Formation and Success of New Parties: A Cross-National Analysis
Author(s): Robert Harmel and John D. Robertson
Source: International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique, Vol.
6, No. 4, New Political Parties (1985), pp. 501-523
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1601057
Accessed: 14/10/2010 11:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International
Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique.
http://www.jstor.org
FORMATION AND SUCCESS
OF NEW PARTIES
A Cross-National Analysis
ROBERT HARMEL
JOHN D. ROBERTSON
After describing the universe of 233 new parties formed in 19 West European and
Anglo-American democracies from 1960 through 1980, the authors use data on those
parties to address several hypotheses concerning system-level causes and conditions
for new party formation and electoral success. It is found that although the propensity for forming new parties is not associated with structural variables, new party success is related to the type of electoral system.
Although a rich case study literature on new parties has blossomed
recently, (e.g., Kemp, 1975; Berrington, 1979; Crewe, 1981; Burklin,
1982; Rochon, 1982; LeDuc, 1982; Boutwell, 1983; Frankland, 1983;
Schoonmaker, 1983; Luke, 1984; Muller-Rommel, 1985), there have
been few cross-national studies (Hauss and Rayside, 1978; Janda and
Gillies, 1980; Muller-Rommel, 1982). None of the latter has attempted to include or randomly sample the universe of new western parties, and hence all are limited in their generality.' None has used
systematically collected electoral data to measure and explain variance
in new party success. This article is a maiden attempt to begin the process of filling those gaps. It employs a data set encompassing the
universe of western European and Anglo-American new parties formed
from 1960 through 1980 to test systematically a number of alternative,
system-level explanations of cross-national variance in new party formation and success.
AUTHORS' NOTE: We would like to thank Barbara Coombs, Jerry Mitchell, Michelle
Thomas, and Steve Williams for assistance in finding and coding data, and Donley
Studlar and Thomas Rochon for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.
Responsibility for any and all errors rests exclusively with the authors.
International
PoliticalScienceReview,Vol. 6 No. 4, October1985501-523
a 1985by the International
PoliticalScienceAssociation
501
502
NEW POLITICAL PARTIES
THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
Although the existing literature on new parties includes limited
hypothesis testing, along with (and largely based upon) earlier work
such as that of Duverger (1951) and LaPalombara and Weiner (1966),
it provides the beginnings of a theoretical framework to explain new
party formation and survival or success. The general thrust of most
of the recent literature is that new parties are primarily the consequence
of new issues or values ignored by existing parties, whereas other
statements posit additional conditions that may promote or inhibit new
party development.
It is our purpose in this article to report on research related to
system-level causes and conditions for new party formation and success, including retests of hypotheses generated by others (especially
Hauss and Rayside, 1978; Thomas, 1980; Pilat, 1980; Janda and
Gillies, 1980; Hauss, 1982; Muller-Rommel, 1982) and original tests
of some additional hypotheses. Although it has not been possible for
us to measure each of the independent variables suggested in the extant literature (see Table 1 for a wide ranging sample), we have been
able, at least indirectly, to measure many of them (see Table 2).
Our theoretical framework for these analyses consists of a set of
hypotheses positing relationships among three categories of independent variables (social, political, and structural) and one or both of two
dependent variables: the number of new parties formed from 1960
through 1980 and the success of those parties electorally. The distinction between the two dependent variables is particularly important for
theoretical purposes because it cannot be assumed that the same conditions that encourage new party formation will necessarily provide
those new parties with success; it also cannot be assumed that the lack
of facilitators necessary for electoral success will inhibit the initial formation of new parties.2
The specific hypotheses analyzed for this article are listed in Table
3. The first six hypotheses are derived from the argument that new
parties are formed primarily to fill representational needs of the society.
It follows that the greatest representational needs should be found in
those countries marked by cultural and social diversity (Lipset and Rokkan, 1967), and hence that the greatest number of new parties should
be found there. Countries with large, plural, heterogeneous populations and countries that are highly sectionalized have, by definition,
Harmel, Robertson / SUCCESS OF NEW PARTIES
503
TABLE 1
Sample of Explanatory Factors Suggested
or Treated by Selected Authors
Factors affecting new party formation
Social
New cleavages or issues
(HR, 36-42; H, 2 and
8; T, 358-364; P.
25-26)
Political
Behavior of existing parties
(HR, 46-48; M-R, 74;
P. 25)
Mass commitment (attitude
of voters toward new
party) (HR, 48-50)
Structural
Type of electoral system
(HR, 37 and 43; M-R,
72-74)
Electoral focus: presidential
or parliamentary
(HR, 37 and 44)
Availability of effective
leadership for new party
(HR, 51-52)
Centralization of government (HR, 44-45)
Ideological orientation
(P, 23; JG, 164)
Freedom to organize
(JG, 166)
Nature of competition in
party systems
(M-R, 72-73)
Positions of trade unions
(M-R, 72-73)
Salience of new issues
(M-R, 72-74)
Factors affecting new party success survival
Many of the above social and political factors in addition to these internal party
factors:
(1) How party elite acts (HR, 38 and 52); (2) Strength of organizational base
(HR, 52)
NOTE: Hauss and Rayside, 1978; H: Hauss, 1982; T: Thomas, 1980; P: Pilat, 1980;
M-R: Mutler-Rommel,
1982; JG: Janda and Gillies, 1980; the numbers following
initials are page numbers.
diverse populations. Cultural diversity might, at any time, breed new
demands that, if unmet by existing parties, may be the basis for new
party formation. Likewise, in countries with a high level of economic
inequality, unmet demands to narrow the gap may result in new parties (especially on the left) to address those concerns in a manner different from the way they have been addressed by existing parties. In
504
NEW POLITICAL PARTIES
TABLE 2
Independent Variables, Categories and Sources
Independent Variable
Code and Category
Population
1 = < 9.5 million
2 = > 9.5 million
Pluralism
1 = Non-plural society
(8)
2 = Semi-plural society
(6)
3 = Pluralsociety
(5)
1 = Religious and linguistic
homogeneity
(12)
2 = Religious and linguistic
heterogeneity
(7)
Note: Homogeniety exists
when 80% or more of population belong to same linguistic
and religious group
1 = Sectionalism is extreme
(4)
2 = Sectionalism is moderate (6)
3 = Sectionalism is negligible (9)
1 = Gini coefficient < 10.0
(higher sectoral
inequality
(8)
2 = Gini coefficient >10.0
(higher sectoral
inequality) (Missing: 2)
(9)
1 = Post-materialists >25%
of population sampled
(5)
2 = Post-materialists>25%
of population sampled
(6)
(Missing:8)
1 = 2 or 2.5 party system
(10)
2 = multi-party system
(9)
1 = < 2 dimensions
(8)
2 = >dimensions
(11)
Heterogeneity
Sectionalism
Inequality
(Gini coefficient
of sectoral
inequality)
Post-material as
percentage of
material
Number of existing
effective parties
Number of effective
dimensions in
existing party
system
(Frequency)
Ballot access
1 = Easy access
2 = Moderate
3 = Difficult
Election system
1 = Plurality or majority
single member districts
2 = Proportional representation with multi-member
districts
(11)
(8)
(14)
(3)
(2)
(6)
(16)
Source of Data
Taylor and Hudson
(1982), pp. 91-94.
Data are for 1960.
Judgmental data of
Lijphart (1984),
p. 43, Table 3.2.
Lijphart (1984),
p. 43, Table 3.2.
Banks and Textor
(1963), pp. 88-89.
Data are for 1963.
Taylor and Hudson
(1982), pp. 137-39,
Table 4.2. Data
are for 1960.
Inglehart (1977),
p. 38, Table 2-3.
Data are for 1972-73.
Blondel (1969),
pp. 534-35.
Lijphart (1984),
p. 130, Table 8.1.
Values based on
judgments concerning 7 potential cleavage dimensions.
Based on judgments
of authors of this
study from information in Herman and
Mendel (1976).
Mackie and Rose
(1982), pp. 410-11,
Table A.5.
Harmel, Robertson / SUCCESS OF NEW PARTIES
505
TABLE 2 Continued
Independent Variable
Code and Category
Parliamentary/
residential
1 = Presidential
2 = Mixed (hybrid)
3 = Parliamentary
1 = Federal/decentralized
2 = Unitary/centralized
Federalism
(Frequency)
(3)
(1)
(15)
(5)
(14)
Source of Data
Lijphart (1984),
p. 70, Table 5.1.
Harmel and Janda
(1982), p. 72.
many European and Anglo-American countries, post-industrialism
has allegedly added a new dimension of socio-political diversity:
post-materialism versus materialism (Inglehart, 1977, 1981). Postmaterialism has often been cited as a likely contributor to the
formation of new parties to present new issues, most prominently environmental concerns (Wolinetz, 1979; Burklin, 1982).
Hypotheses 7 and 8 posit relationships between political factors and
the propensity for new party formation. When there are already many
parties and when many cleavage dimensions are already addressed in
the party system, there is presumably less need to form new parties
(see Muller-Rommel, 1982; Lijphart, 1984: 127-149). Hence, somewhat
ironically, the two-party system may be the best breeding ground for
new parties.
Hypotheses 9 through 12 deal with structural (i.e., legal or governmental) factors that might facilitate or inhibit new party success.
Although such factors may also indirectly affect the propensity for
new parties to form by contributing to the failure of previous new
parties (and hence the image of wasted effort), we posit only the direct
impact of legal and government structures upon electoral success. In
some countries (e.g., the United States), ballot access requirements
make it difficult for any but the few largest parties to gain the opportunity for electoral success. Plurality or majority electoral systems with
single-member districts have sometimes (e.g., in France) been adopted
specifically to deny electoral success to extremist parties, and have had
the same effect on other small parties (for discussions of linkage of
electoral system and party system, see Hermens, 1938; Duverger, 1961;
Rae, 1967; Wildgen, 1972). The electoral focus of the country has been
suggested by Hauss and Rayside (1978: 37), as a facilitator or inhibitor
of new parties:
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~c
a)
?E
,,E
-W
04
'4-
. 0
u'.-
'.-
E
a5)
a
.CJ0
o-u
~)
.=
W
3> c
CL :)
CL :3CL
c
C
C
C
LLx,
LLx,
E o
c>
cC
c
C
c
C
a)
.. 0
04>W
)
04
.C
W
c
C
.. a)
>
Co
04
C
0 'a)
4.'
4- 'a
4.'
Co
0
.
.~
a)
a)
-~~~~~~~~~~~~
_
506~~~~~~~~~~
C
0
C
OO
W
400
C
.C
o
O
C
04'
04
a)
0'
VCV
W- z
g
JoC>
>J >
4c
,
04
C
CD
o
40-E
a)
040
0
Co
04
*
U
CL
C
L
C
WD
c
C
>
C
c
C
>
c
'C
>
>
>
.C
-
~
>
A
(
C
0
C
04
)
L
VC
o
C
04
0.
>
C
0)
- Wx
E o-
.a 0
>>>0
>
c
>
40a)
I
M W
.u00
w c
>
0
a
>
>
.C
04
04g-
5 c0
c
'
>
E
c
CL
ow
0
04
5
0'
C
04'
-A
O
CL
>
o
a)
C
Lx,,,
o-
r-
C~~~~~~~~~~C
E
C
04
> a
C
Lx,
O
0oCo
a)
04
CL
c>
:3
:
o-
E o-
a
0C0C
c W,,cX wC
o
X c W, C
C
aN
>
C
C
0C04C0
0
cEL
'A
a)
co
~~~~
L OC CL OC CL O
L OC L OC
04
L-
'-Uo
Q
E
C
>
Qa
C
.
a)
05)
ac)
a:a~a~a~a~a~a~
CCC
00 E
QQCJ
CJ
@
Q
.
u'.-
a5)
E C O~~~a)
g
C
W
U>
C04O
Ca)
0e
~0
c> E E:
V
,
s? 9:
co
Q C CQ C .CQ CC
E
E * .,,.
?*?WE
C
-
?'
0,
'a0
C
0
O
0
3
W'C
'WOlC
~.V
-0
0
C
i
-
C
(
U
a)
Q
O
a)C
C
A
co
E
Harmel, Robertson / SUCCESS OF NEW PARTIES
507
When the key electoral unit is the parliamentary seat, there seems to
be little discouragement of new parties. If, on the other hand, attention is focused on the single office of the presidency, its zero-sum nature
encourages the bipolarization of the party system and makes it hard
for weak parties (which most new parties, at least initially, are) to compete effectively. Finally, regional parties supposedly develop most
readily in decentralized federal systems.
These structural factors may affect the electoral success of new parties,
but there is no reason to assume that low prospects for success will
inhibit new party formation. Some parties, knowing that winning seats
was highly unlikely, might seek competition with other parties on their
own turf for the attention that it would bring to some issue or personality (e.g., the protest parties described by Powell, 1982: 92-94, and
Powell, 1984). New party formation need not be inhibited by a low
likelihood of electoral success, hence our reluctance to add the structural variables to hypotheses 1 through 8 as possible explanations for
new party formation. We will return to this point in the analysis
section.
DATA SET AND UNIVERSE
The data set for this project covers all new parties formed from
1960 through 1980 in the 19 western European and Anglo-American
countries that were democracies throughout the period (listed in Table
11). For this study, a political party is defined as an organization that
purports to have as one of its goals the placement of its avowed
members in governmental office.3 Although most new parties so defined are at least nominally electoral and have sought to use their labels
to identify candidates on election ballots, 13 non-electoral parties (including four avowedly non-electoral parties in France) are also included
among the 233 new parties in the data set.
Most previous studies of large numbers of parties have been limited
to those that have demonstrated some electoral or governmental importance. This is true of the only previous study of a large sample of
new parties, in which Janda (1980) included only those legal parties
winning 50Woof the legislative seats in two successive elections and illegal parties obtaining support from lOo of the population for a period
of five years. Such a rule might be a reasonable means of identifying
parties "worth" being studied, but a 50W1rule is too exclusive for a
508
NEW POLITICAL PARTIES
study of the development and success of new parties.4 One cannot
adequately consider the circumstancessurroundingsuccess without examining failures, and it is possible that many of those would be
eliminated under the 5Worule. Also, given current inadequate tools
to predict which new parties will eventually grow larger, rules that exclude today's very small parties from study may lead us to ignore and
lose valuable information about the early experiencesof some of tomorrow's larger, more successful parties.5 When the study of new parties
turns (as it ultimately should) to assessing the full range of potential
impacts of new parties, it should not be artificially curtailed by consideringonly those impacts that are easily measurabletoday (e.g., votes
and seats). For these reasons, no new party that could be identified
in available sources is excluded from this study, regardless of size or
electoral strength.
New parties were identified from The Greenwood Historical Encyclopedia of the World'sParties (Schapsmeierand Schapsmeier,1981;
McHale, 1983; Alexander, 1983) and Keesing's Political Parties of the
World (Day and Degenhardt, 1980), and also from Encyclopedia
Britannica,Europa Yearbook, WorldEncyclopediaof Political Systems
and Parties (Delury, 1983), and Keesing's Contemporary Archives.
From those sources we identified each party's year of birth, alternative
names, purpose at formation, circumstances of formation (i.e., by
merger, split, or natural formation), ideological or issue orientation,
and death date and circumstances where applicable.6 A summary
characterization of the universe of new parties along these lines is
presented in Tables 4 and 5.
Although a total of 233 new party alternatives were presented to
citizens of Anglo-American and western European countries during
the 21-year period, only 112 of them were formed "naturally" as completely new actors in party politics. The majority had roots in other
party formations; most had been formed by mergersof, or splits from,
other parties. It is apparent from Table 4 that, although much of the
attention paid to new parties by academics has focused upon new-issue
parties (i.e., those characterized as ecology parties, anti-nuclear or
peace parties, anti-EEC parties, anti-NATO parties, or feminist
parties), only 10% of all new parties formed from 1960 through 1980
have been organized primarily to address such new issues. When
naturally formed new parties are isolated, only 20%owere new-issue
parties and twice that many were established strictly along old-issue
lines. Analysis of the parties' birth dates suggests that the propensity
Harmel, Robertson / SUCCESS OF NEW PARTIES
509
TABLE 4
Data on Formation of New Parties, 1960-1980
All New Parties
(%)
N
Naturally
Formed Only
(%)
N
Circumstances of formation
by merger
by split
naturally
by reorganization of former party
29
85
112
7
12.4
36.5
48.1
3.0
Purpose of formation
(a) to present "new issue"'
(b) to offer alternative on "old issue"2
(c) to offer other issue3
(b) and (c) above
(a) and (b) and (c) above
(d) practical political reasons4
23
112
61
13
2
22
9.9
48.1
26.2
5.6
0.9
9.4
20
44
37
10
1
0
17.9
39.3
33.0
8.9
0.9
0.0
27
51
78
77
11.6
21.9
33.5
33.0
19
15
33
45
17.0
13.4
29.5
40.2
Year formed
1960-1964
1965-1969
1970-1974
1975-1980
1. Of the 23 "new issue" parties (sample categories supplied in text), 13 (5.6%) are
naturally.
ecology
parties, 11 of which were formed
dimensions
include
the left-right
traditional
2. For coding
(or "old")
purposes,
of domestic
in foreign policy.
conflict
politics and East-West
dimension
separatism,
issues"
include
devolution,
purposes,
"other
3. For coding
linguistic/
or
rights,
and government
immigration,
individual
religious
issues,
ethnic
issues,
electoral
reform.
of parties formed
for "practical,"
electoral
reasons include the Reform4. Examples
the Francothe result of a merger "to strengthen
party of Belgium,
ist and Liberal
1982:
68) and the Netherlands'
politics"
(McHale
position
in Belgian
phone-liberal
of the
success
Christian
Democratic
formed
by merger after low electoral
Appeal,
joining parties (see McHale 1982: 651).
for forming new parties may have increased from the 1960s to the 1970s
(although it is impossible to prove that this is not due simply to better
reporting in the later years).
Table 5 reveals that although 25 o of all new parties tend not to
focus on the left-right dimension of politics, 40%o of new parties are
oriented toward the left, and a majority of those are Communist parties.7 This high incidence can be explained largely by rifts over
leadership, doctrine, and tactics within existing parties of the left
(especially Communist parties) as the relative affluence of the 1960s
510
NEW POLITICAL PARTIES
TABLE 5
Data on Ideological Orientation of New Parties, 1960-1980
All New Parties
(%)
N
Communist
Non-communist left
Center
Right
Other
Other + Left
Other + Center
Other + Right
57
38
22
40
61
7
4
4
24.5
16.4
16.4
17.2
26.2
3.0
1.7
1.7
Naturally Formed Only
(%)
N
6
18
10
23
45
5
2
3
5.4
16.1
8.9
20.5
40.2
4.5
1.8
2.7
and 1970s prompted a reassessment of the parties' proper role. (For
analysis of the effect of the changing social milieu on the party systems
generally, see Lauber, 1983.)8 Nearly 20% of new parties are on the
right, and approximately 10% are centrist. Twenty-three parties can
be identified as new-issue parties, 13 of which are ecology parties. Of
the 112 naturally formed parties, approximately 40% focus on matters other than the left-right dimension and only a small proportion
are Communist.9
It is not the primary purpose of this article to describe these parties
but to test alternative system-level explanations for new party formation and success, and for that purpose some party characteristics have
been aggregated by country. Those aggregated data will be analyzed
below.
MEASURING
NEW PARTY SUCCESS
Although there are many ways that a party might be considered successful without ever winning many votes or any legislative seats, we
have limited these analyses to electoral success. Data were gathered
from Keesing's Contemporary Archives, McHale (1983), and Mackie
and Rose (1982) for each election in which the parties participated
through 1983. Comparative data on vote and seat success are provided
in Tables 6 through 8. A majority of new parties have not achieved
electoral success, although a significant minority have won an impressively large percentage of the votes, legislative representation, and,
in a few cases, cabinet participation. Parties formed by merger have
Csc~
CD
0)
O
CO
0
0
O
LO
F"-
Ci
CD
5
t!
0
CN4
0
QD
CD(O
CD0C).
-
0
OOOCD
C)
C-4
F'~-. LO
CN
C) C
CDO
N
0
0
9 CD=c'
CD . |
O
>
O
CD-0
(D
C)00
(9
o
(O
N I*
0
M
t
)
??
_
o?
0
z
CL
N~~~~~C
o N
C
N 00
CY)
(n C)
0
CN
to
L.
-i
CO
0
'6-.
*
D
C'i
u .2c5
z
U)
0.
C')
0
C)i
0
on
:ZlI.
C.)
c'i
'-(1
.
00
C6
C')
C)
X0
L
CD
C
(N
C-
q
C
Cu~~~~~
CO
0 0)
0~ ~~~
L>O
~
>
-C0
0>''4co >
4-
41>
E
0)
C
0
N(
0
4-
0
>
9R 0
~0)
C
m0
On
03
o
o~i E
C) 0
(N
c'0
oi c
NO
0
'
C 0 4
-~ 0a
~
.C
a4a
00
C
0;
C
t
)
CO
)
0
C
0
c
M
*
ci
>
3
Eo
CD
CD
511
512
NEW POLITICAL PARTIES
TABLE 7
New Party Success by Ideological Orientation, All New Parties
Value
Maximum Level
of Success
Through 1980
of
Communist
NonCommunist
Left
Center
R ight
All'
Other
Ecology
78.9
66.7
45.5
57,5
70.5
76.9
0
0.0-1.0%
votes
1
1,01-4.99%
votes
of
7.9
0
0
2.5
1.6
0
2
5.00-9.99%
votes
of
5.3
1.8
0
2.5
3.3
0
3
more than 10.0%
of votes, but no
seats
0
1.8
0
10.0
6.6
7.7
4
up to 10.0%
of seats
5.3
21.1
22.7
22.5
18.0
15.4
5
more than 10.0%
of seats
0
1.8
4.5
2.5
0
0
6
participation
cabinet
2.6
7.0
27.3
2.5
0
0
61
13
Number
in
of parties
38
84
22
40
Mean value
.55
1.44
2.77
1.55
Median value
.13
.25
.70
.37
1.00
.2i1
.85
.15
been somewhat more successful than those formed by a split from an
existing party or formed naturally, not surprisingly given that they
resulted from joining existing bases of support (see Table 6). Those
formed to compete on an old issue have been more successful, on
average, than those formed to emphasize a new issue, but those formed
for so-called practical reasons (e.g., specifically for the purpose of
maximizing voting strength, usually by merger) have done best.
Ideologically, centrist parties have been most successful and Communist
parties have been the least successful (see Table 7). As might be expected, given the longer time to develop support, parties formed during
the 1960-1964 period have been more successful than those formed
more recently, although there is little difference among the later three
periods through 1980 (see Table 8). For contingency table analyses at
the party system level, the six categories of the success variable were
collapsed, as noted in Tables 11 and 12.
Harmel, Robertson / SUCCESS OF NEW PARTIES
TABLE 8
New Party Success by Period of Formation,
(in percentages)
513
All New Parties
19601964
19651969
19701974
0.0-1.0% of votes
1.0-4.99% of votes
51.9
0
64.7
3.9
62.8
2.6
71.4
1.3
3.7
11.1
5.9
7.8
0
1.3
3.9
2.6
5
5.00-9.99% of votes
more than 10.0% of votes,
but no seats
up to 10.0% of seats
more than 10.0% of seats
18.5
3.7
11.8
0
25.6
2.6
15.6
0
6
participation cabinet
11.1
5.9
5.1
5.2
27
2.00
51
1.22
78
1.53
77
1.10
.46
.27
.30
.20
Value
Maximum Level of Success
Through 1980
0
1
2
3
4
Number of parties
Mean value
Median value
19751980
We have opted to ignore other measures of success such as durability or survivability because, for a large percentage of the parties in
this study-parties that have been formed so recently-it is premature
to consider patterns or causes of death. Furthermore, it often takes
years for the death of a party to be reported or to become evident
in other ways. Hence, our estimate of the number of deaths up to 1980
might well be on the low side. Nonetheless, we can report that of the
54 new parties known to have died as of 1980, 26 had merged into
other parties, 4 had been banned, and 24 had died "naturally."'0
FINDINGS
Our analyses of the 19 western European and Anglo-American countries lend support to the hypotheses relating the number of new parties
in a system to its socio-cultural environment, and to some of the
hypotheses relating structural factors to new party success. Whether
counting all new parties (including those formed by mergers or splits)
or only those formed naturally," large populations, sectionalism,
heterogeneity, and pluralism (the last is not significant for naturally
formed parties) correspond to relatively larger numbers of new parties
(see Tables 9 and 10). These findings support hypotheses 1 through
NEW POLITICAL PARTIES
514
TABLE 9
Associations Between Number of New Parties and
Societal, Political, and Structural Variables
Number of
New Parties
(All)
Number of
New Parties
(Natural)
Population
Poluralism
Heterogeneity
Sectionalism
X
X
X
X
X
5
Inequality
*
*
6
7
8
Post-materialism/materialism
Number of existing effective parties
Number of effective dimensions in
existing party system
Ballot access
*
*
Hypotheses
1
2
3
4
9
Independent Variable
10
Election system
11
12
Parliamentary/presidential
Federalism
X
X
X = Significant at .10 level (and at .05 level for hypotheses 1, 3, 4, and 5 for all new
parties, and 1, 3, 4, and 5 for naturally formed parties only), as computed by SPSS
for Kendall's tau.
*Significant, but in wrong direction.
**For those cross-tabulation analyses, total number of parties was dichotomized as
those with 8 or fewer new parties and those with 9 or more new parties, and number
of naturally formed new parties as those with 3 or fewer such parties and those with
4 or more.
4. Contrary to hypothesis 5, more parties are found in "equal" societies
than in "unequal" ones; and contrary to hypothesis 6, there is no relationship between post-materialism and the number of new parties. The
latter two hypotheses would seem to have more restricted applicability than the first four, however, and hence we have tested two additional hypotheses:
Hypothesis 5a: Higher inequality should produce more new parties to
the left of center, as a proportion of all new parties, than societies with
low inequality.
Hypothesis 6a: Societies with high post-materialism should have a higher
propensity for producing new ecology parties than societies with low
post-materialism.
Hypothesis 5a is not supported by our data. Each of the 19 countries
has produced at least one new party on the left between 1960 and 1980,
0'Q
0
=
C
E
0
C~~~~)
V~~~
-1)
E
B
$_
0
0-E
oo
X
N00
u:
._
'-
C
03
_
E>
x
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
c
.S~~~~~
z0
a
0)
c
,)
E
E
V
E
3
z0
-JU
0
4 il
cV o'r
0
0
N
S CE
X~~~~~
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4.'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4
()
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' C'
N
w
-
>0
o
C)
'
C
0
Q
C-)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N
0.-@X?
*o
0
va
,lJ
Q_
O-
E
=
oE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
E
0
7
l
C
zm
4-'
'
0)
oE
cJi
C
C
01
3
CL
U)
w
'O
co
o
)<}1
_E
_
_
"_
9L
q
E~~~~~~~~~~U)r
Inc0
0n
00
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@
r
r <
o
@
II
< v <
c
_,
0 C
n.
0
0
c<na.
oo
I-
?C.
z
_
Q
U)
0
'E
xi
00
C
JCx
c C-
(Un0
a-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4
0
>?
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
E
4,,0C
E~~~~~~~~~E
0
0
E
E
E
C.
E
An
E
C
EI
oo
0IS
0
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
E
~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~0:
0
11
4
C'
C U))
o
in
00
cn
Vcn
1T
0
z EE
ZC
i d
z
515
516
NEW POLITICAL PARTIES
and the level of inequality is not highly associated with the proportion of new parties being leftist (distinguishedas those with more, then
less, than 50% of the country's new parties being on the left).'2
Hypothesis 6a also fails to gain support from our analyses. Higher
post-materialist societies seem no more likely to produce at least one
new ecology party than societies with lower post-materialism."3It
should be noted that relationships are evident between formation of
a new party and several structural and political factors that have been
suggestedin the ecology parties' literature(e.g., Muller-Rommel,1982),
and that were unsuccessfullytested for the full universeof new parties.
Specifically, higher proportions of ecology parties have been formed
in plurality/majority than proportional representationsystems, in twoparty systems than multi-party systems, and in systems in which fewer
cleavage dimensions have already been addressed by existing parties.'4
Consistentwith Hauss and Rayside'searlierfindings (1978: 54), none
of the political or structural explanations for variant numbers of new
parties is supported by our findings. Only the type of electoral system
is strongly associated with the number of new parties, and the direction of that association runs contrary to hypothesis 11. This would
appear to be a spurious relationship, resulting from the fact that many
of the countries with plurality/majoritysystems also have large, diverse
populations.
As for the hypothesized explanationsof new party success, only that
concerning the nature of the electoral system receives support from
our data, although the number of effective partiesalreadyin the system
and the number of dimensions alreadyaddressedthere are also strongly
related to new party success but in the "unexpected" directions (see
Tables 11 and 12). This time, it would appear that a causal relationship with the electoral system may be producing spurious relationships
with the two-party system variables, given that the proportional
representation systems that allow or encourage new party success also
tend to be found with multi-party systems.
CONCLUSIONS
This study is based on analysis of 233 new parties formed in western
Europe and Anglo-American countries from 1960 through 1980. The
primarypurpose has been to address several plausible explanations for
variance in frequency and electoral success of new parties across the
19 countries. Our analyses provide support for the conclusion that
Harmel, Robertson / SUCCESS OF NEW PARTIES
517
TABLE 1 1
Associations Between Measures of New Party Success and
Social, Political, and Structural Variables
for Naturally Formed Parties Only
Hypotheses
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Independent Variable
Population
Pluralism
Heterogeneity
Sectionalism
Inequality
Post-materialism/materialism
Number of existing effective parties
Number of effective dimensions in
existing party system
Ballot access
Election system
Parliamentary/presidential
Federalism
Success of Naturally
Formed New Parties**
*
*
X
X = Significant at .10 level and in predicted direction.
*Significant, but in wrong direction.
**For contingency table analyses, systems were dichotomized into (a) those in which
no naturally formed new party has gained representation in the national legislature
and (b) those in which at least one such party has done so.
although structural factors (i.e., the nature of the electoral system) may
affect the electoral success of new parties (as such systems have
sometimes been designed to do), the presence of an electoral apparatus
that might inhibit new party success need not inhibit new partyformation. Ironically, those systems that have produced the largest numbers
of new parties are least likely to reward those parties with votes and
seats. In some countries in which new party electoral success is universally low (as in the United States), many new parties have organized
themselves to play the electoral game for a different ultimate objective: to gain recognition for a particular cause or personality.
It may be helpful to think of new parties (and parties generally)
as falling into two categories:
-contender
-promoter
parties: those having the perception that they can be, at
least eventually, electorally successful;
parties: those that may recognize the unlikelihood of winning many votes or seats, but whose major objective is to use the party as a vehicle for bringing
attention to a particular issue or cause."
518
NEWPOLITICALPARTIES
TABLE 12
New Party Success by Election System for
Naturally Formed Parties Only*
Plurality or Majority
Proportional
Representation
No new party has gained any
seats in the national legislature
Australia
France
New Zealand
United Kingdom
United States
Austria
Sweden
Germany'
At least one new party has gained
at least one seat in the national
legislature
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Switzerland
NOTE: Based only on the new parties formed from 1960 through 1980. This excludes
parties formed even more recently, such as the Social Democrats of Britain.
1. For this study, Die grunen is coded as a merger and not as a naturally formed new
party. If it were treated as naturally formed, for which some might argue, the relationship displayed in this table would be even stronger.
*Missing: Iceland, with no naturally formed new parties.
(See Powell, 1982: 94, for a similar classification of extremist parties
into "contender parties" and "protest parties"; his categories would
be subsumed respectively by our more generally applied categories.)
The thinking of newly formed promoter parties may well have been
expressed by Benjamin Bubar, a leader of one of their older brethren,
the Prohibition Party of the United States, when asked to explain that
party's seemingly futile presidential campaign in 1976:
We've got some issues that need to be discussed. It gave us a
springboard. We have a political message that we think America needs.
We're not going to the White House, and we may not win, but we're
having an impact. [quoted in Smallwood, 1983: 43].
It is apparently a lesson of this article that such parties will form with
some frequency in spite of structural inhibitors to electoral success.'6
Harmel, Robertson / SUCCESS OF NEW PARTIES
519
The propensity to form new parties, although not related to political
or structural variables, is strongly related to sociocultural diversity
within the population. It may be important for both the party system
and the political system more generally that new party formation provides a vehicle for expressing such diversity, especially when all views
have not been adequately expressed by existing parties. The final
analysis may show that new parties, even when their chances of electoral success are limited structurally, are not restrained by the structural inhibitors from organizing to promote strongly felt causes.
NOTES
1. Janda and Gillies (1980) have identified 95 new parties formed throughout
their worldwide sample and 14 new parties in western nations from 1950 through 1978,
but their data are limited to the samples of 53 countries worldwide and the 16 western
countries in Janda's International Comparative Political Parties Project. Also, Janda
and Gillies's treatment of new parties, and treatment of parties generally, have included only parties that have reached some level of "importance" electorally and in
the government (as discussed further in the "Data Set and Universe" section).
2. In our own analysis of data described below, we found no relationship between the number of new parties in a system and measures of new party success.
3. This definition is similar to Janda's (1980), and differs only in that our definition
allows for parties that only purport to have the goal of placing avowed representatives
in government, whether they actually have that goal or not. It is more important for
us that an organization act like an office seeker than that it thinks like one. Out study
does not (and neither does Janda's) include as new parties simple name changes or
alliances that stop short of merger. We do include (as does Janda) even some parties
that are more "subversive" or "restrictive" than "competitive" (see Janda, 1980).
4. For an elaboration of that point of view, see Fisher (1980: 609-619).
5. This would have been the case, for instance, for the Netherlands' Democrats
'66 in its earliest years.
6. Although some (less than lOo) of the data on new party characteristics have,
of necessity, been based on less information than would give us complete confidence
in our codings, we believe that the breakdowns are generally accurate and will not
change significantly as additional information becomes available and is used to revise
the data. As for errors of omission, of which there are certain to be some, we have
assumed that they are randomly distributed across countries and types of parties.
Although this assumption may be violated in the case of the United States in which
reporting may be more complete than for other countries and in which additional
sources (e.g., Akey, various years) were readily available to supplement the global
sources, we further assume that whatever imbalance may exist would not seriously
affect the inferences of this study. The latter assumption seems especially justified
in the case of the analyses of associations based on the dichotomized system level
520
NEW POLITICAL PARTIES
data-for example, the United States would undoubtedly fall in the "many new parties" category even without any over-reportage.
7. In coding parties on the left-right scale, we followed the logic of such students
of party ideology as Janda (1980), Finlay et al. (1974), Arian and Shamir (1983), and
Shamir (1984).
8. Examples of parties formed over such rifts include the Communist Party of
Germany/M-L that split from the DKP for doctrinal reasons, the Communist party
of Sweden that split from the Communist left over leadership issues, and the Communist Union of West Germany that split from the DKP for tactical reasons.
9. The 233 parties also include 32 (13.7%o,including 18 naturally formed) that
are regionally based but promote primarily national issues and seek representation
in the national legislature, 4 (1.7%) parties that were formed to replace previously
banned parties, and 6 (2.6%o,including 3 formed naturally) "one man" or personalist
parties.
10. Janda and Gillies (1980: 165-166) did report that 7 (14%) of the 50 new parties
they identified throughout the world from 1962 through 1978 had not survived to
1979, but that for the "western regions" nearly all survived. Their ability to analyze
party deaths so soon after births no doubt demonstratesa practicaladvantageof limiting
such a study to parties of some demonstrated electoral strength, for which continued
reporting is generally better. Similarly, Rochon's (this issue) ability to report on party
deaths in the Netherlands is facilitated by the operationalization of party death as
loss of representation in Parliament.
11. Because there might be some question about the comparabilityof parties formed
from existing parties with parties formed naturally, we have duplicated all analyses
for naturally formed parties only. As will become evident in our discussion of findings, few inferences based on all new parties would be altered for natural parties only.
12. Five of the nine countries coded as having "higher inequality" produced more
than 50%oof their new parties on the left; two of eight with "low inequality" did
so. The relationship barely fails of significance at the .10 level.
13. Three of the six countries with "post-materialism"have produced a new ecology
party; two of five with "low post-materialism" have done so. It was not possible
to code post-materialism for the remaining eight countries. Obviously, the relationship is not significant.
14. Eleven of thirteen countries with proportional representation have produced
at least one new ecology party; only two of six with plurality/majority have done
so. Five of 10 2- or 2.5-party systems have done so; likewise for only one of the
nine multi-party systems. Four of eight systems with two or fewer effective dimensions represented produced a new ecology party; only two of the nine with more than
two dimensions did so. All three relationships are significant at the .10 level.
15. Examples of "promoter" parties during the 1960-1980period included the Pensioners' Party and People's Peace Policy Party of Denmark, the Single People's Party
of Norway, the Forced Conscripts of Luxembourg, and the Expansionist Party of the
United States.
16. This is a lesson, we might add, that would possibly have been lost had we
employed a less inclusive definition of political party at the outset of this study.
Harmel, Robertson / SUCCESS OF NEW PARTIES
521
REFERENCES
AKEY, D. S. [ed.] (various years) Encyclopedia of Associations (various editions).
Detroit MI: Gale Research.
ALEXANDER, R. J. [ed.] (1983) Political Parties of the Americas: Canada, Latin
America and the West Indies, Vols. I and II. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
ARIAN, A. and M. SHAMIR (1983) "The primarily political functions of the leftright continuum." Comparative Politics 15 (January): 158.
BANKS, A. S. and R. B. TEXTOR. (1963) A Cross-Polity Survey. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
BERRINGTON, H. (1979) "Towards a multi-party Britain?" West European Politics
2 (January): 28-52.
BLONDEL, J. (1969) An Introduction to Comparative Government. New York:
Praeger.
BOUTWELL, J. (1983) "The peace movement, the greens and the Social Democratic
Party." Presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Il. September 1-4.
BURKLIN, W. P. (1982) "The Grunen in West Germany: an answer to post-industrial
change." Presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Milwaukee, April 29-May 2.
CREWE, I. (1981) "Britain's new party: can it make it?" Public Opinion (June-July):
51-56.
DAY, A. J. and H. W. DEGENHARDT [eds.] (1980) Political Parties of the World.
Detroit, MI: Gale Research.
---(1984)
Political Parties of the World (2nd ed.). Detroit, MI: Gale Research.
DELURY, G. E. [ed.] (1983) World Encyclopedia of Political Systems and Parties,
Vols. I and II. New York: Facts on File.
DUVERGER, M. (1951) Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the
Modern State. Paris: Armond Colin.
---(1961)
"Electoral systems and political life," in R. C. Macridis and B. E.
Browne (eds.) Comparative Politics: Notes and Readings. Homewood, IL: Dorsey
Press.
Encyclopedia Britannica (various years) Book of the Year. Chicago: Encyclopedia
Britannica.
Europa Publications (various years) The Europa Yearbook. London: Europa
Publications.
FINLAY, D. et al. (1974) "The concept of left and right in cross-national research."
Comparative Pol. Studies 7 (July): 209-221.
FRANKLAND, E. G. (1983) "Interpreting the 'Green' phenomenon in West German
politics, 1977-1983." Presented at the annual meetings of the American Political
Science Association, Chicago, September 1-4.
HARMEL, R. and K. JANDA (1982) Parties and Their Environments: Limits to
Reform? New York: Longman.
HAUSS, C. (1982) "New parties and the crisis of western party systems." Presented
at the meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Milwaukee, WI. April
29-May 2.
522
---
NEW POLITICAL PARTIES
and D. RAYSIDE (1978) "The development of new parties in western
democracies since 1945," pp. 31-57 in L. Maisel and J. Cooper (eds.) Political
Parties: Development and Decay. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
HERMAN, V. and F. MENDEL (1976) Parliaments of the World. New York: De
Gruyter.
HERMENS, F. A. (1938) Democracy and Anarchy. Notre Dame, IN: Univ. of Notre
Dame Press.
INGLEHART, R. (1977) The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles
Among Western Publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
--(1981) "Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity." Amer. Pol. Sci.
Rev. 75 (December): 880-900.
JANDA, K. (1980) Political Parties. New York: Free Press.
--and R. GILLIES (1980) "Continuity and change," pp. 162-169 in K. Janda,
Political Parties: A Cross-National Survey. New York: Free Press.
Keesing's Contemporary Archives (various years) London: Longman.
KEMP, D. (1975) "Social change and the future of political parties: the Australian
case," pp. 124-164 in L. Maisel and P. M. Sacks (eds.) The Future of Political
Parties. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
LAUBER, V. (1983) "From growth consensus to fragmentation in western Europe:
political polarization over redistribution and ecology." Comparative Politics 15
(April): 329-349.
LaPALOMBARA, J. and M. WEINER (1966) "The origin and developmentof political
parties," pp. 3-42 in J. LaPalombara and M. Weiner (eds.) Political Parties and
Political Development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
--(1981) "The impact of party reform on party systems: the case of the RPR
in France." Comparative Politics 13 (July): 401-419.
LEDUC, L. (1982) "Polarization and dealignment in the British party system: the
SPD-liberal alliance." Presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political
Science Association, Milwaukee, April 29-May 2.
LIPSET, S. M. and S. ROKKAN (1967) Party Systems and Voter Alignments: CrossNational Perspectives. New York: Free Press.
LIJPHART, A. (1981) "Political parties: ideologies and programs," pp. 26-51 in D.
Butler, H. R. Penniman, and A. Ranney (eds.) Democracy at the Polls: A Comparative
Study of Competitive National Elections. Washington DC: American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research.
LIJPHART, A. (1984) Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarianand Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
LUKE, T. (1984) "Marxism-Leninismin Africa: Afrocommunism party formations."
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 12-14.
MACKIE, T. T. and R. ROSE (1982) The InternationalAlmanac of Electoral History.
New York: Facts on File.
McHALE, V. E. [ed.] (1983) Political Parties of Europe, Vols. I and II. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
MULLER-ROMMEL, F. (1982) "Ecology parties in Western Europe." West European Politics 4 (January): 68-74.
---(forthcoming) "Social movements and the Greens: new internal politics in Germany." Comparative Pol. Studies 6.
PILAT, J. F. (1980) Ecology Politics: The Rise of the Green Movement. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Harmel, Robertson / SUCCESS OF NEW PARTIES
523
POWELL, G. B., Jr. (1981) 'Party systems and political system performance: participation, stability and violence in contemporary democracies." Amer. Pol. Sci.
Rev. 75 (December): 861-879.
--(1982) Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability, and Violence. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
--(1984) "Extremist political parties, electoral polarization and political turmoil."
Presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association,
Washington, DC, September 1-4.
RAE, D. (1967) The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven, CT: Yale
Univ. Press.
ROCHON, T. R. (1982) "Penetration and renewal in the Dutch party system."
Presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association,
Milwaukee, WI. April 29-May 2.
SARTORI, G. (1976) Parties and Party Systems. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ.
Press.
SCHAPSMEIER, E. L. and F. H. SCHAPSMEIER (1981) Political Parties and Civic
Action Groups. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
SCHOONMAKER, D. (1983) "The greens in West Germany: between movement and
party." Presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September 1-4.
SHAMIR, M. (1984) "Are western party systems 'frozen'?: A comparative dynamic
analysis." Comparative Pol. Studies 17 (April): 35-79.
SMALLWOOD, F. (1983) The Other Candidates: Third Parties in Presidential Elections. Hanover, NH: Univ. Press of New England.
TAYLOR, C. L. and M. C. HUDSON (1982) World Handbook of Political and Social
Indicators. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
THOMAS J. C. (1980) "Ideological trends in western political systems," pp. 348-366
in P. H. Merkl (ed.) Western European Party Systems: Trends and Prospects. New
York: Free Press.
WILDGEN, J. (1972) "Electoral formulae and the number of parties." J. of Politics
34 (August): 943-950.
WOLINETZ, S. B. (1979) "The transformation of western European party systems
revisted." West European Politics 2 (January): 4-29.
Robert Harmel is Associate Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University.
He is coauthor of Parties and their Environments: Limits to Reform?, editor of
Presidents and their Parties, and author or coauthor of numerous articles on political
parties and legislative behavior.
John D. Robertson is Associate Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M University. He is author of numerous articles on the political economy of governmental
stability in European democracies.