Are political parties essential for democracy? Or are they a hindrance?

There are several principal features that can be contrasted with clubs, factions and cliques:

• political party involves an active leadership group that is committed to advance the goals of the party, and is not used for personal advancement;
• it has specific practices (e.g., electioneering and nominating candidates) to further it own expansion, and to work within the government;
• it contains a wide variety of interests and supporters;
• coherent programs, or ideologies, are developed; and
• it relies heavily upon the support of the public.

There are four conditions for the emergence of modern parties:

• secularisation – individuals and voters must believe that they can shape the world; i.e., they matter;
• voluntary associations – an extensive network and a variety of voluntary groups help to prepare people to be involved in political organisational work and activities; and
• communication and transport – some key features of parties, such as electioneering and contacts between politicians and constituencies, require developed communication and transport.

There are three precursors, or causes, of the formation of modern parties. These are historical crises that occur as societies attempt to achieve nationhood, and modern parties are ways to resolve these crises:

i) crisis in legitimacy of the new socio-political order

Modern parties help to secure viability of and trust in new institutions and symbols for their citizens.

ii) crisis in the integration of the new order

Parties arise to provide a means to resolve conflicts, differences and tensions that inevitable exist and develop.

iii) crisis in participation by the masses in the new order

Modern political parties are well-adapted to cope with this form of crisis, and also to ensure that there is some legitimacy in the ruling government.

There are distinctive and innovative features of political parties:

• neatly defined hierarchies;
• a vast network of communication; and
• overriding commitments of leaders to organisational goals and growth.

Paradoxically, the strength of party organisations may deprive citizens of their right to freely choose political representatives, and may ensure that the party leadership dominates party politicians in the parliament.

Michels investigates how democratic organisations (such as political parties and trade unions) become highly rigid and ossified structures such that: a) they rob the rank and file the rights to participate to decide party policies; and b) leaders are granted powers to dominates over the members.

Organisations are essential, as the working classes can only achieve privileges by combining into organisations, but the reins of power fall into the hands of an oligarchy for several reasons:

i) psychological factors

The willingness of the rank and file to submit to authority. In addition, they are more suggestible and amenable to propaganda and orators’ speeches.

ii) technical factors

The rank and file do not possess sufficient social and organisational skills, whereas the leaders have a level of expertise to dominate the members. In addition, the leadership group has a large degree of control over the means of communication.

iii) personal qualities

The charismatic qualities of the leaders assist in their hold over the rank and file.

iv) financial benefits

There are financial benefits to retain power, especially if the alternative is a return to the rank and file, and a drop in living standards.

However, the leaders cannot dominate the membership indefinitely. Nevertheless, the composition of the leadership group does not radically change. Instead of the circulation of elites, there is a reunion of elites, whereby the elements from the old leadership group amalgamate with the elements of the new, so that the existing leadership group continues to retain some power.

Despite such acts of amalgamation, and even decentralisation (i.e., the power and authority of the original leadership group is scaled down), there is still an accumulation and concentration of power at the top of party organisations. Given the socialist and democratic nature of such organisations, this is quite ironic, such that Michels’s thesis can easily be re-named the ironic law of oligarchy.

Some scholars have identified other ways in which the leadership group can achieve and retain autonomy:

• an election process in which the rank and file have reduced powers to select candidates, and to elect the leaders;
• a strict hierarchy prevents the members from easily evaluating the performance of the leaders: is credit or blame given to the individual leaders, or the structure of the organisation?; and
• an absence of regular channels of communication prevents the rank and file from formulating party policies.

Some scholars have suggested that the cohesiveness of the elite, or the single oligarchy, is less real than apparent, and that there are competing sub-oligarchies, so diluting their powers.

However, critics of Michels’s thesis have argued that organisations need not be oligarchic, and it is possible to achieve democracy within political parties: There are several ways in which a greater democratic organisation can be achieved and sustained:

• encourage commitment to the party, rather than the leadership group;
• foster participation by the members in the working of the party;
• create a climate that is receptive to dissent and innovation; and
• breed social and political skills among members.

There are some questions about the relative advantages and disadvantages of oligarchic tendencies in parties over democratic ones. To be sure, democratic organisations racked with internal conflict, dissent and competition is incapable of attaining their goals.

Do political parties guide electoral behaviour? Do people behave loyally to political parties?

There are several points worth noting:

i) There is some evidence to suggest a process of re-alignment as people’s political preferences change to other parties, largely due to generational and political issues effects. However, others have argued that citizens have become disillusioned by all political parties, and have opted for ‘independent’ parties (i.e., a process of de-alignment).

ii) Values affect how people behave and vote, and there are competing values in advanced industrial societies: materialist values (such as economy and defence) versus post-materialist values (such as the environment and welfare). Parties are increasingly appealing to the post-materialist values as citizens start to shift towards such views.

iii) Social class is considered as a strong factor on how people vote. Working-class voters tend towards parties that emphasise redistribution and welfare programmes, while middle-class voters tend to support political ideas about entrepreneurship and freedom.

iv) Peer pressure, belonging to a cohesive community and social networks affect political decisions, largely due to the need to confirm. As a corollary, if individuals face conflicting opinions and viewpoints, they tend to be indecisive, and not to vote.

v) Ideally, voters ought to make rational choices between the parties based on their own priorities and issues and parties’ credibility, irrespective of party labels. Yet, rationality seems to be absent, evident by a strong degree of party loyalty.