Populism and Party Decline

A couple of articles have recently appeared that touches on the theme of the decline of political parties that I have previously aired.  In last Sunday's Business Post the long term decline of party organisational strength in Ireland was noted (with the exception of Sinn Féin of course).  To compensate for the drop in formal membership, aspiring or established party notables tend to establish their own coteries of personal camp followers who are much loosely tied into the party.  It seem that there is an incipient Americanization of party politics in this country as the the pursuit of office is driven more by personal ambition than party loyalty. 

It has to be recognised that all the party selection conventions and meetings in the last year have driven registered membership up, as candidates stuff the party voter lists with relatives, friends, friends of their children and anyone else they can find who will vote for them on the convention day. More than 1,000 attendees is not unusual at such gatherings. Alas, the vast majority of these people melt away as soon as the convention is over and, although many will still remain well enough disposed to the candidate to vote for him or her at election time, little or no other work for the party is done.

It's not a million miles removed from an American-type primary system.  The decline of party can be seen throughout Europe.  Ralf Dahrendorf observes that the decline of parties reflects the decline in the salience of class divisions in society. 

The very structure of society has come to be shaky. There are no social groups on which lasting organizations can be built. People are, in a sense, socially homeless. This means that their interests vary as situations change. It also means that they no longer find a political home in parties, but react to situations, to vague moods, and above all to appeals to sentiments, if not resentments.

It is certainly the case that political parties no longer really represent interests in civil society.  While democracy is seen as the most indispensable condition of political legitimacy, the active popular component is no longer seen as necessary.  We now have a media or audience democracy where people passively spectate and political coverage is all about the game.  Even the notion of "opposition" is gone, in the sense that all nearly all parties have a reasonable chance of governing, thus reinforcing their dependence on state institutions and lessening their rootedness in civil society. 

Dahrendorf points out the possibilities for populist adventurism and we have seen many new political formations rise and fall in recent years.  Voter attachment to the traditional parties is much weaker than it was and the scope for new political movements is all the greater.  I half-jokingly pointed out around this time last year, amidst all the political fallout over "Rip of Republic" that if Eddie Hobbs decided to put some kind of citizens movement together and launch it at the electorate it could do surprisingly well.  I'm more convinced than ever that it's only a matter of time before a Hobbs or a Michael O'Leary type figure gives it a go.

 

Comments

[Seamus Ryan]

Gerry, good article. I would certainly agree with you that voter attachment to traditional political parties is weaker than previously. What we are experiencing in recent years is a failure of people to become members of political parties and I would include SF in this. There are a number of reasons for this and yes disilusionment is one but the main reason is quite simply people do not have as much spare time as they had. They are working longer hours and have less time to spend engaging in other activities including politics. This is a simple analysis yet it is something I see at first hand. However at election time these same people will become involved in the process. What is more worrying however is the low voter turnout.Now theres a challenge.