تحلیل تطبیقی رابطۀ ساختار قدرت و پایداری/ ناپایداری احزاب سیاسی در ساختارهای اقتدارگرا، دموکراتیک و شبه¬اقتدارگرا
محورهای موضوعی : Research in Theoritical Politics
مسلم خسروی زارگز
1
,
وحید سینائی
2
1 - دانشجوی دکتری علوم سیاسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، ایران
2 - دانشیار علوم سیاسی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه فردوسي مشهد، ایران
کلید واژه: ساختار قدرت, اقتدارگرایی, دموکراتیک, شبهاقتدارگرایی, حزب. ,
چکیده مقاله :
احزاب سیاسی به عنوان نهادهای میانجی میان دولت و جامعه، نقشی بنیادین در تقویت فرایندهای دموکراتیک و ارتقای کارآمدی نظام حکمرانی ایفا میکنند. با این حال دوام و پایداری این احزاب به طور مستقیم تحت تأثیر ویژگیهای ساختاری قدرت در انواع رژیمهای سیاسی قرار دارد. پژوهش حاضر با رویکردی تطبیقی، به واکاوی رابطۀ میان ساختار قدرت سیاسی و پایداری یا ناپایداری احزاب سیاسی میپردازد. پرسش اصلی این است که چرا احزاب سیاسی در برخی از رژیمهای سیاسی پایدارند، در حالی که در برخی دیگر دچار ناپایداری میشوند؟ در پاسخ به این پرسش، فرضیه پژوهش اینگونه مطرح میشود که مؤلفههای سازندۀ ساختار قدرت شامل: سرشت حاکمیت سیاسی، شیوۀ توزیع و مشارکت در قدرت، تفکیک قوا و نهادهای غیر رسمی ساختار قدرت، در چارچوب انواع رژیمهای سیاسی اعم از دموکراتیک، اقتدارگرا و شبهاقتدارگرا، عامل تعیینکننده در ثبات یا بیثباتی احزاب سیاسی محسوب میشود. یافتههای پژوهش نشان میدهد که در ساختارهای دموکراتیک، علیرغم وجود ضعفهای سازمانی و فشارهای اجتماعی- اقتصادی، زمینههای لازم برای تداوم و ثبات احزاب فراهم میگردد. در مقابل، در ساختارهای اقتدارگرا، تمرکز قدرت و حذف رقابت سیاسی به شکلگیری نظام تکحزبی دولتی و زوال سایر احزاب منجر میشود. همچنین در رژیمهای شبهاقتدارگرا که در ظاهر از سازوکارهای دموکراتیک بهره میگیرند اما در عمل رویکردی اقتدارگرایانه دارند، چرخۀ حیات احزاب، کوتاهتر بوده و میزان پایداری آنها، کاهش مییابد.
Comparative Analysis of the Relationship between Power Structures and the Stability/Instability of Political Parties in Authoritarian, Democratic, and Semi-Authoritarian Systems
Moslem Khosravy Zargaz*
Vahid Sinaee**
Political parties, as intermediary institutions between the state and society, play a fundamental role in strengthening democratic processes and enhancing the efficiency of governance. However, the durability and stability of these parties are directly influenced by the structural characteristics of power within different political regimes. The present study adopts a comparative approach to examine the relationship between the structure of political power and the stability or instability of political parties.
The central research question is: Why do political parties remain stable in some regimes while persisting instability characterizes others? In response, the study hypothesizes that the constituent elements of power structures—including the nature of political authority, the mode of power distribution and participation, the separation of powers, and the role of informal institutions—function as key determinants of party stability or instability across democratic, authoritarian, and semi-authoritarian regimes.
The findings indicate that, within democratic structures, despite organizational weaknesses and socio-economic pressures, conditions exist that facilitate party continuity and stability. In contrast, in authoritarian structures, the concentration of power and the suppression of political competition result in the establishment of state-dominated single-party systems and the decline of alternative parties. Semi-authoritarian regimes, which ostensibly employ democratic mechanisms but operate in practice with authoritarian tendencies, exhibit shorter party life cycles and reduced overall party stability.
Keywords: Power Structure, Authoritarianism, Democratic, , semi-authoritarianism, political party.
Introduction
Political parties, as intermediary institutions between the state and society, play a vital role in consolidating democracy, aggregating interests, and enhancing governance efficiency. However, their durability and performance are heavily influenced by the prevailing institutional environment and the structure of power. A review of the literature indicates that while prior studies have emphasized sociological, economic, and legal factors in party instability, the systematic role of the “structure of power” as an independent variable has received relatively little attention. This study addresses this theoretical gap by proposing an analytical framework based on the “structure of power,” defined along two dimensions: the mechanism of power transfer (competitive versus monopolized) and the quality of power distribution (centralized versus decentralized), which manifest across three ideal-typical regime forms: democratic, authoritarian, and semi-authoritarian.
Research Findings
In authoritarian structures, the concentration of power, suppression of political competition, and dominance of informal and security institutions render party independence and stability virtually impossible. Parties in such contexts are either entirely eliminated or transformed into instruments for regime legitimation and the distribution of rents. Dependence on individual leadership, weak social bases, lack of broad organizational capacity, and the threat of judicial-security dissolution shorten party life cycles and make them entirely contingent on the central power nucleus.
In contrast, democratic structures, by providing an institutional environment composed of transparent electoral laws, free media, separation of powers, and independent oversight bodies, enable healthy competition and the institutionalization of parties. Party stability in this context arises from responsiveness to public demands, programmatic consistency, and internal cohesion. Nevertheless, these structures are not immune to instability. Factors such as personalized politics (charismatic dependency), ideological polarization, internal corruption, and inability to respond to socio-economic crises can lead to party decline or replacement. Crucially, however, such instability occurs within the legal framework and through electoral competition, allowing the system to reproduce and reform party institutions.
Semi-authoritarian structures create a complex and dualistic environment. These regimes maintain the formal appearance of democracy (e.g., elections and multiparty systems) while employing undemocratic tools—media control, electoral engineering, and legal and financial restrictions—that severely constrain competition. In this context, ruling parties or “loyal pseudo-opposition” parties are strengthened, whereas independent opposition parties are marginalized, weakened, and isolated. The absence of genuine competition, systemic inequalities in resource access, and widespread public distrust prevent even permitted parties from playing effective representative roles, thereby undermining institutional stability. Party life cycles are shorter and highly dependent on developments within the inner circles of power.
Conclusion
In conclusion, political party stability is neither accidental nor incidental but a direct and systematic outcome of power structure design. Democratic structures, by creating competitive impulses and opportunities for reform, provide the conditions for party dynamism and relative longevity. Conversely, authoritarian and semi-authoritarian structures, through mechanisms of monopoly, control, and exclusion, inherently generate party instability. This study demonstrates that any effort to strengthen party systems and consolidate democracy requires fundamental attention to reforming power structures toward a competitive, decentralized, and accountable framework.
References
Azadi, Esmail. (2019) Genealogy of Political Currents and Pathology of Parties in Iran. Tehran: Sales Publications.
Attaway, Marina. (2007) Transition to Quasi-Democracy or Quasi-Authoritarianism. Translated by Saeed Mirterrabi. Tehran: Ghomes Publications.
Ahmadi, Mona et al. (2022) "Legal Obstacles to the Establishment and Development of Political Parties in Iran: A Critique of the 2016 Law on the Activities of Political Parties and Groups." Quarterly Journal of Politics, Year 5, No. 11, pp. 342-360.
https://doi.org/10.30510/psi.2022.319702.2801
Akhavan Kazemi, Bahram. (2009) Causes of the Inefficiency of Political Parties in Iran. Tehran: Islamic Revolution Documents Center.
Ardestani, Mahmoud. (2010) Democracy and the Military in Egypt. Tehran: Ziaei Publications.
Smith, Brian Clive. (2008) Understanding Third World Politics: Theories of Development and Political Change. Translated by Amirmohammad Yousefi and Mohammad Saeed Ghaeni Najafi. Tehran: Political and International Studies.
Ashrafi, Akbar. (2018) "Examining the Philosophy of Formation and Reasons for the Suspension of the Islamic Republican Party's Activities." Iranian Political Sociology, No. 2, pp. 67-90.
Emam Jomehzadeh, Seyed Javad, and Seyed Davoud Masoumi. (2010). "Rentierism and Its Impact on the State-Party Relationship in Iran (1951-1979)." Contemporary Political Essays, Year 1, No. 1, pp. 33-49.
Ayoubi, Hojatollah (2001) Political Parties in the West. Tehran: Soroush Publications.
Bakhshi Ani, Reza et al. (2022) "Democracy or Dictatorship: The Effect of Political System Type on Economic Institutions." Quarterly Journal of Economic Research and Policies, Year 30, No. 102, pp. 53-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.52547/qjerp.30.102.53
Blondel, Jean. (1999) Comparative Government. Translated by Ali Morshedizad. Tehran: Islamic Revolution Documents Center.
Pirouz, Majid. (2021) Analysis of Institutional Barriers to the Institutionalization of the Islamic Republican Party. Doctoral Dissertation in Political Science, Supervisor: Seyed Alireza Beheshti, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University.
Tabriznia, Hossein. (1998) Some Causes of Political Party Instability in Iran. Tehran: Siavash Publications.
Duverger, Maurice. (2007) Political Parties. Translated by Rahim Oloumi. Tehran: Amir Kabir Publications.
Shahbazi, Mahboob. (2001) The Fate of Democracy: The Role of Elections in Iran's Democratic Process. Tehran: Roozeneh Publications.
Abbasi, Reza. (2020) Political Systems in the Contemporary Era. Tehran: Islamic Azad University Publications.
Alam, Mohammad Reza. (2000) The Share of Iranian Political Culture in the Instability of Political Parties from the First Parliament to the Fall of the Qajar Dynasty. Doctoral Dissertation, Supervisor: Ali Asghar Mossadegh, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Shahid Beheshti University.
Ghazi (Shariatpanahi), Abolfazl (2004) Constitutional Law and Political Institutions, 12th Edition. Tehran: Mizan Publications.
Ghanavati, Nasrin et al. (2017) "Reproduction of Rentier Structure in Iran." Strategic Studies in Public Policy (Globalization Strategic Studies), Year 7, No. 25, pp. 203-221.
Ghovan, Abdolali (1992) Political Development and Administrative Transformation. Tehran: Ghomes Publications.
Katz, Richard S., and William Crotty (2016) Handbook of Party Politics. Translated by Mohsen Mirdamadi and Seyed Alireza Beheshti Shirazi. Tehran: Roozeneh Publications.
Kavian, Mahmoud (2009) Islamic Movements in Egypt. Tehran: Khat-e Sevvom Publications.
McLean, Iain (2002) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Translated by Hamid Ahmadi. Tehran: Mizan Publications.
Montesquieu, Charles de. (1994) The Spirit of the Laws. Translated by Ali Akbar Mohtadi. Tehran: Amir Kabir Publications.
Nouzari, Hassan Ali (2002) Political Parties and Party Systems. Tehran: Gostareh Publications.
Weber, Max (2016) Economy and Society. Translated by Mohammad Emadzadeh et al. Tehran: SAMT Publications.
Hemmati, Zahra et al. (2023) "Applying the Causal Layered Analysis Method to Analyze the Dysfunction of Political Parties in Iran (1906-2021)." Siasat-e Motalea Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 141-162. https://doi.org/10.22034/sm.2023.528931.1693.
Abdullah, W. J. (2016) Assessing party structures: Why some regimes are more authoritarian than others. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 70 (2),121–140.https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2016.1151859.
Bill, J. A. (1973) The plasticity of informal politics: The case of Iran. Middle East Journal, 27(2), 131–151.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4325054.
Bryan, A. (2021) Political parties and republican democracy. Contemporary Political Theory, 21(2), 262-282.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-021-00499-5.
Dahl, R. A. (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University. Press.https://dispes.units.it/sites/dispes.units.it/files/all_pers/Dahl%20Poliarchy001.pdf.
Della Porta, D. (2004) Political parties and corruption: Ten hypotheses on five vicious circles.Crime,Law and Social Change, 42(1), 35–60. https://doi.org/10.1023/B\:CRIS.0000041038.99879.9c.
Easton, D. (2024) The analysis of political structure. Routledge
Ekman, J. (2009) Political participation and regime stability: A framework for analyzing hybrid regimes. International Political Science Review, 30(1), 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512108097054.
Gill, Graeme. (1987) The single party as an agent of development: Lessons from the Soviet experience. World Politics, 39 (4), 566–578. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010292.
Gray, J. (2016, February 13) The role of political parties in Putin’s hybrid-regime. E-International Relations.
https://www.e-ir.info/2016/02/13/the-role-of-political-parties-in-putins-hybrid-regime.
Gugin, L. C. (2008) The impact of political structure on the political power of women: A comparison of Britain and the United States, 37–56. https://doi.org
Hafner, Fink D. (2024) Party system changes and challenges to democracy: Slovenia in a comparative perspective. Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54949-6.
Linz, J. J. (1964) An authoritarian regime: Spain. In E. Allardt & Y. Littunen (Eds.), Cleavages, ideologies and party systems (pp. 291–341). Helsinki: Transactions of the Westermarck Society.
---------- (2000) Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Moe, T. M. (2005) Power and Political Institutions. Perspectives on Politics, (3),215-233.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592705050176.
Pildes, R. H. (2002) Constitutionalizing democratic politics (Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series, No. 44). New York University School of Law.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=317800.
Pinto, António Costa. (2002) Elites, single parties and political decision-making in fascist-era dictatorships. Contemporary European History, 11(3), 429–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777302003053.
Przeworski, A. (1991) Democracy and the market: Political and economic reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
Reuter, O. J. (2021) Why do ruling parties extend authoritarian rule? Examining the role of elite institutions and mass organization (V-Dem Working Paper Series 2021:118). V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg.
https://www.v-dem.net/media/publications/wp_118_final.pdf.
Rye, D. (2015) Political parties and power: A new framework for analysis. PoliticalStudies,63(5),1052–1069.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12158.
Sondrol, P. C. (2007) Paraguay: A semi-authoritarian regime? Armed Forces & Society, 34(1), 46–66.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X06295513.
World Scientific. (2025) Authoritarian party systems. World Scientific. Retrieved April 10, 2025, from.
https://www.worldscientific.com
Zahirinejad, M. (2016) Hybrid regime and rentier state: Democracy or authoritarianism in Iran? Hemispheres: Studies on Cultures and Societies, 31(4), 21–31.
https://doi.org/10.15804/hso160402.
* Ph.D. Student in Political Science, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashad, Iran.
0009-0009-1086-4957
** Corresponding Author: Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashad, Iran.
sinaee@um.ac.ir
آزادی، اسماعیل (1398) تبارشناسی جریانهای سیاسی و آسیبشناسی احزاب در ایران، تهران، ثالث.
اتاوی، مارینا (1386) گذار به شبه¬دموکراسی یا شبه¬اقتدارگرایی، ترجمه سعید میرترابی، تهران، قومس.
احمدی، مونا و مهدی شعبانپور منصور و اسدالله یاوری و ناصرعلی منصوریان (۱۴۰۱) «موانع حقوقی تأسیس و توسعۀ احزاب در ایران با نقد قانون نحوۀ فعالیت احزاب و گروههای سیاسی ۱۳۹۵»، فصلنامه سیاست، سال پنجم، شماره 11، صص 342- 360.
https://doi.org/ 10.30510/psi.2022.319702.2801.
اخوان کاظمی، بهرام (1388) علل ناکارآمدی احزاب سیاسی در ایران، تهران، مرکز اسناد انقلاب اسلامی.
اردستانی، محمود (1389) دموکراسی و ارتش در مصر، تهران، ضیایی.
اسمیت، برایان کلایو (1387) فهم سیاست جهان سوم: نظریههای توسعه و دگرگونی سیاسی، ترجمه امیرمحمد یوسفی و محمدسعید قاینی نجفی، تهران، مطالعات سیاسی و بینالمللی.
اشرفی، اکبر (1397) «بررسی فلسفه تشکیل و دلیل تعطیلی فعالیتهای حزب جمهوری اسلامی»، جامعهشناسی سیاسی ایران، شماره 2، صص 67-90.
امامجمعهزاده، سید جواد و سید داوود معصومی (1389) «رانتیریسم و تأثیر آن بر رابطه دولت و احزاب در ایران 1330-1357»، جستارهای سیاسی معاصر، سال یکم، شماره 1، صص 33- 49.
ایوبی، حجت¬الله (1380) احزاب سیاسی در غرب، تهران، سروش.
بخشی آنی، رضا و مسعود نیلی و سیدمهدی برکچیان (1401) «دموکراسی یا دیکتاتوری: اثر نوع نظام سیاسی بر نهادهای اقتصادی»، فصلنامه پژوهشها و سیاستهای اقتصادی، سال سی-ام، شماره 102، صص 53-78.
doi: 10. 52547/qjerp.30.102.53 .
بلاندل، ژان (1378) حکومت مقایسهای، ترجمه علی مرشدیزاد، تهران، مرکز اسناد انقلاب اسلامی.
پیروز، مجید (1400) تحلیل موانع نهادینگی حزب جمهوری اسلامی، رساله دکتری علوم سیاسی، استاد راهنما: سیدعلیرضا بهشتی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
تبریزنیا، حسین (1377) برخی علل ناپایداری احزاب سیاسی در ایران، تهران، سیاوش.
دوورژه، موریس (1386) احزاب سیاسی، ترجمه رحیم علومی، تهران، امیرکبیر.
شهبازی، محبوب (1380) تقدیر مردمسالاری: نقش انتخابات در روند دموکراسی ایران، تهران، روزنه.
عباسی، رضا (1399) نظامهای سیاسی در دوران معاصر، تهران، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی.
علم، محمدرضا (1379) سهم فرهنگ سیاسی ایران در ناپایداری احزاب سیاسی از مجلس اول تا انقراض قاجاریه، رساله دکتری، استاد راهنما علیاصغر مصدق، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
قاضی (شریعتپناهی)، ابوالفضل (1383) حقوق اساسی و نهادهای سیاسی، چاپ دوازدهم، تهران، میزان.
قنواتی، نسرین و مجید وحید و احمد ساعی و علیرضا ازغندی (1396) «بازتولید ساختار رانتی در ایران»، مطالعات راهبردی سیاستگذاری عمومی (مطالعات راهبردی جهانی شدن)، سال هفتم، شماره 25، صص 203-221.
قوام، عبدالعلی (1371) توسعه سیاسی و تحول اداری، تهران، قومس.
کاتز، ریچارد اس و ویلیام کروتی (1395) دانشنامه سیاست حزبی، ترجمه محسن میردامادی و سید علیرضا بهشتی شیرازی، تهران، روزنه.
کاویانی، محمود (1388) جنبشهای اسلامی در مصر، تهران، خط سوم.
مک¬لین، ریان (1381) فرهنگ علوم سیاسی، ترجمه حمید احمدی، تهران، میزان.
مونتسکیو، شارل دو (1373) روحالقوانین، ترجمه علیاکبر مهتدی، تهران، امیرکبیر.
نوذری، حسنعلی (1381) احزاب سیاسی و نظامهای حزبی، تهران، گستره.
وبر، ماکس (1395) اقتصاد و جامعه، ترجمه محمد عمادزاده و دیگران، تهران، سمت.
همتی، زهره و حسین مسعودنیا و فرهاد درویشی سهتلانی (1402) «کاربست روش تحلیل لایهای علتها در تحلیل کژکارکردی احزاب سیاسی در ایران (۱۲۸۵-۱۴۰۰)»، فصلنامه سیاست متعالیه، دوره یازدهم، شماره 1، صص 141- 162.
doi: 10.22034/sm.2023.528931.1693.
Abdullah, W. J. (2016) Assessing party structures: Why some regimes are more authoritarian than others. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 70 (2),121–140.https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2016.1151859.
Bill, J. A. (1973). The plasticity of informal politics: The case of Iran. Middle East Journal, 27(2), 131–151. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4325054.
Bryan, A. (2021) Political parties and republican democracy. Contemporary Political Theory, 21(2), 262-282. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-021-00499-5.
Dahl, R. A. (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University Press.https://dispes.units.it/sites/dispes.units.it/files/all_pers/Dahl%20Poliarchy001.pdf.
Della Porta, D. (2004) Political parties and corruption: Ten hypotheses on five vicious circles.Crime,Law and Social Change, 42(1), 35–60. https://doi.org/10.1023/B\:CRIS.0000041038.99879.9c.
Easton, D. (2024) The analysis of political structure. Routledge.
Ekman, J. (2009) Political participation and regime stability: A framework for analyzing hybrid regimes. International Political Science Review, 30(1), 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512108097054.
Gill, Graeme. (1987) The single party as an agent of development: Lessons from the Soviet experience. World Politics, 39 (4), 566–578. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010292.
Gray, J. (2016, February 13) The role of political parties in Putin’s hybrid-regime. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2016/02/13/the-role-of-political-parties-in-putins-hybrid-regime.
Gugin, L. C. (2008) The impact of political structure on the political power of women: A comparison of Britain and the United States, 37–56. https://doi.org.
Hafner, Fink D. (2024) Party system changes and challenges to democracy: Slovenia in a comparative perspective. Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54949-6.
Linz, J. J. (1964) An authoritarian regime: Spain. In E. Allardt & Y. Littunen (Eds.), Cleavages, ideologies and party systems (pp. 291–341). Helsinki: Transactions of the Westermarck Society.
---------- (2000) Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Moe, T. M. (2005) Power and Political Institutions. Perspectives on Politics, (3),215-233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592705050176.
Pildes, R. H. (2002) Constitutionalizing democratic politics (Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series, No. 44). New York University School of Law. https://ssrn.com/abstract=317800 .
Pinto, António Costa. (2002) Elites, single parties and political decision-making in fascist-era dictatorships. Contemporary European History, 11(3), 429–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777302003053.
Przeworski, A. (1991) Democracy and the market: Political and economic reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
Reuter, O. J. (2021) Why do ruling parties extend authoritarian rule? Examining the role of elite institutions and mass organization (V-Dem Working Paper Series 2021:118). V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg. https://www.v-dem.net/media/publications/wp_118_final.pdf .
Rye, D. (2015) Political parties and power: A new framework for analysis. PoliticalStudies,63(5),1052–1069.https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12158.
Sondrol, P. C. (2007) Paraguay: A semi-authoritarian regime? Armed Forces & Society, 34(1), 46–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X06295513.
World Scientific. (2025) Authoritarian party systems. World Scientific. Retrieved April 10, 2025, from https://www.worldscientific.com .
Zahirinejad, M. (2016) Hybrid regime and rentier state: Democracy or authoritarianism in Iran? Hemispheres: Studies on Cultures and Societies, 31(4), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.15804/hso160402.
