Although a new government is in place after the general election blitzkrieg, it cannot be said that all the fall-out has settled. The Labour Party is getting to grips with the statutory problem of electing its new leadership

Life will then have to go on. And the going is not going to be easy. The Gonzi government will have to make do with a wafer-thin majority and a new team. The government and Opposition parties will be under the close scrutiny of a demanding electorate.

Up to some time ago, one heard disparaging comments to the effect that politicians as a class were falling in disrepute, and politicians were becoming less respected. Now, thousands of electors, on both sides of the political divide, will be breathing down the neck of their MPs, and these will, in turn be monitored more closely then ever by their respective party machine.

Inevitably, the role and effectiveness of the political party machines will assume more importance than ever.

Mobilisation

In the words of Disraeli, political parties represent “organised opinion”. The party system is a 20th-century mechanism designed to solve the problem of how to bring “the people”, the mass voters, into the political community. It does so by mobilising not only its affiliated members, but also the masses, which comprise the emancipated electorate that has snowballed with universal suffrage.

In earlier days, parties were parliamentary groupings whose primary objective was to obtain a parliamentary majority together. Nowadays, parties representing the “masses” must have a party life outside Parliament.

Party machines, therefore, have to “manage” their interests in Parliament, via their parliamentary groups, their interests within the party’s organisation, as militants manoeuvre for internal party control, and their interests across the length and breadth of the electorate.

A political party is not a community but a collection of communities, a union of small groups dispersed throughout the country and consisting, at the same time, of different shades of red or blue, or what have you, whose opinions must be harmonised or banded together into a “party line”. This calls for skill as well as leadership. In all of this, the coordinating institution is the Party.

Criticism

Critics of the party system have much to say on the subject and, at given moments, they do so with cogency.

They hold that the internal structure of political parties is essentially autocratic and oligarchic. Their leaders are not really appointed by the members, in spite of appearances, but nominated by a central body composed of activists who form power-blocs within the party organisation. They tend to form a ruling class, isolated from militants, a caste that becomes increasingly exclusive. In so far as they are elected, the party oligarchy is widened without ever becoming a democracy - because the election is carried out by the members who are in a minority in comparison to those who cast their votes for the party at a general election. Parliamentary representatives are increasingly subject to the authority of the party inner circle.

This means that the mass of electors is dominated by a small group of members and militants, itself subordinate to the ruling bodies of the parties.

In short, the critics hold that political parties require of their members closer adherence and that zeal, faith, enthusiasm and, at times, intolerance, are the rule of these modern churches that turn party struggles into religious wars.

Questions

The real question, which is evaded by the critics, is this: Would a system without parties be more satisfactory? Would opinion be better represented if candidates were to present themselves individually before the electorate, particularly if individual candidates would not be accountable to anyone except themselves? Would liberty be better served in such circumstances?

True democracy implies liberty “for the people and for all sections of the people” as the 1793 constituents put it after the French Revolution - not only liberty for those privileged by birth, fortune, position or education, but also real liberty for all. This implies a certain standard of living, a certain basic education, some kind of social equality and political equilibrium.

Communities may take time to advance from one stage or another to achieve these qualifications, but liberty and the party system have coincided in societies, which proceeded to pursue these objectives.

Democracy did not exist in the 19th century when economic and financial power alone controlled the press, techniques of information and propaganda, and the means of organising the electorate.

The rise of political parties and, especially, of mass parties, has alone made possible any real and active cooperation by the whole people in political affairs.

Electoral maturity

The biggest advantage of political parties is that they make it possible for a free electorate to appoint new leaders, giving the notion of representation its true meaning.

In other words, although the parties are needed to mobilise the electorate, it is the electorate that must wield its voting power in its best interest.

When an electorate matures to a certain degree, political parties will have to compete between themselves to win “the consent of the governed”. They have to take their own initiatives to disperse power and to devolve authority, which, until recent years, was concentrated in the hands of the central government. They will take steps to promote measures to introduce direct democracy

A regime without political parties is essentially an ultra-conservative regime.

Historically, parties were born when the masses of the people really made their entrance into political life. They provided the necessary framework, enabling the broad mass of electors to recruit from among themselves their own leaders, and to displace them if and when they were found wanting. To suppress political parties would be an admirable way to suppress democracy.

Some critics complain that political parties make it possible for militants to dominate their MPs and party committees to overpower parliamentary groups.

Whereas in days gone by ministers and MPs were exposed to the pressures and temptations of private and moneyed interests, they have become, in various ways, accountable firstly to their parties and, secondly, to public opinion which has a bearing on the parties.

This transformation represents an advance of democracy and not a retreat.

[email protected]