France and the United States:

Multi-party versus Two-party system

Emmalee Wagner

POLS-2200

March 5, 2019
 The United States is one of the few two-party government systems in the developed

world. France, like many of the European countries, is a multi-party system. Interestingly,

neither country specifies the laws or outline of their party system. The development of party

systems is likely inevitable, regardless of the type of democracy but the history of the party

system was very different in the U.S. and France. While France’s multi-party system allows

for more choice and representation, having so many parties can lead to instability and less

trust from the voters.

George Washington famously warned against partisanship in his Farewell Address,

stating the United States would not survive if political parties formed. Other Founders of the

United States did not approve of parties either but also wanted to preserve political freedom

in their new country. Political parties are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution but have

played a pivotal role in shaping the political system. In 1790, the first political party in the

United States took form, the Jeffersonians. The Jeffersonians feared an expanding federal

government with too much power, although they were more of a movement than what would

be considered a political party these days. The politicians associated with this early party

managed to subdue the growth of federal interference. Then for about 30 years, there was the

time known as the “Era of Good Feeling”. In this time the country was seemingly on the

same page; there were no political divisions (Ceaser, 2016).

Around 1820, Senator Martin van Buren believed the way the president of the United

States was chosen would not last forever. These concerns stemmed from his view that the

presidential candidates had turned to demagoguery in order to gain enough support and grow

their base since candidates were not separated by a party or distinct platforms. He believed a
party system would ensure whoever was running for president had to go through the party,

and set aside their personal ambitions for the good of the parties goals. Van Buren thought

the parties’ platform should be national and safe, meaning their ideas should be applicable to

everyone in the country, not just a state or area, and their ideologies should not be radical.

The parties that emerged from this system were the Democrats (Jeffersonian-esque, with a

fear of big government) and Whigs ( in favor of a stronger federal government and

government programs), the opposition party. And a third party emerged, the Republicans.

Through the next 90 years, through the American Civil War, up until the Great Depression,

the different parties held power at one time or another. But the Whig party soon lost support

and power as the Republican party gained power. Once the New Deal of President

Roosevelt’s presidency was passed, the political parties essentially switch ideologies and

became what they are today (Ceaser, 2016).

France certainly has a tumultuous political history. The country has experienced it all;

monarchy, a revolutionary republic, a tyrannical leader, an autocratic emperor, and multiple

changes to their constitution. All these eras play a significant role in the viewpoints of the

citizens now. The Third Republic began in 1871 and lasted until the Nazis created their

puppet government right before the Second World War. This republic suffered from regional

specialism and factionalism. During the Third Republic, there were not labeled or named

parties but different ideologies were present and deep. After the Vichy government and the

start of the Fourth Republic, parties began to form. There were the more right-leaning parties:

the Popular Republican Movement (MPR) and the Rally of the French People (RMF), led by

Charles de Gaulle. Their opposing parties were the French Section of Workers’ International
(SFIO), a socialist party, and the French Communist Party (PCF). No party or party coalition

could consistently gather lasting majority support during the Third and Fourth Republics.

Party coalitions in the Fourth Republic were unstable and alliances changed rapidly (Cole,

2002). The government has become a little more stable since Charles de Gaulle change the

political system and the Fifth Republic began in 1956. However, from 1981 to the recent

2017 elections, except the presidential election in 2007, the result of every presidential and

parliamentary elections went against the incumbent government. Many French do not have

trust in the government to solve crisis in their country (Cole, 2002).

Many Americans, especially after this past presidential election, and the recent

government shutdown, are frustrated with the limited party choices. Some may not be

frustrated but they question why voting citizens should have to fall under two parties,

wherein many of those politicians hold different views too. Now the Democratic party holds

the majority of seats in the U.S. Senate, the possibility for government gridlocks has

increased. This 2018-2019 government shutdown was the longest in U.S. history. The

political parties are not to be blamed necessarily, but the harsh opposition the democratic and

republican parties face from one other do not reflect a stable government. While these parties

are the other greatest enemy, they are also their greatest allies. Many scholars and political

observers notice that both parties try to ensure the suppression of third parties in the U.S. In

the early 2000s, the Tea Party tried to gain traction but was criticized by the Republican party

for abandoning ship. Similarly, the Democrats believe in order to maintain solidarity against

the GOP, candidates who are more socialist or Green Party should run as a Democrat, or the
party discourages their voters to support those outlying politicians. By allowing any other

party to gain support, both parties will lose their power.

While this dichotomy is not appealing to many and can lead to gridlocks and deep

bipartisanship, overall one could argue it keeps the country stable. With the majority of

politicians being in one of two parties, they really have to stay centralized for the most part.

While there may be exceptions to this, the majority of American voters are in the political

middle. In order for politicians to gain their vote, they have to take a middle ground, less

radical stance to increase their voter base. In 2014, 34% of voters identified as having a mix

of both predominant parties’ ideologies (Kohurt, 2014).

The effectiveness and stability of a multi-party or two-party system truly depends on

the parties involved (Ceaser, 2016). In some countries, like Sweden and Belgium, multiple

parties do create stability (Roskin, 2016). However, in France, it has led to a coalition

government. Larger parties have tried to gain support from other parties that are similarly

minded, in order to gain the majority of seats in the National Assembly. While coalitions

may increase cooperation among parties, it can also lead to a minority government if the

leading party in a coalition loses the support of smaller parties. Also the fear of losing

smaller parties’ support may cause the majority party to not put forth any legislation (Roskin,

2016).

The party system in France decreases voter marginalization. It allows voters to join

and support a party more representative of their political, social and economic views. Even

though the parties are more likely to form coalitions, smaller parties can still acquire seats in

the National Assembly from a small percentage of votes, also increasing representation
(Cole, 2002). But the opportunity for more voter representation and more niche parties means

there are more radical parties as could be seen by the support of far-right parties in the 2016

presidential election. And the ability for smaller parties to gain seats in the parliament also

means there can be radical parties with agendas in the parliament.

The two powerful American political parties already suffer from in-fighting, have a

bad track record of reaching across the aisle, while also ensuring third parties do not gain any

political traction. But this system offers stability since one party always has the majority, and

they will have one platform all politicians should be working towards. The multiple parties

added to the already complex French political system has created years of political and

economic instability, not inspiring trust from the French public.. And the parties have already

formed into two major left/right coalitions, which seems to defeat the purpose of a

multi-party system. Both systems have their fair share of issues.

The appeal of these systems stems from what the voters find important. The French

system provides more niche party options, allowing for greater representation, and the

coalitions are suppose to encourage cooperation among parties. The two-party system offers

less choices when voting and the representatives, but it does create a simpler power dynamic

and seem to create more stability. Neither of these systems are ideal, but the concept of

parties in each country is still relatively new. Perhaps the United States and France will find a

way to make their own party system work or adapt another system.
 References

Cole, A. (2003). Stress, strain and stability in the French party system. In Evans J. (Ed.), ​The

French party system​ (pp. 11-26). Manchester; New York: Manchester University Press.

Retrieved from ​http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt155jgwm.8

Ceaser, J. [Hillsdale College]. (2016. November 2). ​Overview History of the American Party

System - James Ceaser. ​[Video File]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd_7MMUy5so

​ etrieved
Kohut, A. (2014, August 1). The political middle still matters. ​Pew Research Center. R

from:​http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/01/the-political-middle-still-matters/

Roskin, M. (2016). ​Countries and Concepts: Political, Geography, Culture. ​(Thirteenth Edition).

Pearson Publishing.