Since the seminal work of Jacques Levy, the
French political geography has made the distinction between three types of
power maps: the strategic map organised by the military, the map of control
organised by the Nation State and its different institutions, the map of
legitimacy structured by the distribution of political parties, trade unions,
churches and NGOs.
At local level, the political parties of
the present are often the successors of previous political parties belonging to
the same broader "political family". Successful candidates and their
affiliates (family, direct friends) often play an important role in the
transition between old political parties and new ones. Basically, they stay whereas
the party changes or merges with another one to form a new entity. Personal
loyalties and nostalgia for past political groupings have not to be
under-estimated to understand the local complexity of the French socialist left
or centre-right at local level. They explain partly internal divides within
each party at constituency level. Yves Lacoste and his team studied, twenty
years ago, the deep complexity of the French political map. Their empirical
studies demonstrate - in a country where the forces structuring the political
map are more frequently changing than in the US, Great Britain and Germany - a
certain stability in the divide between left and right, Marxist and non Marxist
left, Gaullists and Christian democrats, even if the number of activists and
voters gathered by those political forces considerably vary over time.
With often a shorter life, political
parties bear similarities with other institutions that structure the map of
legitimacy and are considered communities of the willing : churches, major NGO
and charities, trade unions or parent unions, most of them being duly
represented as legitimate voices of the civil society in the Conseil
Economique et Social.
The question follows: what makes parties
different from other clubs and communities aiming at the improvement of
society? What brings and keeps together party activists, supporters and voters,
if this is not the faith of a church, the project of a charity and the advocacy
of an NGO? Are political parties not out-dated organizations in the new knowledge
economy dominated by easy direct access to information and expression, a world
in which traditional middlemen are squeezed out in retail, culture, science?
Will parties of the future not be just loose and flexible coalitions between
members of more solid - or more fluid- communities: believers, interest groups,
NGO affiliates and internet communities organised around a central purpose?
What does the American benchmark tell us
about the future of the legitimacy map in the digital age?
1) Parties as Communities
There is little doubt that political
parties play a social role and are not just tools for their leaders to access
to legislative or executive mandates. One could argue that political parties
can be also be considered "societies", "communities", even
if ephemeral.
a) Parties
as communities of candidates and activists - Political parties contribute to the social capital of their
candidates as much as they happen to build upon it. At a different and almost
separate level - they also contribute to the social capital of their regular or
occasional activists. In regular party meetings at constituency level, during
local or national campaigns, party activists meet fellow activists. They create
between them all sort of informal links that may affect their economic, social
and personal life. In many places, established parties also function as
economic networks of elected, candidates and militants. They may offer jobs or
facilitate access to jobs in the public sector or the party apparatus. Being
member of a party is even, in some places, a way to gain easier access to
public procurements. Parties contribute to education, training and selection
for public functions. They act as editors and producers of contents for the
media. As social institutions, they bear some similarities with churches, trade
unions and large NGOs.
The recruitment of new party members often
demonstrates the social nature of party building process rather than the mere
attraction of slogans on values. Groups of friends, work colleagues, members of
the same trade union, student association or ONG often rejoin party together.
To fully understand the behaviour and political potential of party activists
(what input in programmes, what impact on voters) it clearly appears to
researchers in America that one has to understand better the connections
between activists and their immediate social sphere[1].
The US experience also seems to show a
rebound of interest for political parties through a new type of grass-root
approach that the internet permits. New types of activists with new
expectations appear and may bring a new sense of community in the realm of
party politics. One may argue that the traditional networking function of
parties is to some extend kept even by so-called minute parties or ephemeral
coalitions between digital activists built from the internet. Interaction
between ephemeral activists is namely increased as they share information,
agendas, contact details during the period of "net-root campaigning"
that are organized by the parties or its support groups[2].
b) Parties as "communities"
between voters - To what extend can political
parties be considered as larger communities of voters, affiliates, friends
beyond the core group of activists and candidates? In a functionalist approach,
voters that end up voting for a specific party have some common interests, be
it economic or symbolic. The victory of the party means that they may benefit
from a more benign legislation or a more generous taxation system. They may
also get themselves a better recognition in society as a result of the
election. This positive result is to be achieved by a mix of economic, social
and symbolic measures. Seeing the newly elected executive leaders defending
publicly one's own values or beliefs or being able to identify with them may
have as much importance as seeing one's immediate economic interests being
taken care of. The functionalist approach explains some stability in voting
according to social groups and their respective lasting interests.
If one follows the French sociologist
Raymond Boudon[3], some kind
of looser rational community is being built around partisan proposals and
projects put forward by party candidates, with voters gathering around the more
credible project and the most coherent set of principles (sometimes at the
expense of their own interests). The way in which candidates propose to address
issues and challenges may be as significant to attract voters as specific
promises. When voters associated themselves with a party programme on the basis
of rationality, they usually promote it within their own social network, they
celebrate the victory of the party as a victory of their own and they will
share worries for the future with fellow voters if the party is defeated. A
loose feeling of reciprocity and togetherness is created between people likely
to vote for the same candidates.
But beyond habit and that kind of affectio
societatis that goes with the sense of community -a
sense of community stronger in partisan core groups - what does link party candidates,
activists and voters together? - Symbols, leaders, party rules, party narrative
and proposals, of course.
But what do they stand for? What do they
try to service, represent and incarnate? - Values or projects? What is behind
the dynamics of partisan (self)- inclusion or (self)- exclusion ? What does one
expect or refuse to share when he joins or quit a political party?
What brings people together: project or
values?
Two traditional visions seem to have
contrasted in post-World War II Europe.
For the parties inspired by the Leninist tradition,
affiliation has to build around a common revolutionary project. The project is
to destabilize the bourgeois regimes and destroy the State in order to
establish a new socialist order. Those that refuse the dialectics and
discipline of revolution under a central command have nothing to do in the
party. This is the iron rule made explicit for instance by Jean-Paul Sartre in Les
Mains sales. The party exist only to service the
revolutionary project and acts in a completely tactic and opportunist way when
it comes to making alliances and joining forces in other to win at the end.
"No one cares if the cat is black or white when it catches mice".
For the parties inspired by the Christian
democrat thinking, affiliation has on the contrary to build around a common set
of values derived from the Tradition, the social doctrine of the Church, modern
philosophy and the interpretation of recent history.
In the two cases, the party is responsible
for a narrative of society and history. This narrative also has something to
say about the fate and the role of the individual (and of the social class they
belong to). This broader narrative constitutes the basis of the "party
doctrine". In the two cases, more than in traditional values, activists
and supporters are invited to approve and share the broad narrative provided by
the party as well as the party doctrine on organization, actions and purposes
that results from it.
Leaders on those two sides of the political
spectrum are usually eager to criticize the short-termism, the lack of
ideological back-bone of the other parties - liberals, social-democrats,
peasant parties - that are, according to them, just trying to provide a
political offer that would capture to a large (unexploited) political demand.
They are also critical of other political contexts where ideological salience
is weaker and parties mainly represent traditional affiliates and interest
groups. This has often been the continental perception of the American party system.
The French philosopher Georges Lavau[4]
has tried to deconstruct this opposition between parties of project and parties
of values, and tried to investigate further what defines a political party in
continental Europe.
a) Partisan
pride?
Surprisingly, both Christian democrats and
Marxists, as well as for many trade unionists with a ideological tradition
going back to anarchism, consider the political party a necessity, an
instrument, and even a difficult one. For Marxists the purpose of the party is
to end the party system of the bourgeois regime. For the Christian democrats in
the tradition of Mounier, the party will always remain inadequate to adjust to
the prophetic dimension, the assertion of absolute values that is, for Mounier,
the necessary complement of any political action based on ethics. More
important that engaging in party politics is to give a testimony for Truth, in
a complete refusal of any kind of relativism[5].
This may be why a larger number of people
with strong values (socialist, humanistic, Christian, environmental...) finally
engaged in NGOs, trade-unions, leagues or ad-hoc movements rather than in
political parties, with the expectation of "doing something else"
that the "usual political parties". If they finally accept to engage
in party politics, people with values are likely to put stronger emphasis on
the function of the party as a tribune from which to address the public
opinion. They may also prefer smaller parties unlikely to be the core of
successful coalition but in which they will find more likely people sharing
very similar views.
b) Partisan values and doctrine?
Unless in very rare cases (pure clandestine
revolutionary party, very small ideological party functioning as an ad-hoc
league), the doctrine usually does not over-determine party action, positioning
and recruitment. In many cases, doctrine is not even produced within the party
and does have to be: "A party cannot be only ideological, and even less
only based on doctrine. It has to
smoothen a doctrine that its takes and accepts and takes as compass. One may
wish the party to have links with an ideological research centre, but there is
no gain for the party to institutionalize those links and to consider them as
organic. The party should certainly have training classes and should devote
itself to internal debates about doctrine. But I do believe it can have very
high ambitions in this field.... Creating a doctrine is largely a work of its
own that requires a solitary work and a little "dis-engagement" from
daily political fight...One requires party leaders to understand a doctrine, to
explain it to the activists, to abstain from arrogance and cynicism when they
work with people in charge of doctrine, but above all to be creative, to
suggest, based on intuition and political experience, constant adjustments and
renovation"[6]
The compass role played by a doctrine -
this large social, historical, geopolitical narrative that is familiar to
leaders, activists and voters of a political party - differs from the prophetic
assertion of absolute values that Mounier advocated for as the necessary
complement of political action. The doctrine provides useful "reading
keys" to perform the first role of a party in an open democracy that is to
inform the public opinion. The narrative, the doctrine of the party provides a
kind of meta-text to those that take the floor in the name of the party. It
contributes to create a branding, a political identity.
Reference to values is only a part of the
doctrine borrowed by a party from philosophers, think-tanks, spin doctors... It
serves as a narrative basis for the production of declarations, stories,
papers, pamphlets, tweets... of party leaders. Parties with marxist roots also
use a "doctrine of action", a "praxis", to help justifying
their methods, their structures and their internal rules, even if it is largely
demonstrated that those methods, rules and structures often owe more to power
struggle and compromises between the leaders within the party that to any kind
of outside rationality.
In America, competition between party
leaders (in articulation with constitutional and institutional opportunities
and constraints), much more than values, rational choice between projects or
any doctrine of action, appear to define first party rules and then the choice
that party elites present to the electorate and the incentives that they will
have benefit from if they follow through on their campaign promises once in
offices[7].
One may even wonder if the digital age has
not brought about the end of a centralized and unique party doctrine as well as
it has reduced the impact of central party communication by authorized
spokespersons. The reality seems to be much more decentralized: activists,
bloggers close to a important party, may be building their own stories,
pamphlets and tweets based on different doctrines available between which they
do cherry-picking. A constant interactive co-production of both doctrine and
information contents towards the public opinion between legitimate leaders and
efficient digital activists close to the party appears to be a sort of new modus
operandi been shaped.
c) Candidates and project to win the
elections!
Beyond the first task of political party
that is to contribute to the information of the public opinion, the second task
is clearly to win the elections and to size power or a share of power. Ahead of
elections people are not interested less interested in doctrine and values
behind doctrine than in proposals and projects: "Ahead of elections,
one has to propose things simple, timely and workable. One has to propose them
without hatred, in a reasonable way, without no fear to go into details about
implementation: because voters are not fool and wish to know how one will
do"[8]
The rationality of the party project is
even more necessary as parties have to do with very heterogeneous voters.
Parties cannot rely anymore on the automatic support from certain
constituencies (those with many industry workers for instance that used to vote
for the Left). The election is not a period to express doctrine or develop a
narrative. It is a match between competitors. Voters first expect their
challenger... to win. This basic fact commands to build support of vary
different kinds of opinion leaders and supporters that do not necessarily share
the same values or the same narrative on history and society. It commands to
build alliances and to accept compromises. It commands to leave a large margin
of manoeuvre to the work of coalition building carried out by party candidates
at every level.
According to Mark Brewer, parties in
America have one fundamental goal and that is not to "assert values".
It is the construction of a coalition that enables them to win the elections[9].
Social groups (less affluent/more affluent, blacks/ whites, big cities
dweller/small towns) as well as religious blocs (low level of religious
salience/high level of religious salience, Catholics/Evangelicals) are
full-fledged targets in this process but they are not the cradle of party
politics. Coalition building around a candidate, its project and its supporter
retains high levels of risk and uncertainty.
A partisan project differs nonetheless from
a catch-all patchwork dictated by the rules of political marketing. The mere
juxtaposition of promises aiming at different opinion clusters usually lacks
credibility because it lacks coherence. In countries used to the huge influence
of lobbies, churches or interest groups, the defence of a common and coherent
project seems to have a real value added.
McFarland's concept of
"neopluralism" explains the mobilizing of political
"countervailing groups" - old and new political parties - in reaction
to the advocacy of policy networks, lobbying coalitions, patrons, social and
religious movements, more than by share values. The defence of common interest
and even the defence public space against the constant threat of regulatory
capture by private or community interests would be one of the reasons for the
citizens' engagement and participation. Being against the capture of the common
norm by ideology movement (be they green, feminist, pro-life, libertarian or
gender neutral) or faith based groups is a powerful driver for the re-emergence
of a pluralistic political resistance[10].
In the service of a common project for all,
inconsistencies on praxis and project are more
difficult to overcome than divergences on values, doctrine or overall
narrative. Isolationists and interventionists cannot easily work together on a
common project. People in favour of redistribution through targeted taxation
and people against tax increases cannot easily work together. Europhobes and
European federalists may have a difficult time in bringing about a common
project. Difficulties and inconsistencies are usually more benign between
people with different views on family, marriage, religion that can nonetheless
work efficiently together on other issues and present a credible common project
in which means and processes can be consistent with objectives and promises.
In a new geography where centralized
command in doctrine, organization, campaigning is more an more difficult to
achieve, it may be surprising to see political parties to try to mobilize
voters and new activists around values, either traditional (religious or
patriotic values) or "new" less dividing values (engagement,
responsibility...) rather than around rational projects or contractual
relations with voters based on a contract.
Will this strategy be successful? One may
wonder.
Is coalition building not easier when room of manoeuvre is a
left to candidates and when programmes are not too heavily pre-determined by
values or a general narrative that may bring together - mainly for sociological
reasons - activists potentially able to enjoy a communion of belief, but likely
to at trouble to put together and defend a project that will convince at the
end a silent, heterogeneous and demanding majority.
[1] Walter J. Stone, "Activitsts, Influence and Representation in
American Elections", in Sandy
Maisel, Jeffrey Berry, Americain Political Parties and Interest Groups, Oxford : OUP, 2010, p. 285-302
[2] See Daniel Shea, John Green (eds), Fountain of Youth, Strategies
and Tactics for Mobilizing America's young voters,
Lanham : Rowmann and Littlefield, 2007
[3] The author of The Origin of Values
describes the need for rationality of citizens able to abstract themselves from
their immediate interests and able to make a rational choice for the seemingly
more coherent policy proposals in an electoral competition. See Raymond Boudon, Retrouver les principes
fondamentaux de la Démocratie, Paris,
Fondapol, 2007
[4] Georges E; Lavau, "Définition du parti politique", in Esprit....p
42-75
[5] Emmanuel Mounier, Le
Personnalisme, ....
[6] Georges Lavau, op. cit; , p.61
[7] John Aldrich and Jeffey Grynaski, "Theories of Parties",
in Sandy Maisel, Jeffry Beery, The
Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups, Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2010
See also the classical book of John Aldrich, Why parties ? Chicago : Chicago University
Press, 1995.
[8] Georges Lavau, op.cit., p. 61
[9] Mark Brewer, The Dynamics of American Political Parties, New-York : Cambridge University Press, 2009
[10] Gerald Macfarland, Neopluralism,
Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004
