1. No single uniform definition of a political party - definitions are historically and culturally determined Edmund Burke (1770): “A party is a body of men united, for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed”. Anthony Downs (1957): “In the broadest sense, a political party is a coalition of men seeking to control the governing apparatus by legal means. By coalition, we mean a group of individuals who have certain ends in common and cooperate with each other to achieve them”. Leon D. Epstein: “What is meant by a political party is any group, however loosely organized, seeking to elect government officeholders under a given label”.

2. Panebianco (1987): “A political party is an organized group, an association oriented toward political goals, which attempts by its actions to maintain the status quo or to change existing social, economic, and political conditions by means of influencing achievement or conquest of political power”. Functions that parties (are supposed to) perform: a)to link up rulers and people who are ruled or to mediate between the state and civil society; b)to aggregate different interests; c)to form and implement collective goals of the society; d)to structure electoral votes; e)to integrate and mobilize individual citizens; f)to recruit and select leaders for public and political offices; g)policy formation; and h)political socialization of citizens and elites.

3. Interest groups Political parties Try to influence policy- formation and the implementation of policies Public policies Responsible for policy- formation (parliamentary parties) Try to achieve activity or to prevent activity of a government; in principle, it doesn’t try to participate in government Government Try to gain a (part of a) power/participation in a government or in a parliament Narrow, special, or individual interests Topics Broad field of interests, broad programme Cyclic or periodic activity, when their interest is or can be affected ContinuityAs a rule a permanent activity

4. CharacteristicsSocial movementsPolitical parties Ideology Very important, mass demands, collective participation Transformation of ideology into political programme, emphasis on implementation Organization Collective actions, flexibility of ‘organization’, no administration and internal division of labour, no internal (minimal) formal rules, informal structure Clearly visible organization, organizational complexity, party administration, formal internal rules, formal structure Strategy, tactics Emphasis on ‘propaganda’— broadening of ideology Emphasis on achieving immediate goals Leadership (no)professional leaders (charismatic hero, prophet, demagogue) Institutional entrepreneur, bureaucrat, negotiator MembershipInclusive, expansive, formally no defined Exclusive, formally defined, formally defined boundaries between members and non- members

5. Relationships between social movements and political parties: a) procesual relationships (social movements are converted into political parties); b) mutually—critical relationships (social movements can, with their critical activity and pressures, act as a factor of party change, and vice versa), c) ignorance (social movements stay in the societal sphere, they do not have any interest in politics or/and parties, and vice versa), d) instrumental relationships (social movements can be, in certain periods, instruments of parties and parties can be instruments of social movements); and e) integrative relationships (social movement can be absorbed into a political party, or a new form of party can be established [movement parties]).

6. Theories on the origin and evolution of parties: institutional, organizational, and modernization theories (with the most popular being the cleavage theory). Institutional theories (Duverger) Internally created parties Externally created parties Organizational theories (Michels and oligarchical tendencies; Panebianco and genetic model + institutionalization)

7. Three major factors help identify a party’s genetic model: The organization’s construction and development (territorial penetration; territorial diffusion; a combination of these two) The presence or absence (at the party’s origin) of an external ‘sponsor’ institution The role of charisma in the party’s formation Institutionalization can be measured on two scales: a)An organizations’ degree of autonomy, vis-a-vis its environment b) Its degree of systemness

8. Cleavage theory (Lipset and Rokkan) - the theory’s emphasis is on conflicts and their translation into a party system. Cleavage is more than a conflict; it is a strong, deep, and long-lasting division in a particular society. There is a hierarchy of cleavage bases in each system and these orders vary among societies. Transformation of social cleavages into political cleavages is important for political science.

9. Lipset and Rokkan distinguish four critical lines of cleavage Two of these are direct products of the National Revolution (territorial dimension): a) the conflict between the central nation-building culture and the increasing resistance of the ethnically, linguistically, or religiously distinct subject populations in the provinces and peripheries; and b) the conflict between the centralizing, standardizing, and mobilizing Nation-State and the historically established corporate of the privileges of the Church.

10. Two of those are products of the Industrial Revolution (functional dimension): a) the conflict between the landed interests and the rising class of industrial entrepreneurs, and b) the conflict between the owners and employers on the one side and tenants and workers on the other Periphery – centre cleavage: regionalist, nationalist, and ethnical parties have been formed Nation state – Church cleavage: liberal and conservative parties have been formed Industry – land cleavage: agrarian and bourgeois parties have been formed Workers’ – Owners’ cleavage: socialist and communist parties have been formed

11. Cleavages can overlap and, in such circumstances, in a particular society, cleavage structure may even be reinforced (for example, centre-periphery cleavage can overlap with religious-non-religious cleavage) In the 90s a great debate in the political science community as to whether cleavages had been frozen; that is, that no other had been developed. At least one other cleavage, the one related with postmaterialist values (since 70s) In the post socialist context, some scholars talk about a cleavage communism—anticommunism (just a strong conflict in the period of democratic transition or a deep, long-lasting conflict?)

12. Five basic party models, mainly based on the nature of parties’ connection with society and the state have been developed – ideal types Several indicators can be used to identify the nature of the connection: what are the key goals of party politics; what is the key line of party competition; which are the most important resources parties have; what kind of relations between party leaders and members are established; which are the prevalent channels of internal party communication; what are the main features of party organization; how important are the ideologies, etc. Different party models, or at least elements of different party models, coexist at the same time.

13. Elite caucus or cadre party (Duverger) 1860–1920; internally created; strict selection of party members (mainly upper class origin, influential persons); limited electorate of upper social strata via personal contacts; decentralization of party; key financial source was personal wealth of members; connected with civil society; prevalent of the party in public office. Mass party (Duverger, Michels) 1880–1950; externally created; open for mass membership; appeal to specific social group on the basis of social cleavage (class); more centralized party organization; key financial source was party membership; connected with civil society; prevalent of the party in central office. Catch-all party (Kirchheimer) 1950–present; originated from mass parties; appeal to all classes—reduction of ideological baggage; marginalization of members, more power to leaders; important financial sources are state subsidies; openness to interest groups; prevalence of the party in public office; shift of parties from civil society to the state. Cartel party (Katz and Mair) 1960–present; fusion of parliamentary parties and the state apparatus; state subsidies are the key financial source; parties are part of the state; recruitment mainly from within the state structures (civil servants); prevalent of the party in public office. Business firm party (Calise, Krouwel, and Hopkin) 1990–present; originates from the private-initiative of political entrepreneurs; prevalence of the party in public office; self-recruitment; permanent struggle for media attention; corporate and social interests and commercial activities are the main financial sources; membership is irrelevant or its relevance is minimal.

14. Party system - political parties competing with each other for elective office and control of government form a party system. Since we talk here about the system, it is necessary to stress the fact that the party system consists of regular and recurring interactions among its component parties. Duverger (1954): “With the exception of the single-party states, several parties co-exist in each country; the forms and modes of their coexistence define the ‘party system’ of the particular country”. Sartori (1976)argues that parties make for a ‘system’ only when they are parts (in the plural), and a party system is precisely the system of interactions resulting from inter-party competition.

15. Almost no substantial innovation since the Sartori’s classic work on party systems in 1976. On the empirical side there has been considerable attention paid to the party systems. Party systems have a number of distinct features, which arise from electoral competition and the relationships of the parties to each other. These include the number of parties contesting elections and winning legislative seats, their relative size and strength, the number of dimensions on which they compete, the distance which separates them on key issues, their willingness to work with each other in government formation, and the process of governing.

16. Two distinct methods of grouping party systems: The one approach sees party systems as little more than ‘sets of parties’. This approach is associated with traditional numerical classifications, which essentially means—the counting of parties: one-party, two-party, and multiparty systems. Blondel (1968) – relative size or strengths of parties, that is the average share of the vote won by the largest two parties and then considering the ratio of the first party’s share to the second and third parties. two-party systems (the two-party share is around 90%, and closely balanced between the two parties); two-and-a-half party systems (the two party shares ranged from 75% to 80% of the vote cast but with a bigger difference (10%) between the first and second party); multiparty systems with a predominant party (party systems with four or more major parties; those with one larger party winning 40% or more of the vote and typically twice as much as the second party in the system are multiparty systems with a predominant party); multi-party systems without a predominant party.

17. The second approach is a more systemic approach. Sartori also begins with counting parties. The question is which parties are relevant – which have an effect on party competition? The first criterion is the party’s electoral strength. Nevertheless, even smaller parties can be relevant. Smaller parties are relevant when they have either coalition potential or blackmail potential. Parties whose seats are never needed to form a government are irrelevant. The second criterion is their impact on the direction of party competition; parties, large or small, are relevant when their existence alters the direction of party competition leftward or rightward, changing the direction of competition from centripetal to centrifugal. When party systems are classified on the basis of their number, we speak about the format of the party system. However, the format is interesting only to the extent that it affects the mechanics—how the system works.

18. Sartori wanted to find a relation between format and mechanics. His most famous classification, based on these two dimensions, is between polarized and moderate pluralism. Characteristics of polarized pluralism—six or more relevant parties; presence of relevant anti-system parties; existence of bilateral opposition; the centre placement of one party or a group of parties— the metrical centre of the system is occupied, but the dynamics of the system is centrifugal rather than centripetal, anti-system parties at the extremes compete with parties in the centre, pulling parties and voters toward them. Because two polar opposition located two poles apart cannot coalesce, parties in the centre govern without the benefit of an alternative government, which can replace them. As such, either ideological divisions, or a large ideological distance between parties, centrifugal drives, ‘irresponsible oppositions’, and over-promising politics (not possible to fulfil promises) characterizes the system.

19. Characteristics of moderate pluralism—less than six parties; relatively small ideological distance; centripetal competition; unilateral opposition (opposition can cooperate and is coming from one side; left or right). The quantitative measures of the characteristics of party systems - the index of fragmentation and index of aggregation. Bardi and Mair (2008) - they had been considering the capacity of a given polity to maintain more than one party system, even of a different type. The possibility of more than one party system, in one polity or country, can be a consequence of different divisions in the country—vertical, horizontal, and functional.

20. Vertical divisions are particularly evident in polities characterized by polarization and segmentation of electorates. Parties compete for the vote of specific parts of the electorate (based on languagem religion etc.) Horizontal divisions are determined by the existence of several levels of government and electoral competition. Isues can be very different at different governmental levels (federal systems or systems with a high level of regional autonomy) Functional divisions stem from the existence, even at the same level of government, of different competitive arenas. Parties compete, and sometimes they compete differently, in the electoral and parliamentary arena Not all of these divisions are necessarily present in all polities

21. Party system change matters if it happens in the core, not at the margins of the system. Party systems change when: a) there is a change in the pattern of government alternation (shift from prevailing pattern of wholesale alternation to one of partial alternation, or there is a shift from a prevailing pattern of non- alternation to one of partial or wholesale alternation); b) when a new governing alternative emerges (when a period of consistency in the make-up of government is then succeeded by a new and innovative alternative); and/or c) when a new party or alliances of parties gain access to office for the first time (question is, the extent to which access to government is either open to a wide range of diverse parties or limited to a smaller number of established governing parties).