Political Clientelism - Report Example

Political Clientelism Introduction Political Clientelism has its inception in Latin America and other European countries dating back to the early part of the 18th century. The generic definition of Political clientelism in common man’s terms is that it is a process or service where the people who provide political support to the government get rewarded by the leader of the government or by any other individual group. The term has taken several other names during its course of existence over the years, like the Americans calling it as “political machine” and in Japan it is called as “jiban”. (Blau, 1964) Irrespective of the different names, the conceptual meaning of the term remains ubiquitous. Political clientelism more often than not has been on the negative side with almost all critics. Baring a few critics, there is nothing much positive that has been attributed to this concept. One reason that could be behind this negative connotation is the fact that there are no specific set of exchanges that are included under this concept. Almost all political exchanges can be included in this term and hence it has led to a bad reputation. According to Piattoni (2004), when this concept is brought down to the basic essentials, it can be defined as a simple exchange between two persons of which, one is deserved to receive and, the other is obliged to provide it, mainly because of the difference of powers between the two persons. Also, Mason (1986) has explained that such an exchange involves “the patron providing clients with access to the basic means of subsistence and the clients reciprocating with a combination of economic goods and services (such as rent, labor, portions of their crops) and social acts of deference and loyalty” The above given exploitation could be considered as a kind of old, traditional definition associated with this concept. However, with the evolution of age, the concept has been taken up by political parties in an altogether different context. Modern electoral voting system and the concept of democracy has given the clients, the power to choose their leaders and hence an upper hand. So, an exchange which was meant to be done on the basis of obligation has turned out to be a concept where the politicians provide direct remunerations in the form of subsidiaries and means of sustenance to the voters to buy their vote. Although there are some people who vote out of obligation, the context is soon changing towards a “buy your vote” concept. (Hopkin, 2006) Several countries like India, Japan, Italy and India have exhibited the existence of such situations during elections. Bulgaria is one such country where political clientelism has spread it roots but unfortunately, it too has fallen on the wrong side of the democracy. Bulgaria – Political History Bulgaria has a long political history associated with it. After becoming independent from the Turks in 1879, Bulgaria moved on from a monopolized governmental rule to a public democracy in the year 1989. (Crampton, 2005) In 1990, Bulgaria saw its first free elections being held and a new constitution was formed. From then on, there has been a consistent growth towards perfecting the democracy of the country. The parliament was moving towards a stable condition, the society was active in progressing towards a civilized movement and the policies were implemented successfully. The year 2004 saw the country being added as a member of NATO (Crampton, 2005) and by the end of 2007, Bulgaria became a part of the European Union. But, since then, the government has been lacking to live up to its promises of reform and has received lot of flak from its EU counterparts. Furthering its decline in reform, the 2009 National Elections made the country hit a new low with political clientelism, once again, applied on a negative concept with politicians buying votes by offering freebies to the voting public. Vote-Buying Although this approach of vote buying in Bulgaria became evident only in the 2009 elections, it is believed that such an exchange has been under practice for more than 15 years, right from the first elections that were conducted in 1991. Further, it is also a fact that many people followed this practice without knowing its consequences or one should say, out of ignorance. In 2005, indications of political clientelism was first evident when the former king of Bulgaria, Simeon, contested in the 2005 elections by promising the voters to improve their state of living to European standards within a period of 800 days and consequently, won the elections. However, the inability to keep up with the promises led the public to lose hope on such kind of exchanges and this opened up the negative notions of political clientelism among the politicians. With the public failing to agree with the promises of the politicians, the latter tried to buy their votes in the successive elections by offering them money and rice in exchange. The direct benefits, although temporary, greatly enunciated a new sense of appreciation among the public to this kind of exchange. (CET, 2009) Bulgarian political clientelism The Bulgarian political clientelism provides a ‘market approach’ to this concept. The old version of exchange was primarily done out of obligation from the client perspective, because of their inclination to support the patron. But, this new approach has totally turned the entire concept towards providing an economic advantage to the client. That is, the political exchange has been molded in such a way that whoever bids the highest price gets the final vote. Another change that the Bulgarian clientelism has brought into picture is the products that are exchanged. Traditionally it used to be private goods but the new version has added in a monetary value to it. (Piattoni, 2001) Studies with regard to this mode of exchange have revealed some alarming behavior and intentions among the people of Bulgaria. Many are in favor of accepting the money, although their end results completely depend on their intentions – they vote to whoever they wish irrespective of the money they take from the politicians. The consequence of such a mode of political exchange would lead to a state where the politicians are more concentrated on setting the cost for buying the votes rather than putting up effective strategies that could deal with the problems of the public. The people on the other hand are also unaware of the complications they are inducing on their own future by adopting this kind of exchange. The recent elections of 2009 also saw a sea of news about vote buying, right before the voting day and caused unprecedented levels of havoc within the county and among other European countries. Although, the elections results were not much affected, the problem is a serious issue that needs high level of attention from the top level of the government. The above example of Bulgarian elections and its relation with political clientelism clearly shows the impact that this concept could have on either way (positive or negative). Hence it is important to understand the complete concept of clientelism before allowing such practice to exist in the country. Conclusion On the whole, it could be said that with the current political perspectives of many political parties is concentrated more towards minting money, clientelism is a better service on that it at least provides the clients more than just their right to vote. However, when there is a change that can be achieved in the political systems, where there are no more tailoring of policies to suit the corporates and when there are no more intentions among the politicians to make only profit, then every necessary step should be taken mandatorily to avoid political clientelism being practiced in a negative way. Till then, political clientelism would continue to be seen in the perspective of the wrong side of democracy. Works Cited Piattoni, Simona. Clientelismo. Scambio, sistema, strategia. Unpublished manuscript, University of Trento. 2004 Mason, T. David. ‘The Breakdown of Clientelism in El Salvador’, Comparative Political Studies 1986. pp. 487-518. Crampton, R. J. A Concise History of Bulgaria. 2005. New York: Cambridge University. Print Blau, P. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.1964. Print Hopkin, Jonathan. ‘Clientelism and Party Politics’, William Crotty and Richard. 2006. Piattoni, Simona. ‘Clientelism in Historical and Comparative Perspective’. Clientelism, Interests, and Democratic Representation.2001. pp.1-30. CET. Vote-buying allegations mar Bulgarias European election. EUBusiness. Web. 2009. http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1244389622.41/ Read More