What is a Political Party?

Political parties are organized groups that are united by a shared ideology or specific interests and seek to gain and exercise governmental power. They fulfill a variety of functions, including contesting elections, selecting candidates for public office, mobilizing voters, raising funds, formulating and communicating policy positions, coordinating policymaking, developing campaign strategies, and fostering party identity and loyalty.

Political parties generally possess several defining characteristics. First, their primary objective is to secure political office and influence government decision-making, although smaller parties may participate in elections mainly to promote their ideas rather than to win power. Second, they are formal organizations with an identifiable membership structure. Third, they typically address a broad range of policy issues, although some smaller parties may focus on a single issue. Finally, party members are usually connected by common political preferences and a shared ideological orientation.

Political parties often emerge from political, religious, ethnic, racial, regional, or socioeconomic interests and frequently represent coalitions of groups with diverse concerns. Individuals who support a party’s candidates, endorse its policies, and work toward its political goals are referred to as partisans. In democratic systems, opposition parties challenge the policies of the governing party without questioning the legitimacy of the political system itself.

According to Schumpeter (1950), political parties are organizations of competing elites that seek electoral support in order to govern for a specified period. Similarly, Sartori (1976, p. 63) defines a political party as “any political group identified by an official label that presents at elections, and is capable of placing through elections (free or nonfree), candidates for public office.”

A faction is a subgroup within a political party that operates in a manner consistent with the broader aims and structure of the party. If a subgroup functions independently of or contrary to the party’s objectives, it may be regarded as a “party within a party.” A distinction is often made between factions and tendencies, with the latter referring to looser and more informal groupings united by shared policy preferences or ideological perspectives. Factionalism refers either to the existence of multiple factions within a party or to the intensity of competition among them.

                                  Types of Political Parties

Political parties can be classified in several ways. Among the most important distinctions are those between cadre and mass parties, representative and integrative parties, constitutional and revolutionary parties, left- and right-wing parties, national and regional, and mainstream and populist parties.

The distinction between cadre and mass parties is one of the most widely used classifications. Cadre parties originally emerged as organizations dominated by political elites or “notables” who operated within limited electoral systems and saw little need for broad popular participation. Over time, the term came to describe parties composed of highly trained and disciplined members who provide ideological leadership. Historical examples include the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Nazi Party in Germany, and the Fascist Party in Italy. Contemporary examples include the Chinese Communist Party. These parties rely on politically committed elites who often operate under strict organizational discipline.

In contrast, mass parties seek to expand membership and build broad electoral support. They emerged with the extension of voting rights, particularly among socialist and labor movements in Europe. Parties such as the German Social Democratic Party and the British Labour Party were designed to mobilize large numbers of working-class voters. Unlike cadre parties, mass parties emphasize recruitment, organization, and electoral participation rather than strict ideological commitment. Although they often possess democratic internal structures, most members play only a limited role in party activities.

Many contemporary parties have evolved into what Otto Kirchheimer called “catch-all parties.” These organizations reduce their ideological commitments in order to appeal to the widest possible range of voters. Examples include the major political parties in the United States and many modern European social democratic and conservative parties. Catch-all parties prioritize electoral success, strong leadership, and broad coalitions over representing specific social classes or ideological groups.

A second classification distinguishes between representative and integrative parties, a distinction developed by Sigmund Neumann. Representative parties focus primarily on winning elections and gaining political office. Their goal is to reflect public opinion rather than shape it. Consequently, they tend to adopt pragmatic policies and respond closely to voter preferences and public opinion research. This model aligns with theories of political behavior that portray politicians as rational actors seeking electoral advantage.

Integrative parties, by contrast, seek not only to represent citizens but also to educate, mobilize, and politically integrate them into society. Such parties attempt to shape public attitudes and foster political engagement, often emphasizing ideology, activism, and long-term social transformation.

A third distinction is between constitutional and revolutionary parties. Constitutional parties operate within the established political and legal framework. They recognize the legitimacy of other political parties, respect electoral rules, and accept the distinction between party organizations and state institutions. These parties understand that political power is temporary and that electoral defeat is a normal part of democratic competition. Most mainstream parties in liberal democracies fall into this category.

Revolutionary parties, on the other hand, seek to replace the existing political system. They may employ tactics ranging from revolutionary uprisings to legal participation in elections as a means of undermining the constitutional order. Such parties can emerge on either the political left or right. Historical examples include fascist and communist movements that eventually established one-party regimes. Once in power, revolutionary parties often suppress political opposition and merge party and state structures into a single “party-state” apparatus. In such systems, political authority becomes concentrated in the ruling party, reducing the autonomy of governmental institutions.

Political parties are also frequently classified according to ideological orientation as left-wing or right-wing. Left-wing parties traditionally advocate social change, reform, or economic transformation and have often represented the interests of workers and disadvantaged groups. Socialist, social democratic, and communist parties are typical examples. Right-wing parties generally emphasize continuity, stability, and the preservation of established institutions and social arrangements. Their support has traditionally come from business groups and middle-class voters.

However, the left-right distinction has become increasingly complex. Both camps contain moderate and radical elements, and many parties encompass diverse ideological tendencies within their own organizations. Electoral competition often encourages parties to moderate their positions in order to attract broader support. Furthermore, the emergence of issues such as environmental protection, feminism, and animal rights has complicated traditional ideological divisions. As a result, the conventional left-right spectrum is often insufficient for understanding contemporary politics.

National parties enter elections and try to win political positions across the whole territory of a country and seek to represent all citizens, while regional parties seek to represent only inhabitants of a region where they are from, and enter local elections only in that region. In national elections in countries with. Electoral systems based on winner-take-all or first-past-the-post elections, in which a single representative is elected from each district, regional parties enter elections in districts from their region. Regional parties often want to obtain some benefits for their region: financial benefits, greater autonomy (sometimes even independence for the region), or cultural recognition (i. e., official use of local language).

A final and increasingly significant distinction is that between mainstream and populist parties. Mainstream parties generally accept the constitutional order and operate within established political institutions. They focus on winning and maintaining power, often adopting catch-all strategies and moderate policy positions. Since the 1980s, many centre-left and centre-right parties have converged around market-oriented economic policies, contributing to a decline in ideological differences between them.

This convergence has created opportunities for populist parties, which challenge established political elites and mainstream political institutions. Populist parties typically advance two central claims. First, they argue that the political establishment is corrupt, self-serving, and disconnected from ordinary citizens. Second, they claim that genuine political authority should rest directly with “the people.” Populist movements therefore present themselves as defenders of popular interests against entrenched elites.

Populism can take both left-wing and right-wing forms. Left-wing populist parties often emphasize economic inequality and opposition to austerity policies, while right-wing populist parties tend to focus on issues such as national identity, immigration, and cultural values, sometimes combining these positions with interventionist economic policies. Because they oppose established political elites and conventional party structures, some scholars describe them as “anti-party parties.”

                           Functions of Political Parties

Political parties perform a range of essential functions in modern political systems, with representation traditionally regarded as their most important role. Representation refers to the ability of parties to express and respond to the interests, preferences, and concerns of both their members and the wider electorate. In democratic systems, parties serve as key channels through which citizens communicate their demands to government. According to rational-choice theorists such as Anthony Downs, political parties operate similarly to businesses in a marketplace, competing for votes by offering policies that appeal to voters. However, this perspective has been criticized because parties do not merely respond to public opinion; they also shape and influence it. Furthermore, voters are not always fully informed or rational, and electoral choices are often limited.

Beyond representation, political parties fulfill several other important functions. According to Klaus von Beyme, these include goal formulation, interest articulation and aggregation, socialization and mobilization, elite recruitment, and government formation.

One major function is goal formulation. Political parties help societies define collective objectives by developing policy programmes and election platforms designed to attract public support. Through manifestos, conferences, and campaigns, parties present voters with alternative policy options and visions for government. This function is particularly important in parliamentary systems, where winning parties often claim a mandate to implement their policies. Nevertheless, the rise of catch-all parties and the growing emphasis on leadership personalities and media image have reduced the importance of detailed policy programmes. In addition, party policies are frequently modified by pressure from interest groups, civil servants, and changing domestic or international circumstances.

Parties also play a crucial role in interest articulation and aggregation. They provide a mechanism through which social groups—such as workers, businesses, religious communities, and ethnic groups—can express and advance their interests. Historically, many parties emerged to represent specific groups, such as the British Labour Party, which originated from the trade union movement. Because parties seek broad electoral support, they must also aggregate diverse and sometimes conflicting interests into coherent policy platforms. In doing so, they help balance competing demands within society. However, some interests, particularly those of marginalized or disadvantaged groups, may remain underrepresented.

Another important function is socialization and mobilization. Through campaigns, public debates, and political participation, parties educate citizens about political issues and encourage engagement in the political process. They help shape political values, attitudes, and beliefs, contributing to the broader political culture. In democratic systems, parties promote support for political institutions and encourage citizens to participate within constitutional rules. However, declining party loyalty and growing dissatisfaction with traditional parties have weakened their capacity to mobilize citizens and foster long-term political identification.

Political parties are also responsible for elite recruitment and leadership selection. They serve as training grounds for future political leaders, providing experience, skills, and opportunities for advancement. In most democratic systems, political leaders reach positions of power through party structures, with party leaders often becoming presidents, prime ministers, or cabinet ministers. While this creates a clear pathway to leadership, critics argue that it restricts political recruitment to a relatively small group of individuals associated with major parties. Some systems, such as the United States, reduce party control through primary elections, allowing voters a greater role in candidate selection.

Finally, parties contribute to the organization and stability of government. They help form governments, particularly in parliamentary systems, and provide coherence by uniting elected officials around shared goals and policies. Even coalition governments generally function more effectively because parties create structures for cooperation and coordination. Without political parties, governing complex modern societies would be significantly more difficult, as parties provide the organization, leadership, and stability necessary for effective government.

    Formation of Early Political Parties (pre-World War I)

The emergence of modern political parties before the First World War can be explained through several theoretical perspectives. In the United States, the first political party, the Federalist Party, was founded by Alexander Hamilton in 1792 to support his political and economic policies. Although political parties are now considered essential to democracy, many seventeenth- and eighteenth-century thinkers viewed them negatively, associating them with factionalism and the pursuit of special interests. Thomas Jefferson helped create the Democratic-Republican Party, which later evolved into the Democratic Party, while Andrew Jackson transformed it into the first mass-based national party during his 1828 presidential campaign.

Institutional theories argue that parties emerged from competing factions within representative institutions such as parliaments. As parliamentary systems developed, these factions evolved into stable political parties based on enduring social and political divisions. This explanation is particularly applicable to countries with long-standing representative institutions.

Crisis theories emphasize the role of major political and social crises in shaping party systems. According to scholars of political development, crises involving national identity, state legitimacy, political participation, resource distribution, and state authority can generate new parties and political alignments. The timing and interaction of these crises help explain differences in party systems across countries. For example, Britain’s gradual development contributed to political stability, whereas repeated crises in Germany fostered fragmentation and polarization.

Lipset and Stein Rokkan studied political divisions in democracies in their book Party Systems and Voting Alignments (1967). They believe that political divisions have three main characteristics: divisions are the consequences of socio-cultural and socio-economic differences in a country's population; divisions create collective identities that form the basis of joint action; and differences and identities are expressed through organizations such as political parties or interest groups. As the main political divisions in European countries, they single out religious, geographical, and class divisions. These political divisions affect the formation of a specific party system in each state. The more levels of political divisions there are in a country, the more political parties there will be that will reflect those multiple divisions. The political divisions in European countries were most influenced by the following processes: the Protestant Reformation, the democratic revolutions, the Industrial Revolution, and the class conflicts between workers and capitalists. These two authors concluded that these processes led to the creation of major political divisions in most European countries before the First World War and that the divisions formed until then remain the most important political divisions to this day.

Stein Rokkan’s analysis of democratization in European nation-states focused on how mass politics was institutionally and organizationally structured up to World War II. He introduced the influential idea that democratization proceeds through the gradual removal of four key institutional barriers, or “thresholds.” These include the threshold of legitimation (allowing political opposition), incorporation (expanding political participation through suffrage), representation (access to parliament), and executive power (participation in government).

The reduction of the first two thresholds—through the recognition of civil rights and the expansion of voting rights—marked the emergence of mass politics, characterized by the rise of mass parties and large-scale electoral competition. Rokkan argued that countries with continuous traditions of representation, stable processes of state-building, and the cultural integration associated with Protestantism tended to democratize earlier and more smoothly.

Lowering the third threshold involved shifting from majoritarian to proportional representation, which enabled minority groups to gain parliamentary representation more easily. This change was particularly important in smaller or more socially diverse countries, where pressures for inclusion were stronger. By the early twentieth century, especially after World War I, the spread of universal male suffrage and proportional representation helped stabilize party systems across Western Europe—a process Rokkan famously described as the “freezing” of party systems, many of which remained largely unchanged until the 1960s.

Rokkan linked these party systems to deeper historical divisions, or cleavages, that emerged during earlier phases of state formation and nation-building. These cleavages represent enduring conflicts that structure political competition. He identified several key ones. The “National Revolution” produced the center–periphery cleavage, reflecting tensions between central authorities and culturally distinct regions, and the state–church cleavage, involving conflicts between secular state power and religious institutions. The Industrial Revolution generated the land–industry cleavage, opposing agrarian and industrial interests, and the worker–employer (class) cleavage, dividing labor and capital. A later “International Revolution” added a further division within the working-class movement, between reformist and revolutionary socialism.

According to Rokkan, variations in European party systems largely stem from the first three cleavages, which explain the presence of regional, religious, and agrarian parties. While class-based parties appeared across all countries, their strength and unity varied significantly, particularly due to internal ideological splits within the labor movement.

Modernization theories link the rise of political parties to broader social and economic development. Factors such as industrialization, urbanization, education, improved communication, social mobility, and the growth of a middle class created conditions favorable to democratic politics and party formation. As societies modernized, a variety of party types emerged, including liberal, conservative, socialist, agrarian, regional, Christian, communist, fascist, protest, and ecological parties, each representing different social interests and political conflicts.

                                         Party Systems

A party system refers to a relatively stable pattern of interaction among political parties, shaped by their number, relative strength, and ideological positions. Political systems vary significantly in the role and number of parties they permit.

At one extreme are non-party states, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, where political parties are not legally recognized or do not operate within the political system.

Single-party systems permit only one political party to hold power. Examples include the People's Republic of China, North Korea, and Cuba. The prohibition of opposition parties is generally regarded as evidence of limited political freedom. A different form of one-party rule emerged in many post-colonial states, where parties that had led independence movements became dominant political forces. In countries such as Ghana, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe, ruling parties justified one-party rule as necessary for national unity, state-building, and economic development.

In dominant-party systems, opposition parties are legally allowed to compete, but one party consistently wins elections and remains in power for extended periods. Examples include the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, the Indian National Congress during much of India’s post-independence history, the People's Action Party in Singapore, and the African National Congress in South Africa.

Two-party systems, such as that of the United States, are characterized by competition between two major parties that alternate in government. The American electoral system discourages the emergence of strong third parties because presidential elections are conducted through the Electoral College. Since most states allocate electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis, smaller parties rarely gain enough support to influence national outcomes. Moreover, the federal structure of the United States limits party centralization. Rather than functioning as highly unified national organizations, the Democratic and Republican parties are best understood as broad coalitions of state and local party organizations that retain considerable autonomy. Even party leaders and presidential candidates exercise only limited control over state and local party structures.

Multi-party systems involve three or more parties that regularly contest elections and secure parliamentary representation. Their principal advantage is that they encourage pluralism, debate, negotiation, and compromise. Coalition governments are common in such systems, requiring parties to cooperate and accommodate diverse interests and viewpoints. As a result, multi-party systems often provide broader political representation than two-party systems.

Some countries employ mixed electoral systems that combine elements of majoritarian and proportional representation. Germany provides a notable example. Voters cast two ballots: one for a constituency candidate and another for a party list. Constituency seats are awarded to candidates who win their districts, while additional seats are distributed proportionally according to party-list votes. To qualify for proportional representation, a party must receive at least 5 percent of the national vote. This system seeks to balance fair representation with political stability by reducing both excessive fragmentation and disproportionate representation.

Maurice Duverger, in his influential work Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State (1951), examines how different electoral systems shape the formation of party systems within a country. This analysis led to what became known as Duverger’s law, which posits a strong relationship between electoral rules and the number of political parties in a democracy. Electoral systems based on winner-take-all or first-past-the-post elections, in which a single representative is elected from each district, tend to encourage two-party systems. Although regionally concentrated minority parties tend to be less underrepresented than minority parties whose support is spread across all districts. By contrast, proportional systems, which allow multiple representatives per district, generally, or the whole country is a single district, produce multiparty systems.

Consequently, choices about electoral rules are among the most powerful mechanisms societies have for shaping political competition among parties. In winner-take-all systems, a candidate who receives 45 percent of the vote typically gains no legislative representation, whereas under proportional representation, the same vote share would translate into roughly 45 percent of the seats. As a result, politicians in winner-take-all systems have strong incentives to consolidate into two major parties before elections, while such pressures are far weaker in proportional representation systems. Duverger’s law exemplifies an approach to politics often described as institutional determinism.

In his book Models of Democracy (1999), Arend Lijphart studied 36 countries with a democratic tradition of more than nineteen years and compared their institutional characteristics in ten different areas. His research aims to rank these countries on the dichotomous scale of majority democracy - consensus democracy (consensus democracy and consocial democracy are similar but not the same concepts). Majority democracy is an ideal-type category in which decisions are made by a simple majority (citizens or MPs). The most important thing for consensus democracy is the idea of ​​consensus - the desire to create and implement in reality an institutional framework that will allow decisions to be the result of a consensus of the largest population or a wide range of different parties, religious or ethnic communities, professional associations, and other groups, within one country. In the consensus model of democracy, rules and institutions aim at broad participation in government and broad agreement on government policy; associated with this is the tendency to limit and distribute power in different ways. This model is also characterized by commitment, negotiation, and compromise. Consensus democracy insists on a broad consensus and engagement of all to achieve an essential compromise with which everyone would agree, and insists on a sense of unity to achieve a common goal. Electoral systems based on winner-take-all or first-past-the-post elections, in which a single representative is elected from each district combined with two-party systems, tend to encourage formation of Majority democracy, while proportional representation and multi-party systems tend to produce consensus democracy.

                            Coalitions and Cohabitation

Party coalitions exist mostly in parliamentary political systems. There are two types of coalitions – coalitions formed before elections and coalitions formed after elections in order to create a parliamentary majority and form a government. Research on coalition governments primarily seeks to explain which political parties are most likely to enter government and how coalitions function once formed. One of the most influential explanations is the Minimum Connected Winning (MCW) theory, which combines office-seeking and policy-seeking motivations. According to this theory, parties prefer to form coalitions that command only a narrow parliamentary majority, allowing government positions and benefits to be shared among the fewest possible partners. At the same time, coalition partners are expected to be ideologically adjacent, reducing policy disagreements and facilitating cooperation. MCW theory works relatively well in political systems structured around a single ideological dimension but is less effective in explaining coalition formation in fragmented, polarized, or socially diverse systems.

Studies also show that the allocation of government positions differs across political contexts. In simpler party systems, cabinet posts are usually distributed according to each party’s electoral strength. In more complex systems, however, a party’s bargaining power may be more important than its vote share. Small parties can therefore gain disproportionate influence if their participation is necessary to secure a parliamentary majority.

Political scientists have found that party-system fragmentation, ideological polarization, and the presence of anti-system parties contribute significantly to cabinet instability. Nevertheless, coalition governments do not always lead to unstable governance. While countries such as Italy experienced frequent government turnover after the Second World War, coalition governments in Germany and Sweden have often been stable and effective.

Arend Lijphart contributed to coalition theory with the aforementioned concept of consociational democracy. In deeply divided societies characterized by significant ethnic, religious, or linguistic conflicts, major parties may form broad “grand coalitions” that include representatives of all major communities. These arrangements are often accompanied by federalism and proportional distribution of public resources. The goal is to reduce tensions by encouraging cooperation among political elites and preventing the exclusion of important social groups. This approach proved successful in countries such as the Netherlands and Austria, but was less successful in Lebanon.

Critics of multiparty systems emphasize the challenges of coalition formation. Negotiations can be lengthy and complex, and coalition governments may become preoccupied with disputes among partners. Furthermore, coalition politics often encourages moderation, compromise, and centrist policymaking. While this can promote stability, critics argue that it may reduce ideological choice, weaken political principles, and overrepresent centrist parties. These concerns are particularly relevant in systems using proportional representation, which tend to encourage multiparty competition and coalition governments.

Cohabitation pertains to a situation in presidential and semi-presidential systems when a president represents one party, while parliamentary majority comes from a different party.  Maurice Duverger analyzed semi-presidential systems of government, particularly as they emerged in France with the establishment of the Fifth Republic. He identified a dual structure of authority in which a popularly elected president possesses substantial constitutional powers, both de jure and de facto, alongside a prime minister and cabinet that are responsible to the parliamentary majority. As a result, the functioning of semi-presidential systems depends heavily on whether there is political alignment between the president and the majority in the legislature. Duverger introduced the concept of cohabitation to describe periods in which the president and the parliamentary majority represent opposing political parties. During such periods, divergent majorities tend to assign the prime minister a dominant role in most areas of legislation, while the president retains primacy in matters of foreign policy.

                                        Party Loyalty

Political parties and party systems often display a high degree of stability over time. One reason for this is the persistence of the social cleavages on which parties were originally founded, such as class, religion, ethnicity, or regional identity. As long as these social divisions remain relevant, the parties representing them are likely to retain support.

A second factor is political socialization. Individuals often develop party loyalties during their youth and tend to maintain them throughout their lives. When new political issues or social cleavages emerge, younger generations are generally the first to align with new parties or political movements. Older generations, by contrast, are more likely to remain loyal to the parties they supported earlier in life. As a result, changes in party alignments often occur gradually through generational replacement rather than sudden shifts.

A third source of party stability is organizational strength. Established parties typically possess significant resources, experience, and institutional advantages that make them difficult to challenge. When new political issues arise, existing parties may adapt by adopting the concerns of emerging movements, absorbing their supporters, or redirecting public attention to other issues. This ability to adjust helps established parties maintain their position within the political system.

Despite these stabilizing factors, several developments have weakened the influence of political parties. The decline of political patronage, the introduction of direct primary elections, the growing role of mass media, the rise of political action committees, and the expansion of the Internet have reduced voters’ dependence on parties. Better access to information enables voters to evaluate candidates independently and often encourages split-ticket voting.

 Alignment, Realignment, and Dealignment in Party Systems

When new social cleavages or political issues emerge, party systems can respond in three main ways. First, new parties may be created to represent groups whose interests are not addressed by existing parties. Examples include the emergence of the British Labour Party to represent the working class and Green parties that champion environmental concerns. New parties can significantly reshape politics, as illustrated by the rise of the Republican Party in the United States during the 1850s.

Second, existing parties may adapt by incorporating the demands of new constituencies into their platforms. By adopting new issues and attracting new supporters, established parties can absorb potential rivals and maintain their dominance.

Third, if neither of these responses occurs, party dealignment may develop. In this situation, many citizens become dissatisfied with all existing parties, leading to lower political participation and weaker party loyalties. New groups may organize through social movements, pressure groups, referendums, or citizen initiatives rather than through political parties, while existing parties may become increasingly divided and ideologically fragmented.

Political polarization refers to a situation in which party systems become deeply divided by ideological conflict. One of the most influential explanations is Giovanni Sartori’s theory of polarized pluralism. According to Sartori, such systems are characterized by a dominant governing party that remains in power through unstable coalitions, while extremist or anti-system parties remain in permanent opposition. Although these extremist parties are too controversial to be included in government, they are often strong enough to prevent alternative governing coalitions from forming. This can lead to political stagnation, corruption, coalition instability, and growing radicalization among excluded groups. Historical examples include Germany, the French Fourth Republic, and post-war Italy.

Many scholars argue that high levels of polarization pose a serious threat to democratic stability and consolidation. Political systems marked by polarization often struggle to generate trust, legitimacy, and effective governance.

The rise of populist parties has contributed to new forms of political polarization. Unlike mainstream parties that compete for centrist voters, populist parties often appeal to citizens who feel economically or culturally marginalized, particularly those affected by globalization, economic insecurity, or rapid social change. Contemporary politics has increasingly been shaped by divisions between more “open” and more “closed” worldviews. When populist parties gain power, they may seek to challenge established political norms and institutions, including checks and balances, judicial independence, and other safeguards that limit executive authority.

Duverger argues that right-wing parties may adapt both their organizational forms and ideological positions in order to preserve their competitiveness. To explain this process, he introduces the concept of the “contagion of the left,” referring to situations in which left-wing opposition movements compel governing parties to adopt policies they might otherwise resist. Periods of political insecurity and perceived socialist threat can thus prompt significant policy shifts by political authorities, as illustrated by late nineteenth-century Germany, where Otto von Bismarck implemented far-reaching social reforms.

In his 1996 article “Have Americans’ Social Attitudes Become More Polarized?”, Paul DiMaggio analyzes data from national public opinion surveys and finds limited evidence of deep polarization among the general public in the United States between 1974 and 1994. Overall, most social attitudes remained relatively stable, with a considerable degree of tolerance and consensus across society. However, he identifies two notable exceptions. First, opinions on abortion became significantly more divided over time. Second, individuals who strongly identified with either the Democratic or Republican Party grew more polarized in their views. This suggests that polarization was more pronounced among committed partisans than among the broader population. DiMaggio concludes that the party system itself played a key role in intensifying divisions, even though the general public remained comparatively moderate. In particular, political leaders were sometimes pushed away from centrist positions by more ideologically driven or militant groups within their own parties, contributing to sharper partisan divides at the elite level rather than across society as a whole.

Early studies of political extremism primarily explained it through psychological characteristics, patterns of socialization, or economic hardship and dislocation. According to these perspectives, extremist attitudes and movements emerged as a response to personal grievances, social influences, or adverse economic conditions.

Subsequent research shifted attention toward the concept of resource mobilization within social movements. From this perspective, extremism does not arise simply because individuals or groups experience deprivation—whether absolute or relative—but because they possess the organizational resources and capacity necessary to mobilize support and pursue collective action.

A more recent strand of research emphasizes the importance of political opportunity structures. This approach argues that extremism often develops when openings emerge within the political landscape that can be exploited by skilled political entrepreneurs. In this view, extremist movements gain support not necessarily because social or economic conditions have deteriorated, nor solely because new groups have become organized, but because established parties have abandoned or neglected certain ideological positions.

When mainstream parties move away from particular issues or constituencies, they may create political spaces or electoral niches that extremist actors can occupy. Such opportunities can arise when mainstream parties enter or leave government, alter their policy positions, or adjust their strategies to compete more effectively with rival parties. As a result, extremism may grow not only from societal demand but also from changes in the competitive dynamics of the party system itself.

                                       Party Oligarchy

Moisei Ostrogorski, in Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties (1902), expressed the view that there is a pathological tendency of democratic mass parties towards the formation of a bureaucratic-oligarchic type of internal organization. Such a result is inevitable because, as soon as a party is organized and begins to act, its degeneration into an oligarchic structure begins at the same time.

Robert Michels, in the book Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy  (1915, in German 1911), presents the famous "iron law of oligarchy", the view that all political parties are controlled by a small number of people who are at the top. Michels believes that political parties have a dual nature and purpose. Parties are spontaneous associations that combine propaganda and agitation in order to gain political power. On the other hand, parties provide individuals with values and a material basis to achieve their own goals, which can be ideological or purely personal - economic, status, or political well-being of the individual.

Michels singles out five basic types of parties. The first type is patronage parties - they are led by a charismatic leader (these parties are often named after the leader). The characteristics of a leader are: strength of will, broad knowledge, great ambition, self-sufficiency, the reputation of selflessness, and intoxicating oratory. Michels singles out Mussolini as the best example, who, in his opinion, not only represents the embodiment of the Fascist Party, but also the whole of Italy. Charismatic parties are most often formed when the leader establishes them, while much less often is a case that a charismatic leader wins power within the party that was not previously a charismatic party. The second type of parties are those that represent a means of realizing the interests of certain classes. Ideological parties are the third type of party. The fourth type of parties are parties that are organized around religious identity (Catholic and Protestant parties). The fifth type of parties are those that represent the interests of a specific nation or ethnicity. Ideological parties have the most developed and broadest political program, while other parties have programs that focus on specific issues, and have only vague positions on other issues.

All five types of parties function very similarly, regardless of the manner and causes of their formation. The similarity in functioning arises due to several factors: the necessity to regulate the functioning of the organization; the nature of the individual human psyche, and the nature of the mentality of the crowd. Since serious politics requires great knowledge and skills, professional politicians emerge and take over every political party. On the other hand, the masses who do not have that knowledge and technical skills are not able to control the party leaders. In addition, ordinary party members, as well as sympathizers, have the mentality of the crowd and naturally follow their leaders. All these factors lead to the party striving for an oligarchic system, and that, according to Michels, is the iron law of history. However, the power of the oligarchy isn’t limitless, since, in democracies, the success of the party directly depends on the number of voters, so party oligarchy must encourage and preserve the sympathies of the masses, which enables the masses to have a reciprocal influence on the oligarchic elite.

Duverger, using a comparative approach that examines all types of political parties, concluded that party leadership tends naturally toward oligarchic organization. At the same time, he emphasizes the considerable diversity of party structures and challenges Robert Michels’s iron law of oligarchy, which presents a more uniform view of party organization.

Leftist Arguments Against the Existence of Party Pluralism in Modern Capitalism

Charles Wright Mills, in The Power Elite (1956), claims that conflicts within the elite take place at the middle level of power, mainly over the division of spoils, and the media and political scientists pay the most attention to these conflicts, while no one questions the fundamental basis of the system itself. Conflicts within the elites are becoming increasingly integrated into the bureaucratic state apparatus, which replaces the real political struggle between political parties. Trade unions and other professional organizations tend to integrate into the state, and their leaders fight only for their own interests or for the interests of their own members. Below the elite is the class of white-collar workers, which, compared to the earlier middle class of small capitalists and professionals, has lost its autonomous power. At the bottom of the pyramid is a huge mass of ordinary people who are disorganized, uninformed, completely apathetic, indifferent, and without any real power, but are completely controlled and manipulated. The very high concentration of power that the elites have and the apathy and powerlessness of the largest part of the population represent an exceptional threat to democracy. The bureaucratic rationality of the elite seeks to prevent huge masses of people from approaching life's problems autonomously and rationally.

In the book Dialectics of Enlightenment (1972, in German 1947b), co-written by Herbert Marcuse and Theodore Adorno, the authors explore the history of bourgeois society and culture, primarily in the context of the Enlightenment ideas of science and humanism. The authors see the mass culture that spreads conformism and controls social consciousness as the main reason for this development. They called this form of control over the masses "culture industry." The culture industry dominates all forms of mass culture; the mass media sell artistic values ​​as commodities; democracy is characterized by parties that control the masses through their programs and propaganda; consumer products are standardized and eliminate the need for individual consumer tastes. 

In his book What Does the Ruling Class do When it Rules?: State Apparatuses and State Power under Feudalism, Capitalism and Socialism  (1978), Therborn uses the categories of systems analysis to give a Marxist understanding of state power and the state apparatus. In analyzing the strategies that the ruling class pursues in capitalism in order to rule, he concluded that the ruling class uses mostly state apparatus and economic exploitation and domination as ruling strategies, rather than ideology. 

In the Elites and Society (1993), Bottomore notes that at the end of the twentieth century, there was a huge concentration of wealth, while the world economy is controlled by the largest multinational corporations, as well as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which act as regulatory institutions of global capitalism. With the rise of the New Right and the collapse of socialist regimes, capitalism and the free market remain without a visible alternative. As other sources of power lose importance (such as control of the military), classes and class relations have the greatest impact on the political order. The class of very rich people begins to act as an elite and gradually shapes the political system. This elite achieves this by controlling all political parties, turning politics into a media circus, preventing electoral reform, marginalizing social movements operating outside institutional politics, and creating transnational political institutions that are far removed from ordinary people and whose representatives are not democratically elected. As a solution to this situation, Bottomore does not propose a communist revolution, but the introduction of participatory democracy and the strengthening of social movements that fight against the logic of global capitalism. Similarly, Ulrich Beck argues that all political parties, around the world and in all countries, increasingly resemble each other and their names serve only as facades for a single program shaped by neoliberal ideology. 

References:

Aldrich, John H. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America (1995);

Aron. Democracy and Totalitarianism (1968, in French 1965);

Beck. Power in the Global Age (2005, in German 2002);

Bottomore. Political Sociology (1979);

     -     Elites and Society, 2ed. (1993);

Bourdieu. Language and Symbolic Power (1991, in French 1982);

Burnham, Walter Dean. Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics (1970);

Chambers, William Nisbet, and Walter Dean Burnham The American Party Systems, 2nd ed. (eds.) (1975);

Crewe, Ivor, and David Denver (eds.) Electoral Change in Western Democracies: Patterns and Sources of

Electoral Volatility (1985);

Dalton, Russell J., Stephen C. Flanagan, and Paul A. Beck Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial

Democracies (1984);

Di Palma, Giuseppe To Craft Democracies: An Essay on Democratic Transitions (1990);

Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957);

Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties, Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: Wiley.

Epstein, L. D. Political Parties in Western Democracies (1966);

Esping-Andersen. Social Class, Social Democracy and State Policy: Party Policy and Party Decomposition in Denmark and Sweden (1980); 

Fuchs, Dieter, Giovanna Guidorossi, and Palle Svensson ‘‘Support for the Democratic System’’, in H. D.

Klingemann and D. Fuchs. (eds.). Citizens and the State (1995);

Fuchs, Dieter, and Edeltraud Roller.  ‘‘Cultural Conditions of the Transformation to Liberal Democracies

in Central and Eastern Europe’’, in WZB Discussion Paper FS III (1994);

Giddens. Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics (1994);

     -     The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy (1998);

     -     The Third Way and Its Critics (2000);

Gramsci. Prison Notebooks (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) (2011, in Italian 1947);

Grew, Raymond (ed.) Crises of Political Development in Europe and the United States (1978);

Held. Models of Democracy (1987);

Hofstadter, Richard. The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780–1840 (1969);

Horkheimer, and Adorno. Dialectics of Enlightenment (1972, in German 1947).

Huntington. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (1991);

Karl, Terry Lynn, and Philippe C. Schmitter. ‘‘Modes of Transition in Latin America, Southern and Eastern

Europe’’, in International Social Science Journal (1991);

Kitschelt, Herbert, and Anthony J. McGann. The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis (1995);

La Palombara, Joseph, and Myron Weiner. (eds). Political Parties and Political Development (1966);

Laver, Michael, and Norman Schofield Multiparty Government. The Politics of Coalition in Europe (1990);

Lawson, Kay (ed.) Political Parties and Linkage (1980);

Lijphart, Arend ‘‘The Field of Electoral Systems Research: A Critical Survey’’, in Electoral Studies (1985);

Lijphart. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration (1977);

     -     Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian & Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries (1984);

     -     Electoral Laws & Their Political Consequences (1986);

     -     Parliamentary versus Presidential Government (1992); 

     -     Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies 1945–1990 (1994);

     -     Institutional Design in New Democracies (1996);  

     -     Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms & Performance in Thirty-six Countries (1999);

Linz. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe (1996);

     -     Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes (2000).

Lipset. Political Man (1960);

     -     Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives (1967);

Lipset, Seymour Martin ‘‘Radicalism or Reformism: The Sources of Working-Class Politics.’’ American

Political Science Review (1983);

     -      ‘‘The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited.’’ American Sociological Review (1994);

Listhaug, Ola ‘‘The Dynamics of Trust in Politicians.’’ In H. D. Klingemann and D. Fuchs, eds.,

Citizens and the State (1995);

     -     , and Matti Wiberg ‘‘Confidence in Political and Private Institutions.’’ In H. D. Klingemann and

D. Fuchs, eds., Citizens and the State (1995);

Lukács. History and Class Consciousness (1971, in German 1923);

Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. The Federalist (1941, Orig. pub. 1787–1788);

Mainwaring, Scott P. Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil (1999);

Mair, Peter. Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations (1997);

Mannheim. Ideology and Utopia (1936, in German 1929); 

McAdam, Doug, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald (1996), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements:

Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings

Michels. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchial Tendencies of Modern Democracy (2016, in Italian 1911);

Miliband. Parliamentary Socialism: A Study in the Politics of Labour (1961);

     -     The State in Capitalist Society (1969);

     -     Capitalist Democracy in Britain (1982);

     -     Class Power and State Power (1983);

Mills. The Power Elite (1956);

Moore, Barrington, Jr. Social Origins of Democracy and Dictatorship (1966);

O’Donnell, Guillermo, and Philippe C. Schmitter. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions

about Uncertain Democracies (1986);

Ostrogorski, Moisei. Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties (1902);

     -     Democracy and the Party System in the United States (1910); 

Patterson, Kelly D. Political Parties and the Maintenance of Liberal Democracy (1996);

Piven. Why Americans Don’t Vote (1988);

     -     Labor Parties in Postindustrial Societies (1992);

     -     Why Americans Still Don't Vote: And Why Politicians Want it That Way (2000);

Remmer, Karen L. ‘‘The Political Impact of Economic Crisis in Latin America in the 1980s’’, in American

Political Science Review (1991);

Rokkan, Stein. Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-national Perspectives (1967);

Citizens, Elections, Parties. Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development (1970a);

Sartori, Giovanni. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis (1976);

Sartori, Giovanni. ‘‘European Political Parties: The Case of Polarized Pluralism’’, in Joseph LaPalombara

and Myron Weiner. (eds.). Political Parties and Political Development (1966);

Schattschneider, E. E. Party Government (1942);

Schattschneider, E. E. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America (1960);

Schmitt, K. The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. (1985, in German 1923);

Schumpeter, Joseph. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1950);

Taagepera, Rein, and Matthew Soberg Shugart Seats and Votes. The Effects and Determinants of Electoral

Systems (1989);

Therborn. What Does the Ruling Class do When it Rules?: State Apparatuses and State Power under Feudalism, Capitalism and Socialism (1978);

Tilly. The Contentious French (1986);

Toka, Gabor ‘‘Parties and Electoral Choices in East-Central Europe’’, in G. Pridham and P. G. Lewis.

(eds.). Stabilising Fragile Democracies: Comparing New Party Systems in Southern and East Europe (1996);

Tönnies. Community and Society (2021, in German 1887);

von Beyme, Klaus. Political Parties in Western Democracies (1985);

Ware, A. Political Parties and Party Systems (1996);

Weber Max. Economy and Society: A New Translation (2019, in German 1922a);

Weil, Frederick D. ‘‘The Sources and Structure of Legitimation in Western Democracies: A Consolidated

Model Tested with Time-Series Data in Six Countries since World War II’’, in American Sociological Review (1989);

Research on Democracy and Society: Volume 3, Extremism, Protest, Social Movements, and Democracy (1996);

Wilensky. Rich Democracies: Political Economy, Public Policy, and Performance (2002);

White, John Kenneth, and Daniel M. Shea. New Party Politics: From Jefferson and Hamilton to the Information Age (2004);

Wuthnow. The Restructuring of American Religion (1988);

Zimmermann, Ekkart, and Thomas Saalfeld. ‘‘Economic and Political Reactions to the World Economic

Crisis of the 1930s in Six European Countries’’, in International Studies Quarterly (1988).