Political Parties In The 21st Century

Political Parties in the 21st Century

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia23 March 2010

Dr. Wolfgang SachsenröderInstitute of Southeast Asian Studies

Singapore

1998

Political Parties - The Indispensible Evil?

Latest Polling Results in:Germany:95% trust firefighters and police30% trust politicians and parties

Britain (after Lord Ashton scandal):73 % don’t trust politicians and parties

Philippines?

The Role of Political PartiesConsensus in the literature:Political opinions and demands are manifold in any society. Therefore, parties have to structure, filter, and aggregate public opinion so that the political system is able to process them.

But why do some parties survive, others not?

One possible explanation:Party Institutionalization

1. Roots in society2. Autonomy3. Organization4. Coherence

Dimensions of party institutionalizationStability Value-

infusion

External Roots in society Autonomy

Internal Level of organization

Coherence

Value-infusion means that a relevant share of people -party members and the electorate - sees the party as an organization one should not do without.

Roots in society

Indicators:

• Party age relative to beginning of multiparty period

• Changes in electoral support in last and second last elections

• Links to civil society organizations

Autonomy: The party is relatively independent from individuals within and societal groups outside the party.

Indicators:• Number of alternations in party leadership• Changes in electoral support after alternation in

party leadership• Decisional autonomy from individuals and groups• Popular appreciation of particular party

Organization: There is a constant organizational apparatus at all administrative levels and acts in the interest of the party

Indicators:• Membership strength• Regular party congresses• Material and personal resources• Nationwide organizational presence, activities

beyond election campaigns

Coherence: The party acts as a unified organization;the party tolerates a certain level of intraparty dissidence

Indicators:• Coherence of parliamentary group (no defections or

floor-crossing)• Moderate relations between intraparty groupings (no

dysfunctional factionalism)• Tolerance vis-à-vis intraparty dissidence

Ideology?The century of ideologies is over – in Europe…

Political “families” (SI, IDU, LI) rather Europe-centered

Except the socialist façades in China or Vietnamno strong labour/socialist/social democratic parties in Southeast Asia

Political change – democratization?

Expectations from the West (and Western educated Asian scholars) and the reality of European parties.NDI “Minimum Standards” vs. Thomas Carothers

Democratic development in Southeast Asia – which Yardsticks?

Political engineering in Southeast Asia - Indonesia

Political Parties in Southeast Asia?

Parties in the Philippines

“Philippine electoral political parties can be said to be the weakest political institutions that are at best described as ad hoc, if not transient and fluid. They are the weakest link in Philippine democracy.“Tuazon, Bobby M. (editor), Oligarchic Politics, Elections and the Party-List System in the Philippines, CenPEG Publications 2007, p.24

Singapore

The People’s Action Party (PAP) is probably the mostobserved and discussed Asian party in PS literatureand the general media… though little is known about its inner mechanisms, cadre system etc.

Opposition? Generally toothless despite protest votes.

Malaysia

UMNO / Barisan Nasional:Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Decades with huge absolute majorities, easy access to state funds,racial bias unsolved, small allies bribed (?)

Parti Keadilan Rakiat /Pakatan Rakiat:“Strange bedfellows”, PAS with islamic agenda (?), leadership of Anwar Ibrahim unstable

Thailand

Coping with election systems

Poll-watching - international electoral support – expensive strategy consultants:Elections getting cleaner

Trend towards proportional systems or elementsslow and timid, little understood by voters

Dominant role of attractive personalities as candidates and campaign funding

Plutocracy – money politics?

1. Whereas in many European countries civil servants form a majority of MPs, many Asian parliaments - and parties - are dominated by businessmen.2. In the absence of public party funding, the costs of political activities and campaigning are not affordable for normal earners.

3. Opportunities for self-enrichment are much higher in Asia than in Europe.

4. This is why the competition for mandates and government is often ferocious.5. The richer a party, the bigger the spoils of government (e.g. UMNO in Malaysia) the more attractive it is.

The problem is at least 2400 years old..

"Thus it is manifest that the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and that those states are likely to be well administered in which the middle class is larger and stronger – if possible than both other classes." – Aristotle, Politics, Book IV

The balance between rich and poor was an obsession of ancient Greek politics, but plutocracy often prevailed.

And the difference between Asian and “Western” systems is only gradual!

Southeast Asian characteristics?

Tentative list (no ranking):1. Survival of authoritarian single-party systems2. No democratic socialist parties3. Generally weak party programs4. Parties often based on patron-client relations5. High volatility of parties and membership6. Highly “innovative” money politics7. National cleavages normally accommodated8. Efforts to improve institutions, election systems etc.