Why do different West European party systems contain different numbers of political parties? Illustrate your answer with evidence from Britain, France, Italy and/or Germany.

Over the last few decades the number of democracies has significantly expanded among the West European countries. Hague et al (2010: 83) suggest that ‘we live in an era of democracy’. After communism had ultimately collapsed, a lot of the European countries struggled with the adoption of new democratic rules. This collapse had an enormous impact on the framework of political system. It led to creation of various political parties which try to attract a lot of voters. Despite this adoption and democratic character of states, each country is allowed to have different number of political parties with its own ideology. This essay will analyse diversity in numbers of political parties between varied West European countries, giving an evidence from Britain, France, Italy and German. It will explore key election systems, the theory of the connection between political parties and communities as well as historic background what will help to explain these differences among the countries. The first case to analyse is United Kingdom. According to Lijphard (2012: 9) the UK is the principal example of Westminster model of democracy. One of the key feature of this model is two-party system. The political scene is dominated by two main parties: the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. One of the parties which gained majority in election is obligated to form government and has majoritarian in seats in the House of Common. In its early years of developing party system there was a class conflict between aristocracy and bourgeoisie. It distinctly contributed to split community into two groups and rise bipolar of political party. Contemporary the Conservatives and the Labourists have seeds from those groups (Duvenger, 1966: 112). Two-party system is as well a result of single-member districts according to the plurality method which takes place in electoral system in the Britain. The candidate nominated from each party who has most votes in each district is elected- majority is not necessary. Such an election system lead to promote two largest parties because of others are not large enough to defeat victors. As one of the first who showed this dependence was Duverger. He formed law which is widely known as: ‘ the simple-majority single-ballot system leads to bi-partism’ (Duverger 1966: 114). The same author mentioned as well that this ‘bi- partism’ system act as a brake, building distance between new party.
Hague et al (2010: 183) mention about some weakness in plurality method which has effect on remain in power the largest party . Namely it support tactical voting. Voters can feel that their preferred party have no chance to win in particular district therefore in fear of lost vote they vote instrumentally for party which is not even preferred. For instance, even though English voter support the Liberal Democrats he/she will vote for both the Labour or Conservative because there is more likelihood that their vote will be meaningful. Thus this tactical voting preclude minor parties. Next case to focus on is multiparty France with visible left-wing and right-wing division (Hague et al, 2010: 336). This state in selecting parties to national legislature (the National Assembly) represent mixed majority-plurality method in single member district. Lijphard (2012: 134) explain it: ‘on the first ballot an absolute majority is required for elections, but if no candidate wins a majority, a plurality suffices on the second ballot; candidates failing to win a minimum percentage of vote on the first ballot- 12,5 percent of registered voters since 1976- are barred from the second ballot’. Duverger (1966: 114) argue that this two-ballot majority system led to ‘multipartism’. According to the author this system is similar to the proportional representation however there are some differences. For instance, this system slows down the rise of new parties little bit more than the proportional representation. Therefore Duverger states that this is limited ‘multipartism’. Moreover Duverger (1966: 116) emphasis that sometimes this method allows to the formation two rival alliances in opposition- France is a key example. In contrast to tactical voting which occur in plurality method here voters can feel more confident that their vote will be translated into parliamentary representation. It follows that even their preferred candidate do not come through the second ballot they have still possibility to choice the final winner in the second ballot. Duverger’s Law mentions that when electorate can express more preferences and when voters are not force to choose between their personal preferences and the likelihood of lost vote, there is in politics space for more than two party.
Italy as example of another country as well represents multiparty system which is in opposite to the concentration of power in Britain and limited ‘multipartism’ in France. In its history Italy experienced high number of political parties with various ideologies what always led to instability of government. Hague at el ( 2010: 220) explain that ‘the underlying philosophy in many such systems is that political parties represent specific social groups in historically divided societies’. Indeed, Italy in the post-war period was full of social and political cleavages as Bull et al( 2005: 63) classify in four social divisions: religion, ideology, territory and class. For instance even now the North Italy is much more associate as more development and modern than the South Italy. However over the years this divisions had decreased. It was partly caused by overall dissatisfaction with unstable government. Ultimately, after 1990s Italian party system transformed into more bipolar with centre-right and centre-left although still not totally stable ( Hague et al 2010: 219). Nevertheless, degree in which society is divided has impact on numbers of political parties as it was reflect on Italy’s post-war period. The more varied society, the more number of representatives in political parties ( Bull et al, 2005: 80).
According to Duvenger’s Law ( 1966: 114) ‘proportional representation tends to multipartism’. This kind of representation occur in Italy. One of the key feature of the proportional representation is enabling most of parties representation not promoting largest one. Furthermore Hague et al ( 2010: 184) emphasis that in proportional representation single party is not able to gain majority in seats. Therefore after election, party with the majority of votes is force to forge coalition with another party in order to have majority in parliamentary seats. Consequently existence of radical political parties can be difficult to firstly find potential voters, secondly to find potential coalition.
Finally moving to Germany, Green et al (2008: 75) distinguish presence of ‘two medium-sized (CDU/CSU and SPD) and three smaller ( FDP, the Greens and the Left Party) parties now’ which have enough votes enabling them to have seats in legislature body (Bundestag) and to forge coalition. One main reason of this not enormous fragmentation of political parties is a 5 percent clause. It means that each party must gain minimum 5 percent of the vote across whole territory to enter parliament. Consequently this exclude minor parties the same strongest party expand their position (Green et al, 2008: 83). Green et al (2008: 84) argue that to soften claim that this electoral system do not give a possibility to win ‘smaler, regionally concentrated political parties’ introduced direct mandate rule. In this case if party manage to win minimum three constituencies outright, then party do not need 5 percent of the vote to have representatives in parliament. However Green et al (2008: 84) emphasis that in history of Germany very rarely small parties reach this. The existence of one or more political parties in particular state depends on several factors as it was shown in this essay. Political, historic background of each state has a distinct impact on developing political parties. By assumption the party should represent political view of specified group of citizens, then social cleavages and their level of appearance in state have reflection in numbers of political parties. As a result of decrease in turnout political parties are forced after election to forge coalitions. Party with radical political view may not be able to find potential coalition partner therefore these parties increasingly disappear. Furthermore, election system applied by each country has a substantial and key role. Thus Duverger argue that simple majority, single-ballot system tends to ‘bipartism’ what is reflected in United Kingdom. Simple-majority, two-ballot system tends to limited ‘multipartism’ with coalitions- France was presented as a principal example. Proportional representation tends to ‘multipartism’ what is clearly observable in Italy. Electorate in majority to not lost vote will exercise tactical voting what favours strongest parties. Finally some countries like German introduced 5 percent clause what as well promote strongest and largest party because only they have the greatest political power. In order to find solution why each state has particular numbers of political parties we should look exactly into these factors.