Abstract
Juan Albarracín examines the range of political parties in Brazil. In this article, he discusses the most important and sometimes contradictory findings about Brazilian political parties, the party system itself and its development since 1985. First, he presents a portrait of the fragmentation, polarization, and institutionalization of the party system and then turns to the legal framework and the new developments since 2002. Albarracín questions the assumptions made about the deficient role of political parties in the Brazilian Congress as well as the stabilization of the party system for they were based on analyses that had been solely centered on the defects. He concludes that Brazilian parties have a different purpose and meaning within the political system than they do in Western Europe—but this does not mean that they are automatically deficient. This is clearly demonstrated by the stabilization of the party system and the position of the parties in Congress.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
These dimensions of the political party were introduced by Key (1942).
- 2.
The constant changes of party system can be attributed to both transformations in the political regime and the marginal importance of parties in the decision-making process within corporatist decision-making structures. Organized groups such as business people and labor unions had direct access to the state and did not require any indirect mediation through parties (Weyland, 1996: 5, see also Chap. 11).
- 3.
Tancredo Neves of the PMDB was indirectly elected president in 1985. He died before he could be sworn in. His vice-president, Jose Sarney, consequently took over as president.
- 4.
Data from Jairo Nicolau, Dados eleitorais do Brasil (1986–2006).
- 5.
Governismo is not an exclusive characteristic of the PMDB. Melo and Câmara (2012) suggest that at least three other parties (the PP, PTB and the PR) also display this tendency. See the end of this section for an explanation of the acronyms.
- 6.
It is important to note that Rousseff is neither an established politician within the PT (“party soldier”) nor a historical figure of the PT. She owed her nomination on the PT ticket to Lula, who intensively campaigned for her both within the party and during the general elections.
- 7.
The so-called Mensalão-Scandal is a clear case. In 2005 important members of the PT, including presidential chief of staff José Dirceu, were accused of making monthly payments to members of Congress from other parties in exchange for their support for the government’s proposals. Recently, the Brazilian Supreme Court condemned many high-ranking PT politicians for their involvement in the Mensalão.
- 8.
Information from Folha de São Paulo: “Confira o mapa dos governos estaduais eleitos este ano” (01/11/2010).
- 9.
Simply counting the number of parties represented in Congress or the number of parties that participate in an election does not indicate their relative importance (share of seats or votes). The effective number of parties provides the number of “relevant” parties in a party system, where relevance is determined by the number of seats or votes: The higher the fragmentation of a party system (according to Rae’s fragmentation index), the higher the effective number of parties. This index was proposed by Laakso and Taagepera (1979).
- 10.
The values of these measures for a two-party system can help to understand them: Rae’s fragmentation index is close to 0.5 and the effective number of parties is, naturally, very close to two.
- 11.
The highest level of fragmentation measured on the Rae index was reached in 1989 with 0.82. After this election, fragmentation in the first round of presidential elections was considerably reduced: 1994: 0.62; 1998: 0.61; 2002: 0.68; 2006: 0.59 (Santos, 2008: 67).
- 12.
Melo and Câmara (2012, see also Melo, 2010) introduce a path-dependent argument and characteristics of the PT and the PSDB to explain why these two parties became central in presidential elections. Both the 1989 and 1994 elections were critical events that established both parties (the PT in the former and the PSDB in the latter) as the focal parties of the left and center-right. Moreover, both parties had viable presidential candidates and formulated a clear national project/vision for Brazil.
- 13.
Hagopian et al. (2009) refer to this (macro) political cleavage around reform policies in the 1990s but do not restrict is structuring effect to presidential politics and suggest that it also affected politician’s behavior in Congress.
- 14.
Informe Latinobarometro 2011, p. 42. Available at: http://www.latinobarometro.org. Accessed 20/10/2014).
- 15.
Some scholars disagree with the assessment that the Brazilian party system has stabilized. Lucas and Samuels (2010) argue that the lack of ideological differentiation between parties hampers party system consolidation. Although Melo and Câmara (2012) disagree with Lucas and Samuels analysis, they present evidence showing that volatility in elections for the Chamber of Deputies measured at the state level is higher than the national average.
- 16.
Historically, regional parties were no rarity in Brazil. During the first Brazilian Republic (1889–1930) almost all states had a regional (hegemonic) party (Mainwaring, 1999: 264).
- 17.
A party has to present a certain amount of signatures, equivalent to 0.5 % of the valid votes of the previous election for the Chamber of Deputies in order to be recognized by the TSE as a party. These signatures have to be collected in at least one third of the states.
- 18.
For information about Brazilian electoral institutions, see Chap. 7.
- 19.
This regulation is known as verticalização (Nicolau, 2007: 101).
- 20.
Electoral campaigns are very expensive and are largely financed by private donations (Speck, 2005; Samuels, 2006b: 87, 95). According to the TSE, the three largest parties (measured ac-cording to the number of seats in the Chamber of Deputies) received in 2008 the following amounts: The PT received R$19,893,312.55, the PMDB around R$19,324,268.3 and DEM around R$14,562,240.3. The amounts for the smaller parties should also not be underestimated. See http://www.justicaeleitoral.jus.br/arquivos/tse-fundo-partidario-duodecimos-2008 (Accessed 08/16/2013).
- 21.
The HGPE begins 45 days before an election and is broadcasted three times per week (Nicolau, 2007: 103). The commercial value of the HGPE is R$2.4 billion, which is 20 times the value of the party fund and three times the value of all electoral campaign costs that are reported to the TSE (Speck, 2005: 146).
- 22.
The distribution of resources from the party fund was modified in January 2007 by the TSE and the smaller parties received more resources. In the same year the distribution was again changed by law in order to provide the larger parties with more resources (Fleischer, 2007: 339).
- 23.
An interesting example of this is the case of Fernando Collor. Before he was elected president he had changed party five times (Ames, Baker, & Renno, 2008: 110).
- 24.
According to the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, the party leaders set the agenda, are able to circumvent the discussion of legislative propels in the committees with requests for urgency and decide on the members of committees together with the chairperson of the chamber (Figueiredo & Limongi, 2000: 165; Santos & Vilarouca, 2008: 71.).
- 25.
The importance of informal rules is not only a characteristic of Brazilian parties and can be observed in other Latin American countries. Informal rules are also important, even in parties of advanced democracies. The difference lies in the preponderance of informal rules over formal arrangements (Friedenberg & Levitsky, 2006).
- 26.
Clientelistic networks arrange for the exchange of mostly private goods (such as money, food, etc.) for political support (usually votes).
- 27.
- 28.
The concept of the centralization of a party organization refers to the distribution of decision-making powers between the levels of the party organization (national, regional and local levels). The more decisions (de jure or de facto) that the regional or local level can make, the more decentralized the party organization. In contrast, the more the national level can involve itself in decisions taken at the regional or local level, the more centralized the party organization (Duverger, 1959: 70).
- 29.
It is important to differentiate between partisanship as “a psychological attachment to a particular party” (Samuels, 2006a: 1) and party membership.
- 30.
This number is much higher than the average of 20 European democracies (4.99 %) at the end of the 1990s (Mair & Van Biezen, 2003: 8–10). This high level of party membership in Brazil does not necessarily indicate that parties are rooted in society, since this figures do not indicate how actively involved these citizens are in their respective parties.
- 31.
Coalitional presidentialism is a term used widely both by political pundits and academics to characterize the political dynamics and/or institutional design of the Brazilian polity. Although several understandings of the term exist, one of its features is the need to form government coalitions to guarantee governability (Power, 2010). “The mishmash of parties in Lula’s cabinet” (Lucas & Samuels, 2010: 63), necessary to maintain governability, could affect the intelligibility of the system, as Lucas and Samuels suggest, and also the perception of voters about the responsiveness and transparency of the political system.
References
Ames, B. (2001). The deadlock of Brazilian democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ames, B. (2002). Party discipline in the chamber of deputies. In S. Morgenstern & B. Nacif (Eds.), Legislative politics in Latin America (pp. 185–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ames, B., & Power, T. (2007). Parties and governability in Brazil. In P. Webb & S. White (Eds.), Party politics in new democracies (pp. 179–212). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ames, B., Baker, A., & Renno, L. (2008). The quality of elections in Brazil: Policy, performance, pageantry or pork? In P. Kingstone & T. Power (Eds.), Democratic Brazil revisited (pp. 107–133). Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
Amorim Neto, O. (2002). The puzzle of party discipline in Brazil. Latin American Politics and Society, 44(1), 127–144.
Braga, M. S. S., & Pimentel, J. (2011). Os partidos políticos brasileiros realmente não importam? Opinião Publica, 17(2), 271–303.
Carreirão, Y., & Kinzo, M. D. (2004). Partidos Políticos, Preferência Partidaria e Decisão Eleitoral no Brasil (1989/2002). Dados, 47(1), 131–168.
Cintra, A., & Barroso, M. (2007). A Câmara dos Deputados na Nova República: a visão da Ciência Política. In L. Avelar & A. O. Cintra (Eds.), Sistema Político Brasileiro. Uma introdução. Rio de Janeiro/São Paulo: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung/Editora Unesp.
Desposato, S. (2006). Parties for rent? Ambition, ideology, and party switching in Brazil’s chamber of deputies. American Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 62–80.
Duverger, M. (1959). Die politischen Parteien. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
Figueiredo, A., & Limongi, F. (2000). Presidential power, legislative organization, and party behavior in Brazil. Comparative Politics, 32(2), 151–170.
Figueiredo, A., & Limongi, F. (2008). Política Orçamentaria no Presidencialismo de Coalizão. Rio de Janeiro: FGV Editora.
Fleischer, D. (2007). Os partidos políticos. In L. Avelar & A. O. Cintra (Eds.), Sistema Político Brasileiro. Uma introdução (pp. 303–348). Rio de Janeiro/São Paulo: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung/Editora Unesp.
Friedenberg, F., & Levitsky, S. (2006). Informal institutions and party organization in Latin America. In G. Helmke & S. Levitsky (Eds.), Informal institutions and democracy. Lessons from Latin America (pp. 178–197). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Guzmán, C. E., & de Oliveira, E. S. (2003). Brasil. In M. Alcantara & F. Freidenberg (Eds.), Partidos políticos de América Latina (pp. 117–242). Cono Sur, México D. F.: Fondo de Cultura Economica.
Hagopian, F. (1996). Traditional politics and regime change in Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hagopian, F., Gervasoni, C., & Moraes, J. A. (2009). From patronage to program. The emergence of party-oriented legislators in Brazil. Comparative Political Studies, 42(3), 360–391.
Hunter, W. (2008). The Partido dos Trabalhadores. Still a party of the left? In P. Kingstone & T. Power (Eds.), Democratic Brazil revisited (pp. 15–32). Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
Hunter, W. (2010). The transformation of the worker’s party in Brazil, 1989–2009. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Key, V. O. (1942). Politics, parties, and pressure groups. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Kinzo, M. D. (2005). Os partidos no eleitorado: percepções públicas e laços partidários no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, 57(20), 65–81.
Laakso, M., & Taagepera, R. (1979). The ‘effective’ number of parties: ‘A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Politics, 12(1), 3–27.
Limongi, F., & Cortez, R. (2010). As Eleições de 2010 e o Quadro Partidário. Novos Estudos, 88, 21–37.
Lucas, K., & Samuels, D. (2010). The ideological “coherence” of the Brazilian party system, 1990–2009. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 2(3), 39–69.
Machado, A. (2005). A lógica das coligações no Brasil. In S. Krause & R. Schmitt (Eds.), Partidos e coligações eleitorais no Brasil (pp. 43–83). São Paulo: Editora da Unesp.
Mainwaring, S. (1993). Presidentialism, multipartism and democracy. The difficult combination. Comparative Political Studies, 26(2), 198–228.
Mainwaring, S. (1995). Brazil: Weak parties, feckless democracy. In S. Mainwaring & T. Scully (Eds.), Building democratic institutions: Party systems in Latin America (pp. 354–398). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mainwaring, S. (1997). Multipartism, robust federalism, and presidentialism: The case of Brazil. In S. Mainwaring & M. Shugart (Eds.), Presidentialism and democracy in Latin America (pp. 55–109). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mainwaring, S. (1999). Rethinking party systems in the third wave of democratization (The case of Brazil). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mainwaring, S., & Scully, T. (1995). Party systems in Latin America. In S. Mainwaring & T. Scully (Eds.), Building democratic institutions: Party systems in Latin America (pp. 1–34). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mainwaring, S., & Torcal, M. (2005). La institucionalización de los sistemas de partidos y la teoría del sistema partidista después de la tercera ola democratizadora. América Latina Hoy, 41, 141–173.
Mair, P., & Van Biezen, I. (2003). Party membership in twenty European democracies, 1980–2000. Party Politics, 7(1), 5–21.
Melo, C. R. (2000). Partidos e Migração Partidária na Câmara dos Deputados. Dados, 43(2).
Melo, C. R. (2010). Eleições presidenciais, jogos aninhados e sistema partidario no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política, 4, 13–41.
Melo, C. R., & Câmara, R. (2012). Estructura da Competição pela Presidência e Consolidação do Sistema Partidário no Brasil. Dados, 55(1), 71–117.
Montero, A. (2010). No country for Leftists? Clientelist continuity and the 2006 vote in the Brazilian Northeast. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 2(2), 113–153.
Nicolau, J. (2007). O sistema eleitoral de lista aberta no Brasil. In J. Nicolau & T. Power (Eds.), Instituições representativas no Brasil. Balanço e reforma (pp. 97–122). Rio de Janeiro/Belo Horizonte: IUPERJ/Editora UFMG.
Pereira, C., & Mueller, B. (2003). Partidos Fracos na Arena Eleitoral e Partidos Fortes na Arena Legislativa: A Conexão Eleitoral no Brasil. Dados, 46(4), 735–771.
Power, T. (2010). Optimism, pessimism, and coalitional presidentialism: Debating the institutional design of Brazilian democracy. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 29(1), 18–33.
Power, T., & Zucco, C. (2009). Estimating ideology of Brazilian legislative parties, 1990–2005. A Research Communication. Latin American Research Review, 44(1), 218–246.
Samuels, D. (1999). Incentives to cultivate a party vote in candidate-centric electoral systems: Evidence from Brazil. Comparative Political Studies, 32(4), 487–518.
Samuels, D. (2003). Ambition, federalism, and legislative politics in Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Samuels, D. (2004). From socialism to social democracy. Party organization and the transformation of the workers’ party in Brazil. Comparative Political Studies, 37(9), 999–1024.
Samuels, D. (2006a). Sources of mass partisanship in Brazil. Latin American Politics and Society, 48(2), 1–27.
Samuels, D. (2006b). Informal institutions when formal contracting is prohibited. Campaign finance in Brazil. In G. Helmke & S. Levitsky (Eds.), Informal institutions and democracy. Lessons from Latin America (pp. 87–105). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Santos, F. (2008). Brazilian democracy and the power of “old” theories of party competition. Brazilian Political Science Review, 2(1), 57–76.
Santos, F., & Vilarouca, M. G. (2008). Political institutions and governability from FHC to Lula. In P. Kingstone & T. Power (Eds.), Democratic Brazil revisited (pp. 57–80). Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
Schmitter, P. (1999). Critical reflexions on the “functions” of political parties and their performance in neo-democracies. In W. Merkel & A. Busch (Eds.), Demokratie in Ost und West (pp. 475–495). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Speck, B. W. (2005). Reagir a escândalos ou perseguir ideais? A regulação do financiamento político no Brasil. Cadernos Adenauer, 6(2), 123–159.
Weyland, K. (1996). Obstacles to social reform in Brazil’s new democracy. Comparative Politics, 29(1), 1–22.
Acknowledgment
I thank Scott Mainwaring, Nara Pavão, and Laura Albarracín for their valuable comments and suggestions. Any imprecision or mistake remains my own.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Albarracín, J. (2016). Political Parties and the Party System. In: de la Fontaine, D., Stehnken, T. (eds) The Political System of Brazil. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40023-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40023-0_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-40022-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-40023-0
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)