Political Parties in the New Era - Coursework Example

Serapio Maria Perpetua A. Serapio Academia-Research Topic: Effective Representational Vehicle December 3, 2008 Political Parties in the New Era Political Parties are organizations that mobilize voters on behalf of a common set of interests, concerns, and goals. Their main objective is to formulate political and policy agendas, select candidates, conduct election campaigns, and monitor the work of their elected representatives. It links citizens and the government providing a means by which people can have a voice in their government. Basically, the functional definition of a political party is an organization that supplies three kinds of services: (1) helping legislative candidates get elected, (2) helping legislators get bills passed, and (3) helping members of the collective influence legislation. Many studies have shown that the Political Parties of today have changed significantly in the past few decades, both in industrialized countries and in the developing nations (third world countries). The changes have inadvertently resulted in the weakening of connections between citizens and the state, however, there remains widespread consensus that political parties are essential elements in democratic societies. A statement made 50 years ago by E.E. Schattschneider was that, “Political parties created democracy and that modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of parties. As a matter of fact, the condition of parties is the best evidence of the nature of any regime. The most important distinction between democracy and dictatorship can be made in terms of party politics. The parties are not therefore merely appendages of modern government; they are in the center of it and can play a determinative and Serapio 2 creative role in it.” Recently, Alan Ware viewed political parties as pervasive elements in contemporary societies saying that, “In contemporary states it is difficult to imagine there being politics without political parties. Indeed, in only two kinds of states today are parties absent. First, there are a few small, traditional societies, especially in the Persian Gulf, that are still ruled by the families who were dominant in the region they control long before the outside world recognized them as independent states. Then there are those regimes in which parties and party activities have been banned; these regimes are run either by the military or by authoritarian rulers who have the support of the military.”2 In consonance thereto, here are some prevailing views made by some of the participants in a conference convened by the National Endowment for Democracy’s International Forum for Democratic Studies where in attendance were many of the world’s leading political parties scholars and practitioners held in Washington DC to “Address the Current and Future Prospects of Political Parties.” One of the prevailing views made as articulated by Juan Linz stating that,” Today, in all countries of the world, there is no alternative to political parties in the establishment of democracy. No form of nonparty representation that has been advocated has ever produced a democratic government. Thus we are faced with a world of democracies based on parties.” However, there were conflicting views made in the same forum to the effect that political parties are necessary for democratic development. Phillipe Schmitter on his part provided the most critical statement saying that, “ Political parties are not what they used to be. They no longer structure electoral choices as clearly and decisively, command citizen attachments as passionately, form distinctiveness, or aggregate interests as widely and explicitly as they once did. Clearly, political parties everywhere, both in the industrialized countries and in the developing world, are becoming less and less able to Serapio 3 perform these core functions. In short, they are no longer indispensable for the consolidation and perpetuation of democracy.” In view of the foregoing facts let us now analyze up to what extent political parties provide an effective vehicle for the representation of individual and collective interests. With this in mind, we come to the reality that these candidates would have to decide on a platform, tell voters about it, and try to convince credibility of their promises. It is a known fact that to get these votes they need a good machinery and the number one consideration is campaign spending. It is very difficult for an independent candidate to move on his own most especially in the district or national levels of campaign. Through his membership in a political party he is assured of campaign funds, jointness in advertising supplies and election strategies. It does not mean however that independent candidates have no chance of winning in an election. They do, but in exceptional cases only. It has been a common practice that the presidential or prime minister candidates are the rallying force behind the political party. In the presidential system, the president is elected by popular election. Then the president is like a representative for all the respective districts. If representatives from each district join in a political party with the presidential candidate, then they realize the benefit of jointness in advertising and in political strategies. In the case of the parliamentary system where the prime minister is chosen by the elected by the elected legislators. It is therefore apparent that a voter’s vote for a particular representative may not only be a vote for him but also a vote for the prime minister candidate who the voter expects the representative will support. Evidently, gains from jointness can be realized by representatives who join in a party with an incumbent prime minister or a popular challenger. Serapio 4 In this process, party workers who help candidates get elected are paid in two ways. First, they can be rewarded by being appointed by the successful candidates to government posts. Second, they can be paid by wages. The money ordinarily would come from campaign contributors who stand to benefit from legislation or executive decisions made their favor. With this in view, we ask the question of, “How could legislative candidates afford to pay political parties to help them get elected?” One answer could be the so-called “spoils system,” which is based on the saying about war, “To the victor go the spoils.” The spoils system is the procedure of rewarding political party members and other supporters with jobs in the government. It has been the common practice that the legislature has the power to replace most government employees with those of its own choosing. Thus, a newly-elected legislature and administration could pay-off political party activists by appointing them to jobs in the new government. The second means of paying off campaign supporters is through campaign contributions. Economic policies of the government have substantial effects on the incomes of particular individuals. These policies include passing laws that protect businesses from competition, choosing the method of financing the government (whether to borrow or tax, and which type of tax to impose), granting special monopoly franchises, and selecting firms to receive government contracts. It is noted that legislators are in an advantageous position to know about plans for future policies. By disclosing these information about the future location and nature of large government projects, would enable speculators to earn large profits. Thereupon, the prospective beneficiaries are willing to pay, either in money or favors. In short, they are willing to make. The political party reduces the transaction costs that member legislators must incur trade votes. It thereby facilitates logrolling or deal-making after the candidate gets elected, she becomes a member of a legislative team, or club. The party hereby begins to function as a club. Serapio 5 An example of logrolling happens when a legislator and that someone proposes a bill to launch new technical facilities for energy resource. Suppose that a voting district contains a disproportionately large number of farmers, shippers, and/or transportation companies. Compared with voters in other districts, the voters in the latter’s district would gain more from the energy resource. Thus, under pressure from his constituency, he would plan to vote for the bill. If his research informs him that there are not enough votes for the bill to pass, then he would seek out logrolling partners in his party. He would then look for a legislator who wants his vote to support the bill being pushed by this colleague of his which is the farm-to-market roads bill. The same effects are therefore achieved by implicit logrolling, or issue-combining. Instead of voting on two separate bills- the energy resource and the farm-to-market roads bill- legislators could combine the two issues into one bill. Let us now consider the political party from the viewpoint of campaign contributors. A political party is a means by which a campaign contributor can channel money to legislators in an effort to get bills passed. A prospective campaign contributor expects to benefit from legislation voted on by legislators. Passing a law requires a coalition of legislators, a contributor who wants to assure the favorable bill would be passed will contribute to the campaigns of a number of different legislators. However, if he would contribute to a party his task would be much simpler. This in effect would have the contribution in exchange by the party director to agree to facilitate the logrolling and other interaction necessary to get a favorable bill to be passed. This offer of service to campaign contributors gives the party an advantage of strategic position to broker deals among party members. This method of negotiations is an advantage to the candidate because he would not want his constituents to find out where the campaign funds com from. The candidate is on the best position if contributions are coursed through the party in order to be efficient in rewarding the party volunteers who helped her get elected. Serapio 6 A pressure group which is collective whose members want to influence laws. Examples of pressure groups are groups of private companies, unions, crafts, professions, government contractors , government bureaus, ideologies, taxpayers, consumers, recipients of public goods, and others. They join together to form a pressure group to enable individuals to pool their resources. The methods used by pressure groups to influence laws are by the following: (1) Inform legislators of its members’ preferences; (2) Give money or time to help with an election campaign; (3) Threaten to have members vote as a bloc; (4) Write bills and help legislators make logrolling agreements; and (5) Attempt to influence members of the executive branch. It is important to distinguish pressure groups and interest groups. In a free society it typically contains many interest groups that do not qualify in a way as pressure groups. Book clubs, bowling clubs, church organizations and homeowners’ associations do not normally influence legislators, political parties, or candidates. However, sometimes an interest group also becomes an interest group and vise-versa because of this potential relationship. It must be taken into consideration that non-pressure interest groups are substitutes for profit-seeking businesses that supply are substitutes for profit-seeking businesses that supply club goods. The best known references is the Olson’s book in reference to pressure group theory in Public Choice. An effective way how to understand Olson’s theory in relation to legislation is to imagine that legislation is mainly a means through which individuals can exploit each other. Domestic producers in a particular industry may want a law to impose a tariff on imports. If they are successful, their gains ordinarily come at the greater expense of consumers of the tariffed products. Pressure groups may form to support or oppose exploitative laws. Olson points out that because the benefits to members of a prospective pressure groups are joint, there is a free rider problem. The Serapio 7 important factor is that business firms in a particular industry whose owners believe that they can benefit from a higher tariff. In the instance that some of the firms join together in a pressure group in order to pressure the legislature to pass a tariff bill. After the bill is passed, even the firms that did not join the group will gain. They will have the free riders gain. Recognizing this in advance, firms have only a small incentive to join the pressure group. It must be noted that the free rider problem is less significant when the number of beneficiaries from a law is small. It follows other things equal including the benefit to the group, a group that is small is more likely to form than one that is large. This is evident that associations representing oligopolistic industries are the most common business pressure groups in a modern democracy. In view of all these facts, our reference to pressure groups have been evident about how such groups enable individuals to impose external costs of collective decision-making on other. Pressure groups can increase the efficiency of collective decision-making by helping to more effectively communicate voter preferences to politicians and by helping to inform voters about candidates. It is now apparent of the real and potential benefits, and perhaps the best course of action for those who support democracy is to hope that the various constitutional freedoms of speech, press, assembly, election, and related ones will bar the most serious cases of pressure group exploitation. If in the event that too much exploitation occurs, members of the collective would hopefully be sensible enough to demand for constitutional change. It is therefore noteworthy to state that the ability to harmonize different activities and functions within the political system, lending stability to democracy. Although political parties have changed over time, they remain the most important vehicles for democratic governance. Serapio 8 Works Cited Schattschneider, E.E, Party Government (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1942).p1 Ware, Alan, Political Parties and Party Systems (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 1 International Forum For Democratic Studies, Political Parties and Democracy: Conference Report, (Washington, DC: National Endowment for Democracy, November 1996), p.4 International Forum For Democratic Studies, Political Parties and Democracy: Conference Report, (Washington, DC: National Endowment for Democracy, November 1996), p.3 USAID’s Strategies for Sustainable Development: Building Democracy, (Washington, DC; US Agency for International Development, January 1994), p. 2 Kitschelt, Herbert,” The Variability of Party System Development in Post Communist Democracies: A Sketch,” paper delivered at the Conference on Political Parties and Democracy, International Forum for Democratic Studies National Endowment Forum for Democratic Studies National Endowment for Democracy, Washington, DC, Nov. 18-19, 1996,pp1-2, 18. Shefter, M. , Demeta, K. ,Review of Political Parties and the States, The American Historical Experience, PSC 129, March 25, 2004. Gragia, A., Political Bahavior, Chapter 6 – The Political Party Strom, Karen, European Journal of Political Research, Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego, US, 37:261-289, 2000 Mc Guire, J.W., Power and Politicization in a Weak Party System, working Paper, #129, Aug. 1989, Argentine Unions since 1955 Ellfit, J, Reynolds, A., The Impact of Election Administration of the Legitimacy of Emerging Democracies: A New Research Agenda, Working paper #281- Sept.2000 Cox, G.W., Mc Cubbric, M. D., Political Structure and Economic Policy: The Institutional Determinants of Policy Outcome, Dept of Political Science, University of California, San Diego, Feb. 1992 Read More