Modern day political parties face two major problems. On the one hand there appears to be a growing anti-party emotion, while on the other hand, there’s no viable democratic alternative to party democracy.
The rise of anti-establishment parties, which in turn transform into the very elitist organizations they once opposed, gives rise to the idea that party development is a ‘natural’ process (exemplified by Michels’ ‘iron law of oligarchy’) in which elitist parties (the original cadre parties) are challenged by newcomers (the mass parties) which then leads to adaptation by both into catch-all¬ parties, which in turn are challenged by new types of parties such as the anti-cartel parties or the business-firm parties.
This first problem can also be seen in the decline in membership of the traditional parties, whereas new, anti-establishment parties see their numbers rising. However, this does not mean that support for these parties is necessarily as fundamental as with the original mass parties. There is an increasing range of interest groups, such as NGO’s or other organizations that compete with political parties as ‘articulators of interest’. In a society where eclecticism is the pinnacle of self-realisation, one-issue parties have trouble appealing to enough voters to actually influence legislation. The traditional catch-all parties, however, have evolved into anomic institutions, with little perceived differentiation in policy preferences.
Although it can be argued that parties have themselves paved the way for the negative sentiments by their detachment from society in general, this is often used as an excuse not to talk about the elephant in the room being the unrealistic expectations the gen pop has about what politicians can or ought to do. Which leads to the second problem political parties face today, convincing the electorate that there is no alternative. (Sure, there are suggestions for modifications to the system, but not one viable alternative has existed, and if it has, it wasn’t democratic.)
Perception, then, is the quintessential concept in this second problem for political parties. In a heavily mediated society, where the life-span of political careers is often just a flash in the pan, it is more often than not the incapability of citizens to grasp the intricate workings of their political system which leads to their aversion of said system. This is a political dilemma worthy of “catch-22”-status. On the one hand, political parties should advocate education on the necessity of a party system. Then again, by doing this they are providing the anti-establishment parties with ammunition to strengthen their image of traditional parties as self-serving and elitist.
Another disparity between the capabilities of political parties and the expectations of individuals is the lack of coherent ideology in the latter. It is ideology that brings people together to form political parties and even though most traditional parties have had a centripetal movement in ideology, they are still positioned on opposite sides of certain cross-cutting cleavages that prevent them from taking popular (or populist?) stances on certain issues such as immigration reform. It is the freedom if the individual to have conflicting opinions on social issues, a political party founded on ideology does not have that luxury. This is the reason why parties that used to be one-issue parties tend to grow quick enough in numbers while remaining in opposition, but disintegrate once the issue is resolved.
Political parties are therefore balancing on a tightrope between electoral success and ideological coherency. Contested by parties that fill an ideological hole that traditional parties left in their quest for voters or by anti-establishment parties looking to abolish the very system from which they originated. This raises, in the most extreme cases, the question whether or not it is possible to democratically abolish democracy.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten