ABSTRACT
In the literature of international political science the Austrian party system has the reputation of having a very high degree of stability. Characterized by structural “pillarization,” a segmented “camp mentality,” an extraordinarily high formal integrative capacity and an unusually low conflict level, the Austrian party system was regarded in the 50’s and 60’s to be “one of the most stable of the competitive systems” (Janda 1980, p. 318). In the meantime, however, latent signs of corrosion are stimulating doubt about its historical hyperstability. The “golden age” of the Austrian party system seems finally to be a thing of the past. Structural processes of erosion, an increase of voter protest and an intensification of intra-party conflicts indicate that the Austrian party system has entered a transitory stage which is a “crisis of phase transition” (Bühl 1984, p. 69) with increased conditions of tension, critical fluctuations and contradictory reactions. 1 In an attempt to divide the dynamics of change of the party systems into periods, Dalton/Flanagan/Beck (1984) differentiate between “three general types of electoral periods—stable alignments, realignments and dealignments” (p. 11), each period evincing a specific system behavior:
In stationary periods (stable alignments) party systems are in a state of dynamic balance. The traditional voter coalitions forming the supporting pillars of the party system remain largely intact. In spite of occasional fluctuations in voter behavior, which follow an oscillating logic as a temporary 42deviation from the “normal” voter behavior, the party system remains in a dynamic state of rest.
In periods of innovation (partisan realignments) the handed-down basic structure of a party system changes. 2 The existent voter coalitions begin to stir. Internal tensions and dissonances increase. Voter behavior becomes unstable and unpredictable. The party system enters a transition phase which culminates via a “critical” election in a re-grouping or reallocation of the party field. 3
In periods of erosion (partisan dealignments) handed-down loyalties and affective party ties become weaker. 4 The internal loosening processes shake the structural and affective foundation of the party system. Traditional lines of tension are overshadowed by lines of conflict reflecting new issues. The party system enters a turbulent phase culminating either in a “critical” election or going on into a continuous structural phase of decline characterized by weakness, exhaustion and critical signs of dissolution. 5
