Classifying Asian party systems: Sartori’s typology in comparative perspective

Abstract Almost 50 years have passed since Sartori introduced to the world one of the most famous innovations in the history of political science: a new party systems typology. Despite many criticisms and refinements since then, Sartori's typology still constitutes, as stated by Peter Mair in 1990, “the most effective and exhaustive framework within which to contrast the properties of different party systems”. In the current research note, and taking into consideration that previous typologies have not yet been that successful, we propose a new classification of party systems – which not only embeds the notion of polarization into the typology, but also allows us to populate the “polarized pluralist” type beyond Sartori’s “centre-based” (Italian) model – in Asia, a continent almost completely ignored by Sartori in his seminal work. Using an original dataset that includes the most important characteristics of party systems in the region and building on Sartori's original conceptualization, we examine to what extent party systems in Asian democracies, both contemporary (Bhutan, East Timor, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Sri Lanka and Taiwan) and historical (Bangladesh 1991–2006, Kyrgyzstan 2010–2020, Myanmar 2015–2020 and Thailand 1992–2013), have changed. Our discussion of a new party system typology is particularly relevant and important to Asia, as its many new democracies still need to shift from plurality electoral rules adopted during the early post-independence periods to more mature, power-dispersing political institutions that accommodate their rich ethnic and religious diversity, as it happened in Europe after the World Wars.