Party Dominance as a New Configuration of Political Leadership in a Postmodern Society

This article examines the transformation of political parties in the emerging postmodern era, characterized by a rejection of rigid ideological principles and a rethinking of modern-era institutions. Under these conditions, party dominance acquires particular significance as a form of political leadership capable of responding to the fragmentation of the social sphere and the redefinition of the very nature of power, which increasingly relies on mediatization and symbolic communication.

Purpose. The study aims to identify the factors that account for the emergence of party dominance in the postmodern context and to analyze the evolution of the ideological and organizational models of political parties dictated by the changed circumstances.

Methods. The research is based on a theoretical analysis of scholarly works devoted to postmodern transformations of society. The author employs a comparative method to analyze party dominance in Western and modernizing countries.

Scientific Novelty. The author offers a comprehensive view of the dominant party as an institutionalized strategy of political leadership, implying flexible ideological frameworks and the use of media resources. The novelty lies in interpreting the phenomenon of dominance through the prism of postmodern values: the rejection of rigid ideological boundaries, global mediatization, and the situational identity of voters.

Results. It is shown that it is precisely postmodernity, with its decentralized discursive practices and shifting social boundaries, that has created a unique environment for entrenching dominance as a stable form of party influence.

Conclusions. Party dominance performs an integrative function in conditions of postmodern fragmentation, ensuring social stability, reproducing value consensus, and minimizing conflicts. 

1. Anderson P. The Origins of Postmodernity / transl. from Eng. by A. Appolonov; ed. by M. Mayatsky. Moscow: Territoriya budushchego, 2011. (In Russ.).

2. Baudrillard J. Simulacra and Simulation / transl. from Fr. by A. Kachalov. Moscow: POSTUM Publishing House, 2015. (In Russ.).

3. Weber M. Selected Works / transl. from Germ.; comp., ed. and afterword by Yu. N. Davydov. Moscow: Progress, 1990. (In Russ.).

4. Giddens A. The Consequences of Modernity / transl. from Eng. by G. K. Olkhovikov, D. A. Kibalchich; introd. article by T. A. Dmitriev. Moscow: Praxis Publishing and Consulting Group, 2011. (In Russ.).

5. Jameson F. Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism / transl. from Eng. by D. Kralechkin; scientific ed. by A. Oleinikov. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House, 2019. (In Russ.).

6. Duverger M. Political Parties / transl. from Fr. Moscow: Akademichesky proyekt, 2000. (In Russ.).

7. Lyotard J.-F. The Postmodern Condition / transl. from Fr. by N. A. Shmatko. Moscow: Institute of Experimental Sociology; St. Petersburg: Aleteya, 1998. (In Russ.).

8. Mannheim K. Diagnosis of Our Time. Moscow: Yurist, 1994. (In Russ.).

9. Ostroverhov A. A. In Search of the Theory of One-Party Dominance: The Global Experience of Studying Dominant Party Systems (II) // Politeia. Analysis. Chronicle. Forecast [Politiya. Analiz. Khronika. Prognoz]. 2017. N 4 (87). P. 133–149. EDN UURBSS. (In Russ.).

10. Pavlov A. V. Post-Postmodernism: How Social and Cultural Theories Explain Our Time. Moscow: Delo Publishing House of RANEPA, 2019. EDN ZTKKNU. (In Russ.).

11. Streltsov D. V. Dominant Party Systems: Some Methodological Approaches to Research // Polis. Political Studies [Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya]. 2017. N 3. P. 105–118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.03.07. EDN YPDLWJ. (In Russ.).

12. Timofeeva L. N. Political Communicativistics: Global and Russian Projections // Political Science [Politicheskaya nauka]. 2016. N 2. P. 74–100. EDN WCJRHR. (In Russ.).

13. Habermas J. Political Works / comp. by A. V. Denezhkina; transl. from Germ. by B. M. Skuratov. Moscow: Praxis, 2005. (In Russ.).

14. Schwarzenberg R.-J. Political Sociology. Part 2 / transl. from Fr. Moscow, 1992. (In Russ.).

15. Arian A., Barnes S. The dominant party system: a neglected model of democratic stability // The Journal of Politics. 1974. Vol. 36. N 3. P. 592–614. DOI 10.2307/2129246.

16. Bauman Z. Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000.

17. Bogaards M., Boucek F. Dominant political parties and democracy: concepts, measures, cases and comparisons. London: Routledge, 2010. DOI 10.4324/9780203850114.

18. Carty R.K. The government party: political dominance in democracy (Comparative Politics). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2022. DOI 10.1093/oso/9780192858481.001.0001.

19. Dalton R. J. Citizen politics: public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies. New York: Chatham House, 2002.

20. Downs A. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper, 1957.

21. Foucault M. Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.

22. Greene F. The political economy of authoritarian single-party dominance // Comparative Political Studies. 2010. Vol. 43. N 7. P. 807–834. DOI 10.1177/0010414009332462.

23. Kirchheimer O. The transformation of the West European party system // Political parties and political development / eds. J. LaPalombara, M. Weiner. New Jersey: Princeton Univ. Press, 1966. P. 177–201. DOI 10.1515/9781400875337-007.

24. Lijphart A. Electoral systems and party systems: a study of twenty-seven democracies, 1945– 1990. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1994. DOI 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198273479.001.0001.

25. Magaloni B. Voting for autocracy: hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008. DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511510274.

26. Neumann S. Modern political parties: approaches to comparative politics. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1956.

27. Pedersen M.N. The dynamic of European party systems: changing patterns of electoral volatility // European Journal of Political Research. 1979. Vol. 7. N 1. P. 1–26. DOI 10.1111/j.1475-6765.1979.tb01267.x.

28. Pempel T. J. Uncommon democracies: the one-party dominant regimes. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1990. DOI 10.7591/9781501746161.

29. Puhle H.-J. Still the age of catch-allism? Volksparteien and parteienstaat in crisis and reequilibration // Political parties: old concepts and new challenges / eds. R. Gunther, J.R. Montero, J. J. Linz. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2002. P. 58–83. DOI 10.1093/0199246742.003.0003.

30. Reuter O. J. The origins of dominant parties: building authoritarian institutions in post-Soviet Russia. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017. DOI 10.1017/9781316761649.

31. Sharma C.K., Swenden W. Economic governance: does it make or break a dominant party equilibrium? The case of India // International Political Science Review. 2020. Vol. 41. N 3. P. 451–465. DOI 10.1177/0192512119866845.

32. Smith N.R., Slater D. The power of counterrevolution: contentious origins of dominant party durability in Asia and Africa // American Journal of Sociology. 2016. Vol. 121. N 5. P. 1472–1516. DOI 10.1086/684199.

33. Templeman K. A. The origins and decline of dominant party systems: Taiwan’s transition in comparative perspective. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan, 2012. (Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation).

34. The awkward embrace: one-party domination and democracy / eds. H. Giliomee, C. Simkins. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis, 1999. DOI 10.4324/9780203989647.

35. Ware A. Citizens, parties and the state: a reappraisal. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987.