09-02-2004, 08:29 AM
On the topic of gridlock--comparative politics doesn't really hold with the theory that multi-party systems promote gridlock. Many parlimentarian governments are able to function smoothly with coalition governments. Until the unity of the coalition is destabilized.
This is precisely one of the strong points of the bipartisan system. With only two parties, you may disagree on some points but those points do not become the whole of the agenda. This allows for an individual party to retain a wholistic look and strategy on the business of running the nation.
In other words, bipartisan systems are more focused in accomplishing their objectives. Doesn't mean more efficient, (in fact, coalitions can increase efficiency by absorbing what would have been opposition) but it does provide the party in power with more strategic foresight.
As for the notion of third parties, they still can define political issues. Your example of the animal rights party proves this point, that minor parties aren't serious political contendors but extensions of media campaigns. Happens just as much in the bipartisan system.
This is precisely one of the strong points of the bipartisan system. With only two parties, you may disagree on some points but those points do not become the whole of the agenda. This allows for an individual party to retain a wholistic look and strategy on the business of running the nation.
In other words, bipartisan systems are more focused in accomplishing their objectives. Doesn't mean more efficient, (in fact, coalitions can increase efficiency by absorbing what would have been opposition) but it does provide the party in power with more strategic foresight.
As for the notion of third parties, they still can define political issues. Your example of the animal rights party proves this point, that minor parties aren't serious political contendors but extensions of media campaigns. Happens just as much in the bipartisan system.
Out here,
--Ajax
--Ajax