EMT
Platinum Member
- Jan 13, 2010
- 14,477
- 15,325
This extract is from the book of Dr. Wilhelm Hofmeister and Dr. Karsten Grabow titled Political Parties: Functions and Organisation in Democratic Societies, published by Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in 2011. Dr. Hofmeister is Director of the regional project "Political Dialogue with Asia" of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, located in Singapore. Dr. Grabow is coordinator for political studies and party research at the team of domestic politics of the Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung in Berlin, Germany.
In their book, the authors present political parties as "central institutions of a modern democracy" (p. 7). They argue that internal discussions and conflicts within and between political reinforce competition for ideas, influence and power. Despite criticisms levelled at political parties, they argue that "political parties are indispensable for a democracy" (p.9). However, they concede that political parties "will only be able to fulfil their functions when more citizens are willing to engage politically in parties" (p.9).
In section 2 titled "Modern Political Party Management", the authors discuss, among other things, "Intra-party democracy" and "Inner party conflicts and conflict resolution" which I thought might be relevant to Chadema in particular and other opposition parties in general if they really want to succeed in governing Tanzania. This is because success of political party depends not only on its systems, its relation with civil society and interest groups, Parliament and Government, but also on how it practices democracy and resolve conflicts within the party.
..........
The Iron Law of Oligarchy
In a classical work on party research, Robert Michels had, in 1911, demonstrated the "iron law of oligarchy" ("Reign of a few"). According to the research, every organisation inevitably brings forth a ruling class, which it cannot control effectively in the long-term. Accordingly, party leaderships and party structures also become more and more independent, given the advance in information technology and the increasing specialisation of politics. The accumulation of responsibilities and monopoly of power are symptoms of increasing oligarchy, which constitutes a problem for the democratic formation of opinion within a party. An improvement in democratic procedures and in the exchange of views can contribute to the removal of stiff party structures.
Intra-party democracy
Intra-party democracy is necessary in order to increase the influence and contribution of the politically involved citizens in a party. A democratic state cannot be governed by parties with undemocratic structures. Legal guidelines exist, therefore, in many countries, obliging the parties to also respect democratic procedures in their inner processes. However, in reality this is often disregarded.
In many countries, the constitution, or laws, obliges the parties to shape their internal processes according to democratic procedures. However, despite all such legal provisions the influence of "ordinary" party members is relatively restricted and the circle of members who are actually powerful and influential is usually rather small. The reason for this is the lack of interest among members to participate more actively.
In other cases, the bureaucratisation of the party apparatus has resulted in a certain distance- if not alienation-between party leaders and party members. This is at least in part due to the particular nature of modern mass democracies that demands fast decision-making processes, which in turn does not allow for long voting procedures within the parties. Nonetheless, experience shows that those who invest time and effort in party work can actually gain influence within the party.
Intra-party democracy also implies that the individual inner-party group should able to voice their views and controversy to a large extent in public. A party should not shy away from this, even though open confrontation of differences in opinion and conflicts is at times believed to be a sign of weakness, little credibility and a lack of unanimity within the party in the mind of the parties and the voting population.
In the extreme case, it is indeed possible that the different positions are so far apart that the energies of the politicians are ensnared and internal arguments interfere with the programmatic vision of the party. On the other hand internal differences do nurture political discussion. It might, therefore, also be a sign of strength when a party accepts the differences in opinions and does not choke them off due to the popular call for unity.
As much as intra-party debates and controversies can be a demonstration of a vibrant party life, during election campaigns parties have to postpone their intra-party conflicts and present themselves with a unified profile. All party forces have to be concentrated on the electoral campaign. For competitors in the intra-party races, this means putting asides personal sentiments and respecting the vote for contenders. Nevertheless, frequently, the opposite can be observed. Those candidates who have lost intra-party competitions sometimes create their own political parties or electoral platforms, thereby damaging their relations with their old parties without necessarily gaining considerable personal advantages.
Inner party conflicts and conflict resolution
Within parties, conflicts may occur time and again-because of different perceptions on political issues, as well as due to personal rivalries for positions and influence. These conflicts are inevitable and legitimate, but must be argued out in a correct manner. Within a party, there is always a concurrence of power and influence; this is part of everyday business.
In the end, however, internal conflicts must be decided within the limits of democratic and transparent procedures. It is very important that everybody involved in such conflicts respects the democratic decisions of the party. In some countries, especially prominent party members, who might also have parliament mandates or occupy other public offices, have the tendency to leave their parties in cases where conflicts are not resolved in their favour. This not only harms the party, but is also an example of bad democratic behaviour. After all, democracy means that one must respect majorities, even if the personal position is "only" the opinion of a minority.
The formal body for the settlement of intra-party conflicts and disputes are the party meetings and conventions, where differences of opinion may be discussed and decided in a democratic way. The last instance to decide on disputes – but normally not political disputes - are the party courts which in some countries are required by law or are by the proper party statutes. These party courts ensure that conflicts can be settled first internally, and not before public courts.
The party courts mostly have to deal with status disputes about membership and voting rights, the internal review of voting procedures and other procedural issues or sanctions against members whose behaviour are not in accordance with the party line and who may have violated the statute or the party's fundamental values.
In addition to these formal forms of conflict resolution and mediation, parties often also apply "soft" forms of conflict mediation between rival groups and individuals. The best known forms are certainly the offering of power sharing by inviting rivals to certain offices. Illustrative of this practice is President Barack Obama's invitation to his inner-party rival Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state. He also invited a cross-party recognised expert of the Republicans, Robert Gates, to be his secretary of defence. The old principle of "divide and rule" has not lost its relevance. It helps to protect one's own position of power and frequently offers for all involved parties a so-called "win-win" situation.
Intra-party conflicts and intra-party ideological differences can also be attenuated by the invitation of rival intra-party groups and their representatives to the management level of political parties-where party leaders are able to establish a reasonable form of cooperation, leading to the benefit of the whole party. The same holds true of the efforts to integrate representatives of different intra-party groupings to a party council or other leadership positions. These forms of negotiated integration of rivalling groups into the party management have proved to be more successful than quota arrangements, which are more formalized and contested. Nevertheless, quota arrangements can also contribute to improving the representation of certain groups within a political party.
.........
The dilemma of political leadership: ethics of ultimate ends vs the ethics of responsibility
The role of political leaders has been discussed over and over again inphilosophy, political science and historiography of very different culturalbackgrounds. The sociologist Max Weber, who studied this topic indetail, especially focused on the ethical dilemma between the "ethicsof ultimate ends" and the "ethics of responsibility" that political leadersface time after time.
The "ethics of ultimate ends" refers to a politicalbehaviour which concentrates exclusively on the ethical and moralpositions of the actor, without taking into consideration the consequencesof political actions based on such a behaviour. In contrast, the "ethics ofresponsibility" considers a political decision also with regard to its ethicand moral consequences. Max Weber comes to the conclusion that themodern democratic political leader shall not be guided by the "ethicsof ultimate ends" but by the ethics of responsibility. Responsible politicsrequire an instinct for power and a sense of responsibility and proportion,but also passionate dedication to a self-imposed supra-personal matterand, furthermore, the charisma to be able to satisfy the emotional needsof the followers.
...........
Nelson Mandela's experience as a political leader has led to somelessons, which has been collected as "Mandela's 8 Lessons of Leadership".
You can read the whole book in detail online at http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_7671-1442-2-30.pdf?120920114650
In their book, the authors present political parties as "central institutions of a modern democracy" (p. 7). They argue that internal discussions and conflicts within and between political reinforce competition for ideas, influence and power. Despite criticisms levelled at political parties, they argue that "political parties are indispensable for a democracy" (p.9). However, they concede that political parties "will only be able to fulfil their functions when more citizens are willing to engage politically in parties" (p.9).
In section 2 titled "Modern Political Party Management", the authors discuss, among other things, "Intra-party democracy" and "Inner party conflicts and conflict resolution" which I thought might be relevant to Chadema in particular and other opposition parties in general if they really want to succeed in governing Tanzania. This is because success of political party depends not only on its systems, its relation with civil society and interest groups, Parliament and Government, but also on how it practices democracy and resolve conflicts within the party.
..........
The Iron Law of Oligarchy
In a classical work on party research, Robert Michels had, in 1911, demonstrated the "iron law of oligarchy" ("Reign of a few"). According to the research, every organisation inevitably brings forth a ruling class, which it cannot control effectively in the long-term. Accordingly, party leaderships and party structures also become more and more independent, given the advance in information technology and the increasing specialisation of politics. The accumulation of responsibilities and monopoly of power are symptoms of increasing oligarchy, which constitutes a problem for the democratic formation of opinion within a party. An improvement in democratic procedures and in the exchange of views can contribute to the removal of stiff party structures.
Intra-party democracy
Intra-party democracy is necessary in order to increase the influence and contribution of the politically involved citizens in a party. A democratic state cannot be governed by parties with undemocratic structures. Legal guidelines exist, therefore, in many countries, obliging the parties to also respect democratic procedures in their inner processes. However, in reality this is often disregarded.
In many countries, the constitution, or laws, obliges the parties to shape their internal processes according to democratic procedures. However, despite all such legal provisions the influence of "ordinary" party members is relatively restricted and the circle of members who are actually powerful and influential is usually rather small. The reason for this is the lack of interest among members to participate more actively.
In other cases, the bureaucratisation of the party apparatus has resulted in a certain distance- if not alienation-between party leaders and party members. This is at least in part due to the particular nature of modern mass democracies that demands fast decision-making processes, which in turn does not allow for long voting procedures within the parties. Nonetheless, experience shows that those who invest time and effort in party work can actually gain influence within the party.
Intra-party democracy also implies that the individual inner-party group should able to voice their views and controversy to a large extent in public. A party should not shy away from this, even though open confrontation of differences in opinion and conflicts is at times believed to be a sign of weakness, little credibility and a lack of unanimity within the party in the mind of the parties and the voting population.
In the extreme case, it is indeed possible that the different positions are so far apart that the energies of the politicians are ensnared and internal arguments interfere with the programmatic vision of the party. On the other hand internal differences do nurture political discussion. It might, therefore, also be a sign of strength when a party accepts the differences in opinions and does not choke them off due to the popular call for unity.
As much as intra-party debates and controversies can be a demonstration of a vibrant party life, during election campaigns parties have to postpone their intra-party conflicts and present themselves with a unified profile. All party forces have to be concentrated on the electoral campaign. For competitors in the intra-party races, this means putting asides personal sentiments and respecting the vote for contenders. Nevertheless, frequently, the opposite can be observed. Those candidates who have lost intra-party competitions sometimes create their own political parties or electoral platforms, thereby damaging their relations with their old parties without necessarily gaining considerable personal advantages.
Inner party conflicts and conflict resolution
Within parties, conflicts may occur time and again-because of different perceptions on political issues, as well as due to personal rivalries for positions and influence. These conflicts are inevitable and legitimate, but must be argued out in a correct manner. Within a party, there is always a concurrence of power and influence; this is part of everyday business.
In the end, however, internal conflicts must be decided within the limits of democratic and transparent procedures. It is very important that everybody involved in such conflicts respects the democratic decisions of the party. In some countries, especially prominent party members, who might also have parliament mandates or occupy other public offices, have the tendency to leave their parties in cases where conflicts are not resolved in their favour. This not only harms the party, but is also an example of bad democratic behaviour. After all, democracy means that one must respect majorities, even if the personal position is "only" the opinion of a minority.
The formal body for the settlement of intra-party conflicts and disputes are the party meetings and conventions, where differences of opinion may be discussed and decided in a democratic way. The last instance to decide on disputes – but normally not political disputes - are the party courts which in some countries are required by law or are by the proper party statutes. These party courts ensure that conflicts can be settled first internally, and not before public courts.
The party courts mostly have to deal with status disputes about membership and voting rights, the internal review of voting procedures and other procedural issues or sanctions against members whose behaviour are not in accordance with the party line and who may have violated the statute or the party's fundamental values.
In addition to these formal forms of conflict resolution and mediation, parties often also apply "soft" forms of conflict mediation between rival groups and individuals. The best known forms are certainly the offering of power sharing by inviting rivals to certain offices. Illustrative of this practice is President Barack Obama's invitation to his inner-party rival Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state. He also invited a cross-party recognised expert of the Republicans, Robert Gates, to be his secretary of defence. The old principle of "divide and rule" has not lost its relevance. It helps to protect one's own position of power and frequently offers for all involved parties a so-called "win-win" situation.
Intra-party conflicts and intra-party ideological differences can also be attenuated by the invitation of rival intra-party groups and their representatives to the management level of political parties-where party leaders are able to establish a reasonable form of cooperation, leading to the benefit of the whole party. The same holds true of the efforts to integrate representatives of different intra-party groupings to a party council or other leadership positions. These forms of negotiated integration of rivalling groups into the party management have proved to be more successful than quota arrangements, which are more formalized and contested. Nevertheless, quota arrangements can also contribute to improving the representation of certain groups within a political party.
.........
The dilemma of political leadership: ethics of ultimate ends vs the ethics of responsibility
The role of political leaders has been discussed over and over again inphilosophy, political science and historiography of very different culturalbackgrounds. The sociologist Max Weber, who studied this topic indetail, especially focused on the ethical dilemma between the "ethicsof ultimate ends" and the "ethics of responsibility" that political leadersface time after time.
The "ethics of ultimate ends" refers to a politicalbehaviour which concentrates exclusively on the ethical and moralpositions of the actor, without taking into consideration the consequencesof political actions based on such a behaviour. In contrast, the "ethics ofresponsibility" considers a political decision also with regard to its ethicand moral consequences. Max Weber comes to the conclusion that themodern democratic political leader shall not be guided by the "ethicsof ultimate ends" but by the ethics of responsibility. Responsible politicsrequire an instinct for power and a sense of responsibility and proportion,but also passionate dedication to a self-imposed supra-personal matterand, furthermore, the charisma to be able to satisfy the emotional needsof the followers.
...........
Nelson Mandela's experience as a political leader has led to somelessons, which has been collected as "Mandela's 8 Lessons of Leadership".
- Courage is not the absence of fear-it's inspiring others to move beyond it.
- Lead from the front-but don't leave your base behind.
- Lead from the back-and let others believe they are in front.
- Know your enemy-and learn about his favourite sport.
- Keep your friends close-and your rivals even closer
- Appearances matter-and remember to smile.
- Nothing is black or white. Life is never "either/or".
- Quitting is leading too.
You can read the whole book in detail online at http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_7671-1442-2-30.pdf?120920114650