Political science part ix

Part IX

Political Parties
and
Party Systems

Table of Contents
• Nature of Political Parties
• Characteristics of Political Parties
• Functions of Political Parties
• Development of Political Parties
• Elite Parties
• Mass Parties
• Catchall Parties
• Party System

..Table of Contents
• One-Party System
• The Dominant Party System
• Two- Party System
• Multi-Party System
• Selecting a Party Candidate
• Financing a Party
• Party Democracy and Party Government
• Parties in Authoritarian and Communist Regimes
• Challenges Confronting Parties

Nature of Political
Parties
Nineteenth century struggles or battles were fought
bravely over the expansion of the political
franchise—the right to vote and representation. The
idea that certain classes or groups could embody the
public by virtue of their wealth, high educational
attainment or talents paved way to the realities of
mass democracies.

Gradually the right to suffrage was extended both vertically
and horizontally. Vertical expansion in the sense that
representatives derived their powers directly from the people,
and the horizontal growth included everyone in the franchise.
Hence, the birth of political parties came into being to recruit
people for certain political action that stimulated them in
choosing representatives through organized political
machines for the control of power in the government.

Political parties are usually part of the system of
mass politics that came out from the onset of
representatives government and the growing
development of the movement in the nineteenth
century. They are formal factions or organized
groups seeking to elect government leaders.

Political parties are more or less permanent
organizations that contest elections because they aim
to assume the crucial positions of authority within
the state. They as faction groups are structured with
a bigger formation, with formal organizations and
members pursuing a common purpose, which is
mutually enforcing among them.

Ostrogorski (1854 - 1919) in Martin Harrop’s Political Parties
was the pioneering student of politics who came to recognize
that parties were becoming vital in the new era of democratic
politics: “wherever this life of parties is developed, it focuses
the political feelings and the active wills of its citizens.”

Further, he contended that the emergence of parties was
indeed growing and becoming truly important and dictumed
in this wise, “the twentieth century proved to be the century
of politics…”

In West Europe, mass parties battled for the votes of enlarged
electorates. In communist and fascist states ruling parties
monopolized power in an attempt to reconstruct society and
the people within it. In the developing world, nationalist
parties became vehicles for driving colonial rulers back to
their imperial homelands. In all these cases parties succeeded
in drawing millions of people into the national political
process, often for the first time. The mass party was the
mobilizing device of the twentieth century.

Note:

Parties are often confused with interest groups.
Unlike interest groups, which seek merely to
influence the government, political parties pursue
goals to secure leverage in keeping the affairs of the
state right at their commands.

Important terms to remember:

Political parties - are defined as organized
groups of qualified voters pursuing the same
ideology, political ideas and principles for the
general conduct of the government.

Characteristics of
Political Parties
The surfacing of political parties in contemporary politics is
an indication of a representative democracy. Political parties
exist even in totalitarian states; in modern dictatorship at least
one single party may appear with no clashing opposition on
one side. Politics is a struggle for power at least in
democracies. The fight for political power arises from varied
groups, particularly among political parties.

There are some characteristics of political parties that
usually distinguish them from other groups or movements.
These are, among others:
1. Parties exist to attain political leverage in controlling the power of
government by winning elections. Small parties nevertheless may consider
elections more build government platforms of programs than to win
political offices;

2. Parties are politically organized bodies with formal structures, defined
ideologies and supporting membership. This characteristics of a party
distinguishes it from a broader and more diverse social movement;

3. Parties often adopt a broad issue agenda, identifying to each of the
major areas of government policy. Other parties like interest groups may
have a single issue concern and are bent on pursuing them through
pressing propaganda techniques;

4. Some parties do come and go, particularly in democratic societies
where there are multi-party systems. A number of political parties may
come into being during election period and may wither away after
elections. As long as interests of members are coordinated and served they
remain with the parties but as internal power clashes among them and
interests became more personal to content parties may disintegrate as
leaders withdraw only to coalesce later with other party, usually with
party in power;

5. Parties, to varying degrees, are grouped with unity of purpose, shared
political preference and a general ideological principle.

Functions of Political
Parties
The central function of political parties is the filling out of
political offices through wielding of government power.
Political parties working out for elected positions in
government are commonly regarded as bastions of
democracy. As Haque (2002) argues that the existence of
such parties is often seen as the litmus rest of a healthy
democratic system. On the other hand, regime parties that
enjoy a monopoly of political power are normally portrayed
as mechanisms of exploitation and political power.

In democracies parties assume several important functions
that keep the political system together and make their
purposes alive. Some of general functions are:

1. Linking the people and Government
2. Interests aggregation
3. Elite recruitment
4. Goal Formulation
5. Political mobilization and Socialization
6. Organization of Government

Linking the People and
the Government
Through political parties citizens can get their needs clamors
responded by the government easier. In the absence of parties,
citizens would become a mere group of sheer individuals
without the capacity to be involved in the political process
and decision making of a state. By working in or voting for a
party, citizens do offer significant influence on the political
affairs of the state. The presence of organized parties extends
citizens a sense of power that yields to maintain government
legitimacy.

Interest Aggregation
Political parties help tame and calm interest group conflicts
by aggregating their separate interests into a larger
organization. Interest groups tend to find that they must
moderate their demands, cooperate and work for the good of
the party. In return, they achieve at least some of their goals.
Parties – especially large parties – are this in part coalitions of
interest groups. As aggregation of interest groups goes on,
parties pull into the political system groups that had
previously been left out in reaching out for votes, parties
usually welcome new groups into their ranks, giving them a
say or input into the formation of party platforms.

Elite Recruitment
Political parties function as agents of elite
recruitment. They serve major building blocks
for preparing, choosing, and recruiting
candidates to run for public positions. A
potential candidate therefore must first
become a member of a party, to seek office he
must be well convincing to win party
nomination.

Goal Formulation
In the process of controlling the power of a state, political
parties assume significant role by formulating programmes or
government platforms with the goal of attracting mass
support to win elections. Political parties are not only the
bases of policy direction but also they propose to initiate
integrated sets of policy goals that extend the citizens varied
choices from the array of formulated plans of actions.

Political Mobilization
and Socialization
The most important function of political parties is to sway the
electorate choice at their sides simply putting getting large
number of people to vote in their favor. In campaigning for
their representatives parties are often engaged in stirring
voters’ interest. In the absence of effective campaign
propaganda, at least debate and discussion, political parties
would suffer tremendously from lack of publicity, as many
citizens would find no interest on them, and on the election
itself.

Most political scientists believe there is a causal
connection between weak United States political
parties and low turn out. In Sweden, strong and well-
organized parties often produce voter turnouts of
ninety percent or higher. Some critics object that
party electoral propaganda has a function. By
simplifying and clarifying issues, parties enable
voters to choose among complex alternatives
(Roskins, 1997).

Political parties are important tools for educating the
public. The issues or concerns they advocate for. Or
adhere to, could make a significant impact on the
people or could even tilt the balance of electoral
favor to their advantages, and the values and
attitudes they so expressed and espoused could them
become part of the bigger social and political culture.

Organization of Government. Political parties
facilitate linkage between the executive and the
legislature, sometimes to some extent, even the
judiciary (as in cases of developing countries with
fragile and vulnerable democracies). Political parties
are so important in contemporary democracies. They
help in the planning of governments and are
substantially active in determining policy goals.

Parties give governments sense of legitimacy and a degree of
relevance and consensus particularly when the staffs of the
government are reluctant from a single party. They are
therefore characterized with unity of purpose and with
common attitude and sympathies. Even governments that are
built from various party alliances are also more appearing to
appearing to promote unity and cohesion than ones that
consist of separate individuals each having his differing sets
of priorities.

Somewhat noticeable political parties in
developing countries are more focus yet less
varied as much as determining and
propagating their agenda is concerned, hence,
aside from the general functions stated above,
they carry specific functions and relevance.

These are noted as
follow:
1. Parties generally exist to choose candidates for elections. There is a
customary principle that when a candidate is selected from their ranks
shall enjoy full support from the members, and shall have considerable
access to party logistics for successful campaign mobilization.

2. Parties stand for platforms of government. Party slogan and campaign
issues determine their significance and future government positioning.
Parties with defined agenda and mass based following with members able
to articulate these goals are almost certain for election.

3. Party organization forms political machines to attract voters and win
election. Public sympathies should be translated into actual votes during
elections. Successful party based should start at the grassroots level that is
from electoral barangay, to municipality, to city, to provinces and to
national level. Political machineries are indispensable in democracies only
to keep the election works on their advantage.

4. Parties provide political leadership for the country and serve as
fiscalizers of the party in power. Political candidates who were elected are
directly stakeholders of the government. They thus provide workable
frameworks to jumpstart the political, social and economic agenda for the
state. As effective fiscalizers they act as watchdogs with constant eye for
any abuses of the party in power.

5. Parties provide alternative approach whenever the
electorate changes the party in power, a new political group
shall then emerge to provide the society and state new
political agenda, new hope and new challenges for building
fresh thrusts and mandates, although not necessarily better
than their predecessors.

Development of Political
Parties
The relevance of political parties is sometimes taken for granted but they
are so critical in established democracies. In United States alone, many
Americans view parties as nothing but extraordinary tools of democracy
without much significance. Unlike in Europe political parties in United
States are weaker, especially outside the seat of government power in
Washington DC. The Republican and the Democratic parties are the two
major parties in United States and are believed to be the same in terms of
mandates, attitudes and party ideologies.

Elections are not issue oriented rather citizens are more focus
on personality of the candidates rather than party proposals
and government platforms. In fact, many political analysts are
becoming reluctant that parties would not yield much
influence on the citizens. Parties are somewhat losing their
significance. It is now feared that they may “fail to perform
necessary political roles expected of them in keeping the
system running correctly”.

In Roskins, Maurice Duverger put all parties into three
traditional categories: mass, cadre or devotee.

1. Mass parties include the western democratic parties, which vie for
member by attempting to but across class lines and which seek the largest
membership possible. European parties while not as broadly based as the
Anglo-American parties, are still mass parties because their membership is
open.

2. Cadre parties in contrast such as the Chinese Communist Party and
India’s Congress Party draw their support from the politically active elite.
Generally associated with totalitarianism or developing nations cadre
parties have centralized organizations and expect the elite group that
makes up their membership to be active within the party.

3.Devotee parties such as the Nazis under Adolf
Hitler of Germany, where the party’s formal
structure is built around one person. Such a party is
now found almost exclusively in third World
developing countries.

Elite (Caucus) Parties
Elite parties came to exist during the nineteenth century.
Today, the cadre parties denote the organization of
professionals, knowledgeable, skilled and trained members
who are politically committed and exhibited party value
discipline. The important strength of cadre parties is their
dependence on the ruling elites that is capable of exhibiting
ideological alternatives to the people.

Mass Parties
Mass parties have wider public based support. They are so organized to
mobilize working class support system. They give extra premium on
recruitment of members that is membership is open to all other than those
who have direct political goals. They sought to keep their representatives
in the legislature on a rather competitive and influential rein and in effect
exerted magnanimous pressure on European party systems in the twentieth
century. The United States unlike the Philippines through Party List
system however never banked to develop mass party system.

Catchall Parties
Catchall parties aim to govern rather than to simply represent
the members’ interest. They are purported to govern not on
the representations of the concerns of a single social group
but rather in the name of national interests. In Haque (2001)
catachall parties are direct responses to a mobilized political
system in which governing has become more technical and in
which electoral communication is through the media. The
People’s Party in Germany (volkspartei) with its strong-
based support captures the catchall ideas.

These catachall parties would then appeal to wider number of
voters to control the government powers. They emphasize on
unity under strong leadership.

Meanwhile, an emerging issue in party politics is the
resurgence of ideological politics in the search of social
justice and equality. It is a movement away from the expert
and back to the people and to what may be called expressive
politics.

The phenomenon is associated with single-issue groups
advocating one particular position or interest, and the call to
realize specific goals. It is a king of “do it yourself” politics.
In Italy, Greece, Spain, France and Great Britain, ideological
politics, in which nationalism plays an important role, have
resurfaced. They are likely to enhance existing cleavages
along religious, class and ethnic lines and to undermine
consensus, and governmental authority.

Another way to classify parties is on the basis of ideology or
the left to right spectrum. Left wing parties such as
communists propose leveling of class statues by nationalizing
major industries under state control and ownership. The left-
right political spectrum is a shorthand method of
characterizing political values and beliefs classifying into one
coherent ideological perspective the positions of social
movements, parties, and politicians. It developed from French
Revolution with the juxtaposed political spectrum differences
provided as reference by Heywoods (2002).

Left Right
Liberty Authority
Equality Hierarchy
Fraternity Order
Rights Duties
Progress Tradition
Reform Reaction
Internationalism Nationalism
Figure 12

Few terms in the political vocabulary of our times
are as ambiguous as left and right – to which of
course, the term center is always added to denote
those belonging to neither or sharing attitudes,
beliefs and values common to both. In France, the
left is represented by two major parties – the
Communists and the socialists, and a number of
leftists splinters, the extreme left.

The difference between the left and the right are not as
profound as people believe. As regards to the economy, social
legislation, foreign policy and political institutions, the areas
of agreement between the two political families to the right
and the left are more marked than areas of disagreement. An
opinion poll in France in which 30 percent of the respondents
could not identify with either the left wing or the right wing
parties, their answers resulted in a left-right mix.

Also in the political spectrum is the center left
parties such as the socialists’ parties of Western
Europe. It encourages welfare state not by state
control. An example of such are the Italian and
German liberals where parties are generally open to
social issues but remain steadfast on economic
issues.

However, on the other hand, there also exist center right
parties like the German Christian Democrats who pursued
power by controlling the welfare state over free enterprises.
Right wing parties such as the British conservatives under
Lady Thatcher that aim to set aside the culture of welfare
state and rather promote capitalism. Among countries that
actually integrate the varying classifications of party system
in Sweden.

One more type of classifying parties as advanced by
Sigmund Neumann is between representation and
integrative parties. Representation parties see their
primary functions as being the securing of votes in
elections. Representatives parties adopt a catchall
strategy and therefore place pragmatism before
principle and market research before popular
mobilization.

Rational choice theory to politics may be defined to mean an
approach based on the assumption that individuals are
rationally self- centered and self- interested actors that in
simple understanding connotes the economic principles of
politics. Integrative parties on the other hand are usually
reactive and tend to mobilize, educate and inspire the masses
rather than merely respond to their concerns.

Party System
Party systems have been defined as the
interrelations of parties with each other and
with the overall political system.

1. One- Party System
One party system broadly means a party in dominance or a
party is in monopoly of power via the absence of other party.
A domination of power suggest a permanent power in control
with no or very weak opposition. When a party dictates the
political power there seems to be no mechanism through
which it can be removed. Hence, it naturally developed an
“entrenched relationship with the state machinery”.

A one party system is usually affiliated with
totalitarian states of the left or right wing. As
an example the former Soviet Union, the
emerging superpower China and some
countries in Asia and Africa are or were in the
past under one single party system.

2. The Dominant Party
System
Dominant political party refers to the hold of power by one
party which is constantly in office controlling the governance
or coalition with other party. A single major party assumes
prolonged period in power. Dominant parties are regarded to
be competitive in the sense that a number of parties compete
for power in popular and regular elections, but they usually
are elected and keep the power of the governments.

A traditional point is that to retain the dominance of Congress
Party, it heavily relied on caste alliances and on a pyramid of
class to maintain the status quo with the central power in the
middle of diversities and a society so disjointed by varying
culture and belief systems. The most dominant feature of a
dominant party according to Heywoods is the tendency for
the political focus to shift from competition between parties
to factional conflict within the dominant party itself.

The DC in Italy, for example, functioned as little more than a
coalition of privileged groups and interests in Italian society,
the party acting as a broker to these various factions. The
most powerful of these groups were Catholic Church, the
farmers and industrial interests. Each of these was able to
cultivate voting loyalty, and exert influence upon DC’s
members in the Italian parliament.

3. Two- Party System
Two party system is characterized with the presence
of two major parties, like the Republican and the
Democratic Parties in United States, alternating in
power in the control of government. While the party
is in power the other party acts as the opposition.
Still, whichever of the two major parties is in control
of power, it is only temporary.

The two major parties have a fair and equal chance of
winning although some minor parties may exist; only two
parties electoral and legislative strength. Power alternates
between those two parties, the losing party serves as a
government in waiting, Great Britain aside from US is also
frequently cited as example of state with two party system.
The Conservative Party and Labour Party are considered to
exemplify two party pattern in Great Britian.

Although two party system may be considered weak by
European standards in terms of choice selection, it
nevertheless defined the political history of United States, the
greatest forerunner of party politics. The two contesting
parties may still be limiting, they are able to offer the
electorate a straightforward choice between rival platforms
and alternative governments. When a party wins, it would be
easy for carrying out its programs without having to
compromise or negotiate with existing party affiliates.

Two party systems are very competitive for
delivering responsive government programs based
on “relentless competitions” between the governing
and the opposition party. A party in power however
could never just be complacent as it is constantly
watched and guarded by the prying eyes of the
opposition, which actively waits to tilt the balance of
power or simply up for the grabs.

The two party system in Great Britain has had real impact on
its politics. Traditionally, it had social relevance to the class
system. The Conservative Party and the Labour Party in the
Parliament (House of Commons) has provided the division
between a coherent united government and a united
opposition, and the two party system simplified the voters’
choice at election time into voting for or against a
government.

There are three main
characteristics of British
parties:
1. British parties are disciplined and are united in voting. In
voting for the House of Commons members are expected to
vote in unity with the party ticket, and should a politician
wiggle out of the party line he can later find himself out of a
party whip;
2. British parties are pragmatic. During campaign periods
parties provide solid platforms and manifestos outlining the
policies they will pursue once elected to government. Both
party leaders and members are expected to support these
policies; and

3. British parties are centralized. However local
parties nominate candidates, their choice is made
from a list of candidates already approved by the
party headquarters.

The Conservative Party has electoral ability proven overtime to appeal to
many or varied social groupings. Its sheer durability is proof of its
success. It may be hard to describe the Conservative Party as ideological
but they worth some values they hold dearly like the freedom of choice,
social welfare provisions, indirect taxation, etc. Truly, the success of the
party may be attributed to the constant failure of the Labour Party to
harmonize members with unity of purpose. The dominant slogan of the
Conservatives has been the Tory of One Nation Tradition, this view
engages a positive state very effective to appeal for, and draw up, mass
support.

On the other hand, Labour Party pursues social and working class interest.
Many say that the Bible became the source of the party ideas and
inspiration. Some of the party mandates include nationalization of major
industries, public social services provision, protection and enhancement of
trade unions and progressive income taxation, and so forth. However the
constant struggle of the two parties in Britain lead to significant
discontinuities. Thus, Britain has suffered from adversary politics due to
abrupt discontinuities in policies when one party replaces another in
office.

4. Multi- Party System
Representative democracy would be at its finest form
whenever there are competing parties for the control
of power in a government. Multiparty system
connotes varying choices and alternatives for the
electorate. Thus, they are becoming undisputable
political norms in democratic societies.

A government in coalition characterizes multiparty system. Coalition
governments are formal agreements between two or more parties that
involve a cross party distribution of ministerial portfolios. They are
usually motivated by the need to ensure majority control of the assembly,
A coalition is a grouping of rival political actors brought together either
through the perception of a common threat, or though the recognition that
their goals cannot be achieved by working separately. A grand coalition or
national government comprises all the major parties, but are usually
formed only at times of national crisis of economic emergency.

Multiparty system may also be characterized as what Sartori
termed as either moderate pluralism and polarized pluralism.
Moderate pluralism exists where ideological differences
between major parties are slight that is their platforms and
promises appeal to middle of the road voters. Countries of
moderate pluralists are the Netherlands, Belgium, and
Norway, among others. On the other hand, polarized
pluralism exits when more number of parties with significant
ideological differences separates them.

Here parties tend to compete rather than compromise
their political leanings; parties may tend to become
ideologically extreme and engages in “politics of
outbidding” with their rivals. Some of them are
revolutionary or antisystem parties like strong
communist parties in Italy, Spain and France until
1990s. Such situations cause political instability and
social unrest that may even lead to civil war.

In a state with multiparty system wide electoral support seems
difficult to achieve as there are many political parties
competing against each other for the control of government.
The passage of a bill in a legislature requires majority support
from its ranks since parties can hardly secure majority votes
of the people, they tend to form coalition with several parties
to get their interests moving upward.

It is also noticeable that under multiparty system,
government becomes unstable every time a
withdrawal of party support takes place and so for
the government to become stable it then becomes a
political culture for the leading party to negotiate and
compromise with other parties included in the
system.

In France, under the fourth Republic, there were eight or ten
parties, most of them without discipline, leadership or
platforms. In the legislature, a number of parliamentaray
groups, corresponding more or less to the political parties,
formed weak coalitions behind a government that therefore
was short-lived. The multiparty system led to a fragmented
assembly, which in turn accounted for cabinet instability.
(cited in Macridis, 1990)

Because of their multiparty and internal divisions, the parties
in France could not perform two vital functions. They were
not able to debate and clarify issues for the public. Members
and leaders of the same party with exemption of the
communists and the socialist groups, often advocated
different things in different parts of the country, and their
differences were not resolved in their party caucuses.

Second, under the Fourth Republic the parties could not
provide for a stable government committed to certain
fundamental objectives. After an election it was impossible to
tell which combinations of political and parliamentary groups
could provide temporary support for a prime minister and
which new combinations would bring about the prime
minister’s downfall.

In some countries like the Philippines, the
multiplicity of the parties eventually resulted
in the widening of gaps between the people
and the government. The system failed to give
an opportunity to the people to choose their
government and hold it accountable.

In summary, a party system is a network of relationship
among varied political actors and power machines in
influencing the outcome of a political process and in
determining policy goals and objectives. In one party system
a ruling party dominates the function of the government and
ultimately becomes the government itself. Under two party
system powers are up for grabs as two major parties content
the rein of power in the government.

In dominant political system a single major party under a
strong totalitarian leadership worked all the way up to
perpetuate power for a long period of time. And in multiparty
system, no party is too dominant and consistent enough to
assume governmental powers indefinitely thus bringing about
coalition government only to keep a considerable hold of
power, at the very least should the party in power lost in its
bid to maintain or keep the political control at its disposal.

Selecting a Party
Candidate
Anthony Downs assumes that in a political market,
parties act in a rational, self-interested way. He
defines a party as “a team of people seeking to
control the governing apparatus by gaining office in
duly constituted election”. To maximize their control
over the government, parties seek also to make the
most of their votes, even in a multiparty system.

“…The more votes a party wins, the more
chances it has to enter a coalition, the more
power it receives if it does enter one and the
more individuals in it hold office in the
government coalition. Hence, vote
maximizing is still the basic motive
underlying the behavior of parties… ” (Down
in Haque, 2001)

Candidate selection is a crucial aspect of party organization. Candidate
selection is also an area of transition in party practice, as ordinary
members acquire more weight in selection procedures. In most
democracies, candidate selection is a decentralized procedure involving a
major role for local parties and an increasing one for individual members.
In countries using the plurality election system, the most common
requirement for a prospective parliamentary candidate is to win. Selection
by local constituency parties operating under the supervision of party
headquarters (Haque, 2001).

But in specific terms, there are different ways in selecting a
candidate for office. They vary from one country to another.
In communist states, candidates of the party are chosen on the
basis of party hierarchy. In most democratic societies, party
leaders are selected at party conventions attended by “loyal,
long time members, often representing constituency
organizations”. Indeed, most candidates for public offices are
drawn from the party ranks of their members.

Three means of choosing candidates exist outside of
direct selection from the ranks by the established
party leadership. These are as follow:

a. Some candidates are self- recruited: They enter the primary on their own
strength. They may be wealthy and influential persons, who hope to use massive
advertising to pull a lead or compensate their lack of organizational support or
persons who vice points of view that bring them a popular following but not party
backing.

b. Candidates may also be recruited by cooptation: A party may ask a “big name”
who is not formally identified with it to run as its candidates. This usually happens
when the party has no strong candidate of its own and capitalize on a popular new
face.
c. Candidates are persuaded to file for office as the agents of groups who hope to
win concessions from the established party hierarchy.

Financing A Party
If parties would only depend on the
membership fees paid by their members they
would never survive as effective party
organizations. Usually the fees they extend to
parties were not even enough to cover
operational expenses, which is why most
parties seek financial assistance from outside
sourcing.

In India and Germany for example candidates are expected to
give donations and spend huge personal amount to finance
their campaign sorties, as well as to contribute to the party
coffers. So in effect candidates may overspend only to assure
access to public post they were seeking after. In Britain,
however, candidates work and operate their electoral finances
within specified amounts, otherwise they may be charged
criminally should they violate campaign- spending laws.

In modern day democracies, particularly in
developing democracies, politics is played by any
means: Long before the election period, potential
candidates are already riding on free media publicity
for recall or retention purposes. The free media
mileage they get would to a large extent pay off in
the post election results.

People in developing countries are not issue-
oriented rather they are more personality- oriented,
which is why in the Philippine politics alone a great
number of local entertainers and showbiz
personalities have landed public offices easily with
minimal expenses than those who are not as well-
known or popular.

Meanwhile, many political candidates do spend undisclosed
amount even buying citizens’ vote and employing other dirty
tactics to coerce the electorate to favor them in the coming
elections through goons, guns, and gold. In the United States,
presidential elections may run over a year of publicity, media
exposure and public appearances while electoral campaigns in
Europe are relatively shorter that would mean anywhere from
several weeks to a month short thereby their campaign
expenditures are comparatively lower.

In the Philippines there is also a law that limits candidates’
expenses per voter during election but traditional politicians
would always have their ways to overspend. In countries like
France, Israel, and Japan there are laws regulating political
contributions from civil society. Unlike in Sweden, Germany
and Spain where candidates may use government funds to
subsidize political parties in proportion to each party’s
electoral strength.

Party Democracy And
Party Government
A party system is “a network of relationship through which
parties interact and influence the political process especially
the powers that rein in the government. In one party system a
ruling party effectively function as a permanent government.
In two party system powers alternates between two major
parties. In dominant political parties a single major party
retains power for a prolonged period. In multi-party systems
no party is large enough to rule alone, leading to a system of
coalition government ”.

Moreover, the organization and structure of parties usually
influence the distribution of power within society at large.
Party democracy can be promoted either by a wide dispersal
of power within the party or by the concentration of power in
the hands of the party’s elected and publicly accountable
members. Oligarchic tendencies may be inevitable
consequences of organization, or they may arise from the
need for party unity and electoral credibility.

Party government is “a system through which ingle parties are
able to for government and carry through policy programs. In
competitive systems, party government exists nowhere in
pristine form. It is therefore sensible to talk about more party
government or less party government, but not about whether
it exists”.

In Heywoods concept definition there are
key features of party government and these
are:

1. The major parties posses a clear program character and thus offer the
electorate a meaningful choice between potential governments;

2. Responsibility is maintained by the government’s accountability to the
electorate through its mandate, and by the existence of credible opposition
acting as a balancing force; and

3. The governing party is able to claim a popular mandate and enjoys
sufficient ideological cohesion and organizational unity to delivery on its
manifesto commitments.

While party democracy is “a form of popular
rule that operates through the agency of a
party as a democratic institution”. There are
two views on how this can be achieved. In the
first intra-party democracy parties are
democratic agents in that power within them
is dispersed widely and evenly.

This implies, for instance, that there should be broad
participation in the election of leaders and selection of
candidates and a prominent role for conferences and
conventions in policy formulation. In the second model,
democracy dictates that policy- making power should be
concentrated in the hands of party members who are elected
the therefore publicly accountable. In this view, a wide and
even dispersal of power within the party may lead to the
tyranny of non-elected constituency activists.

Parties In Authoritarian
And Communist
Regimes
Political parties are fundamental bodies to the
operation of modern politics, and are found in most
countries under democratic framework. Parties may
also be present in authoritarian governments than to
democracies. Authoritarian rulers may dispense with
parties altogether since they maintain strong system
of personal leadership behind the context of one
party state.

They argue also about the relevance of parties for
people are united under a dominant state ruler. Many
civilian authoritarian rulers have found a one party
system useful but often just as a disguise for personal
rule. Some authoritarian regimes still get by with no
parties at all. These are either pre party or anti party.

The case of Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew (1959- 1990)
under People’s Action Party (PAP) dominated and rules the
tiny island since 1959 when it attained independence from
Great Britain. The strong man rules PAP. The party showed
significant dominance when in 1997 it won almost 95% seats
in the legislative department and the new Prime Minister
concluded in this wise “that the electorate has totally
condemned Western style liberal democracy by outdoing its
principles”.

Thus, Singapore as a traditional example of the
Asian developmental state in which a modern
economy has been built on the foundations of tight
political control. This commitment to economic
development, enabling the country to by-pass the
East Asian financial crash of the late 1990s gives the
PAP continued confidence in its right to rule.
(Harrop. 2001)

Still however, dominant parties in authoritarian regimes are battling with
emerging issues in keeping the balance of power. Global issues are
pressing for authoritarian states toward democratization. It has been
argued nonetheless the state citizens of authoritarian regimes would
eventually realize and in the process develop resentments with the type of
political control being exercised by one party dominance.

While parties are commonly weakling and crawling in states under
authoritarian leadership, communist countries are by contrast working that
the exercise of power by one ruling party system was progressing even in
a non-democratic society.

In hindsight, Leninism idea that the monopoly of communist
party (vanguard party) provides a long term interest of the
working class and the people are made to understand that the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union was bent to achieve
social reformation in post revolution era. Vanguardism is the
belief in the need for a party to lead and guide the proletariat
or the working class towards the fulfillment of its
revolutionary goals.

The political paradigm of a party dominance in a communist
state exercises power through varied methods. The central
government keeps the monopoly of power and control society
in particularly all phases of its activities including the media
and the dissemination of propaganda techniques. Just like
under totalitarian regimes, party control is achieved through
force, coercion and intimidation.

In Soviet Union before, the KGB being the police force
became ultimately the conduit of suppression. The KGB
employed espionage and other forms of intelligence
information gathering to identify and pin down in the process
the enemies of the state. Once this system of social control is
fully operated it gave the ruling party the most systematic
method in controlling the society and keeping the power in a
communist party that is so effective a method and somehow
impossible in any political system elsewhere.

Meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) may seem to be liberal
in controlling state power, it no longer seek t control the economy and the
population to such an extreme condition. Still the CCP maintains power
over the country’s political direction. As Manion (2004) concluded. “for
now, as in the past, the decision of the communist party state is a fair
model of the organization of political power in China”. Communist parties
have no defined system of selection process to their top posts in the ruling
political bureau (politburo). As a result the presence of internal politicking
as groups and factions fought for control over party’s command-and –
control capability.

Lacking a clear succession procedure and recognized limits
to its authority, communist rule could always-though actually
it did not- degenerate into personal dictatorship. In the
former Soviet Union for example, Stalin’s success in
consolidating his control of the party in the 1920s ended him
to institute a personal despotism in which million of people,
including many from within the party itself fell victim to the
great terror of 1937 to 1938 (Harrop, 2001) Soviet Union
already disintegrated in the early 1990s.

Under communism, the political party attained its
twentieth century pinnacle, with Lenin’s thesis of the
Vanguard Party rationalizing communist power of
both the state and society. In Fascism, the political
party assumed a secondary spot, becoming a vehicle
of a dominant leadership and eventually an adjunct
of a system of rule that was both personal and state
centered.

Fascist parties failed to attain the level of power and control
over state and society, the way communist states do. In
Fascism like Italy under Benito Mussolini, and Hitler of
Germany, the Fascist party served its leader, not he leader
serving the party. Fascist thinking was oriented to the leaders
of the state. Hence, the relevance of political parties in
totalitarian states is not an issue that can be addressed without
acknowledging the crucial differences between Fascists and
Communist states.

Challenge Confronting
Parties
The growing distrust on political parties is anchored on grave
suspicion whether party politics in contemporary times could
solve real issues not only of political importance but more of
the social ramifications going overboard. As democracy
works the search for cohesion and consensus to satisfy man’s
political and moral nature would continue to persist and even
the clamors for higher tools or instruments in the emerging
processes of social movements.

Traditionally Thomas Jefferson had once doubted the
relevance of political parties. To him parties would not only
breed discontentment in the process but would gradually
damage the fiber of social unity and magnify conflicts among
the people. Stuart Mill on his personal note argued that
faction politics would only suppress the freedom of
expression, of thought and the politics of individual
conscience.

The decline of political parties may be seen from the failure
of their leaders to become effective representatives of the
people in connecting their interests progressively with the
government. Not to mention the crisis within the party where
members are slowly withdrawing support only to find them in
another party affiliates, party switching and turncoatism.
Party loyalty and principles in the process became poor
secondary to personal interests.

The rise of new political movements ushered in a new era of antipolitics
the principal attraction of which is that they are untainted by having held
power like the women’s movement and cause- oriented groups (pro- life
group, environmentalists, civil right advocates). Even if they articulate
their views through party organizations, these movements have never been
too personal to advance politics, yet emphasizing popular mobilization
with a cause that is devoid of power politics. Social movements may be
viewed as peoples’ group that set out subvert traditional politics by
abandoning parliamentary compromise.

Political parties become too oligarchical in character. They
become too rigid and bureaucratic political machines whose
members are wither passive or ceremonial in attending
meetings, getting publicity for media mileage and so on.
Thus, political parties become too engrossed in enhancing
their images by establishing political clout to hardened and
traditional politicians. Eventually, leaders end up as corrupt,
ambitious and perverted.

Another reason that explains the decline of party
politics in modern times is that party leaders become
too mechanically promising in their campaign
activities to win power. Members and the public
alike turn into disillusionment as party leaders they
once trusted turn out to be more of a liability as they
miserably fail to deliver once in government.

Towards this end, interest groups and other
social movements emerge to complement, if
not to replace, political parties in building
responsible and more conscientious citizenry
by expressing their varied interests in a rather
simplistic but more effective approach.

Next:

Part X
International Relations with
Foreign Policy basics

Political science part ix

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to Political science part ix

Similar to Political science part ix (20)

More from Alona Salva

More from Alona Salva (18)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Political science part ix