The democratic archetype- Liberal democracy- The crisis in democracy examined through the lens of democratic disenchantment and the cartel party thesis
The cartel party thesis, Globalisation and Liberal democracy.
Liberal democracy is defined by and structured through the framework of liberalism. Some have argued that liberal democracy is the best form of governance since the earliest democracies were conceived by the Ancient Athenians in 450BC. The earliest form of democracy lasted for almost 150yrs until 320BC. Initially producing stable societies and governments and brought about active participation of the citizenry in politics, although this only included men over 18yr of age (Parekh, 1992).
Liberal democracy can be defined as a political system that allows the existence of political rights and democratic rule (Bolen 1980, 1986, 1990 cited in Bolen 1993). Early liberalism came about in opposition to feudal privilege and the oppression of religious minority groups. Most definitions of liberal democracies note the inbuilt safeguards that protect the individual or minority from the tyranny of a ruler, a sovereign, or the electoral majority (Mukand, and Rodrik, 2020).
The word democracy derives from two Greek words (Demos) meaning people and (Kratos) meaning rule. Democracy is defined as all citizens taking an active interest and participation in the governance of their country that is overseen by their elected representatives (National geographic, 2023).
Political rights allow for the freedom to express political opinions in differing media formats. They allow the individual the freedom to form and participate in political groups. Democratic governance allows the participation of all individuals in government via their representatives. By democratic rule the government is accountable to the people (Bolen, 1993). This feature in modernity is being steadily eroded.
The goal of liberal democracies is to weigh individual priorities in alignment with collective choice efficiently and in as fair a manner as possible (Huseyin, 2000). Liberal democracies protect three sets of rights, property rights protected from expropriation by the state or other groups. Political rights ensure a free and fair electoral process characterised by competition, guaranteeing the winner the right to form policy without other rights. Civil rights ensure that all citizens are equal before the law, (The Rule of Law) and non-discrimination by delivery of public services for example, Justice, education, and health (Mukand, and Rodrik, 2020). Steadily being eroded.
In summary: Liberal democracies, guarantee the rights of the minority while accepting majority rule. Steadily being bolstered to a position where minority rights are more than the majority. Liberal democracies have free and fair elections that are competitive in nature. The population participates in democracy via their elected representatives and is guaranteed political, property, and civil rights and liberties. Governments are accountable to the people by democratic rule and all citizens are held as equal under the principle of the rule of law. Steadily being eroded.
Democratic Functions
Predictions of the demise of the political party have been a common theme in political science literature since their conception and are part of the earliest writings on their nature, purpose, and functionality. Academic literature descriptions fall from catastrophism to fragile and form around crises, decline, and vulnerability. Although a common theme in the literature centered around political parties it may be expected they are no longer necessary or meet the stipulations that would best describe their functionality and yet they still appear to be or indeed are a necessary feature of modern democratic forms of governance. Political parties are synonymous with modern Democracy.
According to Dalton Farell and McAlistar, (2013) “considering a tangible scholarly pessimism the political party seems to have remained central to effectual operation of contemporary democracy and indeed would go further and suggest even more so due to the complex nature of modern governance”.
The argument by Dalton Farell and McAlistar, (2013) traverses from one that points to the decline of the political party and one indicating political parties have managed to retain their dominant position within democracies. They frame their analysis through 5 main forms of linkages between citizenry and political parties these are mentioned as campaign process linkage-participatory linkage-ideological linkage-Representation and policy linkage. The interest here will be the first 4 linkages.
Campaign process linkage
With generosity, taking a view that parties campaign processes are positive, we explore this function. Firstly, parties maintain dominance in the selection of candidates and steer the campaign’s political discourse. This is a form of party quality control of candidates and a method of introducing policy and awareness of ideological leanings. Parties have designed and implemented regulatory devices that do not restrain them and are in effect aesthetic at face value. Moreover, through the party system of democracy, parties have designed and implemented a plethora of controls in the electoral system that maintain a monopoly of the process. Parties also benefit from substantial subsidies and subventions from the state. These can be financial and of a quid pro quo nature. The new democracies have quickly adopted these processes, rules, and regulations learned from the established democracies.
In the counter argument by Katz and Mair (2009) is that these features can be better applied to describing the protection of a hegemonic group of Elite parties by the cartelisation of the process. Whereas Dalton Farell and McAlister, (2013) suggest that the campaign process is merely to protect the genus of parties with a stark assumption that, it is that simple. Or, “tout court” as they put it. By calling up Genus this implies or can be understood as a parties, in a sense biological evolutionary response to threats and adaptation in survival--meaning parties as Dalton Farell and McAlister, (2013) suggest are not good at what they do, but merely good at surviving. An analogy would be like a cuckoo in the nest, throwing the infants of newborn parties out of the nest before they mature. Initially, political parties were set up to serve democracy. Whereas, latterly, the monopoly of party control of organisational processes, allow the creation of light-touch rules and regulations tolerated within democratic governance structures, which some may say, now serves not the popular will, and democracy, but only the ambitions of the political party.
The Cartel party thesis shows there is evidence of party cartelisation, described by Mair and Katz (2009) and earlier by Kircheimer (1950) who documented the political parties, increasingly close relationship with the state.
Including the significantly increased state subventions made to political parties in parliament, and the rules and regulations that made these subventions possible. In clear terms, these party laws/rules/regulations made apparent what could and what could not be done by parties in regard to organizational processes. For example, broadcasting and access to the state apparatus that facilitated support and sponsorship of parties.
This is salient in the assignment of state resources to political parties in terms of state funding that favours the more established parties or in the form of regulations that will exclude or limit TV exposure to minor parties. Although the parties have become more influenced by the state this does not mean they are separate entities as the rules and regulations were made by themselves while in government.
Essentially this enables parties to construct a legal environment that is complimentary to their survival. Inter alia, being able to dictate their own salary. In summary, mass Parties have temporally constructed their self-focused ecosystem, creating conditions, via their own regulations, rules and legislation needed for survival, that they alone dominate. The public, it can be said, live in a different ecosystem that perceives the political arena of political parties as a poor and foreign environment.
Participatory linkage
According to Statista the online statistics website In the contemporary political period voter turnout has remained stable in the UK at around 70%, albeit, there have been anomalies, for example, the low turnout for the GE of 2001 at 59%. The UK’s voter turnout may seem impressive, however, is well below the 84% peak achieved in the 1950 general election. In Europe the trend is marked by a decline in voter turnout sitting at around 50% (Statista, 2023). Since the European Parliament elections of 1979, there has been a consistent decline in voter participation in the European elections where in 1979 the voter turnout was 61% it has steadily declined to 42% in 2014 and in 2019 managed a feeble climb back of just over 50%. (Statista, 2023).
Dalton Farrel and McAllister suggest in their analysis there is irrefutable evidence of the participatory linkage parties provide. Maintaining, “although, in an age of declining voter turnout, most citizens still vote in election after election”. On voter turnout in the UK, it would be fair to say Dalton Farrel and McAllister’s analysis can be said with confidence to be irrefutable. However, this would not be a fair description in European terms, although, in the last European elections the voter turnout did manage an 8% rise it is by no means an indicator of trend-setting and the implication that MOST voters did turnout, is made at a stretch if you consider most to be less than one percentage point above half of those registered to vote. In terms of party membership, the established parties are said to be losing membership while the relatively new democracies have been gaining in membership as noted by Dalton, Farrel and McAlister.
There are differing views on why this has happened. Firstly Whiteley, (2011) suggests a view similar to that of Dalton Farrel and McAlister and one that aligns with Katz and Mairs cartel thesis, as one that political parties are growing ever closer to the state and with un-restraining regulation, encourages the relationship of political parties and state with the negative effect of smothering voluntary grassroots activism and membership. The second is the chequebook party membership and internet participants.
Firstly, with parties moving closer to the state points to the turning of volunteers into essentially a non-paid bureaucrats with no incentive to participate. The converse of this aspect is with financial support for their activities by the state- parties are then de-incentivized to recruit activists or members (Whiteley, 2011). Furthermore, the phenomena add additional weight to evidence in the state-sponsored cartelisation of political parties explained by Katz and Mair’s cartel thesis.
Secondly, the rise in digital technologies and the broader social change is affecting party activism, in that, it displays as, at arm's length, for example, in boycotting or purchasing goods for political or moral reasons. This is a phenomenon mostly seen in the more affluent consumer-centered societies of Western democracies. Moreover, it may point to the fact these societies are time-poor, and with many working long hours and little time for direct activism, they subcontract participation in a type of checkbook activism, donating to interest groups and political parties that align with their political goals (Jordan and Maloney, 1997 cited in Whitely, 2011).
Ideological Linkage
Ideological linkage has historically been known as a feature of the left/right political paradigm or the assumption thereof. It is widely known by political scientists and comparatives, that ideological leniencies within the voter cohorts and the assigning of ideological leniencies in this paradigm relating to how people vote are difficult to measure.
In most Western democracies there is the idea that there are 3 fundamental assumptions on how voters perceive political parties and how this influences voter behavior. The first assumption is that we can locate a left/right paradigm within most Western democracies. This is evidenced consistently by survey data showing that in Western democracies MOST voters perceive how they vote in this way and locate themselves in this type of left-right scale (Inglehart and Klingman, 1976, cited in Kim and Fording, 1998). The second assumption is that this is a predominant and important factor that influences voter behaviour in Western countries. Where voters align with parties that best represent their political aims and goals. This is tempered with the perception that in recent decades the class-based cleavage doesn’t hold fast as a socially prominent position, particularly, in voter choice as noted by (Franklin, 1985, cited in Kim and Fording, 1998).
Thirdly the assumption is that ideological linkage in the right/left spectrum can be located across nations and the formerly mentioned guide to voting behaviours. The evidence for this is thin. However, holds plausibility concerning a large contingent of literature that points to this view (Browne et al. 1984; Budge & Robertson 1987; Castles & Mair 1984; Cusack & Garrett 1993; Dodd 1976; Gross & Sigelman 1984; Janda 1980; Laver & Budge 1993; Laver and Schofield 1990: 248; Morgan 1976; Warwick 1992).
From the extensive literature, we can take from this the common view that in many different Western nation’s individuals locate themselves as voters in the ideological left/right spectrum, linking them to parties on either side of the continuum and influencing their voting behaviour. There is amongst other things to consider within the ideological linkage of partisan politics that in the 20th century mass parties could mobilize great swathes or blocks of voters. Within those blocks, voters were aligned by groups, either by, ethnicity, religion, and class.
Stoker, (2016) presents his perspective as one of, voters are now less partisan and instead are more flexible, in that, instead of party allegiance; he suggests that cleavage politics of the past may be to some extent laid to rest through social and economic developmental changes. In addition, the linked dealignment with partisan or the ideological dimension of politics and the decline of electoral participation have created a new large reef of politically reactionary public that has no connection to formalized politics and therefore not socialized in the old sense of partisanship or ideological engagement with politics. Thereby, is characterized as more single-issue participants, rather than showing loyalty to one party in the way citizens have in previous eras.
Stoker, (2016) presents the question, “Have we really seen the end of cleavage or ideological linkage to parties and politics? To some extent the cleavage between class and status has declined. Nevertheless, in many countries, there is still an undercurrent of social stress in the former and latter.
The partisanship cleavage can just as well be reignited by gender, race, religion, or environmental leniencies and policies of parties in the same way the left and right of the past were viewed as socialist and the other side confessional or bourgeoise. The potential for tension by partisan politics or ideological vent is still present. Furthermore, it may be that it is not only present but also effervescent, in that politics has failed to acknowledge the new great social divides and that ideologies are more diversified than ever (Stoker, 2016). With new ideologies arising around gender, environmentalism, religion, and nationalism. Politics has become a big biscuit tin of mixed issues surrounding freedom, equality, and environmental sustainability as well as managerial and organizational issues surrounding safety, security, and social care.
Ideological linkage is truly difficult to measure, and it may be fair to assume that the ideological linkages in modern democracies differ and are more fragmented by country, type of democracy, and culture but remain linked to party politics. Dalton Farrel and McAlister, suggest, without this strong programmable structure the connection between citizens and their political aims and goals, then induces a weakened electoral outcome. Further, it may be that elections become meaningless and only viewed as opinion pieces or merely an expression of group allegiance, therefore, a meaningless replacement to democratic governance.
Representative linkage
The principle of the representative linkage is to conform with equality of representation, as - if representation is unequal this then clashes with the principles of democracy. These principles are important in that if subgroups in society feel they are not represented, then this will influence voter turnout. Weak voter turnout is translated as unequal representation and a failure of the representative function and inter alia the participatory function (Lefkofridi, Giger and Kissau, 2012).
Finally, the fourth linkage is related to the formulation of government. The representative linkage is viewed from two perspectives, either representative or non-representative by allocation of seats. The results of elections may not be reflected in the formation of government due to multiple electoral differences due to voting systems, for example, first past the post (FPTP) and Proportional representation (PR) being two of the most obvious formats. This may result in coalitions after the election and the coalitions will more often than not be closely aligned with each party's policy direction. Parties will promise certain policy direction and implementation, in the UK if policy is mentioned in the party manifesto, it is assured by the Salisbury Convention not to be voted down in the second chamber of the Lords (Parliament, UK, 2017).
Dalton, Farell and McAlister's study finds strong evidence of party representative function. Whereas the arguments by Stoker relating to the fragmented nature of the modern voting public tend to show this to be fluid and fragmented. The cleavage between ideologies not having as notable a bearing on voter choice and the atomization of partisanship, therefore lack of representation in no logical left-right separation funnels citizens into a single-issue dimension in voter behaviour with limited options and presents as unequal representation.
The above to some extent is born out in Katz and Mairs Cartel thesis in that if the mass parties have created a monopolised political ecosystem embedded with the state they can then act as the cuckoo in the nest and prevent the smaller or new parties from developing. Therefore in the fragmented representation nature of the single issue non-deferential public, can be argued that, paradoxically, that unequal representation has been created by the adaptation and nature of modern party survival instincts.
Summary
As Mair accurately points out, politics is perceived by the general public as no longer belonging to the citizen or society, but an activity detached as something only politicians do. A special club and you’re not in it, as humorously put by the comedian George Carlin. It can be said without much controversy that the general public's view of politicians is extremely poor due to several factors. Factors relating to expense scandals, limited and ephemeral accountability, corruption, embezzlement of party funds, sleaze, and general impropriety. Moreover, Stoker suggests the new deferential and critical public is in possession of a new citizen attitude and is less inclined to be submissive to authority and is more likely to be sophisticated in their understanding of politics possessing the ability to have a coherent understanding of issues of the day with the confidence to voice those understandings and critique either verbally or written.
An argument from Robert Inglehart suggests, that to some extent this is due to economic growth and concerns of survival are not foremost in the minds of the electorate, allowing them to demand a higher standard from politicians and parties. Inter alia, have a more challenging attitude that is manifested by self-expression and self-realization. Wherefore, in contrast, the losers of globalization are in an insecure position and feel excluded from politics with fewer chances, while living on the fringes of the economy. Furthermore, those of the middle-income groups have found themselves under threat by changes in the global economy. A citizenry with fewer life opportunities and fewer resources and is neglected by politics then retreats from politics.
Some would argue that globalization to a greater extent limits the power of politicians in reaction to a globalized world and economy. From a party perspective, globalization has thrown up many challenges for established and new democracies. All states have been under pressure to restructure economies and societies to accommodate a globalized world free market. This has had serious implications for liberal democracy (Cammack, 1998).
(Cammack 1998, p 250) explains, “liberal democracy and its partnership with capitalism, alongside the state managed the socio-economic development in the past”, “with a political system that emerged from those societies”. In the past states have been largely independent with greater sovereignty. Globalization, however, will create the inverse situation where neo-liberal economics on a global scale will shape the socio-economic aspects and policy of states with little independence and states will essentially be hemmed in. The political system will then have to be managed by the state, a feature we can increasingly see in the contemporary political period. Increasingly pointing to the professionalism of parties and bolstering the emphasis of the Cartel thesis of Katz and Mair, for example, Tony Blair’s government and most recently Boris Johnson, both operating a sofa style government. The state then is obliged to offset the lack of control that global neo-liberalism brings in the wider socio-political context and take an increasingly directed position to greater manage the citizenry. In the UK, this should have been viewed as constitutional issue, however, cartelisation of the process is undermining the sovereignty loaned to political parties, who chose to ignore these crucial developments.
Cammack (1998) suggests if the new democracies survive this environment, they are likely to be less than liberal democracies. Furthermore, these democracies will be characterized by a dominant executive. Cammack’s observations in 1998 were entirely over the target and not only new democracies, but the established democracies are displaying this feature. With some political commentators arguing recent UK governments have been Prime ministerial and not cabinet style government. This is viewed by some as a constitutional issue affecting parliamentary sovereignty and representative democracy (Crossman, 1985).
Challenges for the mass party will be anti-partyism, an extreme threat to contemporary political parties. This was evident after the UK Parliamentary expenses scandal, which created an antiparty consciousness in the electorate. These types of political scandals remain within the consciousness of the public for extended periods and have a cumulative effect with continued improprieties by parties and politicians. Partisan dealignment is an additional threat to the mass party with a rise in votes for newer parties alongside the generational change and parties building amplified expectations that are quixotic by all accounts.
Additionally, direct democracy is gaining a foothold in the consciousness of the contemporary public, due to the perceived incompetence and corruption of the mass party. There is now growing support for the public to have their say in a more meaningful way that aligns with greater representativeness and participation. Direct democracy is likely the greatest threat to the mass political parties as if implemented will undermine the rationale for the political party, with many surveys showing broad societal support for direct democracy.
The mass political party has managed to survive by creating its own eco system or more accurately embedding itself in the state’s bosom. The modern political party does to some extent realize their functions, although some scholars can be said to be over-enthusiastic to this extent. The difficulty is in the measurement of these functions over many countries and democratic archetypes. Intuitively one could say the political party fails miserably in all functions. However, by their existence, it must be assumed they serve those functions at least minimally, and enough to survive. It remains to be seen if political party survival instincts will help them to maintain their position in the liberal democratic processes of the future.
References
Bollen, K., (1993). Liberal democracy: Validity and method factors in cross-national measures. American Journal of Political Science, pp.1207-1230.
Cammack, P., (1998). Globalization and the death of liberal democracy. European Review, 6(2), pp.249-263.
Crossman, R.H., 1985. Prime ministerial government. The British Prime Minister, pp.175-194.
Dalton, R.J., Farrell, D., and McAllister, I. (2013). Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch.9.
Huseyin, D., (2000). The role and treatment of political parties in liberal democracies with reference to the United Kingdom, Turkey and the European Convention on Human Rights (Doctoral dissertation, University of Leed
Katz, R., & Mair, P. (2009). The Cartel Party Thesis: A Restatement. Perspectives on Politics, 7(4), 753-766. doi:10.1017/S1537592709991782
Kim, H. and Fording, R.C., (1998). Voter ideology in Western democracies, 1946–1989. European Journal of Political Research, 33(1), pp.73-97.
Mukand, S.W. and Rodrik, D., (2020). The political economy of liberal democracy. The Economic Journal, 130(627), pp.765-792.
National geographic, (2023). Democracy ancient Greece, Democracy (Ancient Greece) | National Geographic Society [Accessed 27 January 2023]
Parekh, B., (1992). The cultural particularity of liberal democracy. Political Studies, 40, pp.160-175
Statista, (2023). voter turnout in the UK 1918-2019,Voter turnout in the UK 1918-2019 | Statista [Accessed 01 February 2023]
(Statista, 2023). turnout in European parliament elections, Turnout in European elections 1979-2019 | Statista [Accessed 01 Februrary 2023]
Whiteley, P.F., (2011). Is the party over? The decline of party activism and membership across the democratic world. Party Politics, 17(1), pp.21-44.
Stoker, G. (2016) Why Politics Matters: Making Democracy Work. [2nd Edition] London: Palgrave. Ch.3.
Lefkofridi, Z., Giger, N. and Kissau, K., (2012). Inequality and representation in Europe. Representation, 48(1), pp.1-11.
Parliament, UK., (2017). The Salsbury Adisson convention, House of Lords - The Salisbury-Addison Convention - Constitution Committee (parliament.uk) [Accessed 09 February 2023]