CYCLICITY OF IDEOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL CLEAVAGES IN THE ELECTORAL SPACE

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17072/2218-1067-2022-3-52-62

Keywords:

cleavage; electoral space; ideology; party; party system; nationalization of politics; electoral geography; po-litical geography

Abstract

The Lipset-Rokkan cleavages cover the period before the formation of the basic structure of the modern ideological spectrum and, accordingly, the party system, but this does not mean that new types of splits cannot continue to fragment communities. Interestingly, some cleavages continue the logic of the described divisions, simply acting in new conditions, so we can talk about the cyclical nature of ideological and political cleavages. Two types of splits dominate today's party systems, which are cyclical repetitions of previous cleavages and support two key axes of the ideological spectrum. The degree of their impact on the structure of party systems, of course, varies from country to country. The split “center – periphery” fades and flows into “urban – rural”, then into “globalization – sovereignization”. Also, the “state-church” split fades and flows into “owners-workers”, then into “survival-self-expression”. At the same time, in each era, two dominant principles of split coexist – territorial, which projects the ideological axis "egalitarianism - elitism" and functional, which supports the ideological axis "individualism - communitarianism". It can be said that the continuity of political and party systems is ensured by the cyclicality, coexistence and resonation of ideological and political divisions.

Author Biography

I. Yu. Okunev, Institute of International Studies MGIMO MFA of Russia

PhD in Political Science, Leading Research Fellow, Director of the Center for Spatial Analysis of International Relations

References

Ахременко, А. С. (2007) Структуры электорального пространства. Москва: Социально-политическая мысль. [Akhremenko, A. S. (2007) Structures of electoral space [Struktury elektoral'nogo prostranstva]. Moscow: Sotsial’no-politicheskaya mysl’. (In Russ.)].

Голосов, Г. В. (2018) Сравнительная политология. Санкт-Петербург: ЕУСПб. [Golosov, G. V. (2018) Comparative politics [Sravnitel'naya politologiya]. Saint Petersburg: EUSPb. (In Russ.)].

Голосов, Г. В. (2012) ‘Партийные системы стран мира: региональное и хронологическое распределение, модели устойчивости’, Политическая наука, 3, cc. 71–104. [Golosov, G. V. (2012) ‘Party systems of the countries of the world: regional and chronological distribution, sustainability models’ [Partijnye sistemy stran mira: regional'noe i hronologicheskoe raspredelenie, modeli ustojchivosti], Political Science (RU), 3, pp. 71–104. (In Russ.)].

Зимоха, А. Ю. (2006) ‘Цели и методы воздействия на территориальную картину результатов выборов’, Региональные ис-следования, 2, cc. 17–24. [Zimokha, A. Yu. (2006) ‘The aims and methods of influencing of election results on the territorial distribution’ [Celi i metody vozdejstviya na territorial'nuyu kartinu rezul'tatov vyborov], Regional'nye issledovaniya, 2, pp. 17–24. (In Russ.)].

Исаев, Б. А. (2016) Теория партий и партийных систем. Москва: Юрайт. [Isaev, B. A. (2016) The theory of parties and party systems [Teoriya partij i partijnyh sistem]. Moscow: Yurait. (In Russ.)].

Макаренко, Б. И. (ред.) (2015) Партии и партийные системы: современные тенденции развития. Москва: Политическая энциклопедия. [Makarenko, B. I. (eds.) (2015) Parties and party systems: current development trends [Partii i partijnye sistemy: sovremennye tendencii razvitiya]. Мoscow: Politicheskaya entsi-klopediya. (In Russ.)].

Туровский, Р. Ф. (1999) Политическая география. Смоленск: СГУ. [Turovskiy, R. F. (1999) Political geography [Politicheskaya geografiya]. Smolensk: SGU. (In Russ.)].

Alonso, S. (2012) Challenging the state: Devolution and the battle for partisan credibility: A comparison of Belgium, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Bochsler, D. (2010) ‘Measuring party nationalization: A new ginibased indicator that corrects for the number of units’, Electoral Studies, 29(1), pp. 155–168.

Caramani, D. (2004) The nationalization of politics: The formation of national electorates and party systems in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Detterbeck, K., Hepburn, E. (eds.) (2018) Handbook of territorial politics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Lijphart, A. (1994) Electoral systems and party systems: A study of twenty-seven democracies, 1945–1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirtysix countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Pickel, S. (2011) ‘Secularization of electoral be-havior? The state-church-cleavage in Eu-rope’ in: Pickel, G., Sammet, K. (eds.) Transformations of religiosity. Religion and religiosity in Eastern Europe 1989-2010. Wiesbaden: VS, pp. 111–134.

Rokkan, S. (1970) Citizens, elections, parties: Approaches to the comparative study of the processes of development. Oslo: Uni-versitetsforlaget.

Rose, R., Urwin, D. (1975) Regional differentia-tion and political unity in Western Na-tions. London: SAGE.

Taylor, P. J., Johnston, R. J. (1979) Geography of elections. London: Penguin Books.

Wuthrich, F. M. (2013) ‘An essential center-periphery electoral cleavage and the Turkish party system’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 45(4), pp. 751–773.

Published

2022-10-15

How to Cite

Okunev И. Ю. (2022). CYCLICITY OF IDEOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL CLEAVAGES IN THE ELECTORAL SPACE. Bulletin of Perm University. Political Science, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.17072/2218-1067-2022-3-52-62

Issue

Section

Междисциплинарные ракурсы политических исследований