IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE)

e-ISSN: 2278-1684,p-ISSN: 2320-334X, Volume 13, Issue 4 Ver. VII (Jul. - Aug. 2016), PP 140-152
www.iosrjournals.org

Political Parties
Dr. S. B. M. Marume1, Dr. A. S. Chikasha2, Prof. D. Ndudzo3
1
BA, Hons BA, MA, MAdmin, MSocSc,PhD
2
Bed, DPHE, MEd, DEd
3
DSW, MBA,DPhil
Zimbabwe Open University

Abstract: Political Science studies domestic politics of a state or states, and contains political dynamics as one
of its sub-fields of study which in turn has as one of its sub-sub-fields – political parties, a special topic for
examination of this article. As a factual statement, political parties occupy an important place and play a
significant role in the governmental process of a state having democratic political institutions. However, in
countries with government systems characterized by a combination of authorization, a term which signifies non-
democratic government, and democratic parties; parties resembling those found in democracies are likely to
develop, but their importance depends on the degree to which representatives of the people are permitted to
participate in the determination of governmental policy. Under thoroughly authoritarian governments the right
to organize parties is either denied or confined to the membership of the ruling oligarchy. Consequently, party
systems of the type which operate in a democratic or partly democratic environment fail to materialize. As
events of the twentieth and 20th centuries and 21st centuries have demonstrated, authoritarian governments may
be controlled by the leaders of an organization, known as a party, which monopolizes the field of organized
political activity. Examples are the Communist Party of the former Russia; the Communist Party of China; and
the socialist Party of Cuba under Fidel is Castro. Cases of this kind are often attributable to a combination of
authoritarianism and totalitarianism. And in this article consideration is first given to the nature of political
parties, to different varieties of parties, and to the functions which parties normally perform. Thereafter the
discussion covers such matters as the character of party organization, the several kinds of party systems, and
the reasons why political parties are invaluable in a democracy.
Keywords: political parties, political dynamics, democracy, authoritarian government, political participation,
authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

I. Introduction
From comparative political studies it is observed that both developed and developing democratic and
communist as well as socialist countries have numerous associations of individuals that have an interest in
public affairs and undertake to influence the formulation and the administration of governmental policies. Some
are created solely for this purpose. Others exist for the attainment of entirely different objectives but find it
expedient to exert pressure on public officials because the activities of government directly or indirectly affect
their primary interests. Comparatively, a few of the innumerable associations which make “public business”
their business, either exclusively or to some extent, qualify as political parties.

II. The Purpose Of The Article

This article focuses on political parties as an essential element of the sub-field of political dynamics
whose purpose is manifold. Its specific objectives, however, are to:
a) define a political party;
b) give the nature of political parties;
c) show different varieties of parties‟
d) examine the functions which parties normally perform;
e) discuss such matters as the character of party organization;
f) expose the several typologies of party systems, and
g) state the reasons why political parties are invaluable in a democracy, including some examples from Africa.

III. Political Parties

The nature of political parties is better understood by considering carefully the following essential aspects.

3.1 Leading political scientists, writers and scholars.

Here we need to know: who the leading authorities on the subject are? Answers to this question include:

DOI: 10.9790/1684-130407140152 www.iosrjournals.org 140 | Page

 Political Parties

 S.D. Bailey  A. Ranney  W. Kendall

 S. Neumann  H. Finer  I. Bulmer Thomas
 W. A. Kleyhans  M. A. Barnard  J. J. N. Cloete
 J. S. Reshetar  P. H. Odegard  E. A. Helms
 D. Wit  D. W. Brogan  B. Meissner
 B. J. Roux  W. Goodman  H. Pelling
 R.T. McKenzie  R.E. Baldwin  H.A. Turner

3.2 What is a political party?

There are various answers to this question. A political party is defined as an organized and
presumably durable association, either of individuals or of distinguishable groups of individuals, which
endeavours to place its members in governmental offices for the purpose of bringing about the adoption of
favoured political policies or programmes. Of all the characteristics of parties, the one which distinguishes
them from all other associations evincing a substantial interest in public affairs is their effort to secure the
election or the appointment of their own personnel to the public positions through which the policies of
government are prescribed for implementation.

3.3 Characteristics of a political party

One of the primary characteristics of a political party is its endeavour to control the exercise of
governmental powers by placing its own members in the public offices through which the policies of
government are determined. Among these offices are those endowed with law-making authority and those
invested with the power to direct and supervise the execution of laws. The technique for attaining the aforesaid
objective of a party depends on the methods by which such offices are filled under a given system of
government. A party strives to capture elective positions by placing its members in nomination and by
campaigning for their election; in the case of appointive posts, its efforts are directed toward persuading the
appointing authority to make selections from its membership.
A second characteristic of a political party is its intention to use governmental powers for purposes
which meet with the general approval of its leaders and the rank and file of its membership. Usually it
maintains that certain principles and policies should be adhered to in the operation of a government.
Theoretically, the ultimate objective of a party is to secure adoption of its programmes for governmental action,
whereas the placement of its members in key governmental positions is merely an essential means to this end.
In practice it sometimes seems as if the programme is the secondary rather than the primary objective.
Generally speaking, however, one of the factors accounting for the origin and survival of a party is some degree
of consensus among its members concerning the general way in which the powers of government ought to be
exercised. As might be expected, parties differ in regard to the unity of purpose within their convictions on
questions of principle and policy. Some parties are far doctrinaire than others.
Since political parties strive to attain control of the machinery of government, their programmes
usually are broad enough to cover the entire area of governmental activity. A party which confines its policy
proposals to but one or two matters, such as the farm problem and/or management-labour relations, is unlikely
to be entrusted with governmental responsibilities. Even a party which is primarily interested in one objective,
e.g., a Prohibition Party, finds it expedient to devise some sort of a programme for dealing with other issues of
concern to the general public.
Two other common characteristics of political parties are organization and durability. Organized
effort is necessary to the attainment of both the immediate and the ultimate objectives of a party. Without some
sort of organization, parties stand little chance of winning control of the government and of directing its
activities along desired lines. As for durability, the founders of parties intend that they will continue in existence
indefinitely. Contrary to the expectations of their original sponsors, some of them may perish after a
comparatively a short lapse of time, but many of them cling tenaciously to life and survive for many years, often
for a generation or longer.
An association may fall outside the “political parties” category even though the sole reason for its
existence is the exertion of influence in the field of government. Examples are the many taxpayers‟ leagues and
the League of Women Voters in the United States of America. An association of this type may provide its
members with information concerning governmental problems, conduct discussion groups, endorse the
candidates of various persons for elective offices, take a definite stand on some or all of the issues of the day,
and bring pressure to bear on public officials in behalf of some policy or some change in governmental practice.
But until it regularly engages in a concerted effort to attain mastery of the government by installation of its
members in key positions, it falls short of being a political party. The same observation holds true for many
other associations, among them labour unions, manufacturers‟ associations, and associations of veterans, which
refrain from nominating their own members as candidates for public office but commonly press for the

DOI: 10.9790/1684-130407140152 www.iosrjournals.org 141 | Page

 Political Parties

enactment of legislation favourable to their interests and often openly support or oppose the candidates and
programmes of particular political parties.

3.4 Varieties of political parties

Political parties differ in the nature of their membership and in the character of the established relations
between their leaders and the bulk of their members. These matters have an important bearing on the way in
which particular parties function. Many parties, particularly, those which develop in countries with democratic
political institutions, are composed of persons of all descriptions who join a party for whatever reasons seem
adequate to them. They may be attracted by its leaders and by its programmes, or they may adhere to it because
of a family tradition or because of some equally irrational consideration. Whether it is easy or difficult to
become a member of a party of this type depends on the party and/or on existing legislation, if any, pertaining to
parties.
The requirements for membership in the Republic and Democratic parties of the United States of
America are so easily met that all practical purposes a person becomes a member merely by declaring
himself/herself to be one. In some of the 48 states of this country registration as a party member with
designated public officials is sufficient; in others an individual claiming to belong to a particular party is
required by law, if his claim be challenged, to take an oath to the effect that he has supported and intends to
support the party‟s candidates at elections.
Becoming a member of some parties is not so simple a matter. Applications for membership
sometimes are necessary; admission may depend on evidence of belief in the party‟s doctrines and programme;
and there may be a dues-paying requirement. Communist and many socialist parties, among others, deal with
the membership problem along the lines. Parties which pursue a policy of selective membership are usually
those which lay great stress on doctrinal matters.
The parties referred to in the preceding paragraphs exist outside the government in as much as their
membership is not confined to office-holders. In fact, the bulk of their members never hold office. If these
parties are successful in their efforts to obtain seats in the legislature and to place their members in other
governmental positions, they have a representation within the government – and that being the case, the party
organization within the government ordinarily is distinguishable from that outside. Thus the members of a
particular party in a legislative body may function through a machinery which might include a party conference
or caucus, a committee on policy, a committee on committees, and a party floor leader, whereas the party
organization outside the government might consist of a convention of delegates meeting at periodic intervals, a
central executive committee, various officers such as the national chairman, the secretary, and the treasurer,
and officers or committees of a regional or local type. The details of organization vary with the party and the
country in which it operates. One of the major challenges to be solved by every such party is the relationship
between its leaders outside and inside the government. To what extent should partisans within the government
who are public officers as well as party members be bound by decisions reached through party organs
established outside the government? Practice varies in regard to this issue which will be given in subsequent
consideration.
Another type of party is one with a membership consisting entirely or for the most part of persons
holding governmental positions, especially in the legislative branch. It may have its supporters outside the
government but it makes no effort to extend its organization to include these outsiders within its ranks. This
variety of party amounts to a group of public officials who are in general as to the policies which the
government should pursue and who join hands regularly in sponsoring or opposing programmes of
governmental action. Such a party, especially in a country operating under the cabinet-parliamentary system,
may gain sufficient strength to form a cabinet or to share in the formation of a coalition cabinet. Parties of this
kind are essentially legislative parties, that is, associations of like-minded members within the legislature. The
Whigs and Tories of eighteenth-century Great Britain were parties of this nature, as are some of the parties of
contemporary France and other countries.
From the standpoint of the established relationship between leaders and the general membership of a
party, two basic types of party are identifiable. There are centralized and decentralized varieties. A centralized
party is one which is organized and operates in such a way that its national leaders are dominant in the
determination of party policy, in the control of the party‟s activities, and in the selection of party‟s candidates,
especially for elective positions in the national government of the country. Party discipline is maintained to an
extent sufficient to discourage partisans from refusing to follow the leadership of the party‟s recognized leaders.
A member of a centralized and well-disciplined party, if elected to a seat in the legislature, finds it expedient to
vote for or against bills in accordance with the wishes of the party leaders, regardless of his personal
convictions. His constituents generally expect him to do so. In a centralized party, too, the established leaders
usually control the party organization both inside and outside the government. Examples of centralized parties
are the Conservative Party of Great Britain and the Communist Party in whatever countries it is to be found.

DOI: 10.9790/1684-130407140152 www.iosrjournals.org 142 | Page

 Political Parties

A decentralized party is characterized by lack of unified and effective national leadership, by the
weakness of party discipline, and by the resultant freedom of action of party members who attain seats in the
legislature. The most powerful and influential partisans are the leaders of the local organizations which function
under the national party label. Such a party is a loose federation of factions of a regional or local nature. The
Republican and Democratic Parties of the United States of America are of this type. In each of these parties,
organizations in the states, in the cities, and in the counties wield the greatest influence in the selection of
candidates and in the conduct of party activities. The President of the United States of America is the nominal
leader of his/her party but the effectiveness of his/her leadership varies with the man/woman and the times.
Even the strongest Presidents must win and retain the support of the leading members of their party in the
Senate and the House of Representatives – something which is difficult of achievement because Congressmen
are ever mindful of the fact that their chances of re-nomination and of re-election depend on primarily on their
standing with the state and local party organizations. As for the party out of power, it lacks even a nominal
leader, but its defeated aspirant for the Presidency sometimes functions as its most prominent spokesman. A
decentralized party, since it usually is unable to develop a unified leadership and maintain effective discipline
over its members, experiences difficulty in presenting a unified front to the public.

3.5 The functions of political parties

Political parties perform a variety of functions which are of primary significance in the process of
government. The nature of their services is affected by the character of the political environment in which they
operate. Under authoritarian regimes the functions of parties usually differ from those which are discharged in
countries with democratic or partially democratic political institutions. Considerations will be given first to the
normal activities of parties in a democracy.
One of the most important functions of parties is to nominate candidates for elective public offices.
Parties almost always can be depended upon to provide nominees for whatever positions are to be filled by
popular vote. Moreover, they commonly make recommendations which carry weight with governmental
authorities empowered to select the appointive personnel in the various branches of the public service. Poor as
the record of some parties has been in the personnel field, it is unlikely that other associations would do better if
they undertook the task of furnishing manpower for governments under the same conditions and on as large a
scale as parties do. Parties can be counted on to see to it that the supply of persons willing to render public
service is at least as great as the demand.
Parties also assume the responsibility of giving continuous thought to governmental problems and of
proposing ways of solving them. Of course, numerous other associations do the same sort of thing, but as a rule
they concentrate on problems in which they have a peculiar interest instead of covering the entire field of
governmental activity. Parties specialize in the development of over-all programmes of governmental action.
A related service of parties is to enable people who are in general agreement concerning desirable
public policy to work together effectively to bring about adoption of the programme which they favour. A party
that gains control of government is in a position to take positive action; one which is presented in the legislature,
even though not in command of that body, nevertheless may exert influence in the formulation of policy; and
every party has the opportunity to cultivate public opinion in support of its objectives. Parties can accomplish
what individuals acting alone are unable to achieve.
Another function of parties is to provide the people with information concerning public affairs,
candidates, and the particular issues involved in elections. Their educational activities are carried on in various
ways, for example through speeches from the platform and over the radio, by the publication and distribution of
literature of one description or another, and by the house-to-house canvassing of voters. Although parties, as
“educators,” usually show bias, their “pupils” are at least exposed to a variety of points of view. Moreover,
popular interest in government affairs is stimulated by competition among parties in their efforts to indoctrinate
and to inform the voting public. In conducting election campaigns and preparing for them, parties perform a
function which involves various activities, besides endeavouring to sell their candidates and their programme to
the electorate, party workers are instrumental in persuading individuals to register for voting and in getting out
the vote at election time. They serve as watchers at the polls to look out for the interests of their parties in
connection with the administration of elections; they provide transportation of voters; and they instruct voters in
regard to the mechanics of voting.
Parties perform various helpful services for individuals and for groups. They keep the government
informed as to what the people in general desire. A person who has a problem involving dealings with public
authorities may obtain assistance from party members at the seat of government or he may be aided by local
party leaders who are only too glad to win the gratitude of voters and possibly their votes. Intercession with
officials in behalf of pressure groups and of various seekers of special privilege often occurs – sometimes to the
detriment of the interests of the public. In the hope of winning voter support, parties are also likely to engage in

DOI: 10.9790/1684-130407140152 www.iosrjournals.org 143 | Page

 Political Parties

a certain amount of charitable work for the underprivileged, for example, providing food and clothing for the
poor.
Last but not least, parties discharge two other functions. The party or coalition of parties in power
undertakes the tasks of directing the government and bears the responsibility for the results achieved. Parties
which are not in control of the machinery of government keep a watchful eye on what is being done and serve as
critics of the party in power. The “outs” are ever ready to point out the errors and the sins of the “ins” and the
fact that the party or group of parties which is operating the government is under the constant surveillance of an
“opposition” tends to prevent abuses and misuses of governmental authority.
The foregoing account of party functions applies primarily in democratically organized bodies politic.
In countries with authoritarian systems involving some concessions to democratic principles, parties carry on
similar activities provided that competition for election to some sort of a representative assembly is permitted
and provided also that this assembly‟s role in the governmental process is not too insignificant. They cannot, of
course, acquire full control over the government as parties in a democracy. Under the one-party authoritarian
systems, the single party dominates the government. Its leaders use it to maintain themselves in power, to
indoctrinate the people, and to detect and suppress any opposition which may arise. It carries on propaganda
activities and even participates in the functioning of private associations to whatever extent may be necessary to
keep the latter in line with programme of the party and government. If there are elections of some type, for
example, the popular election of the members of national, regional, and local soviets in Russia, the party
controls the nomination of candidates and conducts a campaign to assure an election outcome favourable to the
party and its leaders. The single parties of thoroughly authoritarian regimes are instrumentalities for keeping the
masses in subjugation instead of being voluntary associations of the people in the purpose of maintaining
popular control over the government.

3.6 The character of party organizations

The ways in which parties are organized depend on a number of influencing factors. In some countries,
for instance, the United States, governmental regulation of parties accounts for certain features of organization
in as much as parties, like individuals, are obliged to conform to the laws of the land. In the absence of
controlling legislation, each party is free to develop whatever type of organization it deems suitable. The
character of organization is affected by a party’s objectives, by the composition of its membership, by the
ingenuity of its leaders, by its financial resources, and by the political environment in which it operates.
Among other influential factors are the number and nature of elective positions, the methods for election, the
size of electoral districts, the frequency of elections, and the nature of the governmental system. Despite
extensive variations in detail, parties in general resemble one another with respect to a number of
organizational features.
Parties usually make use of two kinds of organs, namely, permanent and temporary. Examples of
permanent agencies for party action are executive committees, party chairmen, district leaders, central
offices, and such party officials as treasurers and secretaries. The temporary variety is exemplified by
conventions, conferences, and caucuses. These agencies are temporary in the sense that they are brought into
being occasionally, discharge the functions assigned them, and then disband.
Temporary organs such as conventions or conferences usually deal with questions of party policy,
decide on the stand which the party will take in regard to public issues of the day, and select the members of
party committees as well as a number of other party officials. In some jurisdictions they also nominate the
party‟s candidates for various elective positions. A type of temporary party agency widely employed in the
United States of America for nominating purposes and for the selection of committee members and convention
delegates is the direct primary. This primary is an election conducted under governmental supervision and
participated in by the members of a party.
Permanent organs engage in a variety of activities. Their members usually furnish the leadership
which is required for the proper function of the temporary agencies. They also direct and conduct election
campaigns, raise funds for the party, distribute literature, arrange for meetings and speeches, and do the
field work that is necessary to strengthen the party and to enable it to meet with success at the polls. These
agencies maintain close contact with the voters and “get out the vote” on Election Day. In many countries
they also perform the function of nominating candidates.
Another common feature of party organizations is the establishment of regional and local as well as
central agencies. Usually, both temporary and permanent organs, especially the latter, are utilized in political
subdivisions and in electoral districts. The extent of this practice depends on various factors, among them the
methods of electing national officials, the nature of a country’s system of local government, and the
variety of party. Arrangements differ in regard to the character of the relations between the party organs
functioning at different geographical levels. In some parties the central organs are dominant, whereas in others
regional and/local agencies over-shadow the central ones in importance. The most elaborate organizations

DOI: 10.9790/1684-130407140152 www.iosrjournals.org 144 | Page

 Political Parties

including central, regional, and local organs are maintained by parties have little or no organizations of any
kind except that which their members employ for the purpose of collaboration in the promotion of desired
policies. However, individual members of these parties, if holding seats in an elective legislature, are likely to
have developed a sort of personal organizations among their supporters in the constituency from which they
have been elected and in which they seek re-election from time to time.
In view of the diversities in party organization from country to country and even among parties within
a particular body politic, brief descriptions of the organizations of a few parties are given. Those selected for
this purpose are the Democratic and Republican Parties of the Unites States, the Conservative and Labour
Parties of Great Britain, and the Communist Parties of Russia, China and Cuba.

3.6.1 The Democratic and Republican Parties

The organizations of the Democratic and Republican Parties are sufficiently alike to be selected
delegates every four years for the primary purpose of nominating candidates for the presidency and vice-
presidency and of adopting a party platform. This convention nominally selects the members of a national
committee and a national chairman. The latter actually is chosen by the presidential nominee and the
committee members are nominated by the state delegations to the convention in conformity with state
legislation, if any, stipulating the mode of choice or in accordance with instructions of the state party
organizations. Permanent headquarters are maintained by the national committee of each party, but this
committee is most active in the years when a president is to be elected. It is an agency which meets
infrequently and plays a comparatively minor role in developing party organizations and discipline. The
chairman manages the presidential campaign but thereafter his significance ordinarily declines unless his
party wins the presidency. In that case he/she usually becomes the chief dispenser of patronage at the disposal
of the president. Two other committees at the national level are maintained by the members of each party in the
Senate and the House of Representatives. These are the senatorial and the congressional campaign
committees.
Greatly, overshadowing the national agencies in importance are the state and local organs of the
parties. Each party maintains a state central committee, a state chairman, and various sub-committees and
officers. Practice varies in regard to the method of selecting the members of the central committee. The central
committee usually selects the state chairman. State conventions no longer possess the significance they once
had. In a few states they nominate candidates for various state offices, but their principal function in most
jurisdictions is to prepare the state party platform and to select certain party officials.
In all, or practically all, of the minor political subdivisions and electoral districts of every state, party
committees are to be found. The most important of these usually are the county committees and the central
committees in the larger cities. Each of these committees has a chairman whose political responsibilities and
influence are likely to be great. Local conventions are held in some jurisdictions but their functions are of minor
significance except in the comparatively few instances in which they name candidates for certain elective
offices. Cities are commonly divided into wards and ward committees and their chairmen play an important role
in election campaigns and in building up party strength in the intervals between elections.
At the base of the party organizations is the precinct leader, captain, or committeeman as he is
variously known. Sometimes there is a precinct committee. The success of a party at the polls depends in large
measure on the proficiency of its precinct leaders. A good precinct committeeman is on the job every day in the
year doing whatever he can to win support for his party in his district. His rating as a leader is determined by
his ability to “deliver the vote” on Election Day, particularly in primary elections.
The organization of the Democratic and Republican Parties lacks the integration from the standpoint
of control relationships between the different levels of committees, chairmen, and other party agencies.
Generally speaking, each set of organs in what appears to be a structural hierarchy functions with a substantial
degree of autonomy except for in so far as it depends on the national and state organs for financial assistance,
for a sharing of patronage, and for general guidance in the conduction of national and state elections campaigns.
There is no line of authoritative control running downward from the national party officials, through the state
committees, and to the numerous local committees. Nor do authoritative controls run upwards. The state and
local organizations are quite powerful and on the whole self-controlling and self-sufficient in their operations.
The weakest agencies are found at the national level.

3.6.2 The Conservative and Labour Parties of Great Britain

3.6.2.1 The Conservative Party
The British Conservative Party is organized in such a way that its national agencies are dominant.
Supreme authority within the party is wielded by the national party leader who becomes prime minister when
the Conservatives control the House of Commons.

DOI: 10.9790/1684-130407140152 www.iosrjournals.org 145 | Page

 Political Parties

The local organization of the Conservative Party includes constituency organizations and regional
organizations. A constituency organization consists of an association of the Conservative Party members in a
district which elects a member of the House of Commons. This association, which usually maintains branches
in wards and polling districts, functions through meetings, councils, committees of various kinds, and such
officials as a chairman, vice-chairman, treasurer, and secretary. Its most powerful organ is a small executive
committee which takes the initiative in selecting a parliamentary candidate and in conducting election
campaigns. A local organization which can afford to do so – and most of them have the necessary resources –
employs an agent whose principal responsibility is to build up an effective organization between elections, to
direct the work of campaigning when an election occurs, and to act as secretary of the association. The agent has
been trained for this task by the Conservative Party.
In the regions (12) into which the Conservative Party has divided the country, the regional
organization consists of an annual council composed of representatives of the constituency associations, an
executive committee, and a regional chairman. The secretary of the council is an agent of the Party‟s Central
Office. Regional organizations engage in such activities as conducting educational programmes, establishing
youth organizations, and raising funds.
The various local organizations are combined in a National Union of Conservative and Unionist
Associations. This Union holds an annual Conservative Conference attended by representatives of the
constituency and regional organizations. At this conference party principles and policies are discussed,
resolutions passed, and address presented by the party‟s leaders in Parliament. Its primary function is advisory
and to serve as a clearing house of party opinion.
The Union maintains a Central Council which is large in size, meets twice a year, and is nominally the
governing body of the Union; an Executive Committee which is responsible to the Council; and a Central
Office. Of these agencies, the last-mentioned is of major importance. The other two serve the principal purpose
of maintaining an effective contact between the Conservative Party‟s Leader and its component local
organizations.
The Central Office is located in London. It plays a significant party in the functioning of the
Conservative Party. Among its activities are the handling of publicity and propaganda, the preparation of lists of
recommended candidates, the training of the agents who are employed by the local organizations, and the
raising of money. It also concerns itself with the organization of local party groups and with the development of
an efficient party organization. This Central Office is controlled by the Party Leader who appoints its
Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Treasurer. The Chairman selects the General Director of the Office.
The Leader of the Conservative Party is named by a gathering composed of the Conservative
members of Parliament, Conservative candidates for the House of Commons, and the members of the Union
Executive Committee referred to above. He is chosen for an indefinite period of service. The Leader is
extremely powerful. He is a national figure who dominates the determination of party policy and exerts effective
control over the party‟s national and local organs. The Central Office responds to his desires and unless this
Office approves of the contemplated candidates of the local constituency associations the Leader‟s official letter
of support will be withheld. Authority in the Conservative Party runs downward from the Leader to the
local organizations.

3.6.2.2 The Labour Party

The British Labour Party, like the Conservative, is featured by an integration of authority and the
maintenance of effective discipline. Its organization resembles that of the Conservative Party in many respects
but there are a number of significant differences.
The Labour Party is a federation of a variety of associations, viz., trade unions; various socialist
and professional societies; producers‟ and consumers‟ cooperatives; and local and regional party organizations.
Its Conference, which meets annually and occasionally oftener, is composed of the representatives of these
associations, the Labour members of Parliament, the endorsed candidates of the Party, and its secretary. The
representation of the associations is proportional to their size. Ultimate control of the party is vested in this
Conference which decided upon the party‟s policies and program, directs and regulates its activities, appoints
the powerful National Executive Committee, the party secretary, and the party treasurer, and maintains a Central
Office in London.
The National Executive Committee is charged with the duty of executing the decisions and orders of
the Conference and with the general management of party affairs. It may expel persons from party membership
and terminate the affiliation of organizations which violate the constitution and by-laws of the party. One of its
specific responsibilities is direction of the Central Office which carries on the same kind of activities as the like
office of the Conservative Party. Moreover, all Labour candidates for the House of Commons must meet with its
approval. This Executive Committee, although in theory simply the agent of the Conference, really exerts a
dominant influence over that body. The membership of the committee consists of representatives of the various

DOI: 10.9790/1684-130407140152 www.iosrjournals.org 146 | Page

 Political Parties

associations comprising the party, five women members, and the treasurer, the secretary, and the leader of the
Parliamentary Labour Party as ex officio members.
The Leader of the Labour Party is chosen by the Labour members of Parliament, i.e., the
Parliamentary Labour Party. Unlike the Conservative Leader, he is not the possessor of supreme authority
within the organization of the Labour Party. Nevertheless, his influence and that of other leading Labourites in
Parliament over the regular party organs is substantial. Apparently the Parliamentary Labour Party and its
Leader are not bound to abide by directives of the Party‟s Conference and Executive Committee even though the
later are recognized as having the right to be consulted and to make recommendation. If these recommendations
were binding on members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, their obligations to the party would be placed
above their duties to the general public as holder of governmental offices.
At the local level, the Labour Party’s organization includes the constituency labour parties and
regional or area federations of the constituency parties. The membership of a constituency party consists of
unattached individuals who have joined the party and of the members of local branches of the trade unions, the
socialist and professional societies, and the cooperatives that are affiliated members of the national party. These
local organizations have their councils, committees, and officers. An increasingly large proportion of them
employ the services of a trained agent who performs the same functions as the trained agents of the
Conservative Party. The Labour Party‟s Central Office, which arranges for the training of agents, exercises
considerable control over their geographical distribution and over their activities.
Probably the most noteworthy features of the Conservative and Labour Parties are (1) the concentration
of controlling authority in their national organs, (2) the maintenance of effective party discipline, and (3) the
extent to which they make use of trained agents as permanent party organizers and campaign managers in the
constituency and regional organizations. The Labour Party exerts greater control over its constituency
associations and maintains a stricter discipline over its members than does the Conservative Party. However,
unlike the former party, the Conservatives have bestowed upon the leader of the Parliamentary Conservative
Party supreme control over the party organization outside the government. The Central Offices of both parties
play a vital part in the direction of campaign activities, in the selection of candidates, and in the development
and maintenance of an effective party organization.

3.6.3 The Communist Party

The Communist Party of Russia affords an outstanding example of a highly integrated and extremely
well-disciplined party. Authority runs downward from the top and responsibility upward from the bottom. As
the rules of the party provide, the decisions of the higher organs are absolutely binding on the lower organs and
on all party members.
At the base of the party structure are “primary party organizations” which are established in villages,
factories, plants, collective farms, machine-tractor stations, educational institutions, units of the army and the
navy, and similar groups. A minimum of at least three party members is required for the creation of a primary
organization. The principal organs of a primary unit are the “general meeting” of its members, an executive
committee or bureau which guides the operations of the unit, and a secretary. These primary organizations carry
on agitational and organizational work among the masses, attract and train new members, and carry out the
directions of higher party authorities in regard to party as established through the governmental agencies of the
country.
Above the primary organizations are those of the cities and of urban or rural districts. In these areas the
party functions through a conference composed of delegates elected by the primary units, an executive
committee and an inspection commission chosen by the conference, and a bureau including several secretaries
which is selected by the executive committee.
At the next higher level are the party organizations of regions into which the larger republics,
territories, and provinces of the Russia are divided. Each region has its conference, executive committee, and
bureau of the executive committee including secretaries. The conference is composed of delegates chosen by the
city and district conferences.
Above these regional organizations are the party agencies of provinces, terrorists, and republics. In
each of these jurisdictions, with the exception of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, there is either
a congress or a conference consisting of delegates selected by the conferences of the party organization units
immediately below, viz., regional, city, or district conferences. The congress or conference chooses the
members of a central committee and of an inspection commission; the central committee appoints an executive
bureau including a number of secretaries. Delegates to the ALL-Union Congress of the Communist Party are
elected by the congresses or conferences of the republics, territories, and provinces.
At the apex of the pyramidal structure of the Communist Party is the All-Union Congress which is
supposed to be convened at least once every four years. It is a large and unwieldy body that theoretically
functions as the supreme authority of the party. This Congress selects the members of the Central Committee

DOI: 10.9790/1684-130407140152 www.iosrjournals.org 147 | Page

 Political Parties

and of a Central Inspection Commission. The latter commission inspects the functioning of the various central
agencies of the party. The Central Committee serves as the executive organ of the Congress and discharges its
responsibilities through a variety of agencies of which the most important are the Secretariat, the Party Control
Committee, and the Presidium.
The Secretariat operates the elaborate headquarters of the Communist Party in Moscow. It consists of a
number of secretaries in charge of an organization which includes various sections and bureaus that perform the
function of directing, supervising, and checking on both party and governmental operations. The Party Control
Committee is an agency which keeps a watchful eye on party members and candidates to detect and to deal in a
disciplinary way with deviations from party line and with cases of disloyalty to the party.
The Presidium was substituted in 1952 for the former Politburo of the Central Committee. Its size
varies. Of all the organs of the Party the Presidium is by far the most important for both governmental authority
and party of the Soviet Union. The leader of the Communist Party, if there be one comparable to such former
leaders as Lenin and Stalin, probably dominates the functioning of the Presidium.
The Communist Party structures, policies and principles of Russia best resemblances to those of
Communist and Socialist parties of China and Cuba notable examples of world, communism and socialism.
As the foregoing sketches of the party organization in the United States, Great Britain, and the Russia
indicate, the detailed structure of parties varies considerably and the manner of their operations even more.
Formal structural arrangements sometimes are misleading because at any given time the centre of power within
a party may be located in a boss, a leader, or a group of partisans who may not even hold party offices.
Nevertheless, the formal party organization always is a significant factor in determining the way in which a
party functions. All other things being equal, a well-organized party is more likely to be successful in attaining
its objectives than one which suffers from organizational weaknesses.

3.7 Party systems

By a party system is meant the general pattern of party life within a body politic as determined by the
degree of freedom to organize parties, and by their comparative strength. Party systems may be classified as: (1)
closed or open and (2) single-party, two-party, or (3) multiple-party systems.

3.7.1 Closed Systems:

A closed system is one which is characterized by denial of unlimited freedom of association for
political purposes. The number and the nature of the parties which may be organized is restricted by law, by
decree, or by some equally effective means. Closed systems are very likely to be single-party affairs, but
occasionally a system of this type is featured by the existence of two or more „approved‟ parties. Typically,
however, under a closed system, one party enjoys a legal monopoly in the matter of organized political action
and therefore is politically dominant. This single party closed system has been a feature of such twentieth-
century regimes as those of the former Soviet Union, National Socialist German, and Fascist Italy. It is an
arrangement that is inconsistent with the principles of modern democracy.

3.7.2 Open systems:

Open party systems are founded on a condition of free competition among as many parties as groups of
individuals within the body politic care to organize. Although the legal requirements for recognition as a party
sometimes may be difficult to fulfill, a system qualifies as „open‟ as long as the right to organize and to attain
party status by meeting minimum standards remains unrestricted by stipulations demanding adherence to
designated doctrines and policies. Depending on the number and relative strength of parties over an
extended period of time, open system are classifiable as one-party, two-party, and multiple-party systems.

3.7.3 One –Party Systems:

An open system of the one-party variety exists in those jurisdictions in which a particular party is so
much stronger than any of its nominal competitors that it almost invariably is successful in winning control of
the government. Any defeat administered to it at the pollsis an abnormal occurrence. This kind of system is
found in the southern states of the United States and in a number of states in other parts of the country. The
Democratic Party‟s monopoly of victories in such states as Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi is matched by the
repeated conquests of the Republican Party in Maine and Vermont. The continued dominance of a single party
is due to political circumstances rather than to denial of the right of political association. Other parties are
simply too weak in terms of their voting strength to offer significant competition for control of government.
Most 20th century African parties of Angola, Mozambique, Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania, Sudan, Zimbabwe and
Zaire were on party systems.

DOI: 10.9790/1684-130407140152 www.iosrjournals.org 148 | Page

 Political Parties

3.7.4 Two-Party Systems:

The earmark of a two-party system is their existence of two major parties which are so strongly
supported that one or the other ordinarily emerges as the victor in elections and consequently gains mastery of
the government. Although one of these parties may win a series of victories, its chief competitors always is the
running and sooner or later manages to defeat its opponent. There usually are minor parties in addition to the
two principal contestants, but none of them is strong enough to present a serious challenge to the two parties
which dominate the political scene. These minor parties are not without influence in the political live of the
jurisdiction within which they operate. They may win occasional local victories and gain seats in the legislature,
but their principal contribution is such continuous agitation for particular policies that in time one of the major
parties is likely to adopt one or more of their proposals, provided that it has become politically expedient to do
so.
Great Britain and the United States are among the comparatively few countries with two-party systems.
The two major parties in Britain are the Conservatives and the Laborites. Throughout the greater part of the
nineteenth century the Liberals and the Conservatives were the principal parties, but as a result of the decline of
the Liberal Party following the termination of World War I and the rapidly growing strength of the Labour
Party, the status of the Liberals now is that of a minor party. For a time in the early 1920s Britain had three
rather than two major parties. However, this situation proved to be no more than a temporary interlude in the
political life of the country.
Since the middle of the nineteenth century the two major parties in the United States have been the
Republican and the Democratic. Various minor parties have come and gone without displacing either of the two
principal contestants. Both the Democratic and the Republican Parties are loose federations of state and local
organizations and, as national parties, are characterized by decentralized organization and lack of discipline.
Members of both parties in Congress frequently vote in disregard of party lines; there are important factions
within each party; and agricultural, labour, and other blocs composed of members of the two parties are to be
found in Congress. For these reasons it sometimes is asserted that the United States has a multiple party system
in disguise. This claim may be warranted if attention be confined to the party situation within the national
legislature, but it is difficult to uphold in regard to partisan behaviour outside the government. Neither the
factions nor the blocs strive to win control of the national government by nominating their own slates of
candidates and campaigning for the election. They function within the major but not compete against them.
Locally, a faction may dominate the organization of one of the parties in a state, county, or city. Even so, it
operates under a major party label. The existence of parties of the decentralized type is a condition that differs
from a situation characterized by the activity of a multiplicity of competing political parties.

3.7.5 Multiple-Party Systems:

Multiple-party systems are featured by the presence of a fairly large number of parties with compete
with one another on relatively equal terms. Several parties may be considerably in comparison with their minor
competitors, but they lack the strength of the major parties under a genuine two-party system. None of them is
regularly able to muster sufficient voting strength to capture control of government. Among the numerous
countries in Europe and elsewhere with multiple-party systems, the case of France probably is the best known
because of the international importance of France as one of the leading powers and because of the frequency
with which its coalition cabinets have been forced to resign. Due to increasing pressures for democratization in
many the 21st century many African countries were forced to accept multi-party systems for example Kenya,
Zimbabwe, Zambia Malawi, Angola, Mozambique, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Nigeria and so on.

3.7.6 Factors Accounting for type of Party System

Why some countries have a multiple rather than a two-party system, or vice versa, is a question which
is difficult to answer. Generalization is hazardous in view of the lack of sufficient number of exhaustive case
studies. The determining factors probably vary in number and nature from country to country.
In all likelihood much depends on the presence or absence of general agreement with respect to the
basic features of the prevailing social order in a particular body politic. If there be extensive disagreement
concerning “fundamental” matters, uncompromising attitudes are likely to lead to the organization of quite a
few parties – the number depending on the number of vital issues, on the variety of suggested remedies for the
asserted defects of the social order, and on how the people divide with respect to these issues and proposed
solutions. Thus the population of a country may be divided on such questions as democracy versus
authoritarianism, the proper relations between church and state, and capitalism versus some collectivistic
economy. Moreover, those who condemn some feature of the existing order of things may disagree vigorously
concerning the appropriate remedy. For instance, among the opponents of capitalism are advocates of socialism,
communism, guild socialism, syndicalism, or some other type of political-economic order. Unless these groups

DOI: 10.9790/1684-130407140152 www.iosrjournals.org 149 | Page

 Political Parties

eschew political action entirely, as was true of the nineteenth century French Syndicalists, they usually organize
separate political parties.
In countries in which consensus concerning fundamentals exists, dissident parties either fail to develop
or have too few supporters to be of political significance. This situation has prevailed in the United States for the
greater part of its political history, especially since the conclusion of the Civil War. For example, there never has
been a well –organized and strongly supported movement against democracy and in favour of some species of
authoritarianism. Nor has there been any significant effort to bring about departure from the universally
accepted principle of separation of church and state. Furthermore, opponents of capitalism have been too few in
number to cause the rise of powerful communistic or socialistic parties. The slavery and states‟ rights questions
pertained to “fundamentals” and the heated controversy over these issues caused the breaking up of the
Democratic Party at the time of the election of 1860, but this development proved to be temporary.
Issues other than those pertaining to the fundamentals features of a way of life also may give rise to
distinct political parties. Any division of opinion over ways and means as well as over basic principles and
objectives is likely to result in the organization of a party if the adherents of a particular policy feel strongly
enough about it to give it priority over all other considerations. Cases in point are prohibition parties, paper
money parties, and the abolitionist movements of the era preceding the Civil War in the United States. Whether
the rise of such parties results in a multiple-party system depends upon their ability to survive and on the extent
of the support which they are able to muster.
Apart from conflicting opinions concerning desirable ways of life or appropriate public policies and the
intensity of the convictions of those advocating one programme of action or another, there are other factors
which may have a bearing on the existence of a two-party rather than a multiple-party system, or vice-versa. To
what extent they account for the type of party system requires separate determination for each body politic.
One of these factors is political habit. If conditions happen to be such that only two parties come into
being at the time of origin of a party system, and if this situation continues for a fairly long time, the political
habit of supporting one or the other of two major parties may become so firmly established that minor parties
experience great difficulty in gaining enough adherents to become serious competitors. Similarly, the survival of
a multiple-party system may be attributable largely to political tradition.
Another factor may be the timing and the order of historical events. For instance, settlement of the
main outlines of Great Britain‟s constitutional system prior to the industrial revolution and the gradualism with
which the suffrage was broadened during the nineteenth century are suggested as having significant factors in
the retention of Britain‟s two-party system.
It sometimes is contended that two-party or multiple-party systems are attributable to the form of
government and to methods of election. However, the evidence in support of these contentions is too weak to
justify generalizations to this effect. Cabinet-parliamentary plans are to be found in both two-party and multiple-
party countries and the same observation holds true for the presidential-congressional type of government. Nor
is there any correlation between the unitary or federal character of a country‟s governmental system and the
number and comparatively strength of its political parties. As for methods of election, some bodies politic which
use the single choice-plurality method in choosing representatives from single member districts have a two-
party system, whereas others that use or have used the same method fall in the multiple party category. The
opponents of proportional representation, either of the list or of the single transferable vote varieties, contend
that its use promotes the creation and survival of a multiplicity of parties. As a matter of fact multiple party
systems have antedated the adoption of P.R. in various countries e.g., France, Italy, and Germany, and the
weight of evidence now available indicates that the establishment of P.R. usually is the effect rather than the
cause of the existence of a number of parties of comparatively equal strength. However, once P.R. is in use it
often encourages the development of splinter parties and thereby increases the number of parties under a given
multiple party system.
In some cases the structure of government and methods of election may be contributing factors in the
origin and survival of a party system of a certain type. The continued competition between two major parties in
the United States at the national level appears to be attributable in part to the requirement of an electoral college
majority for the selection of a President and also to the fact that not party can hope to gain control of Congress
unless its strength is sufficiently widespread throughout the United States to obtain pluralities in enough states
and congressional districts to elect a majority of Senators and Representatives as well as a majority of
Presidential electors. Realization of this fact on the part of politicians and voters probably has been a factor in
maintaining the strength of the two major parties and in preventing the growth of powerful third and fourth
parties. Various interest groups and voters that dislike both the Republicans and Democrats nevertheless give
their support to one or the other party because of the conviction that they stand a better chance of gaining their
objectives through membership in a party that control the government than by organizing as separate parties and
at best gaining a limited representation in the legislature.

DOI: 10.9790/1684-130407140152 www.iosrjournals.org 150 | Page

 Political Parties

The primary causes of the nature of a country‟s party system probably are the conditions under which
its people live, the character of the social, economic, and political situations which confront them, the diversity
and intensity of conflicting interests and beliefs, the temperament of the people, the political traditions and
habits which have developed in the course of time, and the timing and sequence of historical events. Each
country constitutes a special case and the major causative factors in one country are likely to differ from those in
another. Sweeping generalizations concerning the why and wherefore of different party systems are apt to be
erroneous.

3.7.7 Relative Merits of Two-Party and Multiple-party Systems

Opinion differs as to whether a two-party system if preferable to the multiple variety. An apparent
advantage of the former is that one party normally gains complete control of the government and therefore may
proceed to carry out its programme with a minimum of difficulty. Government is more stable and effective if a
single party, rather than a coalition of parties, is placed in charge of governmental operations. Major
compromises on questions of policy are reached within the two principal parties prior to election time and
afterwards as well. As a result the policy-determination process within the government takes place more
expeditiously and more smoothly than would be the case if compromises had to be worked out among many
minority parties in the legislature. Moreover, the single party in power can be held wholly responsible for results
by the voters who may shift their support to the other major party if dissatisfied with the way governmental
powers are exercised. Since one party operates the government and the other furnishes an apparently undivided
opposition, the electorate has a comparatively simple choice to make whenever election occur. Two
programmes, presumably different from each other, are offered the voters. Consequently issues are less
confused than if many parties are striving to sell their wares to the public.
From the voter‟s standpoint, a multiple party system is advantageous in as much as he is more likely to
find a party to which he can give whole-hearted support. He is not forced to make what may be his approval.
Under a two-party system he may, of course, have the opportunity to vote for some minor party, but he realizes
that a vote cast for such a party is really wasted because minor parties are hopelessly out of the running and
cannot gain control of the government. For this reason he is likely to cast a reluctant vote for one of the two
major parties.
Another point in favour of a multiple party system is that the inevitable compromises which are
involved in the determination of governmental policy take place somewhat openly within the legislature rather
that more or less obscurely within the parties. The fact that compromises occur is more apparent to the general
public if they are reached within instead of outside the legislature. Moreover, there may be less “behind the
scenes” lobbying on the part of pressure groups at the seat of government if major interest groups are organized
as parties and function as such under a multiple party system. It is observed that, the majority of African
political parties which were former liberation movements are reluctant to accept the existence of other political
parties for example, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique and to some extent Democratic Republic of Congo.

3.8 The importance of parties in a democracy

Consideration has been given to the functions which parties ordinarily perform. They specialize in
doing many things that need to be done in connection with the operation of governments.

(a) However, their existence is not essential under authoritarian systems. They may in fact be a menace to
the survival of authoritarianism and that is why freedom to organize them is likely to be denied or
severely curtailed. Authoritarian regimes usually tolerate only one party, if any, and that serves as an
instrument of the ruling oligarchy or of an autocratic leader.
(b) The importance of political parties in a democracy is especially great because without them effective
popular control of the government probably would be unattainable in politically organized communities of
any significant size. In the absence organized effort on the part of groups of like-mined voters it is unlikely
that public officials would be aware of or responsive to the desires of the people. The individual voter,
acting alone, stands little chance of exerting an influence on the formulation and adoption of governmental
policy. He is unable, as a rule, to make himself heard, and if heard, to obtain serious consideration for his
views. As an isolated individual he carries no weight, whereas if he associates himself with others in an
organization equipped to contend for control of the government and to press systematically for the adoption
of favoured policies, his efforts in the political field may very well prove fruitful. If his party and other
parties devote full attention to public affairs, the democratic ideal of responsible government for the benefit
of the general public is in large measure attainable.
(c) Political parties‟ endevour to mobilize majorities in support of their leaders and programmes. Their
sponsorship of policies and candidates promotes development of widespread backing for specific solutions
of social problems.

DOI: 10.9790/1684-130407140152 www.iosrjournals.org 151 | Page

 Political Parties

(d) Competition among them gives meaning to elections.

(e) The danger of parties to democracy lies in the subordination of public interest to considerations of party
survival and success. The practices of many parties often have been harmful from the standpoint of the
requirements of good government, for example, spoils systems, election frauds, or corrupt deals with
private interest. Unscrupulous politicians frequently have used parties to enrich themselves or to
satisfy a personal lust for power and this is most characteristic of most African political leaders.
(f) In the long run, however, these hazards are not particularly great as long as freedom to organize new
parties remains unrestricted and as long as free competition among parties survives – provided, of
course, that the people of a country are sufficiently intelligent and community-minded to discriminate
between parties that show concern for the public welfare and those that do not. In a community
which is tolerant of fraud, corruption, and graft, reprehensible conduct on the part of individuals and
groups would continue even if political parties were to disappear.

IV. Summary
It has been possible to define a political party as an aspect of political dynamics; explain the nature of
political parties; show their functions; / discuss the character of party organisations. As regards the
classification of political party systems, it has been interesting o differentiate broadly the following:
(a) Closed or open systems;
(b) Single or two party systems, or,
(c) Multiple – party systems.

Another classification roughly indicates:

 United States of America Republican and Democratic Parties;
 Great Britain‟s Conservative and
 Labour Parties;
 Communist Parties of Russia, China and Socialist Cuba; and
 African political party systems, generally transitional in nature, from authoritarian to quasi- authoritarian
and quasi-democratic with some communist socialist characteristics.

Lastly, it has become apparent that the existence of political parties is a menace to the survival of
authoritarianism and that is why freedom to organize them is likely to be denied or severely curtailed.
Authoritarian regimes usually tolerate only one political party, if any, and that serves as an instrument of the
ruling oligarchy or autocratic leaders and leadership.
The importance of political parties in a democracy is particularly great because without them effective
popular control of the government probably would be unattainable in politically organized communities of any
significant size. In the absence organized effort on the part of group of like-minded voters it is unlikely that
public officials would be aware of or responsible to the desires of the people.

Bibliography
[1]. S. D. Bailey, ed., Political Parties and the Party System in Britain (New York: Fredrick A. Praeger, 1956).
[2]. D. W. Brogan, An Introduction to American Politics, 3rd ed. (London: Blackwell‟s, 1954).
[3]. I. Bulmer-Thomas, The Party System in Great Britain (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1953).
[4]. H. Finer, Governments of Greater European Powers (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1956), pp. 58-97, 335 – 367, 853 – 888.
[5]. W. Goodman, The Two-Party System in the United States (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1956).
[6]. R. T. McKenzie, British Political Parties (London: Blackwell‟s 1954).
[7]. S. Neumann, ed., Modern Political Parties (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1956).
[8]. H. Pelling, The Origins of the Labour Party (New York: St. Martin‟s, 1954).
[9]. A. Ranney & W. Kendall, Democracy and the American Party System (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1955).
[10]. H. A. Turner, Politics in the United States (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1955), chap. vii.

DOI: 10.9790/1684-130407140152 www.iosrjournals.org 152 | Page