You
may have noticed that the last few posts have mentioned the importance of trying to see the world from a variety of perspectives. I stumbled on the importance
of such a vision through the accident of my birth – caught in the middle of the
tensions (class, religious and political) between the West and East ends of a
shipbuilding town in the West of Scotland.
In my 30s, as a senior local
politician, I felt the pull between loyalties to local constituents; to party
colleagues; to official advisers; and to my own conscience – and indeed
developed a diagram for students to show the 4 very different pressures
(audiences) to which politicians are subjected –
-
local voters (if the electoral system is based on local constituencies);
-
the party;
-
the officials (and laws) of the particular government agency they had
entered;
-
their conscience.
Politicians,
I argued, differ according to the extent of the notice they took of each of the
pressures coming from each of these sources – and the loyalties this tended to
generate. And I gave names to the 4 types which could be distinguished – eg populist; ideologue; statesman; maverick.
- The
"populist" (or Tribune of the people) simply purports to gives the
people what (s)he thinks they want - regardless of logic, coherence or
consequences.
- The
"ideologue" (or party spokesman) simply reflects what the party
activist (or bosses) say - regardless of logic etc.
- The
"statesman" (or manager) does what the professional experts in the
appropriate bit of the bureaucracy tell him/her - regardless of its partiality
etc
- the
"maverick" (or conviction politician) does what they think right (in
the quiet of their conscience or mind - no matter how perverted)
I
tried to suggest that the effective politician was the one who resisted the
temptation to be drawn exclusively into any one of these roles. Each has
its element of truth - but it is when someone blends the various partialities
into a workable and acceptable proposition that we see real leadership,
And,
as a nomadic consultant, I have noticed how academic and national boundaries make
mutual understanding difficult – but that those who persist in working in the "no man's land" on these boundaries get superb opportunities for
new insights……A bridge-builder is a metaphor I like - although there is a famous central European saying that "the problem with bridges is that, in peace time horses shit on them and, in war, they are blown up"
All
this came back to me as I read a paper by Peter Mair (from 1995) which, looking at the relationship of the
political party to both society and the state, nicely tracks
the historical trajectory of the politician.
First “grandees” (above it all); then later
“delegates” (of particular social interests), then later again, in the heyday
of the catch-all party, “entrepreneurs”, parties, the authors argued, have now
become “semi-state agencies”. The article has some simple but useful diagrams
showing how the three entities of political party, society and state have
altered their interactions and roles in the last century.
We are told that proportional representation gives
citizens a much stronger chance of their preferences being expressed in the
final makeup of a Parliament. But that
fails to deal with the reality of the party boss. Politicians elected for
geographical constituencies (as distinct from party lists) have (some at least)
voters breathing down their necks all year round.
Not so those from the party lists who only have to
bother about the party bosses who, in the past few decades, have got their
snouts increasingly stuck in the state (and corporate) coffers.
Looking at the three models as a dynamic rather
than as three isolated snapshots, suggests the possibility that the movement of
parties from civil society towards the state could continue to such an extent that parties become part of the state apparatus
itself. It is our contention that this is precisely the direction in which
the political parties in modern democracies have been heading over the past
three decades.
(We have seen a massive) decline in the levels of
participation and involvement in party activity, with citizens preferring to
invest their efforts elsewhere, particularly in groups where they can play a
more active role and where they are more likely to be in full agreement with a
narrower range of concerns, and where they feel they can make a
difference. The more immediate local arena thus becomes more attractive
than the remote and inertial national arena, while open, single-issue groups
become more appealing than traditional, hierarchic party organizations.
Parties have therefore been obliged to look
elsewhere for their resources, and in this case their role as governors and
law-makers made it easy for them to turn to the state. Principal among the
strategies they could pursue was the provision and regulation of state
subventions to political parties, which, while varying from country to country,
now often constitute one of the major financial and material resources with
which the parties can conduct their activities both in parliament and in the
wider society.
The growth in state subvention over the past two
decades, and the promise of further growth in the coming years, has come to
represent one of the most significant changes to the environment within which
parties act
the drawing is by Bulgarian Alexiev (Zdravko) - a tribute to the martyrs of the 1876 uprising
the drawing is by Bulgarian Alexiev (Zdravko) - a tribute to the martyrs of the 1876 uprising