Small parties in a comparative perspective:The state of the art-Muller-Rommel Main ideas: No clear definition of what a small party really

ly is, but in the postwar western european party systems over 50 such parties have operated. The main problem researchers face in what concerns the subject is the lack of research and information about them. Three reasons for that: 1. Small parties are seen as politically unimportant. 2. Scholars focus their research on political parties for which info is more likely to be available. For small parties, language difficulties as their program is not translated into english, they have no systematic info about intra-party democracy, leadership selection or statistical picture of their membership development and financial situation, no clear evaluation of the voters.Official statistics in election categorize them as other parties, because of the lack of basic info. 3. Their low attention results from their low political impact on government policy. There are 8 different types of small party families:

Communists- early 20c, small parties, members of Comintern Socialists- common left-wing ideology, , often small socialist parties split off from social democratic or communist parties. Liberals- not always seen as small parties, sometimes big role in party systems as coalition partners. Christian- small religious parties which are often allied with conservative parties.Usually located in the political centre. Extreme right- originated from fascist parties of interwar years. Regionalists and nationalists- difficult to place on a left-right ideology.Represent minority groups. Agrarian- oriented towards rural pol.traditions, often seen in Nordic countries. Greens- emerged over the past decade, oriented towards new issues& the new style of political participation & communication. Existent studies are too descriptive, do not offer info about the roles of small pol parties Herzog: small parties are relevant in the process of negotiating political norms and the rules of the political game. Small parties can help in measuring the boundaries of the political culture of a party system, they can be used as testing grounds for new political ideas. Sartoris definition for relevance over size uses 2 criteria: coalition potential and blackmail potential. Conceptional definitional approach: Sartori: a party qualifies for relevance whenever its existence or appearance affects the tactics of party competition and particularly when it affects the direction of the competition. Three types of small parties: marginal small parties-extreme right or left ideological, limited coalition potential; hinge small parties- centre of the left-right, fairly important coalition

potential; detached small parties- cannot be ideologically classified, so are out of competition(regional and ethnic based small parties) Numerical and party family approach:small parties are defined as enduring parties which have contested at least 3 elections( included those btw 1-15% of national vote) Mair: 4 party systems in which small parties operate; large party systems( small parties have no relevant impact, small party systems( small parties block vote of over 50%, usually dominated by socialists,liberals and christians), intermediate systems( small parties block of 35%), transitionary system( shift from small to large ps or vice versa). Diachronic approach- small parties are mortal organizations bounded by a lifespan. Systemic approach-similar to the conceptional def approach,agrees that the significance of small parties must be assesed systematically, but its scope is broader in going beyond the structure of party systems to look at the context of political and social systems as a whole. The role and performance of small parties are presented with reference to three relationships:with the state(pro-anti-system, role in govt and/or oppositioon,electoral system,repr in parliament), with other parties(polarization, rel with large parties, alliances/coalition rel) and with society( electoral strenght, social bases and cleavages, links with media, interest groups, movements) Four characteristics of pol systems which are relevant for explaining the success or failure of small parties: size of country, type of electoral system( proportional system-most favorable for small parties), high and low volatility in party systems, pluralism in a society. Conclusions: small parties mobilise those voters whose grievances have been ignored by the larger parties, can have an impact on national policy making without being in the govt.

In search of small parties:problems of definition, classification and significance Gordon Smith Britain-the most restrictive el. System in WE, but most permissive el. Laws. The concept of smallness has a variety of connotations as well as levels. Smallness is in fact a systemic quality, a relative concept and therefore one that is specific to a party system. Possibly, a party that is labelled small in one context could have another look in a different party constellation. One party dominant system: difference between hard and soft models of dominance, small parties have no room often, but if dominance is soft, coalitions may be needed. Small parties in a two party system: are less relevant that in a one party dominant.small parties have neither coalition potential, nor blackmail potential. The two and a half party system: small parties have considerable impact on the gov process. The party must be in the center, not extremist. Also, the presence of 2 third parties makes both of them lose their pivotal role. Multi party dominance: one party particularly strong, but not at a very far distance from the others, increasing their importance.(Italy and Denmark) The undifferentiated multi party system: no party has a large lead, none is really essential for coalition building, 3 or 4 parties have between 15-25%(belgium, Finland), in Switzerland small parties irrelevant because first 3 parties lead as a cartel.Small parties have a protesting role.In Plural societies are the most

common.Belgia case, where for eg. The greens have an identical approach, but they are 2 different parties because of the lingvistic difference.