CHAPTER 11.docx

CHAPTER 11 Voting, Elections, and Political Parties The Voting Paradox Voting is a crucial part of representation and decision-making. It's often assumed to reflect the majority's preference. However, this becomes complex when there are more than two options. In such cases, vote splitting can occur,...

CHAPTER 11 Voting, Elections, and Political Parties The Voting Paradox Voting is a crucial part of representation and decision-making. It's often assumed to reflect the majority's preference. However, this becomes complex when there are more than two options. In such cases, vote splitting can occur, making it hard to determine the "most preferred" option. This issue is explained by Arrow's impossibility theorem, which states that it's impossible to conclude any option as the "most preferred" from three or more alternatives unless it receives more than 50% of the votes. This problem is demonstrated in Table 11.1. In a voting scenario with three alternatives, none secures a majority of first choices. However, if only first choices are considered, option C wins with 10 out of 22 votes. If first and second choices are counted equally, option B wins with 18 out of 44 votes. But, if more weight is given to first choices (two points for first choices and one point for second choices), reflecting a stronger preference, option A wins with 24 out of a possible 66 points. This illustrates how the method of vote counting can influence the outcome. The outcome of a vote can vary depending on the counting system used. When there are more than two options, none of them may achieve a majority of the total votes or points, making it difficult to determine a clear general preference. This issue escalates as the number of alternatives increases. The method of determining preferences depends on the vote-counting procedure, which is often a compromise between theory and practicality. This is why referendums typically offer only two options, as an either/or choice ensures a clear outcome. The method of vote assessment is pivotal and can significantly influence election outcomes. For instance, Abraham Lincoln's victory in the 1860 US presidential election could have swung differently with other vote-counting methods, potentially altering historical events like the US Civil War and the continuation of slavery. Similarly, George W. Bush won the 2000 election despite Al Gore receiving more votes. In 2016, Donald Trump won the presidency even though Hillary Clinton had more votes, due to his wider support in populous states. In 2020, Joe Biden won both the popular vote and the electoral college. In Canada's 2019 election, the first-past-the-post system led to the Liberal Party securing a minority government despite the Conservative Party receiving more votes overall. These examples highlight how voting systems can impact election results and, by extension, historical trajectories. Elections An election can be defined most simply as a method of assessing preferences through votes. Elections are vital to democracy. According to Article 12 of the Universal Declaration on Democracy, “The key element in the exercise of democracy is the holding of free and fair elections at regular intervals enabling the people’s will to be expressed” (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 1997). The text discusses two basic types of electoral systems. The first is the simple plurality, or first-past-the-post majority system, used in countries like Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. This system is simple and allows voters to choose individual candidates based on their merits rather than party ties. It often results in a clear majority for the winning party, enabling decisive governance. However, it can also lead to "wasted" votes for candidates with no realistic chance of winning, which can discourage future voting, especially among supporters of smaller parties. The text also mentions the role of smaller parties, such as the Green Party, in forming coalitions with more mainstream parties to govern, as seen in New Zealand in 2017 and British Columbia from 2017 to 2020. These coalitions can provide a platform for smaller parties to influence policy, despite the challenges posed by the first-past-the-post system. The text discusses the evolution of majoritarian electoral systems, which currently allow only one member to be elected from each district. However, in the past, countries like Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom had multimember constituencies. For instance, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island had multi-member and dual-member districts until the 1990s. "At-large" or "block" voting is still used at the municipal level, where the entire city is a single district, and all voters select from the same candidate list. Depending on the system, voters may have multiple votes (equal to the number of seats), leading to strong majorities, or just one vote, which can result in candidates winning with as little as 20% of the vote, potentially undermining their legitimacy. The text also notes that an updated list of countries using these, and other alternative systems can be found throughout the world. The text discusses the alternative electoral system of proportional representation (PR). This system prioritizes the representation of a wide range of public opinions, regardless of the strength or weakness of the resulting government. PR reduces the number of "wasted" votes and favors minorities, encouraging parties to appeal to voters beyond their core districts. It can lead to greater policy stability and more visible coalition agreements. However, PR is more likely to result in coalition governments and a fragmented party system, where small parties can have a disproportionate influence on policymaking. Holding coalition governments accountable for individual decisions can be more challenging under PR. The text discusses hybrid electoral systems that combine elements of first-past-the-post and proportional representation systems. These hybrids, such as the alternative member model, allocate some seats based on a simple majority and others based on proportional representation. Countries like Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and Russia have adopted this approach. In New Zealand, this hybrid model has been used successfully by various leaders. Helen Clark of the Labour Party led a series of minority coalition governments from 1999 to 2008. John Key of the National Party followed with one minority coalition and two majorities. More recently, Labour leader Jacinda Ardern formed a minority coalition government in 2018 before winning a majority in 2020. The text discusses an alternative electoral system where a second round of elections is held if the first round doesn't yield an absolute majority. In this second round, only the top two candidates from the first round are on the ballot. This system prevents strategic voting and ensures a clear majority preference. It is used in France, many of its former African colonies, Iran, and several former Soviet Union republics. Around 38% of the world's countries use some form of proportional representation (PR) system to elect their representatives, while 26% use the first-past-the-post system. In total, 80 countries use PR, 45 use first-past-the-post (plus 19 with two-round elections), and eight use a mixed-member proportional (MMP) system. The use of PR and MMP systems has been increasing, while the number of countries using the first-past-the-post system has been decreasing. Other political systems include one-party states with internal elections (like China, Laos, Cuba, and Vietnam), hereditary monarchies, absolutist monarchies (like Saudi Arabia), and other systems that are either mixed democratic or not democratic. Political Parties Political parties present a paradox. On one hand, their importance is recognized universally, even by authoritarian regimes, and the right to organize political parties is considered an essential civil and political right as per the Universal Declaration on Democracy. On the other hand, some theorists argue that it's irrational for individuals to join large groups like political parties. They believe individuals will only form groups when the benefits outweigh the costs, which is more likely in small groups where each member's share of benefits is relatively large. In contrast, the benefits for an individual member of a large organization like a political party are minimal, while the costs of membership can be significant. Political parties have been criticized for exacerbating societal divisions. Julius Nyerere, former Tanzanian president, viewed the British-style party system as intentionally divisive and un-African. He argued in 1963 that importing the concept of a parliamentary opposition into Africa could lead to violence, as opposition parties might be seen as traitors by the majority. At best, it could result in trivial maneuverings of opposing groups inflating artificial differences into reality. This risk is particularly high when political parties represent specific ethnic communities. The leaders of the People’s Republic of China use a similar argument to justify the dominant role of the Communist Party. Carothers (2006, p. 4) expands on what he terms the “standard lament” about political parties in various countries where he has done research: 1. Parties are corrupt, self-interested organizations dominated by power-hungry elites who pursue their own interests or those of their rich financial backers rather than those of ordinary citizens. 2. Parties do not stand for anything—there are no real differences among them. Their ideologies are symbolic at best, and their platforms are vague or insubstantial. 3. Parties waste time and energy squabbling with one another over petty issues for the sake of political advantage rather than trying to solve the country’s problems in a constructive, cooperative way. 4. Parties become active only at election time when they come looking for your vote; the rest of the time you never hear from them. 5. Parties are ill-prepared to govern and typically do a bad job, whether in government or in opposition. Emergence of Parties The development of political parties historically went through two main phases: Emergence within Parliaments: In the early democracies, political parties first emerged within parliaments. Independently elected representatives formed groups, or factions, to create and pass legislation. These groups were known as caucus parties, which were loose organizations of like-minded representatives. In the United States, these factions were initially divided between Federalists and anti-Federalists. Expansion of Voting Franchise: As the right to vote expanded to include non-property-owning white males, political parties began to play a role in structuring the vote in popular elections. This phase involved efforts to organize and influence the broader electorate. In most countries, these two stages happened simultaneously because the multiparty model was imported from abroad along with the parliamentary model. However, in countries that were pioneers in party development, like Britain and the United States, it’s possible to distinguish between these two stages. In these cases, the formation of parties within the parliament happened first, followed by the expansion of their role in response to the widening of the voting franchise. This historical perspective helps us understand the evolution and function of political parties in modern democracies. Political parties can also be understood by considering the roles or functions they fulfill, or the systemic needs they meet. In the U.S., it's often suggested that parties first formed in Congress to streamline the legislative process. The task of forming a new coalition for each proposed bill was time-consuming. By forming blocs of like-minded representatives, the negotiation process was simplified and the influence of individual members over legislation was increased. Group voting in legislative bodies has several advantages. It increases the likelihood of a group having the deciding vote on a bill compared to individual voting. Group voting also allows for greater negotiation power, enabling members to demand more concessions in a bill or trade concessions in one bill for benefits in another, a practice known as log rolling. Group commitments also foster greater confidence as they are more enforceable than individual commitments, making a group of legislators more predictable to others. This predictability is beneficial in the ongoing process of legislation. The American founding fathers initially had a strong aversion to political parties or factions, viewing them as incompatible with true democracy. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, criticized factions as potentially oppressive and exploitative of the populace. He defined a faction as a group of citizens, either a majority or minority, united by a common passion or interest that is contrary to the rights of other citizens or the community's overall interests. However, by the Third Congress (1793-94), legislators with similar views began forming groups to facilitate the passage of bills. Despite Congress meeting only one or two months per year and having a small legislative load compared to today, the predictability these groups provided was a significant advantage. Political parties began to form outside Congress to rally support for candidates, initially in presidential and later in local elections. This started in 1828 with the formation of the Democratic Party to support General Andrew Jackson's presidential campaign. The party's effectiveness was demonstrated by Jackson's victory and a significant increase in voter turnout from 30% to over 50%. This showed that party organization motivated supporters to vote. In 1840, the formation of the Whig Party led to a further increase in turnout to over 78%. The rise of mass parties altered the dynamics of elections and increased political engagement, as evidenced by voter turnout. The success of American parties and the growth of party democracy in Britain played a crucial role in spreading democracy globally, including in Canada, which established a system of competing factions and parties in the 1830s and 1840s. Industrialization disrupted traditional authority structures and led to urbanization, facilitating party mobilization. Political issues related to industrialization fostered a more popular democracy, with mass parties becoming standard and voting rights extended to all citizens, regardless of gender. This period saw the highest party membership and entrenched the capital-labor divide, a significant social division that influenced many party systems, including those in Canada and Britain. As political party membership grew, the number of full-time party officials increased to ensure better coordination. While this professionalized the parties, it also complicated internal democratic processes. Questions arose about the balance of influence between ordinary party members and party officials, and whether they should, or could, be treated equally in decision-making. Post World War II, European parties evolved into what are known as catch-all parties. These parties focus less on ideology and more on strategies to attract median voters, who are crucial in general elections. This approach may involve appealing to voters who would typically support a different party. This trend has empowered party leadership to make strategic decisions. An early example of this shift was in 1959 when the Social Democratic Party in West Germany renounced Marxist ideology and embraced a market economy and liberal pluralism. In recent times, European and American political parties have transformed into what are known as cartel parties. With declining party membership, the authority of the party machine has strengthened, becoming more professional in managing various media outlets for messaging. This evolution is evident in dominant American parties since the 1960s. Previously, local machines, like that of Chicago's Democratic Mayor Richard M. Daley, dominated parties. These machines built the careers of elected officials by promising favors in exchange for campaign contributions and votes. Today, parties have evolved into organizations of media-savvy professionals ready to serve any prominent candidates, making parties candidate-centered rather than machine-centered. This shift allows outsiders who are not party members, such as Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Michael Bloomberg, to run for the presidency. In recent times, political parties in Europe and America have transformed into what are known as “cartel parties”. This transformation is characterized by several key changes: Declining Party Membership: As fewer people are joining political parties, the power of the party’s organizational structure, or “party machine”, has increased. Professionalization: Parties have become more professional in managing their messaging across various media outlets. This shift has been driven by the need to effectively communicate their platforms and attract voters in an increasingly complex media landscape. Candidate-Centered Approach: Parties have evolved from being dominated by local machines, like that of Chicago’s Democratic Mayor Richard M. Daley, to being centered around individual candidates. Previously, local machines would build the careers of elected officials by promising favors in exchange for campaign contributions and votes. Now, parties are organizations of media-savvy professionals ready to serve whichever candidates rise to prominence. Openness to Outsiders: This shift has allowed individuals who are not traditional party members, such as Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Michael Bloomberg, to run for the presidency. This reflects a more open and inclusive approach to candidate selection. This evolution of political parties has had significant implications for the nature of political competition and democratic governance. The analysis of any modern political party can be usefully divided into three key areas: Party-in-Government: This refers to the party’s activities within the government, including its actions and roles within parliament. It involves how the party operates when it is in power, including policymaking, governance, and legislative activities. Party-in-the-Electorate: This pertains to the party’s strategies for winning popular support and votes. It involves how the party communicates with the public, campaigns during elections, and works to build and maintain its voter base. Party’s Internal Organization: This involves the internal workings of the party, including its structure, leadership, decision-making processes, and membership dynamics. All political parties that seek election need to establish a balance among these three roles. The exact balance will depend on several factors, including the political system in which they operate, the policy goals they set for themselves, and the attitudes of ordinary citizens towards them. This framework provides a comprehensive way to understand and analyze the functioning and strategies of political parties. Functions of Parties A political party, as defined by Ware, is an institution that aims to gain influence within a state, often by seeking governmental positions. It typically represents a variety of societal interests and attempts to consolidate these interests to some extent. This wide-ranging role is crucial in their pursuit of political power. Political parties can perform up to seven functions, but not all parties perform all of them. The balance between these functions depends on the type of state (democracy or authoritarian regime) in which the party operates. In democracies, the most crucial roles involve choice, either between individual political actors or policies. In contrast, in authoritarian regimes, the most important function is the "integration and mobilization of citizens," which is generally more top-down. While it's hard to envision a democracy without political parties, it's not impossible. For instance, the Nunavut territorial legislature in Canada operates on consensus and has no political parties due to traditional Indigenous forms of governance and a small population size. All members are elected as independent candidates, and after the elections, they elect ministers, a speaker, and the premier in a secret ballot. CASE STUDY BOX 11.4 Uganda as a No-Party State Uganda, since its independence from Britain in 1962, is a unique case of a state that attempted to implement democracy without political parties. The country, which was assembled from various former tribal kingdoms and principalities during the colonial era, lacked a tradition of democracy after about 70 years of British rule. This was a common trait among colonial regimes, which typically discouraged democratic accountability. Despite the formation of parties and the holding of several elections in the lead-up to independence, democratic values failed to establish themselves in Uganda. The country has experienced civil war, genocide, and revolution in its post-independence history. (Mugaju & Oloka-Onyango, 2000) Within two years of Milton Obote's election as Uganda's first prime minister, the country became a one-party state. In 1971, General Idi Amin overthrew Obote and declared himself president for life, leading to tyranny, chaos, violence, and economic collapse. Obote was reinstated as president in 1979 after Amin was overthrown but attempts to restore a multiparty system failed due to non-cooperation among party leaders and a resurgence of violence. Between 1971 and 1986, an estimated 1 million Ugandans were killed. Yoweri Museveni of the National Resistance Movement became president in 1986 and announced that political parties would not be allowed to contest elections to prevent further sectarian violence. Instead, the "Movement" would promote unity, mutual tolerance, and democracy through a system of local councils, reflecting local tribal consultation traditions. From 1986 onwards, party representatives could only stand for parliamentary elections as individuals. Uganda adopted a new constitution in 1995 after almost ten years of military and transitional rule, which limited the presidency to two five-year terms. As President Museveni's second term was ending, there was talk of a third term, causing unease domestically and among foreign governments that provided aid to Uganda. Ultimately, a 2005 referendum approved the adoption of multiparty democracy. The reintroduction of open political parties was thus a response to both internal and external pressures. In the 2006 general election, Museveni won a majority despite allegations of electoral irregularities. His victory was upheld by the Supreme Court with a 4-3 vote. He secured a fourth term in 2011 with 68% of the vote and a fifth term in 2016 with 61% of the vote. Critics argue that the reintroduction of political parties has not significantly changed the country's governance. It remains uncertain whether the era of non-party politics has laid a solid foundation for lasting democracy in Uganda. Museveni is among the world's longest-serving leaders. Political systems without parties are rare in Western democracies and are mostly found in Islamic states. Communist regimes, despite not tolerating challenges to the Communist Party's leading role, held regular elections to re-engage citizens and demonstrate their legitimacy. Authoritarian regimes also hold regular elections and mobilize support for ruling parties, even when there's no realistic chance for political alternatives to gain power. An example is Syria under President Bashar al-Assad, who claimed to have won 97% of the vote in 2007 and 88.7% in 2014, despite the country's disintegration into warring factions. Assad succeeded his father Hafez al-Assad, who ruled from 1970 to 2000 and claimed never to have received less than 99% support on voting day. There hasn't been a presidential election in Syria since 2014 due to ongoing civil unrest. Regardless of its basic structure, the legitimization of the political system is the most common function of political parties. The performance of political parties depends on three factors: Constitutional Framework: The organization of political parties is significantly influenced by the state’s degree of central authority. The powers of a party’s central apparatus and local organizations mirror the powers of the corresponding government authorities. In a political party, the central apparatus refers to the main governing body or headquarters, which typically makes key decisions, sets policies, and guides the overall direction of the party. Local organizations, on the other hand, are the party's branches or units at the regional, state, or municipal level. So, the statement means that the way power is distributed within a political party (between the central apparatus and local organizations) often reflects the way power is distributed within the corresponding government authorities (between central and local government). This can give us insights into the political structure and dynamics of a particular country or region. Election Organization: The way a nation organizes its elections also affects party activities. For instance, countries that use primaries to select candidates operate on a different timetable than those that don’t. Communication Technologies: With the rise of television and social media, parties have shifted from door-to-door canvassing to these platforms for public communication, despite the increased election costs. The internet allows for more personalized campaigning, with candidates individually addressing voters’ concerns. Social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram are now integral to election campaigns. Typologies of Political Parties Creating a typology of political parties enables political scientists to systematically analyze their activities, facilitating more meaningful comparisons. Gunther and Diamond (2003) proposed a typology of political parties across different regions, primarily based on their organizational structure. In this typology, the least organized types are at the top, and the most organized ones are at the bottom. Below is a different typology based on 10 general types of political programs. It is an extension of one developed by Beyme (1985, pp. 29–158): 1. Liberal or radical parties stand for equal legal and political rights as well as free trade. 2. Conservative parties tend to support traditional forms of social relations, including hierarchy. They often appeal to nationalism as well. Recently, however, some conservative parties have veered toward more radical, neoliberal, free-market economic policies. 3. Christian democratic parties were established after World War II as a third, Catholic-influenced way between liberalism and socialism. While such parties endorsed more traditional authority relations, preferring women to stay at home and raise children, they accepted a significant role for state-provided welfare. 4. Socialist or social democratic parties advocate workers’ control of the means of production. Usually, they have had close connections with trade unions. They also advocate state welfare systems. Unlike communist parties, they accept the need for market capitalism but call for state regulation and planning as well. 5. Communist parties were inspired by the Russian Revolution of 1917 and sought to spread the communist alternative to socialism based on the teachings of Marx and Lenin. Such parties were distinguished by their doctrine of unconditional loyalty to the party (“democratic centralism”) and strict party discipline. 6. Regional parties stand for the interests of particular regions of countries and often seek, whether overtly or covertly, to establish their own states. They have experienced a surge in popularity in Europe over the past 20 years. Successful examples include the northern Italian separatist party Lega Nord, the separatist Scottish National Party, and the separatist Bloc Québécois in Canada. 7. Environmental parties initially developed out of interest groups such as Friends of the Earth. The early parties go back to the 1970s, and such parties now exist in almost 90 countries. Typically, they win support from younger and middle-class voters and tend to be skeptical of free-market economic policies. They advocate consensus-based decision-making and social justice. Green parties have formed part of coalition governments in both Germany and New Zealand. 8. Nationalist parties flourished in former colonies as the new regimes sought to establish their national values. The end of the Cold War removed some alternative poles of political organization, allowing freer rein for nationalists in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Because such parties’ ideology is based on a concept of the whole nation as opposed to the interests of a part of it (for example, a particular class or region), they seek to dominate the political system, which can make cooperation with other parties difficult. 9. Islamic parties are a relatively new phenomenon since many secular regimes in the Middle East did not tolerate them. In Iran, all the parties represented in the Majles (parliament) today are Islamic, but they represent a wide spread of opinions. Like nationalist parties, Islamic parties seek to speak for the whole of society rather than a specific part of it, and therefore they too aim for a dominant position in the political system. Since the Arab Spring, Islamic parties in several countries now have a chance to compete in multiparty elections and are gaining popularity. 10. Indigenous and ethnic parties may represent the interests of a particular subgroup within the country. In a proportional representation system, such parties may form coalitions with larger parties and advocate for their members. An example is the Māori Party in New Zealand, which was in formal coalition with three successive National Party governments from 2008 to 2017. This was an Indigenous party promoting Indigenous rights and adherence to the country’s Treaty of Waitangi. A party system, defined by Giovanni Sartori as the system of interactions resulting from interparty competition, exists in any state with more than one political party. These interactions are influenced by: The nature of the political system: The state’s constitution significantly impacts party competition as parties must operate within its rules. Parties function differently in liberal democratic regimes, where electoral success can lead to government changes, compared to authoritarian regimes where rulers resist electoral overthrow. The type of regime, whether presidential or parliamentary, also matters. The pattern of basic social cleavages: The differentiation between parties is partly determined by fundamental societal divisions. Lipset and Rokkan (1967) identified four key cleavages that structured the rise of new mass parties in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries: Centre versus periphery: Different communities within a state competed for power at both the central and regional levels. State versus church: This was particularly significant in Catholic states, where anti-clerical liberals and radicals challenged the Church’s temporal powers. Land versus industry: The growth of industrialization and industrial capitalists posed challenge to traditional rural elites. Owner versus worker: The rise of capitalism led to a conflict of interests between the new industrial workers and their employers. These cleavages affected all western European states to varying degrees and can be observed in North America and other parts of the world. The channels available for party competition, primarily the electoral system, also play a crucial role. In his work "Political Parties", Maurice Duverger proposed that first-past-the-post electoral systems typically result in two-party systems, a principle now known as Duverger's Law. Conversely, he argued that proportional representation usually leads to multiparty systems. While these are more generalizations than absolute "laws" (for instance, Venezuela once had both proportional representation and a two-party system), the logic of the argument is sound. Given these factors, most typologies of party systems focus on the number of parties they contain. One version gives the following classifications (Ware, 1996, p. 159): 1. Predominant party systems, where one party dominates the national legislature. Among developed democracies, Japan and Singapore are two examples (with, respectively, the Liberal Democratic Party and the People’s Action Party), but single-party dominance can also be seen in Russia and is not uncommon in sub-Saharan Africa, where non-ruling parties are short of resources (Doorenspleet, 2003, p. 205). Some authoritarian regimes, such as Indonesia under Suharto (1968–98), explicitly favoured this system on the grounds that representation of different interests and groups within a single party promotes social cohesion, whereas unrestricted party competition would jeopardize it (Reeve, 1985) 2. Two-party systems, as in the United States 3. Systems with three to five parties, as in Canada, France, Germany, and the UK 4. Systems with more than five parties, as in Belgium, Denmark, Israel, Italy, and New Zealand The nature of the party system in place can play a big part in determining how well a democracy operates; the two-party model has generally been stable, whereas highly fragmented systems such as Italy’s since World War II have not. Yet it is almost impossible for a democracy to change a dysfunctional party system once it has become established, even when voters are aware of its flaws. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) of Japan held power almost continuously from 1955 to 2009, and then regained control in 2012 under Shinzo Abe. A brief exception occurred in 1993 when a series of scandals involving the LDP's connections with big business led to the election of a reformist coalition. The reformers believed that the LDP's reputation for corruption was largely due to Japan's multimember constituency system, where candidates from the same party had to compete against each other as well as against other parties. To disrupt this pattern and establish a genuine two-party system, more than half of the country's constituencies were converted from multi-to single-member plurality (first-past-the-post) voting. The idea was that reducing competitive pressure would lower campaign expenses and strengthen opposition to the LDP. However, the LDP managed to upset these calculations. After 11 months out of power, the party regained control in 1994, adapted to the new circumstances, and continued to win most seats in the lower house of the Diet (parliament) until 2009, when it lost power for three years. In addition to various factions within the party, the LDP was also able to absorb a rival party, the right-wing New Conservative Party, in 2003 following the latter's poor performance in that year's election. This case illustrates the complexities and dynamics of political power and party systems in Japan. Problems Facing Parties This passage discusses the decline in membership of mainstream political parties, which is possibly due to the perceived lack of benefits for citizens in actively joining a party and participating in the political process. By the end of the 1990s, party membership across Europe had dropped to an average of 5.7% of the population, roughly one-third of the percentage three decades earlier. A 2012 study noted a further drop to an average of 4.7%. However, there was a wide variation across countries, with a high of 17% in Austria and Cyprus and levels below 1% in Latvia and Poland. The decline in traditional party membership is also correlated with low voter turnouts. Global data indicate that many regions of the world have seen a decrease in political party influence in terms of declining membership, voter turnout, and party system stability. Europe, where political parties originated and were best institutionalized, has shown some of the most clear and negative indicators of this trend. This suggests a significant shift in political engagement and the role of political parties in society. There has been a significant increase in electoral volatility, with voters frequently changing their party support. This has led to a decrease in the number of voters consistently supporting a single political party. The average Western European electorate switched votes about 8% of the time between 1946 and 1968, about 9% between 1969 and 1991, and nearly 13% between 1992 and 2015. Traditional parties are losing support, trade union membership has sharply declined, and church attendance (and support for religious parties) has decreased. Meanwhile, populist right-of-centre parties are gaining more electoral appeal than ever before. State funding for political parties has become more prevalent globally to support their crucial roles in democracies and lessen their reliance on big business contributions. However, critics caution that such support could protect established parties from new competitors and hinder newcomers from winning parliamentary seats. State funding could also promote party fragmentation by enabling dissident factions to establish new parties. Critics also argue that public funding is a misuse of taxpayer money as the public funds election campaigns while politicians decide their duration. For instance, the 2015 Canadian election campaign, which was unusually long at 78 days, cost taxpayers about $500 million, significantly more than the typical $375 million for federal elections. Despite a shorter campaign in 2019, the cost rose to $504 million, partly due to upgraded computer systems to prevent cyberattacks. CASE STUDY BOX 11.6 Venezuela and the Downfall of Liberal Democracy For half a century, Venezuela had a reputation as the most stable and most liberal democracy in South America. Yet recent years saw this tradition pushed aside in favour of a more populist democracy. It is a reminder that while liberal democracy may seem to be the most desirable form of political system, it is not invulnerable. What happened in Venezuela? In 1958, dictator Pérez Jiménez of Venezuela was overthrown in a military coup, leading to the re-establishment of democracy. The leaders of the three main parties signed a pact committing to uphold the same basic political rules to preserve democracy. This led to the emergence of two effective parties: Acción Democrática and Comité de Organización Política Electoral Independiente. The concept of "pacted democracy" became a model for successful democracy, particularly in Latin America, and underpinned US policy for promoting democratic transitions for many years. The two parties expanded their influence into various organizations, including professional associations, peasant federations, and state enterprises. This helped them strengthen their control and boost their membership. Despite exercising strict control over their members, the parties aimed for consensus between themselves, although this didn't stop vigorous competition for power, with the presidency regularly changing hands. The political system, bolstered by oil wealth, functioned effectively for about two decades. However, in the mid-1970s, the economy started to stagnate and decline due to falling international oil prices and issues of corruption and waste. As public dissatisfaction increased, the political parties reacted not by implementing reforms, but by distancing themselves from the public. In 1998, former Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chávez, an outsider to both parties, was elected president. He promised what he called a “Bolivarian” revolution, associating his own socialist program with Simon Bolívar, the 19th-century liberator from Spanish rule. Chávez aimed at sweeping away corruption and redistributing wealth to ordinary people. He attacked the “partocracy” (partidocratia) that kept all power in the hands of the two parties; their state funding was abolished. What emerged was a populist regime that promoted social polarization rather than consensus. Chávez introduced a new constitution that removed many of the checks on the powers of the president. Attempts to overthrow him, first through a coup and then by holding an election to recall him from office, both failed. The old party system fragmented and was replaced by a multiparty system with numerous small parties overshadowed by Chávez’s Fifth Republic Movement (now the United Socialist Party of Venezuela). Aided by the additional wealth that came from increasing world oil prices, Chávez won a second term of office in January 2007 and continued as president until he died in 2013. His vice-president, Nicolás Maduro, took over after his death and continued his policies, even though many of them have led to problems of high inflation, recession, and a shortage of many basic consumer goods. Venezuela entered a period of turmoil in early 2019 when President Maduro lost the election to opposition leader Juan Guaidó but refused to relinquish power. This political crisis, coupled with economic issues, led to a humanitarian and refugee crisis. By 2020, the UN Refugee Agency estimated that about 6.5 million people had fled Venezuela. A 2020 study by the Brookings Institution highlighted that 300,000 people's lives were at risk due to limited access to medical treatment and essential medications. The country faced extended shortages of water and electricity, and widespread violence, often with the complicity of government security forces, making Venezuela one of the world's most violent countries. The study suggested that Venezuela was on the brink of becoming a failed state if it hadn't already. Canadian taxpayers subsidize the electoral system in three ways: covering election costs, offering tax credits for small political donations, and reimbursing some election expenses for candidates and parties. Candidates can claim up to 60% of expenses in an electoral district, 90% of personal childcare and health-related care expenses, 60% of the salaries of a candidate’s representatives, 60% of travel and living expenses during the election period, and a percentage of other personal expenses. In contrast, the United States, which doesn’t strictly limit election spending, has seen escalating costs. The 2004 presidential election saw combined expenditures of $880 million, which rose to $1.6 billion in 2008, $2 billion in 2012, and $2.4 billion in 2016. This doesn’t include “earned media,” free advertising received by candidates. For instance, Donald Trump received an additional $5 billion in free media coverage, compared to Hillary Clinton’s $3.24 billion. Despite the availability of volunteers, party membership is declining in the U.S., with party professionals playing larger roles in shaping party image and campaign strategy. The trend of high spending, especially with billionaire candidates, is unlikely to reverse. KEY QUOTE BOX 11.7 Is the United States Still a Democracy? In July 2015, former US President Jimmy Carter expressed concern about the state of American democracy following two Supreme Court decisions, Citizens United (2010) and McCutcheon (2014), which allowed for almost unlimited spending in federal elections, even from outside the country. Carter described the situation as an oligarchy where political bribery is key to securing nominations and elections. He criticized the subversion of the political system as a payoff to major contributors who often expect and receive favors post-election. He noted that incumbents, both Democrats and Republicans, view this unlimited money as beneficial, as it gives those already in Congress more to offer. Taiwan, since 1987, has emerged as a successful new democracy with a stable party system. The system is primarily dominated by two major parties, the Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), along with minor parties and nearly 250 microparties. The central political issue that distinguishes the two main parties is Taiwan's independence from mainland China. The DPP advocates for formal independence, while the KMT generally opposes it, although there isn't complete agreement within either party on reunification. Despite having other policies to attract voters, the fundamental disagreement over independence stabilizes Taiwan's party system. This unique cleavage is absent in other new democracies, making their party systems more volatile. Despite the differences between parties in established Western democracies and newer democracies globally, they converge in one aspect: party branding and platform design are increasingly managed by party professionals. This shift is due to factors like declining party membership and increased reliance on state funding. Since the 1960s, both the Democratic and Republican parties in the U.S. have transitioned from mass parties to candidate-centered cartel parties, with party professionals playing a dominant role. This change has allowed outsiders, like Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, and Ben Carson in 2016, to penetrate the party leadership process. By 2020, other outsiders, including Michael Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, and Tom Steyer, also entered the Democratic presidential nomination contest but failed to secure the nomination. LIST OF KEY TERMS alternative member model-A hybrid voting system that combines the strengths of majoritarianism and proportional representation: Votes are cast both for individual candidates within a constituency and for a general list of candidates from separate parties. Also known as the mixed-member proportional model. Arrow’s impossibility theorem-A mathematical theorem, formulated by the economist Kenneth Arrow, that shows the impossibility of determining the “optimal” ranking of preferences when none of the options voted on receives an absolute majority of the votes. cartel parties-A type of political party that has a relatively limited membership and is dominated by professional politicians; compare to mass party. Duverger’s Law-The idea (proposed by the French political scientist Maurice Duverger) that first-past-the-post electoral systems lead to two-party systems. Elections-An election can be defined most simply as a method of assessing preferences through votes. Majoritarian system-A majoritarian system, exemplified by the first-past-the-post majority system used in countries like Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, allows voters to choose individual candidates, resulting in the candidate with the highest vote share winning the election in each district. This system promotes decisive governance but may lead to "wasted" votes for candidates with no realistic chance of winning, potentially discouraging supporters of smaller parties. mass parties-Political parties (typical of the first half of the 20th century) that attracted millions of grassroots members. Party System-defined by Giovanni Sartori as the system of interactions resulting from interparty competition, exists in any state with more than one political party. Plurality-A simple majority of votes (as in “first-past-the-post wins”), as distinct from an absolute majority (that is, 50 per cent plus one). political party-A group of political activists who aspire to form or be part of the government based on a program of policies. proportional representation (PR)- Any of various voting systems designed to achieve a close approximation between the number of votes received by each party and the number of seats into which those totals translate in parliament.