Authors: Kuper & Kuper
Summary: In approximately 1400 words, this entry notes the difficulty of defining political parties, distinguishes between political parties and interest groups, and presents three dimensions useful for classifying parties.
Those who study political parties have not been able to agree on the term's definition. Initially, in the nineteenth century, political parties were defined as "organizations that try to win public office in electoral competition with one or more similar organizations." This narrow definition, as Schlesinger points out, excludes certain organizations that are generally considered political parties. The effort to include such organizations, however, makes the definition too broad to be useful. His solution is to distinguish between two types of parties: governing parties in one-party states, and competitive parties in two- or multi-party states. In the latter, a further distinction between political parties and interest groups must be made. First, as Almond demonstrates, interest groups typically articulate interests while political parties aggregate these articulated interests. Second, Blondel's work suggests that interest groups tend to have either a promotional or a protective character, while political parties simultaneously display both characteristics.
Political parties can be classified based on three dimensions: form of organization, party program, and party supporters. Duverger's work demonstrates a positive empirical relationship between these three dimensions. How a given political party operates in a democratic system depends on the party's own characteristics and its interactions with other parties. On this point, the literature distinguishes between two-party and multiparty systems. Sartori's and Blondel's theories about classifying party systems are introduced here. The entry concludes by briefly mentioning the empirical relationship between party systems, electoral systems, cabinet coalitions and cabinet stability.