WORDS AND WORD COMBINATIONS. сформировать предпочтение,

a range of functions a network of sth. an approach to sth to create/to establish a bias to exhibit -"- to justify -"- to outdo electoral promises it cannot but take account of sth horse trading

круг обязанностей

сеть ч-л

подход к чему-либо

сформировать предпочтение,

предубеждение

проявлять/отдавать предпочтение

ч-л

оправдывать предпочтения

перевыполнить предвыборные

обязательства

она не может

не учитывать/не принимать

во внимание

поиск компромисса

SKIM reading: Work in pairs:look through the text and bring out the to pical sentences conveying the main ideas of the text.

TEXT 2: PARTY SYSTEMS

Political parties are important not only because of the range of functions they carry out, but also because the complex interrelationships between and among parties are crucial in structuring how political systems work in practice. This network of relationships is called a party system. The most familiar way of distinguishing

dot ween different types of party system is by reference to the number nl parties competing for power. Although such a typology is commonly used, party systems cannot simply be reduced to a 'numbers game'.

As important as the number of parties competing for power is their idative size, as reflected in their electoral and legislative strength. What is vital is to establish the 'relevance' of parties in relation to the [urination of governments, and in particular whether their size gives ilicm the prospect of winning, or at least sharing, government power. lhis approach is often reflected in the distinction made between major', or government-orientated, parties and more peripheral, 'minor' ones (although neither category can be defined with mathematical accuracy).

A third consideration is how these 'relevant' parties relate to one.mother. Is the party system characterised by cooperation and lonsensus, by conflict and polarisation? This is closely linked to the ideological complexion of the party system and the traditions and history of the parties that compose it.

The mere presence of parties does not, however, guarantee the existence of a party system. The pattern of relationships amongst parties only constitutes a system if it is characterised by stability and a Ji-gree of orderliness. Where neither stability nor order exists, a party system may be in the process of emerging, or a transition from one ivpc of party system to another may be occurring.

One-party systems

Strictly speaking, the term one-party system is contradictory since system' implies interaction amongst a number of entities. The term is nevertheless helpful in distinguishing between political systems in which a single party enjoys a monopoly of power through the fulusion of all other parties (by political or constitutional means).iiui ones characterised by a competitive struggle amongst a number of parties. Because monopolistic parties effectively function as permanent governments, with no mechanism (short of a coup or ii'volmion) through which they can be removed from power, they invariably develop an entrenched relationship with the state machine. Mns allows such states to be classified as 'one-party states', their machinery being seen as a fused 'party-state' apparatus.

two-party systems

A two-party system is duopolistic in that it is dominated by two major' parties that have a roughly equal prospect of winning

 

government power. In its classical form, a two-party system can be identified by three criteria:

• Although a number of 'minor' parties may exist, only two parties enjoy sufficient electoral and legislative strength to have a realistic prospect of winning government power.

• The larger party is able to rule alone (usually on the basis of a legislative majority); the other provides the opposition.

• Power alternates between these parties; both are 'electable', the opposition serving as a 'government in the wings'.

Two-party politics was once portrayed as the surest way of
reconciling responsiveness with order, representative government with
effective government. Its key advantage is that it makes possible a
system of party government, supposedly characterised by stability,
choice and accountability. The two major parties are able to offer the
electorate a straightforward choice between rival programmes and
alternative governments. Voters can support a party knowing that, if it
wins the election, it will have the capacity to carry out its manifesto
promises without having to negotiate or compromise with coalition
partners, Two-partyism, moreover, creates a bias in favour of
moderation, as the two contenders for power have to battle for|
'floating' votes in the centre ground. ^;

However two-party politics and party government have not beetf so well regarded since the 1970s. Instead of guaranteeing moderation;¹ two-party systems such as the UK's, have displayed a periodic tendency towards adversary politics. This is reflected in ideological polarisation and an emphasis on conflict and argument rather thart consensus and compromise.

A further problem with the two-party system is that two evenly' matched parties are encouraged to compete for votes by outdoing each other's electoral promises, perhaps causing spiralling publi* spending and fuelling inflation. A final weakness of two-party syste: is the obvious restrictions they impose in terms of electoral an ideological choice. While a choice between just two programmes " government was perhaps sufficient in an era of partisan alignment a class solidarity, it has become quite inadequate in a period of grea individualism and social diversity.

Dominant-party systems

Dominant-party systems should not be confused with one-part systems, although they may at times exhibit similar characteristics, dominant-party system is competitive in the sense that a number parties compete for power in regular and popular elections, but if

dominated by a single major party that consequently enjoys prolonged periods in power.

The most prominent feature of a dominant-party system is the tendency for the political focus to shift from competition between parties to factional conflict within the dominant party itself. Although Hie resulting infighting may be seen as a means of guaranteeing argument and debate in a system in which small parties are usually marginalised, factionalism tends to revolve more around personal differences than it does around policy or ideological divisions.

Whereas other competitive party systems have their supporters, or.11 least apologists, few are prepared to come to the defence of the dominant-party system. Apart from a tendency towards stability and predictability, dominant-partyism is usually seen as a regrettable and unhealthy phenomenon. In the first place, it 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 politicisation takes place through which state officials and institutions adjust to the ideological and political priorities of the dominant party.

Secondly, an extended period in power can engender complacency, arrogance and even corruption in the dominant party.

Thirdly, a dominant-party system is characterised by weak and ineffective opposition. Criticism and protest can more easily be snored if they stem from parties that are no longer regarded as yniuine rivals for power. Finally, the existence of a 'permanent' party ot government may corrode the democratic spirit by encouraging the.-K-ctorate to fear change and to stick with the 'natural' party of government. A genuinely democratic political culture arguably squires a general public that has a healthy distrust of all parties, and most importantly, a willingness to remove governments that have t.uled.

Multiparty systems

A multiparty system is characterised by competition amongst more tkm two parties reducing the chances of single-party government and UK leasing the likelihood of coalitions. However, it is difficult to ditiiie multiparty systems in terms of the number of major parties, as.'.uh systems sometimes operate through coalitions including smaller j.uiies that are specifically designed to exclude larger parties from I'liwrntnent.

The strength of the multiparty systems is that they create internal. links and balances within government and exhibit a bias in favour of Muie. conciliation and compromise. The process of coalition

 

formation and the dynamics of coalition maintenance ensure a broad responsiveness that cannot but take account of competing views and contending interests.

The principle criticisms of multiparty systems relate to the pitfalls and difficulties of coalition formation. The post-election negotiations and horse trading that take place when no single party is strong enough to govern alone can take weeks, or (as in Israel and Italy) sometimes months, to complete. More seriously, coalition governments may be fractured and unstable, paying greater attention to squabbles amongst coalition partners than to the tasks of government.

A final problem is that the tendency towards moderation and compromise may mean that multiparty systems are so dominated by the political centre that they are unable to offer clear ideological alternatives. Coalition politics tends, naturally, to be characterised by negotiation and conciliation, a search for common ground, rather than by conviction and the politics of principle. This process can be criticised as being implicitly corrupt, in that parties are encouraged to abandon policies and principles in their quest for power.

♦ Discuss/check your considerations with the rest of the
class.