The Indispensability of Political Parties

Central Thesis: Political parties are core to functional democratic polities.

Background: Alexis de Tocqueville, perhaps the father or champion of political parties, stressed that, “political associations, by definition, seek to impose their views on the polity, in practice the interplay among them has contributed to the emergence of norms of tolerance and the institutionalization of democratic rights.” Tocqueville argued that political activity by the populist is a key component to a stable democracy and this is achieved best by an institutionalized party system. Tocqueville argued there are two main types of divisions in a society which are products of socio-economical and cultural disparities and are represented by either the party that emphasizes ideology or the party that emphasizes interests. The former “cling to principles rather than to consequences and private interests which is often studiously veiled under the pretext of the public good.” The latter “glow with a fictitious zeal; their language is vehement, but their conduct is timid and irresolute.” Tocqueville argued that the inherent interests of the privileged and the poor, classes which have always been present in free societies, are only represented by party systems because the populist is more centralist.

Argument for Party: Lipset points to Western Hemisphere and the Latin American countries in general to argue for a party system. Latin America has struggled for decades to establish and maintain democracies but have been largely unsuccessful due to a lack of institutionalized party system. The norm is for one “party” or often military interest to be so strong that it crushes any uprising of a smaller, less organized opposition.

Lipset then points to Russia after the fall of communism. The Communist party has been a stable in every election while many other parties come and go. For example, the 1999 elections had 30 parties on the ballot. It is no surprise that the Communist party has never lost an election. He points to this as a reason a stable democracy needs two powerful, institutionalized parties.

Conclusion: Lipset may be biased as he says, although “political elites may heavily influence the nature of the parties” in post revolutionary United States they are “for the good”. His main thesis is supported by the fact that democracies without 2 institutionalized parties are weak and barely discernible as a democracy. The caveat here is his heavy reliance on Tocqueville to set up his argument. There were obviously those opposing Tocqueville’s ideas (George Washington) in the early 1800’s and their ideas should be explored as well. Do two strong political parties assure that no one party controls the direction of the country? Are the political elites really genuine and benevolent in their pursuits? Or is the two party system a false dichotomy and nothing more than a veil masking the citizens eyes to assure the progress of the “state” over the progress of the people?