Under- and Overinstitutionalization: Some Ideal Typical Propositions concerning New and Old Party Systems

The weakness of democratic institutions represents the core problem faced by processes of democratic consolidation. The present paper, which confines its attention exclusively to party systems, starts by diagnosing a double deficit. First, the concept of institutional ‘underdevelopment’ appears to be somewhat underdeveloped itself. It requires further clarification and elaboration. Second, the debate on democratic consolidation takes the ‘old’ consolidated democracies as its normative model and assumes that the strength of institutions and the quality of democracy are positively related. This normative horizon might be distorted. We argue instead that institutions may be too weak—but also too strong (section 1). The paper therefore contrasts two ideal types of party systems: ‘underinstitutionalized’ versus ‘overinstitutionalized’. After sketching some defining elements of institutions (section 2), the essay portrays differences and commonalties between these two party system extremes. It discusses the following dimensions: aggregate electoral volatility (section 3), the translation of electoral uncertainty into policy styles and popular expectations (section 4), the barriers of access to the political market (section 5), degrees of interparty competition (section 6), horizontal accountability (section 7), the scope of horizontal linkages (section 8), and the credibility of party politicians (section 9). We conclude with some hints at the dynamics of change within both systems (section 10).