The text on this page deals with the most striking features of the party system in Great Britain set against its reputation as the classical model of a two-party system.

Regarded as the crème de la crème of all parliamentary systems, the Westminster model and its core element the two-party system has lost a great deal of its shine over the past couple of decades. For centuries the British system of government had been regarded as a model system by British and foreign political observers alike (...).

This belief still dominates the understanding of politics for many British people. Set against a three-party system in the period between the first and second world wars during which the Labour Party slowly replaced the Liberal Party as the main opposition party, the socialist political scientist, Harold Laski, believed deeply that only a restoration of a two-party system could reflect the fundamental social conflicts in society and express them in political terms:

"The more a political system is capable of expressing itself through contrast presented by two large political parties, the more satisfactory it works. (...) Despite the fact that the group system probably reflects more accurately the spirit of the people, it is fatal for government as a practical art. This is because the most important need of administration is the absence of doubt. (...) "Therefore, the right way forward for political ideas should be to penetrate the parties rather than form groups."

The ability of a government to function has always been more important in Britain than trying to reflect accurately the full spectrum of differing political opinion in the form of representative bodies. Even if the functional link between a parliamentary system of government and the two-party system based on majority votes in single constituencies often does not exist in a pure form, the British model has developed a great normative effect. Many contributions to the scientific debate on democracy and political parties have emphasized the advantages of a two-party system over a multi-party system that is based on proportional representation. The British model, so the argument goes, produces stable one-party government; coalition government is unnecessary. For its term in office, the ruling party carries sole political responsibility; the opposition is left to project itself as a government in waiting, work on new alternative policies and criticize the government. Both opposition and ruling parties are forced to concentrate on the key voters in the political centre; according to some, this party duopoly guarantees moderate politics and prevents radicalization and fragmentation of political debate. According to this theory, then, voters are able to identify a clear line of responsibility and influence directly the future course of politics in the country.

As Great Britain's seemingly permanent state of economic crisis became increasingly clear, questions arose during the 60s as to whether political structures were perhaps to blame for this "British disease". Under the term adversary politics, British political scientists turned these ostensible advantages of the two-party system on their head. According to this interpretation, the two-party system is partly responsible for British decline because of the radical shift in policy each time a government changes. Advocates of this idea insist that only electoral reform and the establishment of a multi-party system that dominates the political centre would provide Britain with political and economic recovery.

This feeling of crisis has also been reflected in election results. Successes for the old Liberal Party, as well as for the Scottish and Welsh nationalists during the seventies, regrouping in the political centre during the eighties and the rise of the Green Party for the European elections in 1989 all combined to put the duopoly of the Conservative Party and Labour Party under pressure. Indeed, there has already been talk about it being the the end of the road for the two-party system.

Contrary to such interpretations, however, the political process remains dependent on the "mechanics" of the two-party system, which sits deep in the political consciousness. While the first signs of change might be evident, it should not be forgotten that Britain's party duopoly is supported by institutional (electoral law), socio-cultural (social and regional distribution of the electorate) and habitual (political culture) cornerstones. These cornerstones provide the existing system with a considerable amount of time for change and places large barriers in front of third and smaller parties. Whether or not the political dominance of the Labour Party and Conservative Party is really being threatened depends largely on the way in which they react to changing voting patterns and new political competition in the marketplace.

The two-party system in Great Britain represents the "classic model" of a two-party system according to Giovanni Sartori ("Parties and Party Systems. A Framework for Analysis, Vol. I, Cambridge 1976), who in his typology put forward the following rule: A party can only be regarded as being a relevant part of the party system when it has seats in parliament and when it has coalition or government potential or disruptive potential, this means, when it participates in a positive or negative way in the formation of government.

Parties without seats in Parliament and even smaller parliamentary parties fall outside the perimeters of this analysis. As far as Great Britain is concerned, this means that Sartori's numbers rule regards around a quarter of all votes cast as having no meaning whatsoever for the functioning of the party system. This is because of the current first-past-the-post electoral system has a disproportional effect on the result. While the Labour and Conservative duopoly has been losing votes significantly since 1974, the distribution of seats in the House of Commons remains almost unchanged (...).

These relevance criteria produced by political science are reflected in everyday political life in Great Britain. As far as the media is concerned, only the government and Her Majesty's opposition play a role in news reports. The smaller parties are left to rely almost entirely on election campaigns, especially by-elections that enjoy widespread media coverage, and telegenic members to capture the attention of the public.

According to Sartori, a party system can be regarded as having a two-party format when two parties battle for the majority of seats in Parliament and when one party actually achieves a sufficient parliamentary majority. The mechanics of a two-party system are only given when the winning party is prepared to govern alone, and when at least a conceivable change exists for the losing party to bring about a change of government at the next general election. This distinction between the format and the mechanics of the two-party system is especially relevant in Great Britain. Even during periods where the majority was unclear such as during Labour's term in office between February and October 1974 and April 1976 to May 1979, the strongest party was always prepared to carry the responsibility of government. Coalitions are extremely unpopular. This was felt strongly by the Liberals as they managed to force the downfall of the Labour government under James Callaghan based on an informal Lib-Lab pact, a move that was highly unpopular both within the party and in public. Even when the format of a two-party system are only partly given, British parties act according to the mechanics of the two-party system.

[Taken and translated from: André Kaiser: Das britische Parteiensystem; in: Der Bürger im Staat 41, 4/1991]

[Back to top of page]

Subjects:  Human Rights  I  Democracy  I  Parties  I  Examples  I  Europe  I  Globalisation  I  United Nations  I  Sustainability

Methods:    Teaching Politics    II    Peace Education    II    Methods