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.
Anglicky
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