1 - Introduction: Rethinking Party System Institutionalization in Asia

Summary

Political parties are often the weakest link in democracies, both young and old. This is the conclusion of a large number of scholars, policy consultants, and political practitioners. From Peru to the Philippines, these lynchpins of modern democracy are struggling to carry out the fundamental tasks of representing citizen interests and enabling voters to hold government officials accountable. In some parts of the world, the traditional connections between parties and their constituents are eroding (see the extensive literature on dealignment); in other parts of the world, meaningful links between parties and voters have yet to develop. Some systems present voters with a dizzying number of political parties, distinguishable more by the personalities at their helm than the policies in their platforms. In others, a single party so dominates elections that one can justifiably call into question the credibility of competition.

For scholars trying to make sense of the role parties play in supporting (or undermining) effective and robust democracies, party system institutionalization has emerged as an important concept. The literature on party system institutionalization suggests that a democracy with a more institutionalized party system is more likely to survive than one without. Institutionalized parties, defined as coherent, adaptable, and complex institutions, provide a stable means for channeling the interests of social groups and a mechanism for citizens to hold government accountable. Without parties acting as a bridge between state and society, demands from society will overwhelm government institutions and may lead to the weakening of democracy. Institutionalized parties thus serve as a crucial bulwark for sustaining democracy and maintaining its representative quality.