Giovanni Sartori – Parties and Party Systems review on chapter 4-5

Guzun Grigore
How we saw in chapter 1, 2 and 3 the main ideas were how must be the parties.
In these chapters Sartori gave us good examples about the party system, and how
could be create a FACTION inside the party. In the next 2 chapters Sartori speaks
about the difference between FRACTION, FACTION and TENDENCY. From my
point of view, it is very delicate subject, and also all of the readers have to make
difference between these terms.
The term ‘FRACTION’ has a special meaning in the Marxist vocabulary,
particularly in the Leninist tradition. Secondly, the German Fraktion is the
parliamentary party (indeed a pre-Marxist denomination,for it goes back to the 1848
Frankfurt parliament). Thus far we have a threefold terminological articulation:
FRACTION (the general, unspecified category), FACTION (a specific power group),
and TENDENCY (a patterned set of attitudes). Thereby a political party can has pure
factions which is highly fractioned , or can be composed only of tendencies, which
divisions obtain low visibility and low salience.
The sub-party anatomy can be explored along four dimensions. These
dimensions will help us to make difference between party and faction exploring the
organisational, motivational, ideological, left-and-right dimensions: Discussing
about the organisational dimension I have to point that it comes for a number of
reasons. The most important thing in this dimension is that, in past the party was
well organise, but the faction organisation-less body. But now, in present it’s doesn’t
matter because the party subunits can be powerfully organised. Another moment is
that becoming organised, however, a fraction need not lose it’s nature as qualified
by the other dimensions. The motivational dimension is the one that probes more
directly into “factionalism”. This dimension has a major difficulty which is called
”CAMOUFLAGE”. A faction of interest doesn’t declare to be such, to be nothing
but a power or spoils group manoeuvring for place and emolument. It can seek cover
under the banner of efficiency and technical realism; but it can equally disguise itself
under ideological garments. On the other hand, ideology can be a very effective
camouflage both in the sense that it legitimises a power-seeking group in the
perception of its very actors and in the sense that it cannot be easily uncovered by
the observer. The ideological dimension has very major importance because it is a
powerful motivating force. Also is distinctive for another reason. The difference
between ideological dimension and all others in that it points to a cultural factor, to
the overall temper of politics in a given cultural setting. Of all dimensions, Sartori
trust least on the left-right dimension. He declared this because positioning of this
dimension is often enough, the one that does least violence to the identification of
tendencies, non-aligned positions, and atomized configuration.
In addition, the author, to simplify our vision, give us an example between Italy
and Japan, which is called “FRACTIONS WITHIN PARTIES”. Since 1940, the
were no more differences between these countries, but the most one is at the systemic
level. The ITALIAN party system requires coalition governemnts, which were
inefficient and ineffective because the governmental coalitions are very
heterogeneous. In JAPAN, the ’70-’90 years were charachterised by a predominant-
party system with liberal-democratic single-party governments. From my point of
view I think it was like this because United States have a major influence in Japan.
This system in Japan, is the same like in USA, one party at the power, and best
results for people!
In the chapter five Sartori give us a set of good examples, a set of schemes to
make a easier way for deep our mind in the essence. For me, one great figure is
FIGURE 4 : Countries plotted by power dispersion of party systems (p.113). This
figure represents a model how to understand the dispersion, atomisation and
concentration between countries. What I could confirm for me, is that UK, Belgium,
GFR and US, are the best positioned countries in the TOP, and they have always
political stability. Vice- versa is for USSR, and in present for most countries which
was a part of USSR, where the power has total control of media, state bodies etc.
This situation has a negative effect to the people, and affects the future of the
country.
 In conclusion, my ideas and knowledges were changed, because Sartori gave
us a set of good examples and I could understand the difference between countries,
and why many countries can have economic, political stability, and why the post-
sovietic countries are not in the best pathway!