Party System Institutionalization: Reflections Based on the Asian Cases

Abstract

In this concluding chapter, I offer some reflections on party system institutionalization based on the Asian cases examined in this volume. I take up four themes that are central to the book. First, I analyze why party system institutionalization remains an important theme for political scientists. In democracies and semi-democracies, some of the most important differences among party systems revolve around variance in institutionalization. Differences in party system institutionalization have important consequences both in competitive and authoritarian regimes. Second, I argue that the most fundamental distinction among the cases analyzed in this volume is among competitive party systems, hegemonic party systems, and party-state systems. Competitive party systems are anchored in semi-democratic or democratic regimes. Elections are the route to executive and legislative power, and they are organized primarily around parties. Parties also structure legislatures in these systems. Hence, they are key to gaining access to power and to governing. Hegemonic party systems and party-state systems function within authoritarian regimes. Parties are important in these systems, but elections are not the primary route to executive or legislative power. Parties perform different functions in these nondemocratic regimes. Failure to observe a distinction among these three kinds of systems can lead to conceptual confusion and measurement problems, and to difficulty in understanding the relationship between party system institutionalization and democracy.