Contemporary parties ideologies Flashcards

Question

President-Parliamentarism

Answer 1

* The Prime Minister and government are accountable to both the President and Parliament. * The President can dismiss the PM and override parliamentary decisions. * Stronger presidential power, leading to weaker parliamentary influence. (russia)

Answer 2

✅ Advantages of President-Parliamentarism ✔ Stronger executive leadership, preventing legislative gridlock. ✔ More stable government in times of crisis. ❌ Disadvantages ✖ Higher risk of authoritarianism (since the President controls both executive and legislative powers). ✖ PM has less independence, leading to a weaker Parliament.

Answer 3

* Strong presidential parties (e.g., Russia) → Lead to President-Parliamentary dominance. * Fragmented legislatures (e.g., Ukraine before 2014) → Increase the PM’s independence, shifting toward Premier-Presidentialism. * Electoral systems matter → Majoritarian voting systems (e.g., France) strengthen the President, while proportional systems (e.g., Portugal) strengthen Parliament.

Answer 4

Cohabitation is a unique phenomenon in semi-presidential systems, where the President and Prime Minister come from opposing political parties. This situation occurs when the President’s party does not control a parliamentary majority, forcing the appointment of a Prime Minister from the opposition. Cohabitation limits the President’s power, making the system function more like a parliamentary democracy rather than a hybrid presidential-parliamentary model. Cohabitation is best known from France (1986-1988, 1993-1995, 1997-2002).

Answer 5

1. Non-Concurrent Elections 2. Fragmented or Shifting Party Support 3. Strong Parliamentary Authority in Premier-Presidential Systems

Answer 6

The assembly pattern (also called "assembly government" or "conventual system") is a government system where the legislature holds supreme authority, and the executive is weak or dependent on it. The government is formed by, controlled by, and often dissolved by the assembly. ✔ No clear separation of powers → The legislature dominates governance. ✔ The executive (government) is entirely subordinate to the legislative assembly. ✔ Frequent government instability → Since the assembly controls the executive, governments change frequently. Example: The French Fourth Republic (1946–1958)

Answer 7

Rationalized parliamentarism means the creation of constitutional mechanisms to strengthen the government in the absence of a stable and predictable parliamentary majority caused by frequent votes of no confidence or coalition breakdowns. Rationalized parliamentarism introduces constitutional limits on no-confidence votes and dissolutions of government to ensure stability.

Answer 8

A. Constructive Vote of No Confidence B. Limits on Government Dissolution C. Strengthened Executive Authority D. Restrictions on Confidence Motions

Answer 9

The growing concentration of power, leadership, and decision-making in the hands of the executive leader (President, Prime Minister, or party leader), even in parliamentary and semi-presidential systems. This process shifts power away from collective party structures and legislatures toward individual political leaders. * Presidentialization is a process, not a regime type. * It involves the strengthening of executive power and leader centralization, without necessarily altering the formal constitutional framework. * The term is often confused with personalization of politics, but presidentialization is broader, including not just individual leaders but also party structures and government behavior.

Answer 10

* Executive Presidentialization * Party Presidentialization * Electoral Presidentialization

Answer 11

* Media and personalization of leadership → The media focuses more on leaders than on party ideologies. * Internationalization of politics → Leaders gain importance in foreign affairs and crisis management. * Electoral system changes → Systems that encourage direct election of Presidents or party leaders reinforce personalistic leadership. * Party transformations → Traditional mass parties have weakened, leading to centralized leadership structures

Answer 12

Political parties have evolved over centuries, transforming from small elite-driven factions into mass organizations that shape modern democracies. This evolution reflects changes in society, technology, economic structures, and electoral systems.

Answer 13

1. Elite-Based Parties (17th – 19th century) 2. Mass-Based Parties (late 19th – 20th Century) 3. Catch-All and Electoralist Parties (20th Century Onward) 4. Single – issue parties 5. Business-firm parties

Answer 14

o Formed by aristocratic factions competing for influence (e.g., Whigs and Tories in 18th-century Britain). o Aristocratic cliques and factions in the 17th century – grouped around influential personalities, princes, dukes etc. (the Whigs and the Torries in England); o Parliamentary groups during the French Revolution of 1789 – political clubs, e.g. the Jacobins, the Girondins, the Montagnards o Cadre parties in the 19th century – political elites – merchants, bankers, aristocracy; parliamentary groups based on restricted electoral law (taxpayers and property owners were entitled to vote; lack of voting rights for women). Conservative and liberal parties were dominant. o Small, loosely organized, and dependent on personal networks.

Answer 15

o Emerged with universal suffrage and the rise of working-class politics. o Created mass memberships, party infrastructures, and ideological commitments. o Examples: Socialist and Communist parties in Europe.

Answer 16

o Shift from ideological mobilization to broad voter appeal. o Emphasize media campaigns and leadership over mass membership. o After the World War II - parties that seek to attract voters with different political views and that formulate their electoral appeal to broad and diverse social masses rather than to specific, selected segments of contemporary societies. Modern mainstream parties may be mostly treated as catch-all parties. o Examples: Christian Democrats in Europe, U.S. Democrats & Republicans.

Answer 17

Narrow focus on one policy issue (e.g., environmentalism, digital rights, Euroskepticism). Often emerges when mainstream parties ignore an issue. May fade away if their main issue is resolved or absorbed by larger parties. Can influence mainstream politics, even without winning elections. Example: Pirate Party (Sweden), Brexit Party (UK)

Answer 18

✔ Leader-centered, with minimal internal democracy. ✔ Highly dependent on the founder’s personal wealth, media presence, and branding. ✔ Often lacks grassroots membership – relies on media and digital campaigns instead. ✔ Appeals to voters disillusioned with traditional parties. ✔ Can rise quickly but also disappear if the leader leaves politics. Example: Palikot’s Movement in Poland – founded in 2010 by Janusz Palikot

Answer 19

1. Decline of Mass-Based Parties 2. Rise of Populist and Personalized Parties 3. Electoral Professionalization 4. Fragmentation of Party Systems

Answer 20

Political cleavages are deep social divisions that influence voter behavior and party competition. These conflict lines define which groups in society align with specific political parties.

Answer 21

✔ Rooted in historical conflicts (e.g., class, religion, ethnicity). ✔ Influence the structure of party systems over time. ✔ Tend to be long-lasting, shaping voter behavior across generations.

Answer 22

1. Owner – Worker 2. Church – State 3. Land – Industry 4. Centre - Periphery

Answer 23

✔ The same social groups continued to vote for the same parties over time. ✔ New parties struggled to emerge because traditional parties were deeply rooted in society. ✔ The political landscape remained stable as long as these cleavages remained relevant. Example of a Frozen Party System: * In Western Europe (post-WWII), traditional left-right divisions dominated politics: o Socialist/Leftist parties → Supported by working-class, trade unions. o Conservative/Christian Democratic parties → Backed by middle-class, business, religious voters. This stability persisted for decades, reinforcing the same electoral patterns.

Answer 24

Party realignment occurs when long-standing political cleavages shift, causing voters to change party loyalties. This often happens due to economic, cultural, or demographic changes. ✔ Realignment occurs when deep changes reshape political competition. ✔ New cleavages replace old ones, leading to the rise of new party systems. ✔ "Realigning elections" mark political breakthroughs → Elections that fundamentally change voter behavior and party dominance.

Answer 25

✔ Materialism vs. Post-Materialism → Economic vs. identity-based politics. ✔ Winners vs. Losers of Globalization → Those benefiting from global markets vs. those experiencing economic insecurity. ✔ Populism vs. Pluralism → Rise of anti-establishment parties challenging liberal democracy. ✔ Post-Communism vs. Post-Solidarity (Poland) → Fading importance of old left-right divisions in favor of nationalist vs. liberal struggles.

Answer 26

Dealignment is when voters become less attached to political parties, leading to: ✔ Increased voter volatility. ✔ Growth of independent voters. ✔ More issue-based voting (instead of ideological loyalty). ✔ Party systems become "unfrozen" → Traditional party alignments weaken. ✔ Voters abandon long-term partisan affiliations, leading to higher electoral volatility. ✔ Stable patterns of political competition weaken, creating room for new parties and movements.

Answer 27

1. Weakened Social Identities 2. Rise of Media & Personalization of Politics 3. More Issue-Based Politics Examples of Dealignment * Decline of Social Democratic Parties in Europe o Example: The SPD (Germany) and Labour (UK) lost many working-class voters to right-wing populists (AfD, UKIP).

Answer 28

Political parties are not just voluntary associations but legally recognized entities with defined rights and obligations. * This means that political parties are officially recognized in most modern democracies. * They must adhere to laws regulating their formation, funding, and operations. Legal definitions of a political parties are usually contained in ordinary legislation. Oficially recognized political parties require formal regulations that refer to various aspects of their activity (establishment, registration, financing, electoral campaigns, legality, etc.).

Answer 29

1. Internal Organization & Democracy o Ensuring fair leadership selection and transparent candidate nomination processes. o Internal relations between party leaders/candidates and party members/supporters o Can refer to parties as associations of citizens, internal democracy in political parties, selection of candidates, free and fair internal competition, primaries, etc o Example: Some countries require internal primaries (e.g., U.S. parties). 2. Political Parties & the State o Though parties are private entities, they must follow public regulations. o They are semi-state agencies which have public responsibilities o Example: State funding laws regulate financial transparency. 3. Party Competition Regulations o Laws exist to prevent unfair competition and excessive financial influence. o Example: Limits on campaign donations and government oversight on funding.

Answer 30

1. Liberal/Free Market Model 2. Egalitarian-Democratic Model

Answer 31

* Prioritizes maximum freedom for political parties. * Parties operate with minimal state intervention. * Parties are regarded as private associations that should be free to establish their own internal organization and their rules * Internal affairs (e.g., leadership selection) are left to the parties themselves. * External regulations limit free competition and political pluralism. 🔹 Example: United States (where parties are private entities with few legal restrictions).

Answer 32

* Based on principles of fair competition, equality, and internal democracy. * Political parties are seen as vital for political participation, elections and the distribution of offices, and to a certain extent, that they have a public function. * The state plays an active role in regulating party activities. * Often includes quotas for minority participation and campaign finance limits. 🔹 Example: Germany (Basic Law requires that party structures conform to democratic principles).

Answer 33

the process of embedding political parties within a country's constitution. This means that: ✔ Political parties are formally recognized in constitutional law. ✔ Their role, functioning, and limitations are explicitly defined. ✔ Some countries go further by constitutionalizing political opposition (e.g., Morocco).

Answer 34

According to the presentation, four legal stages define how parties are institutionalized: 1. Electoral Laws → Define how parties participate in elections. 2. Parliamentary Rules → Regulate parties’ roles in parliament. 3. Constitutional Provisions → Guarantee party rights and democratic functions. 4. Ordinary Legislation → Detailed laws on funding, organization, and functioning. ADDITIONALLY a) Constitutionalization of political opposition – Morocco, France b) Constitutionalization of the entire party system

Answer 35

The concept of militant democracy explores how democratic regimes defend themselves against anti-democratic forces, particularly political parties that seek to undermine democratic principles. Democracies must take active measures to prevent anti-democratic parties from gaining power.

Answer 36

✔ Legal Restrictions on Extremist Movements ✔ Defensive Measures to Prevent Democratic Erosion ✔ Prevention of Authoritarian Takeovers

Answer 37

✔ Party Bans → Courts can dissolve parties that threaten democracy (Germany's NPD ban case). ✔ State Funding Restrictions → Parties that undermine democracy are denied public financing. ✔ Constitutional Court Oversight → Courts review whether parties conform to democratic principles.

Answer 38

✔ Party restrictions should be exceptional → Applied only when a party threatens democratic order. ✔ Banning a party should be a last resort → Governments should use less extreme measures first. ✔ Fair legal procedures must be in place → Prevent arbitrary party bans by ruling elites.

Answer 39

A party system refers to the pattern of interaction among political parties in a given country, shaped by electoral rules, ideological divisions, and historical cleavages. It includes the number of relevant parties, their ideological distance, and how they compete for power

Answer 40

1. Which parties exist? → The origins and genealogy of the system. o Some parties exist in all systems (liberal, socialist), while others are specific (regionalist, religious). 2. How many parties exist, and how big are they? → The format of the party system. o Some systems have two dominant parties, while others include many smaller parties. 3. How do parties behave? → The dynamics of the system. o Some parties move toward the center, while others remain ideologically extreme. o Some parties tend to conclude agreements and form coalitions with many potential political partners. They are very pragmatic in this respect. o Some other parties are treated as extreme political organizations by other participants in public life. Therefore, they are isolated and have no political potential to form majoritarian coalitions at a governmental or even at a parliamentary level.

Answer 41

Dominant Party System - One party dominates elections but allows opposition parties. (Japan (LDP), South Africa (ANC)). Two-Party System - Two large parties alternate in power, with minor parties having limited influence. (USA (Democrats vs. Republicans), UK (Labour vs. Conservatives)). Two-and-a-Half Party System - Two main parties exist, but a smaller party is necessary to form a majority. (Germany before 1998 (CDU/CSU & SPD with FDP)). Multiparty System - Multiple parties compete; no single party can rule alone, requiring coalitions. (France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain.) Bipolar/Tripolar System - Parties form electoral coalitions that compete against each other. (France)

Answer 42

✔ Two-Party Systems → Two major parties dominate and alternate in power (e.g., UK, USA). ✔ Multiparty Systems → More than two relevant parties exist, often leading to coalition governments (e.g., Netherlands, Italy). 📌 Key Insight: Duverger’s Law states that majoritarian electoral systems (FPTP) lead to two-party systems, while PR fosters multiparty systems

Answer 43

Stein Rokkan examined Western European democracies and proposed a threefold classification: ✔ British-German Type ("1 vs. 1 + 1") → A two-party system with a small third party (e.g., UK with the Liberal Democrats). ✔ Scandinavian Type ("1 vs. 3–4") → One dominant party competes against an opposition bloc of 3–4 smaller parties (e.g., Sweden’s Social Democrats vs. center-right bloc). ✔ Even Multiparty Systems ("1 vs. 1 vs. 1 + 2–3") → At least three main parties compete on equal footing (e.g., Belgium, Switzerland). 📌 Key Insight: Rokkan focuses on coalition structures and how minority parties influence governance

Answer 44

Blondel refined Duverger’s model by adding party size as a factor: ✔ Two-Party Systems → Like Duverger, two major parties dominate (e.g., USA). ✔ Two-and-a-Half Party Systems → Two dominant parties require a smaller party to form a majority (e.g., Germany pre-1998, where the FDP acted as a kingmaker). ✔ Multiparty System with One Dominant Party → One party consistently wins elections but allows some opposition (e.g., Sweden under the Social Democrats). ✔ Multiparty System Without a Dominant Party → No single party dominates; coalitions are required (e.g., Belgium, Netherlands). 📌 Key Insight: Blondel’s work recognizes the strategic role of smaller parties in coalition formation

Answer 45

Sartori goes beyond party numbers and introduces ideological distance and polarization as factors. ✔ Two-Party System → Two main parties compete with a centrist orientation (UK, USA). ✔ Moderate Pluralism (3–5 parties, low polarization) → Parties compete but do not move to ideological extremes (e.g., Germany, Netherlands). ✔ Polarized Pluralism (6+ parties, high polarization) → Ideologically extreme parties exist, leading to instability (e.g., Italy pre-1990s, Weimar Germany). ✔ Predominant-Party System → One party consistently wins elections, even if opposition exists (e.g., Japan’s LDP before 1993). 📌 Key Insight: Sartori’s classification captures both numerical and ideological party competition. Polarization can make multiparty systems unstable .

Answer 46

Robert Dahl proposes a non-numerical approach, classifying systems based on how opposition functions. ✔ Strictly Competitive → Opposition fully challenges the ruling party (e.g., US presidential elections). ✔ Cooperative-Competitive → Opposition influences policy without outright replacing the government (e.g., Scandinavian social democracies). ✔ Coalescent-Competitive → Opposition parties often govern together in coalitions (e.g., Germany’s CDU-SPD Grand Coalitions). ✔ Strictly Coalescent → The government and opposition work as a unit (e.g., Switzerland’s "Zauberformel" consensus politics). 📌 Key Insight: Dahl highlights cooperative politics in some democracies, challenging the idea that all democracies need adversarial competition.

Answer 47

Mair refines these approaches by emphasizing alternation, coalition patterns, and government formation. A. Alternation in Government ✔ Wholesale Alternation → The entire government is replaced by the opposition (e.g., UK Labour → Conservative transitions). ✔ Partial Alternation → Some parties in government remain, but new coalition partners emerge (e.g., Germany's CDU-FDP vs. SPD-Green switches). ✔ Non-Alternation → The same party stays in power for extended periods (e.g., Japan’s LDP pre-1993). B. Open vs. Closed Party Systems ✔ Open Party Systems → Frequent party turnover, shifting coalitions, and entry of new parties (e.g., Netherlands, Italy). ✔ Closed Party Systems → Stable party competition with limited change in coalitions (e.g., Germany before 1998, UK before 2010). 📌 Key Insight: Mair argues that modern democracies are shifting towards more open systems, leading to higher electoral volatility. C. Governing Formulas: Familiar vs. Innovative ✔ Familiar Governing Formulae → Governments form using well-established coalition patterns. * Example: o Germany (CDU-FDP or SPD-Green repeated coalitions). o Ireland (Alternation between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael-led governments, 1948–1989). ✔ Innovative Governing Formulae → New, unconventional alliances emerge due to changing political landscapes. * Example: o Italy (After 1994, new coalitions emerged as the old system collapsed). o Netherlands (Flexible coalition-building with no fixed alliances). 📌 Key Insight: Stable coalitions create predictability but reduce adaptability to voter shifts.

Answer 48

mechanisms that translate votes into political power by determining how representatives are chosen in a democracy. They directly influence party systems, representation, governance stability, and voter behavior

Answer 49

✔ Legitimize Authority → Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. ✔ Ensure Accountability → Leaders must be responsive to voters or risk losing power. ✔ Promote Representation → Elections ensure diverse groups have a voice in governance. ✔ Facilitate Political Stability → Regular, free elections prevent authoritarianism and unrest.

Answer 50

A. Legitimization B. Exercising Accountability C. Choosing Representatives D. Exercising Voice & Aggregating Preferences 📌 Summary: Elections legitimize power, hold leaders accountable, select representatives, and engage citizens in political decision-making.

Answer 51

Electoral system rules define how votes translate into political power. They shape party systems, government stability, and representation. A. They Influence Representation B. They Shape Party Systems C. They Affect Voter Behavior D. They Impact Government Stability

Answer 52

Majoritarian systems are based on the principle that the candidate or party with the most votes wins. These systems tend to favor large parties and produce clear winners, often leading to two-party dominance.

Answer 53

✔ How it works: * Each district elects one representative. * The candidate with the most votes wins, even if they don’t get 50%+. ✔ Used in: * Usually in Westminster democracies (United Kingdom, Canada), but also USA, India, Malaysia, Pakistan. * Single-member constituencies. ✔ Effects: * Creates two-party systems (Duverger’s Law). * Simple & decisive but leads to disproportionate outcomes. ✔ Example: * UK General Elections: A party can win a majority of seats even with less than 40% of the national vote

Answer 54

✔ How it works: * If no candidate gets 50%+1 votes, a second round (runoff) is held between the top two. ✔ Used in: * France (Presidential elections), Romania (Presidential) Liberia, Iran, some Latin American countries. * The system is often used to elect presidents (however, sometimes it is applied in a modified form). ✔ Effects: * Encourages strategic alliances before the second round. * More proportional than FPTP but more expensive & time-consuming. ✔ Example: * France’s Presidential Election (2022): Macron and Le Pen advanced to the second round because neither got 50%+ in the first round

Answer 55

PR systems ensure that the proportion of votes a party receives matches the proportion of seats it gets in parliament. In most cases, however, countries are divided into a lot of smaller constituencies (Poland, Finland, Spain). Voters taking part in elections conducted in such constituencies can elect more than one member of parliament – eg. 7, 9, 13, etc. The more parliamentarians may be elected in a given constituency, the more proportional the electoral system is in prain practice.

Answer 56

✔ How it works: * Parties present lists of candidates, and seats are allocated in proportion to votes received. ✔ Used in: * Spain, Sweden, Israel, Netherlands, South Africa. ✔ Types: 1️ Closed List PR: Voters pick a party, and the party decides the candidate rankings. 2️ Open List PR: Voters can pick individual candidates within a party list. ✔ Effects: * Highly proportional → Every vote counts. * Leads to multiparty systems and coalition governments. * May cause government instability due to fragmented parliaments. ✔ Example: * Netherlands: Even small parties can gain representation (e.g., 15+ parties in Parliament).

Answer 57

The D’Hondt method (devised by Victor D’Hondt, 1878) is a highest average method that favors larger parties in seat allocation. ✔ How it works: 1. Each party’s total number of votes is divided by a series of divisors (1, 2, 3, 4,…). 2. The seats are allocated one at a time, to the party with the highest quotient at each stage. 3. This process continues until all seats are distributed. ✔ Used in: * Spain, Poland, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Hungary, Israel, and European Parliament elections. ✔ Effects: * Favors larger parties → Makes it harder for small parties to gain seats. * Encourages majority or strong coalition governments. * Leads to less proportional representation than the Sainte-Laguë method.

Answer 58

The Sainte-Laguë method (devised by André Sainte-Laguë, 1910) is a modified divisor method that favors smaller parties compared to D’Hondt. ✔ How it works: 1. Each party’s votes are divided by a series of odd-numbered divisors (1.4, 3, 5, 7, …). 2. The highest quotient wins each available seat, similar to D’Hondt. ✔ Used in: * Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, Denmark, Latvia, Poland (in some elections). ✔ Effects: * More proportional than D’Hondt, benefiting smaller parties. * Encourages coalition governments rather than single-party dominance. 📌 Final Thought: The choice between D’Hondt and Sainte-Laguë affects political stability and party competition. D’Hondt favors large parties for stronger governments, while Sainte-Laguë supports multiparty democracy and smaller parties for representation.

Answer 59

contemporary challenges to representative democracy, focusing on global protest movements and the changing nature of political representation

Answer 60

Evans explores how recent mass protests and populist movements indicate growing dissatisfaction with traditional representative institutions. He examines: ✔ Declining trust in political parties and elected officials. ✔ The rise of protests that bypass traditional political channels. ✔ The tension between direct and representative democracy. He argues that protest movements are not rejecting democracy itself, but rather seeking alternative forms of representation outside traditional legislative bodies.

Answer 61

1️⃣ Simon Tormey – The End of Representative Politics ✔ Tormey argues that contemporary protest movements represent a shift away from representative democracy towards "immediate representation" and direct engagement. ✔ He cites Spain’s Indignados movement and the Zapatistas in Mexico as examples of movements that reject political parties and traditional leadership. ✔ Key Idea: Traditional representative democracy is being replaced by decentralized, horizontalist political movements. 📌 Evans’ Critique: Tormey overstates the decline of representation; protest movements still operate within representative structures, just in a different form. 2️⃣ Ivan Krastev – Democracy Disrupted ✔ Krastev argues that modern protests are acts of "exit" rather than engagement—protesters refuse to participate in formal politics but also fail to create lasting political alternatives. ✔ He analyzes protests in Russia, Thailand, and Bulgaria, claiming they represent a middle-class rejection of electoral politics rather than a constructive democratic transformation. ✔ Key Idea: Protests are a symptom of political alienation, not democratic renewal. 📌 Evans’ Critique: Krastev fails to recognize that informal democratic practices (counter-democracy) can complement formal institutions rather than destroy them.

Answer 62

* Political representation is not limited to elections and legislative bodies. * Mistrust of institutions is a permanent feature of democracy, fueling alternative forms of oversight and accountability. * Protests, watchdog groups, and public activism are part of a larger democratic system, not its downfall. 📌 Key Argument: Democracy is evolving, not collapsing. Protest movements should be seen as part of a broader democratic process of oversight, resistance, and engagement.

Answer 63

✔ Spain’s Indignados (2011) – Demonstrated frustration with political parties but eventually influenced new movements like Podemos. ✔ Russia (2011-12 protests) – Protesters did not demand better elections but "the right to be represented as a minority", showing a shift in how democracy is understood. ✔ France’s Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests, 2018-19) – Represented a demand for new forms of representation, leading to Macron’s citizens' assemblies as a political response. 📌 Insight: These protests are not rejecting representation itself; they are demanding new mechanisms of political participation.

Answer 64

Poland’s party system since 1989 has undergone significant transformations, shaped by electoral system changes, shifts in political cleavages, and party realignments. It has evolved from an initial highly fragmented system to a moderate multiparty system dominated by two major parties. Characteristics of the Polish Party System ✔ Multiparty system with strong polarization → Two dominant parties (PiS and PO) since 2005. ✔ Shift from fragmentation to consolidation → Electoral reforms reduced the number of relevant parties. ✔ Populism and nationalist movements gained ground → PiS and far-right groups like Confederation. ✔ Frequent government alternation → Power has shifted between PiS and PO-led coalitions. 📌 Final Thought: Poland’s party system has evolved from extreme fragmentation (1991) to a bipolar system dominated by PiS and PO, with emerging far-right movements. The 2023 election signals another shift, as coalition governments are necessary once again.

Answer 65

* Core Ideology: Anti-capitalism, state ownership of key industries, radical redistribution of wealth. * Examples: French Communist Party (PCF), German Die Linke, Greek Syriza (radical wing). * European Party: European Left Alliance for the People and the Planet (2024). Key Policies: ✔ Nationalization of key industries (energy, transport, banking). ✔ Strong labor rights and universal basic income proposals. ✔ Radical climate policies—green transition without relying on the private sector. ✔ Opposition to NATO and EU neoliberal policies. 📌 Example: Die Linke in Germany supports rent control, minimum wage increases, and breaking up large corporations.

Answer 66

* Core Ideology: Mixed-market economies, welfare states, progressive taxation, and workers’ rights. * Examples: UK Labour Party, German SPD, Spanish PSOE, Swedish Social Democrats. * European Party: Party of European Socialists (PES, 1973). Key Policies: ✔ Expanding welfare programs (healthcare, education, pensions). ✔ Regulating capitalism—higher corporate taxes, stricter labor laws. ✔ EU integration and social cohesion (fair wages across Europe). ✔ Environmental policies—carbon taxes, transition to green jobs. 📌 Example: The Spanish PSOE has implemented labor reforms strengthening union rights and introduced a minimum income scheme.

Answer 67

* Core Ideology: Environmental protection, social justice, and participatory democracy. * Examples: German Greens, French Europe Ecology – The Greens, Swedish Green Party. * European Party: European Green Party (EGP, 2004). Key Policies: ✔ Climate action—Net zero by 2050, banning fossil fuels, expanding renewable energy. ✔ EU-wide carbon tax and green subsidies. ✔ Promoting public transport and sustainable agriculture. ✔ Anti-nuclear stance (some Green parties support nuclear as a transition energy). 📌 Example: The German Greens support phasing out coal, banning combustion engine cars, and strict emissions reductions.

Answer 68

* Core Ideology: Balancing free-market policies with social conservatism and religious values. * Examples: Germany’s CDU, Italy’s Forza Italia, Austria’s ÖVP. * European Party: European People's Party (EPP, 1976). Key Policies: ✔ Pro-business economic policies but with strong welfare provisions. ✔ Supports traditional family structures (opposes radical gender policies). ✔ Pro-EU integration, but with a focus on national sovereignty. ✔ Controlled immigration policies—stronger border protection, asylum limits. 📌 Example: The CDU in Germany supports Christian values, a social market economy, and gradual EU expansion.

Answer 69

* Core Ideology: Economic liberalism, individual freedoms, and EU federalism. * Examples: UK Liberal Democrats, German FDP, Dutch VVD. * European Party: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE, 1976). Key Policies: ✔ Low corporate taxes, pro-business regulations, and free trade. ✔ Legalizing same-sex marriage, decriminalizing soft drugs. ✔ Pro-EU integration—support for a European army and deeper cooperation. ✔ Market-driven climate policies (carbon pricing, green bonds). 📌 Example: The VVD in the Netherlands supports liberal market reforms while backing climate-friendly investment strategies.

Answer 70

* Core Ideology: National identity, economic liberalism, and opposition to EU federalism. * Examples: UK Conservative Party, French Republicans, Polish PiS. * European Party: European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR, 2009). Key Policies: ✔ Tough immigration laws and stronger national borders. ✔ Lower taxes and deregulation to boost private sector growth. ✔ Preserving national sovereignty against deeper EU integration. ✔ Social conservatism—opposing gender quotas, defending traditional values. 📌 Example: Poland’s PiS has pushed for strict abortion laws, media control, and opposition to EU climate policies.

Answer 71

* Core Ideology: Anti-immigration, anti-globalization, and opposition to EU centralization. * Examples: France’s National Rally (Le Pen), Italy’s Lega, Hungary’s Fidesz. * European Party: Patriots.eu (2014). Key Policies: ✔ Opposition to multiculturalism—stronger assimilation laws. ✔ Strict border controls and deportation of illegal migrants. ✔ Nationalist economic policies—protectionism, opposition to free trade. ✔ Anti-EU stance—reducing Brussels' power over national governments. 📌 Example: France’s National Rally supports an exit from Schengen, banning the hijab in public spaces, and cutting non-European immigration.