system. Under what he called a dominant-party system or one-party
dominant system, some minor parties may sometimes be allowed, but they exist
on the condition of accepting the leadership of the dominant party. This system is
normally found in totalitarian countries where minor parties are either crushed by
the ruling party or constitutionally debarred. The former Soviet Union and the
People's Republic of China are classic examples of a one-party system. In
China’s party system, the Communist Party of China (CPC) is the only party
authorized to govern the state despite eight other smaller parties existing in the
system. The smaller parties neither have the legal sanction to contest in the
election nor have the freedom to criticize the decisions and policies of the CPC.
A one-party system is also found in some democratic states, especially those that
have gone through colonial rule in the past. These states have started their nation-
building under the guidance of their national leaders who had guided them
throughout their freedom movement. Political parties in these newly emergent
states usually centre on a charismatic leader and the ideology of national
development is derived from the leader's ideology itself. For example, Ghana
under the leadership of Kwame Nkrumah, Tanzania under the leadership of
Julius Nyerere and Zimbabwe under the leadership of Robert Mugabe have had
single-party systems. Being solely dependent on the leadership, the political
parties in this kind of arrangement lack the level of organisation and discipline
found in the Communist one-party states. As a result, almost all of them have
disintegrated or lost their dominant status.
One-party systems generally provide for strong and stable governments, which
are a necessity for efficient policymaking and implementation, but they have
several shortcomings. The possibility of a single-party system developing into an
authoritarian state remains quite high. Such states tend to silence the opposing
voices by forceful means. Hence, such systems may not stand true to the function
of the party system which remains to act as a link between a government and
citizens. Also, the procedure of transfer of power and leadership may be amended
by the single party in power as per its convenience resulting in monopolisation of
leadership and power which defeats the role of the party system as an agency of
decentralization/diffusion of power in the society. In contemporary times we find
these systems in China, Cuba, Eritrea, Laos, North Korea, Syria, Turkmenistan,
and Vietnam.
75
Representation 5.2.5 Dominant-Party System
and Political
Participation
This system is often confused with single-party systems but there remain clear
differences between the two. A ‘dominant’ party may consist of multiple
parties/political groups competing for power but is generally dominated by a
single major party within the system. Whereas, in single-party system, there is
absence of multiple parties and the entire political system is under the control of
that single party itself. While the former accommodates varying interests and
opinion of various other political parties, the latter works generally in an
authoritarian political setup where any kind of opposition is not tolerated.
In this system, single party hegemony prevails for a long period of time because
it not only predominates in parliament and controls the government but also
maintains its dominance over a period of time. Even when it fails to occupy
majority, it still retains the potential to form a minority or lead a coalition. Hence,
this ability of domination despite missing the majority-mark, distinguishes this
system from the ‘imperfect two-party system’ where attaining majority is the
only way to govern, and minority ruled governments are not possible.
The presence of one-party dominant system is generally observed in dictatorships
where opposition parties are prevented from acting and participating in the
political system. For instance, Chad and Cameroon are some cases where
dictatorships have discouraged the participation of other parties. Nevertheless,
democracies also exhibit this system as can be observed in Botswana Democratic
Party in Botswana since 1996, and the Congress party in India from 1947-1977.
Another classic example of this party system is Japan where its single largest
party i.e., the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) had dominated the party system
for 54 years until 2009. During this period, it has served a noticeably short period
as opposition (1993-1994) and almost entire duration has held political power
under its control. Other examples include Sweden where Social Democrats have
managed to remain at the forefront from 1932-1976, Italy dominated by Christian
Democrats (1946-1983), Israel by Mapai/Labour Party (1948-1977), Namibia by
South West Africa People’s Organization (since 1991), and South Africa remains
dominated by African National Congress since 1994.
Dominant-party system on one hand provides a stable, strong, and predictable
government; on the other hand, it undermines the democratic credentials of the
system as the prolonged system of governance often results in rise in corrupt
practices within the party and centralization of power to the extreme levels. As
noted by Haywood (2013, p239), the dominant-party system “tends to erode the
important constitutional distinction between the state and the party in power.
When governments cease to come and go, an insidious process of politicization
takes place through which state officials and institutions adjust to the ideological
and political priorities of the dominant party”. Another shortcoming of this
system is the absence of a strong and effective opposition. While the dominant
party remains in power, it ensures its authority is unchallenged and hence, makes
every effort to discourage any kind of opposition or protest. A dominant-party
system can, therefore, be detrimental to democracy.
76
5.2.6 Institutionalized vs. De-institutionalized Party System Party Systems
Different categories of party systems mentioned above may not be the permanent
arrangements in any democracy. It has been observed in various countries that
the extent of consistency of party systems and the potential of main parties to
maintain their status is not static and varies with time. This phenomenon was first
conceptualized as ‘Party System institutionalization’ by Mainwaring and Scully
in 1995 in the context of Latin America. Accordingly, the party system was
classified as 'institutionalized' or 'de-institutionalized' party system based on the
stability and predictability maintained by the system. Institutionalized party
systems smoothen the process of governance because they are less volatile and
consist of durable parties which stand deeply rooted in society. Not only do they
promote greater economic growth, but they also tend to yield better public
policies. An institutionalized party system stands more accountable as it is better
in articulating and aggregating the public demands. It exhibits greater party
discipline, making it easier for the legislature to function and is more likely to
resolve the deadlocks and reduces immobility than in an inchoate system
(Siaroff, 2013).
Deinstitutionalized party is often referred to as party system collapse or party
collapse – identified as 'inchoate party systems' (Mainwaring and Scully 1950).
This system is often observed in third wave democracies (see Block IV). The
recent developments make de-institutionalized systems more evident than the
institutionalized systems. For example, Papua New Guinea is categorized as an
inchoate party system because until recently, no prime minister has been able to
complete a full parliamentary term. Another example is Peru where leaders and
politicians have adopted party-less strategies by acting as free agents with almost
none or fewer attachments to party labels- making Peru a case of democracy
without parties (Mainwaring, 2016).
5.3 FACTORS AFFECTING PARTIES IN A SYSTEM

Party systems evolve according to the transformation and changes that take place
in (i) the electoral system; (ii) social and cultural diversity; (iii) the constitutional
structure; and (iv) the degree of international autonomy (Sartori, 1976, 291). A
country's party system is largely shaped according to the electoral system opted
by it. The electoral system defines the criteria for representations and there
remain several ways and methods that are opted by democracies according to
their social and political structures. For instance, an electoral system based on a
single-member majority tends to yield a less fragmented party system because it
provides for a clear majority to the single party whose candidate has got
maximum votes. On the other, proportional representative systems are more
conducive for a highly fragmented party system. For instance, during the 1990s,
an assessment of 73 democratic countries revealed that the countries having
proportional representation systems mostly had a multi-party system, while those
with non-PR system were more inclined towards a dominant party system or two-
party system. (Krupavičius, Algis. Isoda, et al., 2013). The electoral system also
defines the competitive spirit of party systems. For instance, if a country
witnesses frequent changes in electoral support, then whatever party system it 77
Representation may have, it will be highly competitive. Since changes in electoral support
and Political
Participation impact the parties' performance, hence, there will be more efforts put forward by
the political leaders and after the elections also there will be uncertainty as the
'political bargain' will rise. There will be greater emphasis on mobilization of
masses and in turn, will result in a highly informative and aware political
population.
Another factor affecting the condition of the party system is the social and
cultural diversity of that given country. For instance, there are fewer chances for
a one-party system to emerge in a diverse society as such a system would not be
able to address the social and cultural cleavages. A multi-party system or a two-
an-half-party system is more likely to emerge in societies with wide gaps and
differences in its social and cultural sectors. On the other hand, there is a greater
scope for a single-party system or dominant party system to emerge in a less
diverse society.
In addition to this, the constitutional structure of a country can shape its political
system and accordingly the party system. A highly fragmented social structure
may not yield a multi-party system if the constitution restricts the political and
civil rights of individuals. Further, the ideological orientation and inclination
proposed in the constitution can also shape the party system. Thus, if the
constitutional provisions aim to establish a communist society, it will empower
the left-winged party to establish a single-party system or a dominant party
system.
Party system change may take a variety of forms, from marginal change to the
alternation of its essential features. A change of party system might be
manifested in four ways: 1) incidental swings, 2) limited change, 3) general
change, and 4) alternation of the system. Incidental swings are usually temporary
distortions in the patterned way a party system operates, and they might be
related to the establishment of some new small parties. Limited change is
prolonged or even permanent, but this change is restricted either to one area or
confined to the emergence of a party that replaces another one. General change is
more serious and relates to several aspects, that is, the fact that changes are
multifaceted and prolonged and that they concern salient features of the system.
The alternation of the system signifies a dramatic change in most of its aspects,
i.e., the party composition, its strength, alliances, and leadership. Party systems
also change their format due to long-term social and economic developments.
The processes of dealignment or realignment of party affiliations result from
structural demographic changes, accompanied by culture shifts (Krupavičius,
Algis. Isoda, et al, 2013).
In the 21st century, party and party systems across the world have been facing
significant challenges from the forces of globalization and democratization.
These include growing marketization, the rise of issue-based politics, and the
spread of information and communication technologies. Many argue that these
developments are weakening the bonds between the voters and political parties
and increasing fragmentation. Others argue that political parties and party
systems are transforming and adjust to the new developments. They point to the
rise of cartel parties (that often collaborate with each other for state resources as
78 well as for career stability and continuity of their leaders) and the increasing
reliance of parties on professionals to run centralised and technically skilled party Party Systems
operations and campaigns as evidence of transformation and adjustment of
parties and party systems to the new realities.
1) Distinguish between a dominant party system and a one-party system.

……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
2) Identify the main characteristics of a multi-party system.
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
5.4 LET US SUM UP

Parties and party systems have become the constituent elements of modern
representative democracies. Today, they are the most visible institutions of
representative democracy. They are the linkage making institutions between
political leadership and voters, political elite and civil society, the rulers and the
ruled in all representative democracies. In most political systems, there are
multiple political parties even though a few continue to be run by single a party.
In their competitive power struggle, parties interact and respond to each other.
The term party system refers to the structural and institutional arrangement for
interaction between political parties. As we saw, there have been many ways in
which party systems have been classified. However, the typologies evolved by
Maurice Duverger, Jean Blondel and Giovanni Sartori have been enduring ones.
In this unit, we have examined the Two-Party System, Two-and-A-Half-Party
System, Multi-Party System, One-Party System and the Dominant Party System
bringing out their important features and variants. We have also examined the
Institutionalized vs. de-institutionalized party system
There remain several factors that affect the number and size of parties in the
party system. The constitutional structure of a country, the degree of socio-
cultural diversity, and type of electoral representative system are some of the
aspects of the political system which shape the party system. As we saw, party
system is a dynamic concept and tends to change as and when these factors
undergo a gradual or a sudden transformation.
79
Representation
and Political 5.5 REFERENCES
Participation
Blondel, Jean. (1969). An Introduction to Comparative Government. London:
Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Clark, William Roberts. Golder et al. (2013). Principles of Comparative Politics.
USA: CQ Press.
Duverger, Maurice. (1954). Political Parties. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Haywood, A. (2013). Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kitschelt, Herbert. (2011). ‘Party Systems’ in Robert E. Goodin (Ed.). The
Oxford Handbook of Political Science. London: Oxford University Press.
LaPalomabara, Joseph and Weiner, Myron. (1966). Political Parties and
Political Development. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Krupavičius, Algis. Isoda, Vytautas,Vaišnoras, Tomas. (2013). Introduction to
Comparative Politics. Kaunas: European Social Fund (ESF) and the Government
of the Republic of Lithuania.
Mair, Peter. (2002). ‘Comparing Party Systems’, in Lawrence LeDuc, Richard G.
Niemi, Pippa (ed). Comparing Democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of
Elections and Voting. Norris Edition. London: Sage.
Mainwaring, S. (2016). ‘Party System Institutionalization, Party Collapse and
Party Building’. Government and Opposition. 51(4), 691-716.
Novák, M. (2015). ‘Competitive Party Systems: Where do Duverger and
SartoriDiverge?’ Revue française de Science Politique, 3(3), 451-471.
Sartori, G. (1976). Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Siaroff, A. (2013). Comparing Political Regimes: A Thematic Introduction to
Comparative Politics Third Edition, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
5.6 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
Check Your Progress- 1
1) Party system is the competitive interplay between parties conceived as a set of
interactive structures.
2) Sartori introduced new elements in the classification of party systems. He
included the degree of polarization as necessary component of identifying party
systems. This helped in explaining why some multi-party systems were stable or
unstable.
Check Your Progress- 2

1) A dominant-party system consists of multiple parties/political groups
competing for power but is dominated by a single major party. Whereas, in
80
single-party system, multiple parties are absent and the entire political system is Party Systems
under the control of that single party. While the former accommodates varying
interests and opinions of various other political parties, the latter works generally
in an authoritarian political setup where any kind of opposition is not tolerated.
2) A multi-party system can be characterized as follows: a) Competition between
more than two parties, b) Increased possibilities of a coalition government, c)
Less possibility of single-party government, d) Significant role played by even
smaller parties, e) No fixed equation for sharing of electoral votes, f) Creates an
efficient system of checks and balance over the government, g) Adequate
representation for diverse voices and opinions, h) Debates, discussions, and
compromise remains to be the guiding principles of government making as well
as policymaking, i) Provides voter with ample choices to choose their
government, j) Suits best a diverse society with varying groups and opinions, etc.
81
UNIT 6 PRESSURE GROUPS*
Structure
6.0 Objectives
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Defining Pressure Groups
6.3 Origin of Pressure Groups
6.4 Pressure Groups and Other Social Groups
6.4.1 Pressure Groups and Interest Groups
6.4.2 Pressure Groups and Political Parties
6.4.3 Pressure Groups and Civil Society Organizations
6.5 Characteristics of Pressure Groups
6.6 Classification of Pressure Groups
6.6.1 Institutional Pressure Groups
6.6.2 Associational Pressure Groups
6.6.3 Non-Associational Pressure Groups
6.6.4 Anomic Pressure Groups
6.7 Methods and Techniques of Pressure Groups
6.7.1 Lobbying
6.7.2 Shaping Public Opinion
6.7.3 Publicity and Propaganda
6.7.4 Strikes and Agitations
6.8 Pressure Groups in Modern Political System
6.9 Let Us Sum Up
6.10 References
6.0 OBJECTIVES
As we saw in the last unit, political parties provide the critical link between
citizens and the government in a democracy. Pressure groups, the subject of this
unit, also perform a similar role and contribute to the policy process. After going
through this unit, you will be able to:
· Explain the meaning and characteristics of pressure groups;
· Distinguish pressure groups from political parties, interest groups, civil
society
· Classify pressure groups;
*
Adopted from BPSC 133 Comparative Government and Politics.
· Describe the methods, strategies and techniques used by pressure groups; and Pressure Groups
· Explain the role of pressure groups in democratic politics.
6.1 INTRODUCTION
We normally associate modernization with the widespread belief that the
conditions of life can be altered through human action. But modernisation is also
associated with economic and social changes like industrialisation, urbanisation,
modern education, spread of public communications etc. These changes lead to
an increasing diversity of life conditions which results in the formation of large
numbers of special interest groups. Most democracies provide scope for such
special interest groups to express their needs. These groups, commonly identified
as ‘interest groups’ or ‘pressure groups’, seek to protect or advance their
collective interests and also to obtain public policy outcomes favourable to them
by pressurizing the government and other state apparatus. Such groups have
come to play an important role in the political system by organising individuals
into groups and then linking them with the political system. In this sense,
pressure groups act as mediating institutions between the government and the
governed in a democratic polity.
6.2 DEFINING PRESSURE GROUPS

The task of defining ‘pressure group’ in a single universally acceptable definition
is a difficult one. Consider the following definitions of pressure groups:
· “organised groups possessing both formal structure and real common
interests in so far as they influence the decisions of public bodies” -W.J.M.
Mackenzie.
· “organisations trying to influence the policy of public bodies in their own
chosen direction, though never themselves prepared to undertake the direct
Government of the country” -Samuel Finer.
· “an association of individuals joined together by a common interest, belief,
activity or purpose that seeks to achieve its objectives, further its interests and
enhance its status in relation to other groups, by gaining the approval and co-
operation of authority in the form of favourable policies, legislation and
conditions” -Peter Shipley.
· “organizations which seeks to influence government policy without at the
same time being willing to accept the responsibility of public office” -N.C.
Hunt.
Despite differences in their emphasis, these definitions make it clear that pressure
groups are voluntary social groups characterized by persuasive activism to
achieve a desirable change or to prevent an undesirable change. Their activism,
often termed as ‘pressure politics’ involves various methods to influence the
government and other state apparatus like legislatures, executives, or individuals
in responsible positions of decision-making and implementation of public
policies.
83
Representation and In the recent times, pressure groups also emerged in the form of social
Political
Participation movements on issues like protection of environment, corruption, human rights,
education, health, livelihood etc. For example, groups like Narmada Bachao
Andolan (NBA) or India Against Corruption (IAC) have propagated public
awareness on issues of environment protection and corruption respectively while
pressurizing the government for a better policy outcome.
Pressure groups vary in terms of size and influence as well as the area of
operation. Some are relatively small, formed on the basis of highly specific
interests, and operate at local or domestic level, while others are extremely large
and powerful with some of them even operating beyond national boundaries. For
example, groups like Confederation of Free Trade Union, Council of European
Federation of Industry, Amnesty International, Anti-Apartheid Movement,
Oxfam and Friends of Earth are some of the groups that operate across national
boundaries. Moreover, there are also collective groups like the World Social
Forum (WSF) formed by different civil societies, advocacy groups, and social
movements from different countries but operate at the global level. Thus,
whatever be their size, strength and area of operation, pressure groups have come
to play an enormously important role in society and politics, and are considered
to be a vital component of modern political system.
The World Social Forum (WSF) is a collective solidarity forum of

various civil society groups, non-governmental organizations, groups of
farmers, intellectuals, women, youths, etc. from around the world whose
aim is to condemn the harmful effects of globalisation and working
towards the establishment of a better world. The group organised its
annual Forum for the first time in 2001 in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Since
then, the forum organises its anti-globalization campaigns in various
parts of the world. The forum then emerged as a challenger or alternative
to the World Economic Forum which has been organized in Davos,
Switzerland, denouncing its neoliberal economic policies. The WSF is
known for its opposition to globalization driven by neoliberalism and
defended by global financial institutions like the WTO, IMF and other
multinational corporations.
6.3 ORIGIN OF PRESSURE GROUPS

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle in his book, Politics, famously said,
‘Man is by nature a social animal’. This idea of Aristotle implies that man cannot
live alone and that men enter into relationship with others to live a social and
political life. This behaviour of men incentivises them to form social groups in
almost every sphere of life. Therefore, as many scholars also suggested, ever
since the inception of organized human society there had been groups in society
whose character and activities were similar to what we identify today as pressure
groups. In this regard, ‘groups’ and ‘group politics’ can be considered as old as
the human society itself. People belonging to different sections of the society, be
84
it religion, caste, ethnicity, profession, trade unions, farmers came together and Pressure Groups
voluntarily organized themselves in order to advance their interests.
Pressure groups gained prominence in the modern times, particularly after the
American and French revolutions in the late 18th century. The spread of
democratic rights, ideas and values led to an astonishing increase in the number
of pressure groups. Prominent among the new pressure groups are those of
minorities and women. They have come together to demand social and political
rights to ensure that they are not subjugated. For instance, the Abolition Society
in Britain was founded in 1787 to oppose the slave trade. Similarly, the Society
for Women’s Rights was founded in France in 1866 with the purpose of exerting
a worldwide women’s suffrage movement. Thus, by the end of the 19th century,
many such groups asserting the interests of business groups, trade unions etc.,
had become operationalised in most of the industrial societies.
Despite the pressure groups coming to prominence in democratic politics, the
discipline of political science had hardly given any attention to their role and
influence in political processes. Arthur F Bentley, an American social scientist,
who is regarded as the founder of the group theory, wrote in 1908 that it was only
through the analysis of group activities that one could achieve a true knowledge
of government. It was, however, only in the mid-twentieth century that the study
of group politics began to attract political scientists. Some of the pioneers of
group-centred approach in the study of politics are David B Truman, Earl
Latham, WJM Mackenzie, S.E Finer, and Joseph LaPalombara.
6.4 PRESSURE GROUPS AND OTHER SOCIAL

GROUPS
It is easily conceivable that there can be many kinds of groups in a political
system which may be organized and cohesive such as interest groups, political
parties, civil society organizations (CSOs) and so on. Although these groups exist
to serve their common interests, they differ from what we identified as pressure
groups. Therefore, we should be able to differentiate pressure groups from other
entities.
6.4.1 Pressure Groups and Interest Groups

Among the many social groups, interest groups are possibly the closest to
pressure groups. In fact, many scholars do not make a distinction between
pressure groups and interest groups and they often treat the two as synonymous.
Alan R Ball (1994: 103), for example, puts pressure groups under the same
category as interest groups, attitude groups etc. He defined these groups as
“social aggregates with some level of chosen and shared aims which attempt to
influence the political decision-making process”. Likewise, Robert H. Salisbury
also argued ‘pressure group is only more pejorative but perhaps more familiar a
term for interest groups. For these scholars, pressure groups, in a sense, are
similar to interest groups in that they strive to achieve the interests of their
members.
85
Representation and There are other groups of scholars who seek to differentiate pressure groups from
Political
Participation interest groups. They believe that pressure groups always attempt to influence the
government’s decision-making process, whereas interest groups do not
necessarily have the intention to do so. Interest groups merely insist on
promoting their interests to achieve their specific goals but they do not exert
pressure on the government. Therefore, the word ‘pressure’ can be taken as the
basic point of distinction between the two. For these scholars, pressure groups are
far more powerful than interest groups or any group of similar kind because they
have the intent or capability to pressurize the government to get policy decisions
favourable to them. In this regard, Hugh A. Bone says, “every group is an interest
group or a group with an interest, but not every group attempts to influence
public policy”. This implies that interest groups transformed themselves into
pressure groups when they begin to influence the decision-making process. In a
sense, one can say that all pressure groups are interest groups but not all interest
groups necessarily transform into pressure groups.
There are other scholars who avoid the use of the term ‘pressure group’. They
argue that the term carries a negative connotation as it insinuates the threat of use
of force to achieve their objectives. These scholars prefer to use labels such as
‘sectional’ ‘organized’ ‘the lobby’ or ‘interests’ groups to refer to the whole
range of groups that strive for a specific interest in society. Whether they are
called interest groups, attitude groups, or pressure groups, they exist to serve their
respective group’s interests and all of them in one way or the other exert some
pressure on the government (Watts 2007: 6). Despite the ambiguous line of
demarcation between pressure groups and these groups, one can still make the
distinction that ‘pressure groups’ generally refers those groups that actively seek
to influence public policy.
6.4.2 Pressure Groups and Political Parties

Both pressure groups and political parties are important agencies which aim to
achieve the interests of different sections of society. In some respects, the roles of
pressure groups are parallel to those of political parties—as agents of political
mobilization and representation by linking the government and the governed. But
there are theoretical and practical distinctions between the two. While political
parties aim to get into power and form the government, pressure groups generally
seek to influence and pressurize the government in accordance with the particular
interests and aspirations of the people they represent. Unlike political parties
whose central objective is to capture power and run the government, pressure
groups never aim to gain formal control of the government. Instead, pressure
groups devote themselves to influence the government to realize their demands
and objectives. In other words, pressure groups seek to influence government,
parties seek to become government.
Another distinction between pressure groups and political parties is that while the
former focus on only one policy area, the latter have broad programmes covering
all (or almost all) policy areas. For instance, trade unions or human rights groups
are concerned with limited goals of protecting or promoting welfare of the
workers or human rights. They rarely concern themselves with economic or
86 external policies, except when those policies impinge on their interests. Political
parties on the other hand are concerned with diverse policies related to national Pressure Groups
development.
However, the distinction between political parties and pressure groups can
sometimes be extremely complicated by the fact that some pressure groups are
found to have close relationship with one political party or another. In fact, there
are pressure groups which render support to certain political parties whenever
they think their political purpose can be served by supporting them and vice-
versa. On the other hand, there are also pressure groups which have transformed
into political parties. For example, the Labour parties in Britain and Australia had
their origins in the working people’s movements. Likewise, in India, Shiv Sena in
Maharashtra, the Mizo National Front (MNF) in Mizoram and the Aam Admi
Party (AAP) in Delhi were pressure groups before they become political parties.
However, in general, most pressure groups seek to keep some distance rather
than to develop close links with political parties.
6.4.3 Pressure Groups and Civil Society Organizations

Pressure groups are also often equated with civil society organizations (CSOs).
Civil society organizations are organizations and associations set up by the
citizens of a country to pursue certain interests. While some of the civil society
organizations act as interest groups to promote their respective interests, others
pressurize the government to bring about certain public policies in their group’s
interests. In India, civil society groups like Lok Satta, Jannagraha, and
Foundation of Democratic Reforms (FDR) are persuading political parties to
create avenues for legitimate funding to political parties with transparency and
disclosure. They also significantly contributed in the improvement of voter
registration in India. The group FDR in particular, also works for transparency,
right to information, speedy delivery of justice by the judiciary etc. However,
what differentiates pressure groups from CSOs is that pressure groups are more
power-centric than CSOs which are interest oriented. Moreover, the domains of
pressure groups are relatively restricted compared to CSOs whose arenas of
functioning are usually vast and diverse.

1) Define pressure groups. How are pressure groups different from interest
groups?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
87
Representation and 2) Explain the difference between pressure groups and political parties.
Political
Participation …………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
6.5 CHARACTERISTICS OF PRESSURE GROUPS

Pressure groups came into existence to serve the interest of the community or
group they represent. Therefore, their objectives and demands are different
depending upon the collective interest of the particular group. However, despite
their differences, pressure groups exhibit certain characteristics in common. A
fundamental characteristic of pressure groups is that they neither contest
elections nor attempt to directly involve in the governmental affairs. Instead, they
aim to pressurize government agencies, bureaucrats, and politicians to get public
policies in their favour. While doing this political bargaining, pressure groups
always try to maintain a neutral political position by concentrating on their
specific demands. Therefore, pressure groups are sometimes considered as
‘apolitical’ groups. However, they may enter into the arena of electoral politics
by financing or supporting the party or candidate who they think will work in
their interests. In this regard, pressure groups also try to maintain good
relationship with political parties, politicians or high-ranking executives of the
government in order to win their co-operation or support in group’s interests.
Pressure groups, however, have no permanent political affiliation and generally
try to keep their group interest above political interests. They, therefore, wish to
win the co-operation of whichever party controls the government of the day.
Since pressure groups emerged from specific sections of the society, their arena
of functioning is generally restricted. However, their demands may be many
(social, political or economic) and they may vary from time to time while the
group remains intact. This flexibility of demands and objectives is an important
characteristic of pressure groups. Another characteristic of pressure group is their
emphasis on the need for a collective approach rather than an individualistic
approach. They believed that group activities are more effective than activities of
individuals.
6.6 CLASSIFICATION OF PRESSURE GROUPS

Pressure groups have been classified by several scholars into different categories
on the basis of their structure and organization. Among them the four-fold
classification given by Almond and Coleman is more suitable and widely
applicable. They are:
88
6.6.1 Institutional Pressure Groups Pressure Groups
Institutional pressure groups are those groups which are formed in various
institutions, including government institutions like schools, colleges, universities,
judiciary, bureaucracies, hospitals, police etc. Since these pressure groups exist
within formal organizations formed by professionally employed personnel like
doctors, lawyers, teachers, they are highly organized in accordance with proper
rules and regulations. Therefore, they are also known as professional pressure
groups. In India, groups like Civil Services Association, Police Families Welfare
Association, Defence Personnel Association, Indian Medical Association, All
India Bar Association, etc. all come under this category. They are formed in
order to serve their interests without directly getting involved in the government.
Since they are close to the government, they can easily influence the government.
Apart from articulating their own interest, they may also articulate and represent
the interest of other groups. For example, a pressure group in the Ministry of
Agriculture can easily and effectively convince other ministries or bureaucrats on
behalf of the interests of farmers.
6.6.2 Associational Pressure Groups

These groups are highly organized and specialized groups formed to pursue
limited goals. Associational pressure group includes organization of businessmen
and industrialists like Associated Chambers of Commerce (ASSOCAM),
Confederation of Indian Industries (CII), Federation of Chambers of Commerce
and Industry (FICCI) etc. These groups, by virtue of their vast array of resources,
technical and managerial knowledge and their close links with elite groups in the
government are among the most influential pressure groups. Some of these
groups are so powerful that even political parties are dependent on them for funds
and other resources, and in turn, government sometimes serves them by giving
concessions in the reduction of tax, tariff, trade etc. In some cases, the
government even seeks suggestions and advice of these groups on major policy
issues of economic and commercial aspects. This category also includes workers
and peasants’ unions such as All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), Bharatya
Kisan Sangh, Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh and student’s organizations like Akhil
Bharatiya Vidhyarthi Parishad (ABVP), National Students Union of India
(NSUI), Students Federation of India (SFI), etc. Therefore, this category is
sometimes divided into different types such as business groups, trading groups,
agrarian groups, worker groups, and student groups and so on.
6.6.3 Non-Associational Pressure Groups

This category refers to those groups which are informal in nature brought
together by religion, culture and traditions, kinship, ethnicity, tribal affiliation, or
family ties etc. There is no formal and structural procedure in their activities and
demands. They do not have permanent demands or interests. Their demands and
interests keep changing according to requirements of a specific situation. Non-
associational pressure groups are mostly based on language, ethnicity, religion or
any other socio-cultural aspects in the society. They are more concerned with
89
Representation and community service focusing on protection and promotion of the interest of the
Political
Participation whole community. Therefore, they are also known as socio-cultural pressure
groups. In India, religious based groups such as Vishwa Hindu Parishad,
Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Samiti or caste-based groups like Lorik
Sena, Bhumi Sena, Vaishaya Samaj, Balmiki Samaj, etc. are some examples of
socio-religious and cultural pressure groups. These groups are formed with the
aim of protecting and promoting the culture, tradition and beliefs of particular
religious, ethnic or cultural communities.
6.6.4 Anomic Pressure Groups

Anomic pressure groups are those which appear for a short span of time for
specific objectives and purpose. In Almond’s words, they are ’more or less
spontaneous groups, penetrated into the political system from the society’. These
groups are generally formed in response to unpredictable moments like, famine,
drought, scarcity of resources or any similar kind of urgency. Since these groups
are spontaneous in nature depending upon the spur of the moment, they are not
guided by any rule or procedural structure. As a result, their behaviour and
actions are also quite unpredictable which often turns violent. For example,
famine relief groups like Mizo National Famine Front in Mizoram or the Assom
Gona Parishad formed during the Assam Movement can be termed as anomic
pressure groups. Once the purpose is served, most of them ceased to exist while
others may transform into political parties like in the case of Shiv Sena in
Maharashtra or the Mizo National Front (MNF) in Mizoram.

1) What are the four types of pressure groups classified by Almond and
Coleman?
…………………………………………………………………………………
………...……………………………………………………………………….
………...………………………………………………………………...……..
.………………………………………………………………………...………
6.7 METHODS AND TACTICS OF PRESSURE

GROUPS
We know that pressure groups constantly endeavour to shape public policy. For
this, they use different methods and tactics. And tactics adopted by pressure
groups are not similar because, their choice of tactics is determined by various
factors such as the nature of the political system, attitude of the government, the
capability and strength of the particular pressure group. It also depends on the
availability and convenience of methods which the groups have at their disposal.
They tend to use any possible methods that will provide maximum benefit in the
90
group’s interests. Following are some common tactics employed by pressure Pressure Groups
groups:
6.7.1 Lobbying
Lobbying refers to an effort made by pressure groups to influence government
decisions. Lobbying is one of the most common and significant persuasive tactics
used by pressure groups. The term ‘lobby’ is derived from the lobby or the hall of
Britain’s House of Commons. Therefore, lobbying refers to any attempt or efforts
made by individual members or groups, usually in the lobbies or halls of
parliament buildings, to garner support for their cause by influencing politicians,
legislatures, or anyone who is in the government or in the authority of policy-
making. The act of lobbying can be conducted in multiple ways, such as direct
personal contacts, sending delegations or representatives, writing of letters,
telephone calls, email conversations or any other form of communication activity
that can be used for persuasion. Although the act of lobbying remains highly
personal basically associated with private activities of individual members of the
group, it may also occur on a large scale in which several individual members try
to convince and persuade those who have the power to decide policy decisions
such as member of the legislature, ministers or government officials etc. Pressure
groups may also lobby through advertisement in popular media such as
newspaper, radio, television etc. in order to convince those in the position of
power. The process of lobbying may also include actions involving favours,
inducements and offerings to lure the officials in order to get the work done.
6.7.2 Shaping Public Opinion

To highlight and convey their issues and concerns to the government, pressure
groups widely use the tactic of public-opinion campaigns. A public-opinion
campaign is basically geared to attract media attention and also to sensitize the
public at large in order to gain wider influence. For this, pressure groups use
several platforms such as use of mass media, issuing press release, distributing
pamphlets, organizing public meetings etc. In doing such publicity exercise,
pressure groups are able to shape public opinion in their favour on the one hand
and to present a criticism of the government policy on the other. The purpose of
influencing public opinion is to alert the government thereby making their voice
heard.
6.7.3 Publicity and Propaganda

Publicity and propaganda are another common technique used by pressure
groups. Pressure groups usually do this by propagating their interests through
mass media, such as newspapers, radio, television, internet, and so on. Through
this pressure groups can highlight their demands and opinions as well as inform
and educate the government and the public at large on matters that are crucial for
their collective interests. By doing this, pressure groups are able to attract and
influence those in authority to accede to their demands.
91
Representation and 6.7.4 Strikes and Agitations
Political
Participation
Usually, pressure groups use peaceful means to achieve their goals. But they may
also resort to agitations to get maximum benefits of their demands. Such tactics
include strikes, protests, demonstrations, civil disobedience. Strike is a form of
agitation which attempts for a temporary stoppage of work to force government
or those in authority to concede to their demands. It is one of the most effective
and common form of agitation adopted by pressure groups. Strikers often refuse
to carry out their legitimate duties and may try to persuade others not to perform
their duties. Though most forms of strikes are constitutional and peaceful, they
sometime go out of control and result in violent. Bandh and Gherao are other
forms of direct-action methods. A Bandh is a combination of a strike and a
shutdown or blockade. Participants refrain from economic activity and usually set
up roadblocks or shut office, shops, public transport etc., to ‘enforce’ the bandh.
Gherao, on the other hand, involves the confinement of government officials by
members of pressure groups for forcing them to concede to their demands. It is
similar to picketing in which people congregate outside a place of work or
location where an event is taking place to draw public attention to a cause. In
India, most pressure groups rely more on direct action methods and less on
techniques like lobbying.
Pressure Groups in India and the West

India and Western countries are democracies. But within Western
countries there are differences between Presidential and Parliamentary
forms of government. India though a parliamentary democracy differs
from such countries of the West in terms of developmental levels.
Therefore, there are some differences in the role of pressure groups.
Firstly, the American pressure groups are regarded as the fourth organ of
the government, but the Indian pressure groups are not yet able to play
such a significant role in politics. Secondly, in India and Great Britain,
the cabinet and civil service are the main targets of pressure groups for
lobbying purposes rather than the parliament. However, the targets of
American pressure groups are the Congress and its committees rather
than the President for lobbying purposes. Thirdly, in India, pressure
groups based on caste, religion, region, etc. are more powerful than the
modern groups like business organisations. Finally, a significant feature
of' American pressure groups is that they take interest in foreign policy
issues while in India pressure groups are concerned more with domestic
policy issues and problems, and less with foreign policy matters. Despite
these differences, democratic politics presupposes the crucial role of
pressure groups for serving the interests of different sections of society.
92
Pressure Groups

1) Why do pressure groups attempt to pressurize the government? Elaborate
some pressure tactics used by pressure groups.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2) What is lobbying?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
6.8 PRESSURE GROUPS IN MODERN POLITICAL

SYSTEM
Group activity is a feature of every democracy and, indeed, of many authoritarian
states as well. Although pressure groups have existed for long and will continue
to do so into the foreseeable future, it is difficult to assess their role in a
democracy. This is because of the multiplicity and diversity of pressure groups.
There are simply too many of them and they vary in terms of their aims,
composition and method. Some engage in continuous political activity while
others do so intermittently or vanish after accomplishing their objective. Given
this, the generalised comments we make here do not apply to all pressure groups
in all circumstances.
For those who take a positive view of pressure-group activity, these groups
enhance our democracy and have an important role in the political processes.
Pressure groups enable individuals to associate with one another and voice their
interests and grievances which are essential rights in any democracy. Their
activities give representation and voice to the minorities or the disadvantaged
sections of the society who are not adequately represented in the government. For
instance, women, ethnic minorities, gays, transgenders that are inadequately
represented by political parties, find opportunity to express any resentment about
their treatments, and to suggest ideas that would help overcome obstacles that
prevent them from fulﬁlling their potential.
Pressure group activity also encourages wider participation in decision making
process. Ordinary individuals participate in political life only during election
time. Elections which are held once in four or five years may not allow voters to
express a preference on individual issue. Pressure groups give an opportunity to 93
Representation and individuals be politically active and to make a contribution to the working of
Political
Participation democracy between elections.
Pressure groups act as a link between the people and the government, a useful
intermediary between the electors and those whom they elect, allowing a variety
of views to be expressed. They counter the monopoly of the political process by
political parties. As one political scientist put it “The views which pressure
groups convey are legitimate interests…Modern democracy would not exist
without pressure groups. As a channel of representation, they are as legitimate as
the ballot box…. They can mediate between the government and the governed”
(Baggott, 1995).
Pressure groups often provide specialist information to the government and often
help in the implementation of policy. Some of the well organised pressure groups
often participate in official consultative committees, advisory groups and
commissions. Most governments rely on these groups for advice, information
specialist expertise and help in implementing policies. Pressure groups thus
contribute in the formation, shaping and implementation of public policies.
Finally, activities of pressure groups make the public at large better informed
about public policies. These activities keep political system and government
more responsive to the aspiration and demands of the people.
However, there are critics who argue that pressure groups can endanger and
weaken the democratic process. They argue that relatively small unelected groups
of individuals, instead of elected representatives, are able to influence policies
and laws. Marxist and Elitist theorists, for instance, argue that politics is always
dominated by a small number of people. According to Marxist scholars, pressure
groups reflect the prevailing power structure of the system in which few leaders
from the capitalist class always control and dominate these pressure groups. This
class-based nature of pressure groups ensures the system in favour of the
powerful and wealthy class while leaving less for the weaker majority. On the
other hand, Elitist theorists explain pressure groups in terms of what Robert
Michels called the ‘iron law of oligarchy’ which claim that minorities, often
called ‘oligarchs’ always rule these organizations. According to them, majority of
the masses, particularly from weaker section of the society are largely
unorganized, therefore, they are unlikely to emerge as leaders of pressure groups,
because they neither have the resources nor the power to fight in the political
battle against the powerful.
Critics of group activity also contend that the methods and tactics used by
pressure groups are often corrupt and intimidating. For example, large-scale
demonstrations or protest may cause inconvenience to many. Sometimes direct
actions methods go out of control, thereby resulting into violent clashes between
the protestors and state machineries. However, the right to make a protest,
particularly when those in power take actions that are detrimental to a section of
society, is a fundamental one in any democracy.
It appears that excessive group power creates the possibility of organised
interests foisting their particular views upon elected representatives who are
expected to keep the general interest of the people. On the other hand, too little
94 group power poses the threat of elected government behaving in high handed
manner and ignoring the legitimate needs and preferences of the people. Given Pressure Groups
that pressure groups have become indispensable components of modern political
life, it is important to draw a line between excessive and reasonable influence of
group activity. In general, governments which allow pressure groups to operate
freely are far more accountable and responsive to the public than those without
pressure groups.
6.9 LET US SUM UP

Pressure groups are organizations, associations and groups representing the
collective interests of their members. They play an important role in democratic
politics of a country by articulating the demands and interests of different groups
in society. By forming pressure groups, people seek to protect and promote their
shared interests and beliefs while exerting pressures on the government. In fact,
many of the pressure groups are able to influence the government and change the
community’s socio-economic and political structures. Since they do not attempt
to exercise governing power, they are different from political parties in many
ways. Though similar in their orientation and nature, pressure groups are also
different from other groups in the society like interest groups, or civil society
organizations. They are well structured, organized and formalized in their
objectives, working and methods. Though few pressure groups exist for a short
time to achieve immediate or specific purpose, majority of pressure groups are
long-lived and exert concerted pressures on the government thereby influencing
both the policy formulation and policy implementation process in their group’s
interests.
6.10 REFERENCES
Alan R. Ball and John Millard. (1965). Pressure Politics in Industrial Societies,
London: Alfred & Knopf.
Baggot, Rob. (1995). Pressure Groups Today. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Finer, S. E. (1958).Interest Groups on Four Continents. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Forman F.N. and N.D.J. Baldwin. (1999). Mastering British Politics. London:
Macmillan Press.
Key, V. O. (1969). Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups. New York: Thomas
and Crowell Co.
Watts, Duncan. (2007). Pressure Groups. London and Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
95
Representation and
Political 6.11 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS
Participation
EXERCISES
1. Group of individuals or associations that seek to exert pressure or influence in
the decision-making process of the government in order to gain policy
outcome in accordance with their interests. Although pressure groups are
similar to ‘interest groups, the former aim to influence the government’s
decision-making process, the latter do not have the claims against the
government or cannot influence the government.
2. Pressure groups aim to influence the decision-making process without
directly involve in forming the government. Political parties, on the other
hand, are groups that seek to contest elections to form the government.

1. Almond and Coleman’s classification of pressure groups consists of four
types. They are: (i) institutional pressure groups, (ii) associational pressure
groups, (iii) non-associational pressure groups, and (iv) anomic pressure
groups

1. Pressure groups constantly attempt to pressurize the government to gain
policy outcomes on their behalf. For this they adopt various techniques which
include lobbying, propaganda, appeals and petitions, holding of
demonstrations, dharnas, strikes, bandh, boycott, and so on. However, their
choice of strategies and techniques are determined by factors such as nature
of political system, effectiveness of the group, availability of techniques etc.
2. Lobbying refers to any attempt or efforts made by individual members or
groups to garner support for their cause by influencing the government or
those who are in the authority of policy-making. It may include actions
involving favours, inducements and offerings to lure the officials or leaders to
get the work done.
96
UNIT 7 ELECTORAL SYSTEMS AND
ELECTORAL PROCESSES*
Structure
7.0 Objectives
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Classification of electoral systems
7.3 Majoritarian Systems
7.3.1 Single-Member Plurality system
7.3.2 Second Ballot System
7.3.3 Alternative Vote and Supplementary Vote System
7.3.4 Condorcet Method
7.4 Proportional Representation Systems
7.4.1 Single-Transferable-Vote System
7.4.2 Party-List System
7.5 Mixed Methods
7.5.1 Mixed-Member Proportional System
7.5.2 Semi-Proportional Method
7.5.3 Cumulative Vote System
7.5.4 Slate System
7.6 Comparative Assessment of Majoritarian and PR Systems
7.7 Let Us Sum Up
7.8 References
7.0 OBJECTIVES
An electoral system does not only set rules for election, but also plays crucial role
in shaping the party system and political culture of the country. This unit focuses
*
Dr. Tulika Gaur, Guest Faculty, Non-Collegiate Women's Education Board, University of Delhi,
Delhi
Representation on electoral systems and processes. After going through this unit, you should be
and Political
Participation able to:
· Define electoral system,
· Identify the various dimensions of an electoral system,
· Assess combinations of electoral methods used by different countries in
their national or local elections,
· Examine the advantages and disadvantages of different kinds of electoral
systems, and
· Analyse the links between parties and electoral process.
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The electoral system refers to a set of rules through which people get to choose
their representatives or political leaders. It shapes the outcome of the election by
providing for an election mechanism and election process through which
representation of several political parties is determined in the legislature.
Electoral systems not only work at the national level but are also used extensively
in determining the composition of local bodies. It is the deciding factor for the
various combinations of political parties/groups/individuals that exist at the
legislative and executive level in a country. Formation of coalitions, various
strategies opted by political parties to get into the legislature, and their election
manifestoes- all depend on what kind of electoral system exist in their political
system. An electoral system is not a static concept; rather it is a dynamic system
which has been evolving continuously as needed by the countries to suit their
political system. An electoral system well-defined facilitates the democratic
culture to perform in its true spirit.
A well known comparative political science scholar, Bernard Groffman has
identified six basic components of an electoral system. These are 1) defining the
eligibility for contesting the election (individuals or party or combination of
both); 2) specifying rules within the party for identifying the party’s candidates
or setting the criteria for ranking the candidates in a party list, 3) specification of
ballot type, 4) specification of constituencies (districts), 5) determination of
election timing, and 6) rules for ballot aggregation. Apart from this, the term
electoral system is also used to refer to rules and regulations for the voters,
campaigning, advertising, deciding on phases of elections, and so on
(Krupavičius, Isoda, Vaišnoras, 2013).
As mentioned by Rae (1971), electoral systems have three dimensions: the ballot
structure, the district structure, and the electoral formula.
1. Ballot structure defines the nature of ballot system and the different ways in
which it is casted and counted. For instance, whether votes are casted for
either Individuals or a group of individuals (party list) or a combination of
both; how many votes are supposed to be casted for candidates and/or lists; in
case more than one votes are to be casted, then whether it is based on
preference or rank of candidates/list in any order; and finally, whether there is
98 single round or multiple rounds of voting.
2. District structure comprises of the area, number, and hierarchy of electoral Electoral Systems
and Electoral
districts. Here, electoral districts are those areas in which elections are Processes
conducted. There can be one single seated or multiple seated district
structures, that is the entire country can be considered as a national electoral
district or it may be divided into several small electoral constituencies. In
case of latter, there may exist a certain kind of hierarchy such as upper and
lower tiers. There may be one or many seats in any electoral district.
3. The electoral formula refers to the process through which votes get
transformed into seats. The most popular formulas are the plurality, majority,
and proportional representation (PR) systems. These formulas may vary as
per the district structure.
7.2 CLASSIFICATION OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

Generally, the electoral system is classified into three main categories based on
the rules decided for conversion of votes into seats in the legislature: first
category is the Majoritarian system; second is the Proportional Representative
system and the third is the Mixed system. Majoritarian Method refers to a system
where larger parties get to represent higher number of seats, while the
Proportional Representation (PR) systems depicts a system where seats are
decided in proportion to the votes acquired in the election. Mixed systems are the
combination of the majoritarian and PR systems.
It is more likely that in Majoritarian system, parties getting 30 percent of votes
may emerge as the ruling parties resulting in mostly two-party systems or single-
party governments such as in 2010 elections in the U.K., when the Conservative
Party appeared as the largest party acquiring 47 percent of seats despite holding
only 36 percent of votes while the Liberal Democratic Party acquired 9 percent of
seats with 29 percent of votes. The Conservatives have held power for a
prolonged period even though they have never earned more than 40-45 percent of
total electoral votes. Majoritarian system may result in huge disparities as the
seats are not allocated in proportion of votes acquired. Also, there are higher
chances for a party with minimum two-fifth of votes to acquire the political
power which might impact the efficacy of the government and the political
system.
On the other hand, in PR system, parties get representation on seats according to
the percentage of votes acquired by them in elections. For instance, a party
getting 40 percent of votes get to represent on 40 percent of total legislative seats,
thus reducing the possibilities of single-party rule. PR systems usually result in
multiparty systems or in coalition governments assuring a better representative
system and more effective political system. The governments thus formed are
popular governments and are better at managing the popular mandate than those
in the Majoritarian system where government is mostly formed by those who
have secured lesser than 50 percent of total votes.
Mixed systems aim to combine the benefits of PR and single-member plurality
systems in various ways possible. There are several arrangements in the
Majoritarian System, Proportional Representative System and Mixed systems
99
Representation which are designed by countries to suit their political culture. Some of them are
and Political
Participation discussed in the following section.
7.3 MAJORITARIAN SYSTEMS

7.3.1 Single-Member Plurality Systems
In the single member plurality (SMP) system, the person/party holding maximum
number of votes is the winner. This system, which is also called the First Past the
Post System, is popular in the UK, USA, Canada, India, and some other countries
which have had their political systems derived from the British colonial past.
In this system, the entire area gets divided into single-member constituencies
which are generally of equal size. The electoral votes are cast for a single
candidate for each constituency, i.e., each voter gets to vote for a single candidate
to govern for their constituency. In this system, there is a higher probability of
winning such election despite obtaining only minority votes. For example, if five
candidates contesting an election get 32, 25, 14, 18, 11 votes out of total 100
votes polled, the winner is the one who has secured the largest number of votes,
32 votes. This means that although the majority of votes (100-32 = 68 votes)
were not favouring this candidate, yet this candidate is declared winner because
the maximum number of votes casted in favour of any candidate belongs to him.
This accounts for a major drawback of the First Past the Post System as it results
in wastage of many votes. It also means that in this system, there is higher
possibility of smaller political parties getting poor coverage and attention. Some
scholars hold that this also undermines the very essence of a healthy democracy
as it dilutes the impact of smaller groups and political parties in the political
system. Since, the elected candidate usually enjoys only minority support, the
legitimacy of such governments also can be questioned. Another risk associated
with this system is that it may result in an unaccountable government because the
winner is decided on the basis of simple majority which may not be in essence
the choice of majority of population.
Despite these limitations, there remain various advantages associated with this
system. The government formed in such systems claim clear mandate from the
electorates even though it based on simple majority. This helps in avoiding any
kind of radical group or extremism from gaining strength in the political system.
Furthermore, the provision of several single-member constituencies ensures that
every part of country gets adequate representations in the national legislature. It
also tends to provide the voters with ample choices of candidates and varying
criteria of choosing the representatives are allowed to exist simultaneously which
in turn strengthens the democratic element.
7.3.2 Second-Ballot System

This method has managed to address the major shortcoming of the earlier
discussed SMP system to a large extent. To ensure that the winning candidate
gets decided not only on the basis of simple majority but also on absolute
majority, Second-Ballot system is used. It has been an accepted electoral system
100
in France, Chile, Austria and Russia. As followed in the SMP system, the entire Electoral Systems
and Electoral
country is divided into several single-member constituencies and people’s vote is Processes
based on single-choice out of many candidates contesting the election. However,
there are two rounds of voting. After the first round of voting, the second round
of voting is held between the leading two candidates who have emerged as
winners in the first round. This gives people the freedom to choose any candidate
in the first round, but then limits the choice to the top two contenders so that a
candidate with absolute majority emerges as winner. Because of this format, this
system is also described as ‘Mixed Majority-Plurality’ system.
This system is also followed in the USA when the two main political parties
conduct internal election to decide on their leadership and presidential
candidates. Rounds of voting continue to take place until any of their candidates
reach an absolute majority.
Although this system may seem to address the major drawback of the SMP
system, yet it fails to provide ample opportunities to the smaller parties and
individual candidates. In this system, there is higher tendency of larger parties’
candidates to secure the top two positions and relegating the significant positions
of the third parties which may not be far behind from the top two contenders.
This system may also encourage the candidates to opt for popularity over party
principles resulting in unstable and corrupt contenders reaching the top two
positions. Lastly, holding election twice in any country will cost extra load on the
country’s treasury as well strain the electorates’ patience.
Despite these shortcomings, the Second-Ballot system also ensures that the
elected candidate secures consent of most of the population and is more widely
accepted. It gives the electorates also ample choices in the first round and
preferential choice in the second round leading to maximum satisfaction of the
electorates to the outcomes of such rigorous event. Moreover, the legitimacy of
the candidate thus elected remains unquestioned which consequently leads to a
strong and stable governance system unlike that of the SMP system.
7.3.3 Alternative-Vote and Supplementary Vote System

This is another method that is used to address the criticism of SMP system
regarding the lack of absolute majority of the winning candidate. However, it is
generally used in internal election in different countries and not as a mandatory
method to decide the national leadership of any country. For instance, the
election in House of Representatives in Australia is decided by using the
Alternative Vote (AV) method while the election of Mayor in London, United
Kingdom is decided by the Supplementary Vote (SV) method, which can be
described as a variant of the AV method.
The SV and AV methods are based on the same principles and differ in details. In
both the systems, there are single-member constituencies, with the electorate
getting chance to cast multiple votes in accordance with their preference.
Electorates rank their candidates according to their choices and preferences. The
first preference is considered as the main vote, while the other ranks are
considered as alternative or supplementary vote. In AV system, this ranking is
given to each of the candidate contesting the election but in the SV system, there 101
Representation is only one supplementary vote available for the electorates. This means that if 7
and Political
Participation candidates are contesting the election, then according to the AV system, the
electorates will rank the candidates as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7; but in the SV system
the candidate will choose their topmost favourite and rank them 1 and may give 2
to their second most favourite candidate. Thus, there are many alternative votes
and only one supplementary vote. The votes are counted according to the first
preferences and the candidates acquiring least votes get eliminated and their
votes are distributed among others in order of second preference. This process is
repeated till an absolute majority is reached by one of the candidates. There is a
slight difference between the AV and the SV system in counting. While in the
AV system the elimination and redistribution of votes is done multiple times but
in the SV system in single round top two candidates are decided and the
subsequent round decides the winner.
The AV/SV system is detailed and complex process, but it tends to result in
single-party or two-party system where larger parties overshadow the smaller
parties and individual candidates. Another major criticism that is faced by this
system is that the preferential counting may result in the same outcome as that of
SMP system wherein the winner may have lesser first preference votes, yet they
get chosen to govern on behalf the entire population.
Nevertheless, this system ensures that fewer votes are wasted, and a candidate’s
popularity and acceptance is decided on the basis of preferential votes casted by
the voters. It is also known as ‘Limited Vote Plan’ or ‘Approval Voting’. It has
been adopted by several private associations in the past and also in parliamentary
elections in 1990 in various Eastern European countries (Belarus, Ukraine). The
major thrust for adopting such approach has been to ensure that the winning
candidate wins absolute majority of votes or minimum 50 percent of votes.
7.3.4 Condorcet Method

Derived from the name of the founder Marquis de Condorcet, a mathematician
from France, this method is slightly more complex than those mentioned above.
To some extent it stands on the same principle of AV system because the voters
need to put their candidates on order of their preferences but in pair wise
comparison. For example, if there are three candidates X, Y, Z contesting the
election then the voters must vote pair wise in XY, YZ and XZ. The voters
decide on to which candidate they prefer in a particular pair. The one who gets
most votes is declared as the winner.
This method may seem to be more accurate and fairer in terms of deciding the
representation but due to its complex nature it has not been practiced widely.
Given the fact that it stands on the basis of pairs that are made out of contesting
candidates, it is obvious that for a country where large number of candidates
contest for elections, it will not be possible for voters to make all the pairs and
judge accordingly.

Note: (i) Use the space below for your answers
102
(ii) Check your answers with the ones given at the end of the unit. Electoral Systems
and Electoral
1) Define the ‘First-past-the-post’ system? Processes
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
2) List the major shortcomings of the SMP system.
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
3) How is AV system different from SV system?
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
7.4 PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SYSTEMS

The term ‘Proportional Representation’ is generally used as an umbrella term for
several methods and mechanisms that aim to establish proportionality in the
election outcomes. The underlying principle for all the methods remains to be the
fact that they try to match the share of seats won with the share of votes won. The
legislative seats are shared in direct proportion to the votes acquired by the
party/candidates in the election. Some of the well known and practised examples
include the ‘Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) or Additional Member System
(AMS)’, ‘Single-Transferable-Vote (STV) System’, ‘Party-List System’,
‘Cumulative Vote System’, and ‘Slate System’.
7.4.1 Single-Transferable-Vote System

This system was first proposed by Thomas Hare and is therefore also known as
‘Hare System’. It is widely used in The Republic of Ireland and the UK
(Northern Ireland Assembly) as these states are made up of multi-member
constituencies and the representatives elected from each constituency vary from
minimum three to maximum eight. However, this does not imply that the voters
get to cast multiple votes. The voters are entitled to only one vote, but it is a
preferential voting system as practiced in AV system. Thus, the voters single vote
gets transferred according to their second and third preferences and so on till a
candidate is able to secure the defined ‘quota’ which again is defined in terms of
total votes acquired and total number of seats.
In these multi-member constituencies, the winning criterion for a candidate is
achieving the defined quota which is calculated according to the Droop formula
as mentioned below:
103
Representation For example, if the total number of votes is 100 and total number of
and Political
Participation representatives allotted are 4, then all the 4 candidates need to achieve
1+(100/1+4) = 21 votes each in order to win the election. In case none of the
candidates get the required Droop Quota then the candidate getting least number
of votes get eliminated and his votes get transferred according to their second
preferences. This process is repeated until all the required 4 candidates get 21
votes each. In other case, if the candidate surpasses the Droop quota, then all the
excess votes acquired by that very candidate also get transferred in accordance
with the next preference.
The voters cast single vote, but it gets transferred multiple times as per the
preferences mentioned, hence, this system is known as ‘Single-Transferrable
Vote (STV) system’. This system is used in Rajya Sabha elections in India where
each state assembly works as one multi-member constituency, and the MLAs get
one transferable vote each. Australian Senate, Parliament of Malta and Ireland
have also adopted this system.
This system has managed to reduce the ‘wastage’ of votes and unlike the SMP
system, this system provides for higher possibilities of proportional
representation. All the candidates are judged and elected on equal criteria and
remain at par with each other in representing the constituency, which in turn
ensures better and more balanced governance system. It also provides the voters,
ample choices to rank their candidates and get varied combination of
representatives, and reduces the possibility of single-party dominance in the
political system.
Although this system, overcomes many limitations of the Majoritarian methods,
it has its own shortcomings. Multi-member constituencies may result in abrupt
combinations of representatives which may hamper smooth and speedy decision-
making capabilities leading to an inefficient governance system. Moreover, all
candidates hold same value and position even though some of them might be
more widely accepted and popular than the others. Hence, public
liking/popularity/acceptance also gets compromised to a certain extent as all the
winners hold equal importance.
7.4.2 Party-List System

As the name suggests, this system is based on voting done for party rather than
the candidates. The Party-List system is followed in both single-member
constituencies as well as multi-member constituencies. Some of the examples
include states of European Union (Belgium, Luxembourg); also the European
Parliament gets elected following this method. Apart from these, it is also
followed in those countries where the entire country is considered as a single
constituency such as Israel, and Switzerland.
Votes are casted in favour of parties and not candidates. However, the list system
is such that the voter is well aware of all the candidates contesting the election as
the parties list their candidates in order of the preferences, with first rank being
given to the highest position. Hence, each of the party in the country prepares a
list which declares the candidates position if they get elected to power. Voters
104 cast their votes in favour of their preferred party after knowing the list of the
candidates. Parties share the seats in direct proportion with the votes acquired. Electoral Systems
and Electoral
For instance, if a party achieves 40 percent of votes, then it gets to represent 40 Processes
percent of seats which gets filled by the list of candidates prepared by the party
beforehand. In Switzerland this system has been slightly modified where the
voters get a blank vote, and they can either vote for a party-list or they can create
their own hybrid-list which consists of candidates from different party-lists.
Party-list system can be further classified in two forms: Open-list systems and
closed-list systems. The former is an arrangement where voters cast their vote for
both the party and the candidate within the party. So, they have their say in
determining who in the party-list should be chosen for the said position. For
example, in Finland, the voters cast two votes- one for the party and other for the
candidate within that Party.
Closed-list system, on the other hand, does not give any choice to the voter in
context of the candidate. The list is prepared by the party and presented to the
electorate. In Israel which has adopted this system, voters accept the list of
candidates nominated by the party and cast their vote in favour of the party.
Belgium follows the mid-way between the closed-list and the open-list system,
wherein, the voter gets to choose either the list provided by the party or any
individual candidate and where lower placed candidate can get higher position in
case, he/she succeeds in acquiring the specified minimum number of preferential
votes.
Advocates of Party-list system hail it as the purest form of proportional
representation as it assures fair chance to both small and big parties. Party-List
system has also fared well in terms of inclusion of smaller, neglected, and
marginalized sections of society such as women and minorities. The voter gets an
idea before voting as to which party has more inclusive list and covers all
sections of the society and which kind of government they will get if choosing
any party. This results in a more inclusive society which rests on higher
possibilities of negotiations, bargain, and consensus.
However, the Party List system runs the risk of having an unstable, fragmented,
and weak government. As the voters vote for party, their link with the candidates
may not be as strong as it tends to be in systems which allow voting for their
candidate directly. Also there remains a chance where a certain candidate may
have influential position in the party but lack mass appeal, leading to a possible
disaffection after the leader is elected. Moreover, candidates may also get into
unfair practices to get into the list and public service might get masked by greed
for power, leading towards a corrupt system of governance.
7.5 MIXED ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

This category includes systems that combine elements of each of the first two
types to produce a pattern somewhat in between, that is, with some elements of
majoritarian and some of proportionality but not falling completely under either
of them.
105
Representation 7.5.1 Mixed-Member Proportional or Additional Member System
and Political
Participation
By combining the SMP system and the Party-list system, we get the Mixed
Member Proportional (MMP) or Additional Member (AM) system. This implies
that some seats get filled by SMP method while rest of the seats are filled using
the Party-List system. A good example of this arrangement in play is in Germany
where 50 percent of the seats are filled by SMP system particularly in the single-
member constituencies. A few other states in Europe, like Italy, Scotland, and
Wales have adopted MMP system where more than 50 percent of seats are
allotted as per the SMP system and rest are filled using Party-list system.
In this system, the voters are entitled to two votes each- one for the candidate and
other for the party. The basis for this hybrid system is to maintain the difference
between the constituency representative and ministerial positions. While the
former gets chosen by the people directly through the SMP system, the latter is
elected in a more proportional manner with the party getting its due importance.
Further, the voters also get the choice of electing their constituency
representative from a different party and the government from a different one,
which leads to an efficient ‘checks and balance’ system in place.
7.5.2 Semi-Proportional Method

This is another variation in the combination of majoritarian method and the
proportional representation method. A certain variation in this system is followed
in New Zealand and India where some arrangements is made to ensure the
involvement of ethnic minorities and backward classes in the political system of
the respective country. The Maori districts in New Zealand are exclusively
confined to people who are descents of Maori community while in India, there
are certain areas from which only Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes can
contest the election, but the same criteria do not apply for voters. Voters from all
category and castes can vote but contesting candidates must be from SC or ST
category. In a sense, this is more of an arrangement to reserve some seats for a
special class rather than true form of proportional representation.
7.5.3 Cumulative Vote System

Another variation of semi-proportional method can be seen in Cumulative vote
system in which voters are entitled for multiple votes in multi-member
constituencies. The number of members to be elected to represent a constituency
equals the number of votes casted by every voter. Thus, if there are 5 members to
be elected from a single constituency, then each voter gets to cast 5 votes. Here
the voter is free to cast all the votes to a single candidate, or one vote to each of
those contesting candidates or divide the votes among the candidates as per
his/her discretion. The top five candidates are considered as winner. Hence,
counting wise this follows the SMP system, as the cumulative votes matter in
final results.
106
7.5.4 Slate System Electoral Systems
and Electoral
Processes
This system is exclusively used in USA during the election of President’s
Electoral College. It is closely related to Party-List system with the only
difference being the list prepared by party is called as ‘Slate’. The voters get the
‘slates’ from both the Democratic and the Republican Party and vote for their
preferred slate i.e., they vote for an entire list of candidates and not any one
candidate in particular. The slate, which acquires 51 percent of votes, wins the
entire state i.e., the party to which the slate belongs gets to represent the entire
state. This aspect is somewhat like the ‘first-past-the-post’ system however, the
major difference remains the criteria of earning 51 percent of total votes to win
the election. Also, in the ‘first-past-the-post’ system, the constituencies are
represented by single candidate while in the ‘slate system’ the constituencies are
represented by more than one member and the party winning 51 percent votes
gets to appoint its members listed as representatives. Hence, the constituencies
are represented by multiple members belonging to one party.

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answers.
ii) Check your answers with the one given at the end of Unit.
1) What are the major drawbacks in the PR system?
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
2) Describe the Single-Transferable Vote system.
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
3) What is Party-List system?
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
7.6 COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF

ELECTORAL PROCESSES
The significance of electoral processes cannot be denied in the wake of emerging
democratic societies all around the world. An electoral system does not only set
rules for election in a country, but also plays crucial role in shaping the party
system and impacting the political system of the country. Hence, it becomes
107
Representation imperative for political parties, in return, to influence and alter the electoral
and Political
Participation system as per their advantage.
Electoral systems and processes vary across time and space and party politics act
as a catalyst for such changes and variations. Both the majoritarian and the PR
systems have been tried, altered and replaced by countries across the world in
different times. Many countries have tried to alter the elections by simple shifting
from one kind of electoral system to another or by opting for a combination of
two different electoral systems. A classic example in hand is France, which has
changed its electoral systems more frequently than others. The parliamentary
elections were held according to second-ballot system till 1985, when it was
replaced by Party-List system under the influence of the Socialist Party which
controlled the national assembly in the 1980s and 1990s. A major factor driving
such change was derived from the hitherto President Mitterrand’s strong desire to
strengthen Socialist representation in the National Assembly. Another example of
changes in electoral system can be noted in case of United Kingdom which has
seen changes in the electoral systems of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland
from single-member plurality (SMP) to proportional methods with the SMP
system retained in general elections. This is said to be the result of an active
interest of Labour Party in opposition towards electoral reforms particularly for
devolved bodies. New Zealand has also shifted its electoral system from SMP to
PR system since 1993. Italy has also experimented by replacing its erstwhile
party-list system with the MMP/AM system and returning to the party-list system
in 2003 (Haywood, 2013, p. 207).
An electoral process can be assessed in context of following two aspects: firstly,
the extent to which the electoral process is able to deliver fair and justified
representation, and secondly, the impact it creates on the efficiency of the
government.
Speaking of the Majoritarian methods, the criteria of delivering fair and justified
representation remains unrealised as it is driven by popular preference which may
or may not represent the society in its truest form. The general criticism
associated with the majoritarian methods is that it does not stand true to the
electoral strength as achieving ‘simple majority’ is the only criteria to win an
election. There is a tendency for the relatively smaller parties to be sidelined in
such arrangement. This is very well exemplified in the 2014 General Elections in
India, where the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) has swept the elections and formed
a majoritarian government despite getting merely 31 percent of votes in its
favour.
In this context, the PR system seems to be much more efficient in delivering fair
and justified representation of the masses. Here, we need to keep in mind that an
essential function of an electoral system is not only to facilitate the process of
government formation but also in delivering a strong and stable governance
system. The PR systems seem to be failing on this as it generally results in
coalition governments which may be not as stable and strong as single-party
government seems to be. It has been noticed that the coalition governments
formed in PR systems face equal criticism and challenges post-election despite
claiming a clear electoral strength in the elections. The sphere of influence
108
shrinks and the ability to act and deliver on public promises is equally hampered Electoral Systems
and Electoral
in PR systems due to the formation of coalition governments. Processes
Advocates of PR systems identify the good governance in terms of having
maximum civil support and obedience. They justify the PR systems as one
delivering maximum possible efficient governance system as it is the only system
which takes ‘absolute majority’ as a criterion for forming a government. So even
if there is a coalition government in place, it assures that all its members and
ministers enjoy popular support in its purest form possible. Consensus, debate
and discussion are essence of a highly efficient government as these not only
protect but also ensure coexistence of diverse public opinion and interests making
majority of its citizens content with the government.
7.7 LET US SUM UP

Electoral processes are of great significant when it comes to the formation and
maintenance of democratic societies. Not only they shape the election outcomes,
but also influence the structure of party systems, impact political culture and
government formation in any country. In turn, the electoral processes also get
affected by the social and political structure of a country. Different set-ups call
for varying electoral systems either solely or in combination. The study of
varying range of electoral systems can be classified in two major categories:
Majoritarian systems and Proportional Representation Systems.
The most opted majoritarian method is ‘Single-member Plurality’, also called as
the ‘first-past-the-post system’. It is followed in countries which have single-
member constituencies and the candidate securing maximum number of votes is
declared as winner. There are no restrictions on minimum number of votes which
is required for winning the election. Simple majority of votes is the only criteria.
This method is often criticised on the grounds of ‘wasting’ a large number of
votes by considering only simple majority. Some other methods include Second
Ballot System, Alternative Vote (AV)/ Supplementary Vote (SV) system, and
Condorcet Method offer an alternative.
The second category of Electoral systems is known as Proportional
Representation (PR) Systems which includes a varying range of methods such as
Single-Transferable-Vote (STV) System, Party-List System, Mixed-Member
Proportional (MMP) or Additional Member (AM) system, Semi-Proportional
Method, Cumulative Vote System, and Slate System. These methods are more
representative as they follow proportionality rule which implies that the seats are
allotted in accordance with the votes acquired.
The majoritarian methods usually result in single-party governments and two-
party systems which at times do mask up the efforts of the third parties or smaller
groups and parties. The PR systems usually operate in a multi-party system and
tend to yield coalition governments. Both the systems have their advantages and
disadvantages. While the former yields strong and stable governments with lesser
possibilities of mid-term change in governments, the latter is more concerned
with the essence of democracy to be measured in terms of consensus, discussion
and negotiations which can happen in case of coalition governments only. In
109
Representation context of disadvantages, the majoritarian methods run the risk of facing public
and Political
Participation disapproval of the governments as it is based on ‘simple majority’ which may go
against the public at large. On the other hand, the PR systems are too complicated
and time taking, and may not be feasible for large and poor countries because
multiple rounds of voting seem to be an expensive affair.
7.8 REFERENCES
Haywood, Andrew .(2013).Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Krupavičius, Isoda, Vaišnoras. (2013).Introduction to Comparative Politics:
Didactical Guideline. Kaunas: Vytautas Magnus University.
Rae D. W. (1971). The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Siaroff, Alan. (2013). Comparing Political Regimes: A Thematic Introduction to
Comparative Politics. Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Clark, William Roberts; Golder, Matt; Golder, Sona Nadenichek. (2013).
Principles of Comparative Politics. USA: Sage Publications.
7.9 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
1) The first-past-the-post system refers to an arrangement where the contesting
candidates do not need to pass a minimum threshold of votes to be elected;
instead, they need a simple majority, that is, one more vote than their closest
rival. In this system the government is formed by the party whose candidates
have managed to win maximum constituencies irrespective of their share of the
popular vote.
2) A major shortcoming of the SMP systems is their tendency to give a majority
of seats to one party which is also known as a “manufactured majority”. By
limiting the representation to bigger parties, this system can marginalise smaller
parties in the political system.
3) In both the systems, there are single-member constituencies, but the electorates
get to cast multiple votes in accordance with their preference. In AV system, this
ranking is given to each of the candidate contesting the election but in the SV
system, there is only one supplementary vote available for the electorates.

1) The multiple voting involved in PR system creates extra expenditure from the
country. Further, the process may be more time consuming. It usually results in
coalition governments which are considered weak and less efficient in
comparison to the single-party governments yielded by majoritarian methods.
110
2) Single-Transferable Vote system is an arrangement where the voters cast Electoral Systems
and Electoral
preferential votes for individual candidates by giving them ranks as per their Processes
discretion.
3) A Party-List system refers to an arrangement wherein the political parties
prepare a list of candidates in accordance with the number of seats to be
contested. Voters are given a choice to choose the party as well as decide on the
ranking/preferences of candidates within the party-list. Alternately, the list of
candidates is decided by the party and the voters vote for the party list.
111
Representation
and Political
Participation
112

Political Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Science

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political

REPRESENTATION AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

4.2 POLITICAL PARTIES: MEANING AND ORIGIN

Contrary to this liberal viewpoint of party as an agency of organized public

Check Your Progress Exercise 1

1) What is a political party?

4.3 FUNCTIONS OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Organising diverse and fractured societies and their modernisation is a crucial

4.3.2 Political Socialization

4.3.4 The Formation and Running of Government

4.3.5 Making and Shaping Government’s Policies

4.3.8 Control over Government

Public opinion-making is primarily a democratic function of political parties.

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

4.4 POLITICAL PARTIES UNDER DIFFERENT

Check Your Progress Exercise 3

Check Your Progress Exercise 4

4.6 LET US SUM UP

5.2 CLASSIFICATION OF PARTY SYSTEMS

1) What is a party system?

5.2.1 Two-Party System

5.2.2 Two-and-Half-Party System

5.2.3 Multi-party System

5.2.4 One-Party System

5.3 FACTORS AFFECTING PARTIES IN A SYSTEM

1) Distinguish between a dominant party system and a one-party system.

5.4 LET US SUM UP

5.6 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Check Your Progress- 2

· Explain the role of pressure groups in democratic politics.

6.2 DEFINING PRESSURE GROUPS

The World Social Forum (WSF) is a collective solidarity forum of

6.3 ORIGIN OF PRESSURE GROUPS

6.4 PRESSURE GROUPS AND OTHER SOCIAL

6.4.1 Pressure Groups and Interest Groups

6.4.2 Pressure Groups and Political Parties

6.4.3 Pressure Groups and Civil Society Organizations

Check Your Progress 1

6.5 CHARACTERISTICS OF PRESSURE GROUPS

6.6 CLASSIFICATION OF PRESSURE GROUPS

6.6.2 Associational Pressure Groups

6.6.3 Non-Associational Pressure Groups

6.6.4 Anomic Pressure Groups

Check Your Progress 2

6.7 METHODS AND TACTICS OF PRESSURE

6.7.2 Shaping Public Opinion

6.7.3 Publicity and Propaganda

Pressure Groups in India and the West

Check Your Progress 3

6.8 PRESSURE GROUPS IN MODERN POLITICAL

6.9 LET US SUM UP

Check Your Progress 2

Check Your Progress 3

7.2 CLASSIFICATION OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

7.3 MAJORITARIAN SYSTEMS

7.3.2 Second-Ballot System

7.3.3 Alternative-Vote and Supplementary Vote System

7.3.4 Condorcet Method