Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T09:17:21.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Parties, Interest Representation and Economic Development in Poland*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Jerzy J. Wiatr
Jerzy J. Wiatr*
Affiliation:
University of Warsaw
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Discussing the character of the Polish party system elsewhere, I have suggested a label of “hegemonic party system” for it, as well as for some other party systems based on similar principles. The hegemonic party systems stand mid-way between the mono-party systems and the dominant party systems as defined by Maurice Duverger. In an earlier paper written jointly with Rajni Kothari we have suggested the following typology of party systems:

1. Alternative party systems, where two or more political parties compete for political power with realistic chances of success;

2. Consensus party systems, where multi-partism does exist but one political party commands in a lasting way the loyalties of a predominant majority of the citizens and permanently runs the government;

3. Hegemonic party systems, where all the existing parties form a lasting coalition within which one of them is accepted as the leading force of the coalition;

4. Mono-party systems;

5. Suspended party systems, where political parties exist but are prevented from regulating political life by other forces (for instance, by the military);

6. Non-party systems, where the government is ideologically hostile toward the political parties as such and does not permit them to function.

Quite obviously, this typology does not exclude mixed types of party systems. On the contrary, the very fact that in political life nothing is absolutely permanent leads to the emergence of transitory types of party systems.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 64 , Issue 4 , December 1970 , pp. 1239 - 1245
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The present paper has been written during the author's stay in the University of Manchester as Simon Visiting Professor, October-November 1969. I should like to express my deepest gratitude to the Simon Fund and to the Department of Government, University of Manchester, for giving me this excellent opportunity to write it.

References

1 Cf. Wiatr, Jerzy J., “One Party System: The Concept and Issue for Comparative Studies,” in Allardt, Erik and Littunen, Yrjö (eds.), Cleavages, Ideologies and Party Systems (Helsinki: Transactions of the Westermarck Society, 1964)Google Scholar; and, Wiatr, Jerzy J., “The Hegemonic Party System in Poland,” in Wiatr, Jerzy J. (ed.), Studies in the Polish Political System (Wroclaw; Ossolineum, 1967)Google Scholar. The latter has been reprinted in Allardt, Erik and Rokkan, Stein (eds.), Studies in Political Sociology (New York: The Free Press, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

2 Duverger, Maurice, “Sociologie des partis politiques,” in Gurvith, Georges (ed.), Traité de Sociologie, vol. 2 (Paris, 1960), p. 44 Google Scholar.

3 Kothari, Rajni and Wiatr, Jerzy J., Party Systems and Political Pluralism: Comparisons between India and Poland, paper presented at the VIth World Congress of Sociology, Evian, France, 1966, mimeographedGoogle Scholar.

4 Our typology differs in details from that proposed by Sartori, Giovanni in his paper on Typologies of Party Systems—A Critique, presented at the VIIth World Congress of Political Science, Brussels 1967 (mimeographed)Google Scholar. Sartori distinguishes between the following types of party systems: 1) one-party, 2) hegemonic party, 3) dominant party, 4) two-party, 5) moderate pluralism, 6) extreme pluralism, 7) atomized. His (4), (5) and (6) types should certainly be taken care of by sub-dividing our (1) type, while our (5) and (6) are subtypes of his (1). Otherwise, the two approaches are very similar.

5 Cf. Wiatr, “The Hegemonic Party System in Poland,” op. cit.

6 Gomulka, Wladyslaw, O neszej partii (On our Party) (Warszawa, 1968), p. 437 Google Scholar.

7 The application of this term to the non-Communist parties in the early nineteen-fifties reflected a tendency to reduce their role within the system. The trend was, however, reversed after October 1956. Cf. Mikolajczyk, Z. and Patryn, E., Struktura i funkje partii chlopskiej na przykladzie ZSL (Structure and functions of a peasant party: the case of UPP) (Warszawa, 1968)Google Scholar; and Lopatka, A., Kierownicza rola partii komunistycznej w stosunku do panstwa socjalistycznego (Directive role of the communist party in relation to the socialist state), (Poznan, 1963)Google Scholar.

8 D. Galaj, Introduction to Z. Mikolajczyk and E. Patryn, op. cit., pp. 14–18.

9 This point has been discussed at length by Ostrowski, Krzysztof, “Rola zwiazkow zawodowych w polskim systemie politycznym” (Role of tradeunions in the Polish political system), unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, 1968 Google Scholar.

10 Cf. Wiatr, Jerzy J., “Przemysl i instytucje polityczne Polski Ludowej” (Industry and political institutions of People's Poland) in: Szczepanski, Jan (ed.), Przemysl i spoleczenstwo w Polsce Ludowej (Industry and Society in People's Poland) (Wroclaw: Ossolineum, 1969)Google Scholar. For the statistical analysis of the data on mobilization and economic development I should like to express my gratitude to Dr. Krzysztof Ostrowski.

11 Krzysztof Ostrowski and Adam Przeworski, “A Preliminary Inquiry into the Nature of Social Change: the Case of the Polish Countryside,” in Jerzy J. Wiatr (ed.), Studies in the Polish Political System, op. cit., p. 86.

12 Dziabala, Stefan, “Dynamika i struktura rozwojowa wiejskich organizacji partyjnych” (Dynamics and developmental structure of the rural party organizations), Zycie Partii, no. 10, 1962, p. 10 Google Scholar.

13 Cf. Ostrowski, Krzysztof and Sufin, Zbigniew, “Problemy rozwoju partii miedzy IV and V zjazdem” (Problems of the growth of the party between IV and V Congresses), Nowe Drogi, no. 1 (236), 1969 Google Scholar. The findings are based on correlation, factor and regression analyses. Data have been collected on the level of voivodships (provinces). The analysis has been done in the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences.

14 Positive interrelation between political activeness and education and/or professional performance of party members has been emphasized in the studies conducted by Z. Mikolajczyk and E. Patryn, op. cit., as well as by Stasiuk, A., “Czynni i bierni czlonkowie partii w zakladzie przemyslowym” (Active vs. passive party members in an industrial enterprise), Studia Socjologiczno Polityczne, no. 16, 1964 Google Scholar. All the studies on this subject are case studies and do not permit statistical analysis on a larger scale.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.