THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THE PARTY SYSTEM: THE SAME DIMENSIONS OF ANALYSIS, DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS

Arquer, Monize; Vasquez, Vitor

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Artigo original • Rev. bras. Ci. Soc. 34 (100) • 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/3410012/2019 copy

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THE PARTY SYSTEM: THE SAME DIMENSIONS OF ANALYSIS, DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

This paperquestionsthe concept of institutionalization of the party systems proposed by Mainwaring and Scully (1995). We demonstrate that the theoretical and operational aspects of this concept may leadto spurious interpretations about the organization and durability of each party systemand the democratic government in which they insert themselves. We criticize comparative analysis that are unidimensional and fail toconsider the particularities of each country and the development of its party system. To presentthis interpretation,we analyse the four conditions involved in the concept of party institutionalization based on thecity parliaments in Brazil, which show the most disaggregated level of competition and, therefore, increases our number of observations. Regarding this analysis, our empirical data shows that the Brazilian party system can be classified as stable.

Institutionalization; Party Systems; Political Parties; Local Politics; City Parliaments, Brazil

Medidas-resumo	2000	2004	2008	2012	2016
N	5554	5562	5555	5568	5568
Média	8,21	10,35	11,03	12,68	13,94
Desvio padrão	4,25	4,79	4,87	5,37	6,42
Coeficiente de variação	0,52	0,46	0,44	0,42	0,46
Mínimo	1	1	1	2	2
1º quartil	5	7	7	9	9
Mediana	7	9	10	12	13
3º quartil	10	13	14	16	18
Máximo	30	27	27	29	35

		2000	2004	2008	2012	2016	Média
Brasil		52,43%	44,85%	45,48%	40,12%	46,93%	45,96%
Norte	AC	72,73%	50,00%	59,09%	36,36%	36,36%	50,91%
	TO	57,55%	48,20%	48,92%	40,29%	40,29%	47,05%
	PA	47,55%	38,46%	42,66%	45,83%	42,36%	43,37%
	RO	48,08%	40,38%	26,92%	23,08%	30,77%	33,85%
	AP	18,75%	25,00%	37,50%	31,25%	18,75%	26,25%
	AM	35,48%	19,35%	24,19%	27,42%	35,48%	28,39%
	RR	26,67%	13,33%	33,33%	20,00%	20,00%	22,67%
Nordeste	PB	69,51%	54,26%	55,61%	47,09%	51,12%	55,52%
	RN	70,66%	58,68%	51,50%	38,92%	58,08%	55,57%
	PI	65,77%	54,26%	44,20%	45,09%	50,89%	52,04%
	CE	64,13%	48,37%	49,46%	38,59%	47,28%	49,57%
	SE	50,67%	41,33%	42,67%	41,33%	42,47%	43,69%
	BA	50,12%	45,08%	41,49%	39,09%	43,41%	43,84%
	PE	45,65%	35,33%	42,93%	35,87%	44,57%	40,87%
	MA	46,98%	35,94%	32,72%	34,10%	49,31%	39,81%
	AL	40,20%	26,47%	39,22%	34,31%	38,24%	35,69%
Centro-Oeste	MS	64,94%	48,72%	50,00%	40,51%	44,30%	49,69%
	GO	55,51%	49,19%	47,97%	41,46%	42,04%	47,23%
	MT	51,80%	41,84%	41,84%	36,88%	48,94%	44,26%
Sudeste	SP	48,06%	41,71%	44,81%	40,93%	47,82%	44,66%
	MG	46,42%	43,14%	42,79%	37,98%	49,36%	43,94%
	ES	41,03%	34,62%	32,05%	33,33%	24,68%	33,14%
	RJ	36,96%	34,07%	35,87%	27,17%	40,22%	34,86%
Sul	RS	61,37%	54,64%	55,04%	51,11%	55,71%	55,57%
	SC	62,12%	52,22%	55,29%	47,80%	47,44%	52,97%
	PR	42,11%	42,11%	47,62%	34,09%	45,48%	42,28%

Medidas-resumo	2000	2004	2008	2012	2016
N	26	26	26	26	26
Média	50,80%	41,39%	43,30%	37,30%	42,13%
Desvio padrão	13,48%	11,26%	8,92%	7,46%	9,85%
Coeficiente de variação	26,53%	27,20%	20,61%	19,99%	23,39%
Mínimo	18,75%	13,33%	24,19%	20,00%	18,75%
1º quartil	42,99%	35,37%	37,93%	34,09%	38,73%
Mediana	49,10%	41,97%	42,86%	38,29%	43,85%
3º quartil	61,93%	49,07%	49,32%	41,23%	48,66%
Máximo	72,73%	58,68%	59,09%	51,11%	58,08%

	2002	2006	2010	2014
	(N = 2513)	(N = 1000)	(N = 2000)	(N = 2506)
Votaria se o voto não fosse obrigatório (%)
Sim	53,5	42,0	52,9	48,9
Não	46,5	58,0	47,1	51,1
N válido	2444	927	1889	2256
Acha que o voto influência no que acontece no Brasil (%)
Nada/influencia pouco	12,4	10,4	9,2	8,3
Indiferente	8,7	11,9	7,3	11,9
Influencia/influencia muito	78,9	77,7	83,6	79,9
N válido	2457	982	1984	2472
Faz diferença quem governa o Brasil (%)
Nenhuma/pouca diferença	13,5	10,4	9,6	7,6
Indiferente	13,2	10,6	8,2	12,8
Alguma/muita diferença	73,3	79,0	82,1	79,6
N válido	2432	986	1973	2468
Avaliação da atuação dos partidos políticos (%)
Negativa	56,8	59,4	35,0	35,5
Regular	7,9	14,1	44,2	49,0
Positiva	35,3	26,6	20,9	15,6
N válido	2335	972	1852	2371
Algum partido político representa sua maneira de pensar (%)
Sim	40,7	27,9	40,4	28,1
Não	59,3	67,1	59,6	71,9
N válido	2387	950	1941	2335
Nível de satisfação com o funcionamento da democracia no Brasil (%)
Nada/pouco satisfeito	65,5	43,1	31,5	37,7
Indiferente	1,9	12,2	18,3	21,5
Satisfeito/muito satisfeito	32,6	44,7	50,3	40,7
N válido	2336	953	1909	2394

	1989	1990	1994	1996	1998	2000	2002	2004	2006	2008	2010	2012	2014	2016
Média	60%	64%	59%	74%	61%	78%	72%	79%	75%	78%	72%	77%	75%	83%
Desvio padrão	9%	6%	8%	5%	9%	4%	5%	2%	4%	2%	5%	3%	4%	3%
Coeficiente de variação	14%	10%	13%	7%	14%	5%	8%	3%	5%	3%	6%	4%	5%	4%
Mínimo	61%	52%	44%	66%	44%	72%	62%	75%	67%	74%	62%	70%	69%	77%
1o quartil	71%	60%	54%	70%	56%	75%	69%	78%	73%	76%	69%	75%	72%	81%
Mediana	75%	64%	62%	73%	61%	78%	71%	80%	75%	77%	72%	77%	74%	84%
3o quartil	83%	69%	65%	77%	66%	80%	76%	80%	76%	79%	75%	78%	76%	86%
Máximo	91%	74%	72%	83%	79%	84%	81%	85%	83%	84%	81%	85%	86%	88%
Brancos e nulos	6%	18%	20%	6%	16%	7%	9%	6%	8%	8%	10%	8%	7%	9%

Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Ciências Sociais - ANPOCS Av. Prof. Luciano Gualberto, 315 - sala 116, 05508-900 São Paulo SP Brazil, Tel.: +55 11 3091-4664, Fax: +55 11 3091-5043 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: anpocs@anpocs.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN1] Elaboração própria a partir de dados do TSE.