Advertisement

Party System Responsiveness in Contemporary Botswana, Lesotho, Ghana and Mali

  • Jonathan van Eerd
Chapter
  • 214 Downloads
Part of the Challenges to Democracy in the 21st Century book series (CDC)

Abstract

This chapter compares self-collected elite survey data with Afrobarometer mass survey data. It presents evidence that parties in dominant party systems with an institutionalized and potentially threatening opposition (Botswana), or in formerly one-party dominant systems that evolved into an institutionalized two-party system (Ghana), and that are both still structured according to the historic territorial political cleavage from processes of decolonization around independence, are programmatically distinctively set apart and relatively responsive to the policy preferences of their electorate; in contrast to parties in dominant party systems with a volatile opposition (Lesotho), or in former dominant party systems that evolved into a generally non-institutionalized and chaotic multi-party system (Mali), and that both are not effectively structured according to historic political conflict from processes of nationalization around independence.

Keywords

Policy Preference Voter Side Party System Opposition Parti Opposition Party 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Afrobarometer. 2008. CDD-Ghana, IDASA, IREEP. http://afrobarometer.org/index.html. Accessed 3 Nov 2014.
  2. Bartolini, Stefano, and Peter Mair. 1990. Identity, competition, and electoral availability: The stabilisation of European electorates 1885–1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bornschier, Simon. 2010. Cleavage politics and the populist right: The new cultural conflict in Western Europe. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bornschier, Simon. 2013. Trayectorias históricas y responsiveness del sistema de partidos en siete países de América Latina. América Latina Hoy 65(12):45–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy. Participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kitschelt, Herbert. 2009. Expert survey on citizen-politician linkages. Democratic Accountability and Linkages Project. https://sites.duke.edu/democracylinkage/. Accessed 24 May 2010.
  7. Kitschelt, Herbert, Kent Freeze, Kiril Kolev, and Yi-Ting Wang. 2009. Measuring democratic accountability: An initial report on an emerging data set. Revista de Ciencia Politica 29(3):741–773.Google Scholar
  8. Klecka, William R. 1980. Discriminant analysis. Series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Number 07-019. Beverly Hills: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Luna, Juan P., and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister. 2005. Political representation in Latin America: A study of elite-mass congruence in nine countries. Comparative Political Studies 38(4):388–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Powell, G. Bingham, Jr. 2004. The chain of responsiveness. Journal of Democracy 15(4):91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. van Eerd, Jonathan. 2012. Gaddafi’s demise is not the only reason for the military coup in Mali. PoliSciZurich Blog. http://poliscizurich.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/gaddafis-demise-is-not-the-only-reason-for-the-military-coup-in-mali/. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan van Eerd
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Political ScienceUniversity of ZürichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations