In the modern world, there are various party systems. Most often they are divided by a quantitative basis. The more legal parties in the country, the more views and interests are represented in various authorities.
Single party system
Some party systems include only one batch. As a rule, in this case we are talking about a state with an authoritarian or totalitarian type of power. A one-party system implies a ban on the activities of any other political organizations. Everyone knows the examples of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or other communist countries.
If the state allows the activity of only one party, then it inevitably merges with this organization. There is no competition in the power dispute. Decisions are made only by a narrow group of officials, at the same time being the top of the ruling party. Members of such political entities work in strict discipline. A typical example is the numerous communist countries where even the slightest departure from the principles of Marxism-Leninism, socialism, etc. was not allowed.
Nomenclature state
Any party systems that exist within a strict framework are based on the activities of the nomenclature. This is a class of officials and bureaucrats who are appointed to key government posts according to the decisions of the leadership (for example, the Central Committee, etc.).
Party systems with a ruling ideology are usually built around an influential leader. Such, for example, was Vladimir Lenin. His publications, articles and speeches were printed in millions of copies and were published in all printing houses of the Soviet Union. The image of the leader of the world proletariat was alive even after the death of Lenin himself and remained the engine of Soviet ideology for many more decades.
Bipartisanship
Modern political parties and party systems can exist in the form of so-called bipartism, when a country has two leading political forces fighting among themselves for power. For example, in the UK these are conservatives and Labor. At the same time, such a format does not mean that others political organizations are prohibited, as, for example, under a totalitarian regime. There are national parties in the United Kingdom already mentioned, but they are traditionally less popular than their more successful competitors.
If the country has two equally influential movements, then the government will maintain a balance of interests. Such political parties and party systems do not create a bias in governance, when the state can ignore the need for overdue reform, etc. The dominant ideology does not appear. Even if a certain course triumphs after the next election, it may remain in the past after the next vote. In this case, the future of the country is determined by the voter, who can vote for another large party, offering an alternative program to the current policy.
Features of bipartism
The bipartisan types of party systems also have their drawbacks. They allow you to change the political course of the country, but do not allow the destruction of the existing electoral system as a whole. For example, in the USA, for many generations, Democrats and Republicans have been fighting among themselves stably.Their position is monopolistic - third forces cannot get into the Senate, not to mention the victory in the presidential election.
Such types of party systems largely exist due to the political tradition that arose in the course of development of the history of a certain country. For example, in the UK there is a strict discipline regarding the voting of deputies. If a party member supports a program not accepted by the majority, he will almost certainly be expelled from the organization and replaced with a more loyal newcomer. But in the US, traditionally more freedom. There, electors (or senators) may depart from the generally accepted course. This is the so-called “soft” bipartisanship, while the British version is “hard”.
Two and a half parties
There are more politically mobile systems. Such, for example, is the format of "two and a half parties." This is a system in which, after the election, not a single political force can get a parliamentary or constitutional majority necessary for the adoption and amendment of laws. Such a situation can lead to paralysis of power. If the opponents block each other's decisions, then there can be no talk of any reforms and improvements in life in the country.
Therefore, in the case of the “two and a half parties”, the leading organization is in alliance with a third force. Such a coalition mathematically gets a majority in parliament (or any other leading state body), after which it finally has the opportunity to implement its ideas.
The importance of the "third force"
Of course, the union of two forces (for example, socialists and social democrats) inevitably leads to mutual concessions, necessary for mutual benefit. So, modern parties and party systems, firstly, reach a mutual compromise, and secondly, maintain a balance of interests of various parts of society. It is a mobile and mobile decision making format.
In this case (oddly enough), the main force in the country is the very third party, which itself decides which of the two leaders of public opinion to support it. As a rule, large opponents begin to bargain, offering large concessions to their potential ally. This is what modern party systems are good for - they are changing and cannot exist in a frozen state, as is the case with a one-party country. A striking example of the “two and a half” option is post-war Italy until 1994, as well as Japan.
Multi-party system
The most complex and versatile, of course, is a multi-party system. It is characterized by several important features, which cannot be in the above cases. Firstly, it is a regular change of elites. Secondly, the publicity and competitiveness of the political process. Thirdly, in this case, it is easier and faster to create a new force that would represent the interests of a certain stratum of the country's inhabitants.
Such party systems of countries around the world do not allow a single party to get an absolute majority of votes (more than 50%), even if it has overtaken all its competitors. This situation is always fraught with fragmentation. Nevertheless, in multi-party countries (Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria) there is no collapse of power.
Why it happens? It is affected by the fact that these European systems have existed for many years. They have many tools to prevent crises and turmoil in the ruling circles. They also resort to coalitions and alliances. Only they are not of such a specific nature, as is the case with the "two and a half" parties.
Disadvantages of fragmentation
The multiplicity of factions and movements may block the work of the government. This happens especially often in young democracies, where electoral traditions and institutions have not yet taken shape.
For example, the party system in Russia in the early post-Soviet years was a vivid illustration of such political anarchy. There were a huge number of small movements. After the next election, they could not agree among themselves - they interfered with the executive branch and each other. Some decisions could not be taken for several years, even if the situation required emergency measures (economic, social, etc.).
Block system
In the 60-70s of the XX century, a bloc variety of a multiparty system developed. This is a special case of regulation of power in the state. When the next election campaign begins in the country, political parties of all directions are divided into two blocks. For example, it can be right and left. Several parties in one block agree on certain items on their agenda, although they still remain independent of each other.
This approach is important precisely because the voter knows in advance about the proposed alignment of forces. In the case of the "classical" multi-party system, alliances and coalitions arise after the elections, when the parliament has already been elected, and the movements are left to come to an agreement with the number of seats obtained after the elections.
Features
It is characteristic that the concept of a party system in countries with several nationalities is very different from that inherent in states with ethnically homogeneous populations. Conflicts on the basis of language in the modern world are regulated precisely with the help of legal political instruments.
Another important general feature of a multi-party system is the holding of a second round of elections. This voting system is used in many countries where out of many candidates (for example, for the presidency), none can get more than 50% of the vote. In this case, the two applicants who received the most support from the voters determine the winner in the second round. It is important to remember that these candidates are nominated by parties, and non-partisans, as a rule, remain aloof from the interest of voters.
Benefits
A multi-party system is the most effective tool for self-regulation of civil society. The presence of competition forces politicians to be careful about their promises. In this case, the elite and the whole society as a whole are responsible for what is happening in the country. Even if the formed government consists of several parties, in countries with proven institutions of power this situation leads to the interconnectedness of different blocs and coalitions.
A flexible political system shows its exceptional benefits in times of crisis. For example, social tension is growing in the country related to the infringement of the rights and interests of a particular class. What party system will help get out of this deadlock, if not multi-party?
In this case, the situation may be defused before the election. Politicians who want to maintain their positions after the next vote, meet the voters. If they do not, then other people come in their place, expressing the interests of the discontented majority.
The multiparty maneuverability also lies in the fact that in this system the easiest way to create and develop a new party. In countries with a different way of life, where one ideology occupies a leading position, this is almost impossible. It is no less difficult to achieve this in states with a bipartisan system, where the electoral process is enclosed in a certain framework (Republicans versus Democrats, Conservatives versus Labor, etc.).
