J 2015

Systemes partisans competitifs: quelle divergence entre Duverger et Sartori?

NOVÁK, Miroslav

Basic information

Original name

Systemes partisans competitifs: quelle divergence entre Duverger et Sartori?

Name (in English)

Competitive party systems: is there a difference betwween Duverger and Sartori?

Authors

NOVÁK, Miroslav (203 Czech Republic, guarantor, belonging to the institution)

Edition

Revue française de science politique, 2015, 0035-2950

Other information

Language

French

Type of outcome

Article in a journal

Field of Study

50601 Political science

Country of publisher

France

Confidentiality degree

is not subject to a state or trade secret

References:

RIV identification code

RIV/27590101:_____/15:00000002

Organization

CEVRO Univerzita, z.ú. – Repository

DOI

EID Scopus

2-s2.0-84938410089

Keywords in English

party systems; Duverger; Sartori
Changed: 25/4/2019 15:25, Doc. PhDr. Miloš Brunclík, Ph.D.

Abstract

ORIG EN

V originále

Ce texte refute le « sens commun » selon lequel Duverger se contenterait d’une classification banale des systemes partisans pluralistes (bipartisme-multipartisme). On montre ici, entre autres, que : 1/ des 1951, Duverger propose une typologie plus raffinee des systemes partisans qui ressemble a la typologie posterieure de Sartori ; 2/ a l’encontre de ce qu’affirme Hazan, la conception du « paradoxe du centre », formulee par Duverger des 1951, est tout aussi « contre-intuitive » que la conception de Sartori ; 3/ a l’instar de Sartori, Duverger met l’accent sur le « fonctionnement » des systemes partisans, mais Sartori a essaye de se demarquer de Duverger en assurant que son approche est profondement divergente ; 4/ il faut revoir nos schemas de l’evolution de la science politique et reconnaître l’apport fondamental de Duverger a la theorie des systemes partisans.

In English

This article refutes the conventional wisdom that Duverger’s classification of pluralistic party systems is simplistic because it recognises only bipartism and multipartism as categories. It demonstrates, first, that by 1951 Duverger had already introduced a more sophisticated typology of pluralistic party systems, one which resembled the one later developed by Sartori; second, that Duverger’s concept of the “paradox of the centre” is no less “counter-intuitive” than Sartori’s concept; third, that – like Sartori –Duverger emphasises the “functioning” of party systems. Sartori, however, dissociated himself from Duverger and attempted to propagate the belief that his approach was fundamentally different. Finally, the article makes the argument that we should revise our simplistic understandings of the development of political science and recognise Duverger’s essential contribution to the theory of party systems