Abstract
No matter the region of the world under study, party (system) institutionalisation has been traditionally considered to be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the survival of democracy. Despite being one of the most quoted statements in the democratisation literature, the few studies looking at the relationship between institutionalisation and democratic endurance have found no evidence of the ‘almost magical’ powers of the former. This article revisits the abovementioned research question by making use of an original dataset covering all European democracies between 1848 and 2014. The main findings are threefold: (1) it is not the institutionalisation of political parties but the institutionalisation of party systems as a whole that has fostered the prospects for democratic survival in Europe; (2) there is a threshold of systemic institutionalisation which, once reached, will avoid democratic collapse; and (3) systemic over-institutionalisation does not seem to be so perilous for the survival of democracy.
Highlights
No matter the region of the world under study, party institutionalization has been traditionally considered to be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the survival of democracy
Trying to clarify the extent to which – as repeatedly maintained – both party system institutionalization (PSI) and party institutionalization (PI) have a positive impact on the endurance of democracy, this article has assessed the abovecited relationship by employing a different methodology on an original dataset, large enough to allow for both cross-national/regional as well as cross-temporal comparisons
It has not been the institutionalization of political parties but the institutionalization of party systems as a whole that has had a positive effect on the prospects for democratic survival in Europe
Summary
No matter the region of the world under study, party (system) institutionalization has been traditionally considered to be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the survival of democracy. Notwithstanding what has been said, and taking into consideration that the relationship between institutionalization and democracy may not be as unidirectional or linear as expected (Schedler 1995; Wallis 2003), the present article revisits the abovementioned relationship but differs from previous studies in the following manner First of all, it distinguishes between PSI and PI. It tries to improve the way in which both phenomena have been operationalized, by measuring the whole process of institutionalization, rather than at one point in time.2 It employs an original dataset comprising all European democratic political regimes since 1848, allowing for both geographical and chronological comparisons. It makes use of a different method enabling to identify to what extent PSI and/or PI are to be considered necessary and/or sufficient conditions for the endurance of democracy. The implications of the main findings of the article are addressed
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
