The Nordic Model describes the economic and social models of the 5 Nordic countries; Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland. The model combines ‘growth and solidarity’ (TNMiNE, 2013) which results in the Nordic countries often presenting themselves at the top of the international ratings in the following areas: ‘equal distribution of income, competitiveness, innovation, employment, equality - gender equality and environmental stewardship’ (TNMiNE, 2013). The Scandinavian countries are commonly described as the five-party system or a 3 + 2 system containing the Social Democrats, Agrarian-Centre and the Conservative in the ‘3’ group and the Liberals and Communist in the ‘2’ group. However, after the economic, social and political changes within the Nordic countries such as the collapse of the Soviet Union and the entrance of Finland and Sweden into the European Union (EU), a growing question has arisen whether the party system is frozen or whether it has been replaced by new cleavages and parties.
This essay will explain how party changes can affect the party system and hence how one can misinterpret the changes within the five-party system, to a change to the five-party system. The essay will firstly describe and explain what the five party system is and what changes have occurred within it, mentioning the ‘Other’ parties. Secondly, the essay will focus on the changes to political parties based on social cleavages and how they can affect the political system.
The Scandinavian five-party system, as the name suggests, contains five main party groups. With the exception of Iceland which has a 4 party system (a 2 + 2) the following parties are within the remaining four countries: the Conservatives, the Liberal, the Agrarian,...
... middle of paper ...
...h was an APE (anti-political establishment); The Young Finn Party in 1995, which sought to attract ‘city liberals’; and The Coastal Party in Norway in 1997 which was a single-interest party in favour of commercial whaling, the party gained 1.7% of the national vote in 2001 but 10.9% in Nordland and 10.0% in Troms.
Different parties due to changes in social cleavages and social situations had emerged or changed such as the the Swedish People’s Party or as it is now called the ‘Finland’s Swedish People’s Party’ which emerged after the universal suffrage in 1906. As the name suggests it represents the Swedish-speaking language minority such as the farmers, fishermen and factory workers (Arter, 2014).
The ‘Others’ category has became more and more favoured and an average of 6.5% of the Swedish electoral voted for parties classed within this group since the 1940/50’s.
This assignment deals with the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Australian Liberal Party. It will go explain in depth their origins, motives objectives and achievements.
In Norway capitalism has been combined with socialism.
In our Canadian parliamentary system there are many ideologies and practices which aid in the successful running of our country. One of the more important ideologies and practices in our political system is the notion of strict party discipline. Party discipline refers to the notion of members of a political party “voting together, according to the goals and doctrines of the party, on issues that are pertinent to the government” or opposition in the House of Commons. In this paper, I will be discussing the practice of party discipline in the Canadian parliamentary system as well as the ways in which a change in the practice of strict party discipline to weaker party discipline would result in more positive effects on the practice of Canadian politics rather than more negative ones.
A two-party system is a political system in which only two parties have a realistic opportunity to compete effectively for control. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected officials end up being a member in one of the two major parties. In a two-party system, one of the parties usually holds a majority in the legislature hence, being referred to as the majority party while the other party is the minority party. The United States of America is considered to be a two-party system. A two-party system emerged early in the history of the new Republic. Beginning with the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans in the late 1780s, two major parties have dominated national politics, although which particular two parties has changed with the times and issues. During the nineteenth century, the Democrats and Republicans emerged as the two dominant parties in American politics. As the American party system evolved, many third parties emerged, but few of them remained in existence for very long. Today the Democrats and Republican still remain as the dominant parties. These two parties hav...
middle of paper ... ... d therefore the smaller parties can be considered to have very little effect on the overall political situation. In conclusion, the UK can still best be described as a two party system, provided two considerations are taken into account. The first is that Conservative dominance victories between 1979-97 was not a suggestion of party dominance and that eventually, the swing of the political pendulum will be even for both sides. This can perhaps be seen today with Labour's two landslide victories in 1997 and 2001.
A party system is the concept that political parties in a democratic country have basic similarities: they control the government, have a stable base of mass popular support, and create internal mechanisms for controlling funding, information and nominations. From 1789 to the 1890’s, the United States had three party systems.
Party identification is the political party that an individual categorizes them self with. Political parties came about as a way to organize citizens with similar beliefs and attitudes. These parties then attempt to influence the government by electing members into office. Today there are two main parties people can identify: Republican and Democrat. There is also a third choice, being an Independent, but for the purpose of this paper this group will not be recognized as a political party. These reasons will be discussed later. There are many different theories as to why people do or do not identify with a political party, including social psychology, issue related, and psychological attachments. I believe the social psychology theory has the right idea. Sociology is about studying human society and how it develops and functions. So, it makes sense that social factors would have a big impact on whether we identify with a political party or not.
There are two ways to get rid of the causes of factions, or political parties. The first way of removing these causes is to destroy the liberty essential to their existence. The second way to get rid of the causes is to give everyone the exact same o...
...in a recent pole, 40% of young people in this area would vote for this party of former communists. In the West however, all of the districts, excluding one voted for the conservative Christian Democratic Union. (Time Nov 20th)
Labour had most of the manual votes from the period of 1945-92 while the conservatives' votes slowly decreased. across the board of directors. Dunleavy and Husbands (1985) argue that the significance of manual and non-manual divisions is being replaced by new sectoral cleavages based on public-private splits. It is argued that these cleavages have resulted in the development of new political alignments, largely irrespective of whether employees are manual or. non-manual occupations of the. Dunleavy and Husband argue that new alignments have been developing which relate party choice to patterns of consumption.
Political parties in the United States, just like any other country has been in existence for many years, probably since the late 1700s. In definition, a political party is a legally organized group of individuals or people who have similar opinions and control the governing of a country. Long before political parties in America came about, there had been indifference concerning the existence of political parties, but today, Political parties are a vital constituent of a democracy. They provide a means through which individuals in America can express themselves and their voices can be heard. It can also be seen as a link between the people and the government. Political parties thereby have important roles which they carry out such as nominating candidates, help in the formation of public opinions, organizing the government and much more.
As stated earlier, both parties shift over time. This means for the parties to get re-elected they have to pick up on different combinations of current issues, thus follow public opinion. Since the two-party system follows the majority in public opinion, the multi party system inevitably sometimes leads to the minority rule over the majority. Even parties with extremely radical views have a chance to be elected to power. This could result in chaotic and disastrous changes. The approach of a two-party system doesn’t allow this possibility to happen, it moderates political ideologies and protects the “majority from the
The power structure of Norway is probably one of the few areas that are quite different from that of most other free countries. Norway is a constitutional monarchy. The king has limited authority, except as head of the military and as a symbol of continuity and stability. Executive power is vested in the prime minister, who presides over the dominant party in the country’s parliament (Storting). The 165 members of parliament are elected every four years. The Storting has an Upper Chamber (Lagting) and a Lower Chamber (Odelsting). The Labor, Center, and Conservative parties are the largest in parliament, but no party has a majority. Another similar note is that all citizens may vote at age 18. Norway also has 19 provinces (fylker). Norway enjoys a strong economy, and has one of the highest standards of living in the world.
...y more appealing by removing themselves from the criticisms that both the conservatives and liberals had and making labour appear as a new, different way in which politics should by heading. This may also be true by appearing to be the most progressive party. By promoting themselves a party of progress and change, labour would have appealed to the electorate who were uninterested in the same promises by traditional parties and convince more non voters to vote for a party that promotes radical and progressive changes. It is argued by the majority of critics that ‘new’ labour wasn’t as especially new as they made themselves seem, instead they took from a variety of past and present governments different ideals, goals and politics and combining them all to make a ‘new’ progressive party that would appeal to the masses that wanted a new radical change in politics.
Such as the idea that the system is concerned with preserving status differential like workers and housewives which can lead to benefits that vary. A third welfare system is the Social Democrat or Scandinavian type. The Scandinavian type exists in Northern Europe and provides generous benefits to all citizens. A distinguishing feature of the Scandinavian type is the idea of Universalism and the emphasis on social equality. The system’s policies exist throughout one’s life or “cradle to grave.” A forth welfare system is the Southern European type which is similar to the Corporatist Continental type, but has less size and scope. Finally, there is the Communist East European welfare state which follows the Soviet Union’s model for social security (Kaelble 265). Overall, Europe has five unique types of welfare states. Each system has a different idea on how government should operate and how much government should intervene to help its citizens. The differences in the development of welfare states in Europe, particularly during the Cold War period, have led to deep divisions in Europe. Countries hold a different set of values and principles that must be respected in order to form a strong