The real purpose of political parties is to establish and promote democracy and democratic procedures within the country and also, internationally. The parties are fundamentally required to instate fair and just measures and allow people to use their right to choose the candidates who they deem eligible to run the country.
The nation gets a chance to participate in politics and government by making decisions about who should be elected and who should be voted for. The parties, in a way, restore power within the people and curb misuse of political authority.
Morgenthau has presented his views and ideology on political realism. He asserts six principles which hold true in the real world. There are many examples from American and international politics which can be used to back his philosophy.
Introduction
Julander asserts that scholars believe that the political parties are vital drivers of democracy. According to him, the “political scientists” have reached a mutual consensus that democracy cannot be instated unless political parties are formed. He quoted, William Thomas, a congressman, to support his argument and wrote that “there is no other organization in American society that can replace the citizen-based political party as a vehicle for self-government”. His point was further strengthened by Gerald M. Pomper’s view that democracy is established by political parties. (p. 8)
Political parties perform numerous “functions including linking the state and civil society, influencing the executive, formulating public policy, engaging in political recruitment, structuring electoral choices and facilitating coalitions” (Governance and Social Development Resource Centre, 2006). Julander, however, makes a point that the importance of political parties can only be elaborated on in theory; they do need to be reformed or work towards eliminating “less democratic” elements before they can stabilize and fortify democracy in practice. (p. 9).
Hans Morgenthau’s Ideology of Politics and Political Parties
Morgenthau (1960) draws an analogy between politics and power and maintains that politics can be healthy within states or internationally depending on the interpretation and use of power. He stated that “politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power”. (Morgenthau & Thompson, 1993, p. 5).
Although Morgenthau emphasized more on international relations and politics, he had introduced six principles of political realism which are relevant to many theories of politics. The first principle was that politics are also “governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature”. This meant that in order to make society better through politics, one must comprehend the social values, “preferences” and norms. The second principle stresses that in the international arena, politics must supercede economic, religious and aesthetics aspects. The third one discusses that the “essence” of politics and power is “unaffected by” “time and place”. The fourth principle discusses that justice be done in a way that “liberty” of others is not sacrificed. An individual may want justice but the “state” has to ensure that it does not infringe on the rights of others. The fifth principles states that “Political realism” “distinguishes between truth and opinion” and what holds true for one nation, also holds true for others. The sixth one talks about “political realists” relating politics to power just as economists associate economy with wealth. (Morgenthau, 1978, p. 4-15).
Examples of Roles of Political Parties
Similarity can be drawn between the roles of political parties in America and Morgenthau’s principles. Julander maintains that if political parties function traditionally, the “influence” of “media” and “special interest” groups on public opinion would diminish greatly. He further emphasizes that parties “are more democratic than the media or special interest groups because the people can hold them accountable”. The Democrats and the Republicans present before the nation every November to hear their views and “criticism”(p. 9). The parties also “act as brokers, linking the government and the electorate” and “translate” social and cultural “preferences into a unified public policy” (p. 10). These parties also encourage participation of citizens in stabilizing and restoring democracy as they are free to decide and vote for the political candidates they deem as the right choice (p.11). In real politics, the parties do not misuse their power and try to curb “less democratic” facets of society. (p. 9).
Conclusion
Political are ideally suppose to work towards establishing and promoting democracy.
References
Morgenthau, H, & Thompson, K, 1993, Politics Among Nations, Brief Edition, McGraw Hill, New York.
Morgenthau, H, 1978, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition, Revised, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Julander, Treg A., Democracy without Political Parties. 2007. Web.
Political Systems – Political Parties 2006, Governance and Social Development Resource Centre. 2007.
Before I attempt to answer this question, I want to define the political party as I see it. A political party, in general, is a decision-making entity, the instrument of democracy, and an institution for the public to advance their causes through electing representatives. My personal belief is that the decision-making aspect of the party is getting weaker due to the prevalence of wealthy interest groups that sometimes do not serve the interest of the constituency.
Main body
The democratic institution of the party is increasingly becoming less influential. Many people believe that corporate lobbyists are the real decision-making body in the American political system. For example, the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, which makes it more difficult to declare bankruptcy on student loans, was supported by lobbyists from the finance industry. The act is the reason for the increasing college tuition that essentially forces people into debt. It benefits banking interest groups at the expense of the citizens that elected the legislators in the first place.
Conclusion
Additionally, the recent Net Neutrality scandal made the power that businesses hold over American politics very apparent. The key figure, Ajit Pai, was widely known to have worked for Verizon, one of the beneficiaries of the legislation, but was still allowed to hold the position of the Chairman of FCC. That is to say nothing of the $5.5 million that Verizon has donated through its PAC to various political candidates (“Verizon Communications: Summary”, 2019). Newell, Prindle and Riddlesberg (2016) maintain that “the presence of PACs makes that [political] advantage even more lopsided and unfair” (p. 68), and I agree.
It is for these reasons that I believe the political party to be a weak decision-making body. The elections may get even more expensive, and those that do not serve the interest groups will not be able to afford their votes. Something needs to be done, but with legislation often dictated by the interest groups, it is unlikely that any law that harms them will pass muster.
The system of political parties underwent drastic changes since the country gained its independence and became a democratic republic. The old parties transformed in their modern versions while plenty of new parties appeared as well. The dilemma in the multi-party system is caused by the caste system and population diversity.
India — overview of the country and its politics
The Republic of India is a seventh largest country in the world by its geographical borders and the second most populated country (“India Country Profile — Overview”, 2015, par. 1). The population of the country comprises more than one billion people. India is also known for being the most populated democracy in the world (“India Country Profile — Overview”, 2015, par. 2). The country is newly industrialized. Despite its economic flourishing, it stills faces the urgent problems of poverty, malnutrition, terrorism, and improper governance (“India Country Profile — Overview”, 2015, par. 4).
India is a federal parliamentary constitutional republic with Pranab Mukherjee being a current president. The President is the head of the state while the Prime Minister is the head of the government (“Types of Governments”, n.d., par. 1). The Constitution is the primary law of the country that defines all regulations.
Currently, India has a multi-party system. There are numerous national and regional political parties. A local party has the authority in one particular state. A party should represent at least four different states to become national (“Types of Governments”, n.d., par. 1). The primary mission of all political parties is to serve and protect interests of the nation in various aspects.
Multi-party system
A political party is an organized group of people who share the same political opinion and follow the common aim in the controlling of the country (Hofmeister and Grabow, 2011, 8). The most important function of every party is to represent the interests of the citizens among the political elite.
Besides, political parties handle the achievement of better economic, political, educational, and other prospects of the country (Hofmeister and Grabow, 2011, 15). A multi-party system is the final type of party system in the country. In this kind of the system, several parties exist in the government, and none of them receives the majority of seats. Some dominance is usually achieved with the help of coalitions (Hofmeister and Grabow, 2011, 8).
The multi-party system has both advantages and disadvantages. The first plus refers to the fact that voters have many options (Caramani, 2014, 224-225). A variety of political parties presupposes the numerous political principles. As a result, the citizen can find the party that meets his or her personal opinions (Barrington, 2012, 264). The second advantage relates to increasing chances to represent the interests of different minorities more effectively.
The third positive reason — fewer chances of the development of dictatorship (Barrington, 2012, 264-265). Nevertheless, the multi-party system has several disadvantages as well. First, no party can receive the majority of seats in the multi-party system. Consequently, the coalition is the must in such a situation. Different parties have to join their votes to form alliances (Caramani, 2014, 224-225). These coalitions are fragile and unstable, and it impedes the general political environment in the country.
Second, small extreme parties often become significant constituents of the government. Extreme parties face no difficulty in gaining the necessary amount of votes (Barrington, 2012, 264). Then, some other major party may need their votes to form the coalition. In such a way, extreme parties may rule the country. Finally, the excessive variety of political parties leads to the disparities of interests and activities (Barrington, 2012, 264-265).
Political parties in India
Historical background of the development of the multi-party system
The party system in India has changed drastically in the last two decades. Politicization of people from less privileged groups of society became the most significant change in the current system. The nature of the relationship between country and its citizens has also altered (Kesalu, 2013, 56-57). It is necessary to have an insight into the evolution of the Indian party system in pre and post-independence years.
The party system of India commences with the formation of the Indian National Congress in 1882. The Congress became popular among people as far as it represented the interests of the indigenous population and became the primary opposing force to the British imperialism (Rana, 2014, par. 3). The political activity of the Congress during the pre-independence period should be divided into three stages.
The first period (1885-1905) was characterized by the privileged dominance of the Congress. The next phase occurred since 1905 until 1916 (Kesalu, 2013, 58-59). The opinions between political representatives became diverse. Some of them believed that the country would gain independence through persuasion while others were intended to fight for their rights.
During the third stage (1916-1945), the Indian Independence Movement took place (Kesalu, 2013, 58-59). As a result, the British governor and General of India announced the separation of the British India into India and Pakistan. On August 15 in 1947, the Indian Independence Act was signed (Kesalu, 2013, 59).
Since that time, the Indian post-independence era began. The Congress became the leading political party due to its active participation in the independence movement (Kesalu, 2013, 59). Nevertheless, many political parties had already existed in the country. They comprised four major political groups that were interested in the gaining of votes in the first general election. The first group included the Congress, the Socialist Party, and Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party.
Marxist parties and the Communist Party of India represented the second group (Kesalu, 2013, 60). Religious, political parties formed the third group. They were Bharatiya Jan Sangh (BJS), Ram Rajya Parishad, and Hindu Mahasabha. Regional parties like Akali Dal, Jharkhand party, and Tamilnadu Congress formed the fourth group. Despite this variety, the Congress became the dominant political party and remained its domination until 1967 (Kesalu, 2013, 60).
In 1967, the fourth general election showed that the Congress’s authority declined. The regional parties popularized the idea of the decentralization of power. Congress’ organizational abilities were weak, and citizens lost trust in it (Kesalu, 2013, 60). In 1980, numerous parties appeared. Bharatiya Janata Party was established in 1980.
The activity of BJP made it the principal rival of the Congress. More often large parties were divided into smaller regional representatives. The coalition era began in 1989 (Kesalu, 2013, 60-61). The democratization of the society led to the increasing formation of various political parties that formed a unique diversity of the Indian multi-party system. All these parties represented interests of different ethnic, social, and religious groups.
Current typology of political parties
There are almost one thousand registered political parties in India and 50 of them have the status of National or State parties (Dutt, 2006, 62). All national and state parties are recognized while other parties are known as not recognized. It also should be noted, that there are two houses of parliament in India. Rajya Sabha or the Upper House serves the interests of the separate states. Lok Sabha or the Lower House is formed to monitor and fulfill the needs of all people on the national level (Dutt, 2006, 51).
There are six recognized national parties. They are Bharatiya Janata Party, Indian National Congress, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India, Bahujan Samai Party, and National Congress Party (Dutt, 2006, 62). Almost fifty parties are State parties.
Some of them are All India Forward Bloc, Indian Union Muslim League, Sikkim Democratic Front, Zoram Nationalist Party and others. There are also unrecognized parties that affect the politics in India to some extent — Lok Satta Party, Manipur Peoples Party, Jana Sena Party, and many others (Dutt, 2006, 62-65).
The caste system as the factor that impedes Indian multi-party system
The role of castes is a significant factor that predetermines the functioning of the multi-party system. There are more than three thousand castes in India. Their number varies in different regions (Shan, 2004, 5). In general, they are divided into four groups. They are the learned people, the warriors, agriculturalists and traders, and those who serve (“The Caste System”, n.d., par. 5). Castes are hereditary. It means that one belongs to the high or low caste since birth.
The Indian Constitution abolishes the caste system. Despite this fact, every political party makes use of the caste system. This tradition has a long history, and that is why it is deeply rooted in all aspects of social and political life (“The Caste System”, n.d., par. 10). No sphere limits the impact of caste. In the political life, it commences with the electoral process.
For instance, the Communist Party of India always chooses the representative from the most influential caste as the candidate for elections (Gulabsingh and Palekar, 2014, 2). The problem is that the most prominent representative is not always the most capable person in the party. Such an individual is interested in his caste enrichment. Thus, such an approach to choosing candidates is one of the factors that comprise the dilemma in the party system.
Gulabsingh and Palekar (2014) also write that “when a ministry is formed in the State or at the Centre, caste considerations are always kept in mind. Every chief minister tries to ensure that all dominant castes in the State are adequately represented in his council of ministers” (2). This fact also exemplifies the injustice in the multi-party system.
Sub-castes are also known as “jati”. They represent smaller localized groups within the particular large caste (Johnson and Johnson, n.d., par. 1-3). They are essential for receiving the needed minority of votes by the party.
The candidate from the sub-caste knows the primary concern of people, their problems, desires, traditions, and ways of life. It is easy to use all this information to create a campaign that will attract the attention of the target group. Parties can create distinct banners or advertisements that reflect the interests of this or that group and gain the favor of the voters.
Population diversity and the party system dilemma
Another crucial aspect that affects Indian party system is the great diversity of the population. When there are many representatives from various social and ethnic groups, there is an immense number of interests. This situation is directly connected to the multi-party system. However, it is necessary to examine the dilemma of the multi-party system through the several perspectives of diversity.
Indian political culture and its manifestation through multi-party system
The population is divided into elite and masses (Hoveyda, 2010, 14). These two groups participate in the political process and represents different types of political culture. These kinds of political culture enhance the divergence of opinion within the party system as well. Indian political culture is heterogeneous.
It is divided into the elite culture and mass culture. Hoveyda (2010) writes that “elites are associated with liberal education and related values, institutions of the representative government and values of citizenship; while the masses are viewed as traditional, regional and conservative, though also oriented towards modern values and institutions” (15). There are differences between elite culture and mass culture that impede the successful development of the country.
Military and civil bureaucracy, educated intelligentsia, and political leaders comprise the elite political culture. Mass culture consists of traditional castes, and it is more interested in the local and regional levels of governance (Hoveyda, 2010, 15-16). Mass culture became widely spread due to the processes of democratization and the policy of power decentralization. These aspects increased the level of involvement of people from various social strata in the governmental activities.
On the one hand, the formation of political parties by different people was a good sign of democracy and the efficient implementation of the multi-party system. On the contrary, it increased the inequality between people. Thus, those who belonged to wealthy castes could become involved in politics and increase their status and financial resources while others remained in the same disadvantageous position (Hoveyda, 2010, 16).
One more distinctive feature of mass political culture refers to the dominance of caste, religious, provincial, and linguistic factors. All these features of mass culture differ it from the elite culture. Consequently, their goals are not the same and cannot be achieved with the help of each other.
Thus, the elite political culture emphasizes the significance of developing the country on the national and global level (Hoveyda, 2010, 16-17). Such a plan includes the formation of the advanced infrastructure system, the representation of state schemes, and economic growth. The mass political culture needs support in the form of subsidized services, water, or electricity (Hoveyda, 2010, 16-17).
It is obvious that political orientations of the elite and mass political cultures are far from being the same. Some voters are more interested in having enough water. That is why they will vote for parties from the mass political culture. Other people realize the necessity to develop the overall economy of the country.
In this case, they will vote for parties from the elite political culture. What is more significant, the parties themselves are not ready to achieve any consensus. They focus only on their goals. The coalitions are not of great assistance in this case. Though parties combine their votes, it is still not enough for the political stability within the country (Hoveyda, 2010, 17).
Ethnic diversity and its relation to the dilemma
India is a home for representatives from many dissimilar religious, ethnic, and social classes of people. Such aspect as ethnicity can also shed the light on the problem of the country’s multi-party system. A particular attention should be paid to the notion of the political secularism.
The so-called “ethinification” of the party system means the intentional direction of political parties to receive support from the particular ethnic group (Huber and Suryanarayan, 2014, 5).
Elites can use ethnicity as a target to attract as many voters as possible and form the necessary coalition. Such schemes work well in countries where it is challenging to receive the majority of seats by one party (Huber and Suryanarayan, 2014, 2). It is obvious that such plan is of great advantage for Indian political parties. Religious beliefs are significant constituents that comprise the ethnicity of every individual in the country.
Hinduism is the most widespread religion in India (Ghosh, 2015, par. 2). More than eighty percent of all population in India are Hindus. Muslims comprise ten percent while Christianity — almost three percent (Ghosh, 2015, par. 2). The primary problem with Hinduism refers to the fact that there is no universal religion. People from different religious minorities proclaim themselves Hindus. There are Hindu and Muslim political parties in the country (Ghosh, 2015, par. 5).
The key concern between them has a religious background. The Bharatiya Janata Party is the largest party that directly demonstrates its Hindus roots and follows the policy of the Hindu nationalism (Dutt, 2006, 62). The results of elections prove the religion-based politics. It has been found out that only a few votes for the BJP are observed in regions where the Muslim population is prevailing.
Secularism has become a popular trend in many Western societies. The idea of separation the government from the religious organizations became widespread due to several reasons Maclure and Taylor, 2011, 11-12). First, the Church can impede the scientific progress and forbid to conduct particular types of researches. Second, the necessity to be under the patronage of the church does not appeal to many individuals.
Consequently, the religion got detached and became a private affair of everyone (Maclure and Taylor, 2011, 11). The role of religion in the Indian society should not be underestimated. No secularist tendencies take place in the country due to the significance of worship. Faith has always been a prominent stimulus for the national awakening. Thus, Gandhi inspired people with the idea of political freedom with the help of religious texts (Moradian and Whiteshouse, 2000, par. 20-25).
The idea of democracy in relation to political parties
The idea of democracy in India is a controversial issue. The country proclaims itself the largest democracy in the world. The concept of democracy is interconnected with the activity of political parties in India. Political parties are often regarded as both “heroes and villains of the country’s democratic experiment” (Diamond and Gunther, 2001, 206). All citizens of India strongly support the idea of democracy. Nevertheless, the democracy is still more like an illusion rather than the reality in the country.
It is also worthwhile mentioning the research conducted by Rudolph and Rudolph. The authors investigate the new dimensions of Indian democracy since the 1990s. They have pointed out five primary aspects that reflect the achievement of justice in the Indian society. The issues that are related to political parties include the modification of the party system, the rise of states, and the coalition government. India has a federal system that assists in maintaining peaceful coexistence of people from various ethnic and cultural groups.
The federal system of India can be compared to the European Union countries rather that to the U.S.’s states (Rudolph and Rudolph, 2002, 53-54). This statement is proved by the fact that there are particular correspondences between them. The residents of England and Italy, for instance, as well as Hindu and Tamils speak different languages and share some history.
They have different socioeconomic profiles and various cultural heritage (Rudolph and Rudolph, 2002, 54). Considering all these factors, both India and European Union promote peaceful living among the residents of states.
The transformation into the multi-party was the second manifestation of the Indian democracy. The end of the ruling of one dominant party symbolized the appearance of new features of the country (Rudolph and Rudolph, 2002, 54-55). As a result, people from all social classes, ethnic, and religious groups became able to form the political parties and represent the interests of their minorities.
The third representation of democracy refers to the establishment of the coalition government (Rudolph and Rudolph, 2002, 55). Coalitions are inevitable in the country where the number of political parties makes it impossible to gain the majority of seats by one particular party. Thus, parties unite to become more valuable and possess more power. Besides, the aim of every coalition government is to reduce the risks of extremism (Rudolph and Rudolph, 2002, 55).
For instance, BJP commenced its political activity as the party whose primary concern was Hindu nationalism. Due to the lack of power, the party had to look for partners. One secular party from South India became the partner of BJP and, in such a way decreased the possibility of the excessive concentration on Hindu nationalism issues (Rudolph and Rudolph, 2002, 55-56).
The country experienced recent rapid economic growth. However, this growth has not influenced the standard of living of people. Residents of India are destitute. The general income per capita is below the threshold (“Effects of Poverty in India: Between Injustice and Exclusion”, 2013, par. 1). Such a situation resembles the features of the dictatorship but not of the democracy.
India has an immense number of ethnic minorities that have different languages, culture, traditions, and beliefs. Besides, the cases of inter-community violence are usual thing in India. People belong to different castes, and this is the major differentiator of the whole society until nowadays. Religious conflicts can occur as well. Also, the level of corruption in the country is not like it should be in democratic societies (Oldenburg, 2007, 5-7).
These distinctive characteristics of India explain the necessity to have the multi-party system. On the one hand, various political parties should represent such socio-cultural diversity. Otherwise, it will be impossible to take into account the interests of all people. Democracy presupposes the rule of masses through the representatives. The only possible option, in this case, is to employ a multi-party system (Oldenburg, 2007, 7).
On the other hand, there are many flaws in the system. The first problem refers to the fair play in the election. There are no evidence that elections are fair and not corrupted (Oldenburg, 2007, 7-8). Besides, many people in India are still illiterate or have the inadequate education. They cannot make profound decisions due to the lack of knowledge and ability to comprehend the situation. When the parties are already chosen, their promises, in most cases, remain just promises (Oldenburg, 2007, 8).
All these issues undermine the idea of democracy in the Indian multi-party system. Oldenburg has conducted research and examined that corruption in courts is a typical practice. For instance, many politicians are accused of participating in some illegal activity. Nevertheless, none of them was convicted in the commitment of the crime (Oldenburg, 2007, 9). Democracy is impossible in such conditions.
Conclusion
India is the second most populated country in the world with the most diverse society. The party system of the country has changed drastically since independence. India started as the country with one dominant party, the Indian National Congress, and gradually developed the multi-party system. Such a transformation of the government is a direct manifestation of the democratization.
However, such factors as the caste system and the population diversity influence the implementation of the multi-party system significantly. On the one hand, the multi-party system is the best option for the country with such diversity. On the contrary, the caste inequalities and ethnic diversity make it impossible to achieve any consensus among parties.
The United States and United Kingdom are the largest democracies in the world hence they have variant political parties. A political party in any governing system is defined as an organization of people with similar political aims and opinions who seek to attain political influence in public policies through their representative being elected to the governing body (Medvic, 2009, p.120).
Political parties are either funded by the government or individual party members depending on a country’s regulations. Irrespective of the fact that both United States and Great Britain have two dominant political parties, two legislative houses and a single executive, the political parties in both nations differ in their strength. The strength of political parties is determined by the amount of influence a party has on its members and the cohesion in the party.
The political parties in the United States are much weaker than in the United Kingdom. In the US, politics are dominated by two major parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
Additionally, there are other smaller and weaker parties in the political scene. In the democracy of United Kingdom, there are three dominat political parties namely the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Democrat Party currently led by Nick Clegg. However, there are other smaller political parties namely Independence Party and the Green Party.
The roles of political parties include voicing the needs and concerns of their members and supporters, recruiting and training candidates for public office and socializing the citizens. This paper defines the significant difference in the strength of political parties in the United States and the United Kingdom. Moreover, it explores the factors that make political parties to be strong or weak in these countries.
Political parties in the United States
Political parties in the United States were not endorsed in the founding constitutions, since the intention of the Constitution and its founders was to have a triple balanced system of executive, judicial, and congressional powers.
Factors that contributed to the establishment of the two-party system in the United States as the key type of system include historical foundations of the system, political socialization and practical considerations, the electoral system and the federal laws.
In addition, there are no major requirements obligatory from the public in order to become a member of any political party (Schmidt, Shelley, Bardes, 2010, p.154). Scholars have noted that there is a decline in the strength of political parties compared with the past.
Two party system in the United States
The two-party system has dominated the United States political scene for a very long time. This could be one of the contributors to the weakening of smaller political parties in the country. People who wish to serve as president, congressional representative, state governor or state legislators have to use the two main parties, Democratic Party and the Republican Party, to increase their chances of wining.
Electoral system
The method of electing national and legislative representative promotes the dominance of two-party system. The structure of political parties in the United Kingdom is defined by the individual ideologies supported by each party, which their members endeavor to legislate; however, their counterparts in American lack ideologically cohesive and programmatic.
The available resources for these dominant parties allow them to retain their dominance. Similarly, single member system operating in a small constituency can weaken the general party by creating smaller local independent entities (Duverger, 1963, p.45).
The involvement of political parties’ leaders in the selection of candidates of their political parties is very low in the United States. On the other hand the leaders of political parties in the UK have the role of choosing which candidates should represent their parties. Moreover, the United States political parties are not involved in campaigning for their chosen candidates therefore resulting to less influence on the candidates.
The United Kingdom utilizes a system of proportional representation, where officials are elected, on the bases of the number of votes their parties receive in an election, which promotes strength of parties. In the United States, the election system is focused on the candidates compared to the United Kingdom model where election is party focused (Safran, 2003, p.34). Therefore, parties in the US are not perceived to be as important as individual candidates.
In party centered system, political parties are in charge of all resources while in candidate-centered system, the parties provide just a few resources to the candidates. Moreover, in the US, parties do not have the mandate of choosing the candidates to run under the party, rather, it is done by voters in preliminary voting.
As a result, the influence of parties is limited hence leading to their weakening. In contrast, the United Kingdom political parties determine the candidates to run under their parties based on their set regulation. Since the political parties in the US contribute minimal resources to the campaigning of their candidates, the party has less or minimal influence and cannot sanction the candidate if he wins (Safran, 2003, p.34).
However, the political parties in the United Kingdom have much influence on their candidates and they can sanction them since they contribute most of the resources that the candidates require. The electoral system, through preliminary election of party leaders, favors the linking candidates with their local supporters rather than creating a bond between the candidates and the party (Safran, 2003, p.34).
Fundamentally, the electoral system is also weakening the ideologies of the political parties. Generally, direct primaries of selecting candidates have weakened political leaders as it takes away the rights and influence of the party. In the United Kingdom the parties have the obligation of selecting candidates that they wish to field for an election without external influence. Moreover, the party oversees the campaign of its candidates and in return, the party has ultimate control and influence.
Campaigning
The candidate-centered approach in the US reinforces campaign-financing laws. The inclination of candidates funding most of the campaign is done at the expense of the party’s influence, as is the case in America.
On the other hand, in the United Kingdom, parties retain their influence since they fund the campaigns of their candidates. The use of political consultants by political candidates has contribution to the decline of roles of political parties in America where the candidates are more inclined to listening to their consultants than the position of their party.
However, consultants weaken the political parties through creating campaign atmosphere where they project individual candidates to the public at the expense of the party. Nevertheless, the public are more informed on candidates’ traits rather than the policies of the candidates’ parties (Best & Radcliff, 2005, p.63).
Moreover, political parties have failed to innovate, hence the need for outsourcing their duties to consultants. Some modern campaign tactics are weakening the political parties. In the United Kingdom’s party-centered system, the campaign is geared to selling the party policies to the electorate whereas in America campaigns are focused on the candidates (Swanson & Mancini, 1996, p.272).
Legal factors
Legal factors in the United States have contributed to the weakening of political parties (Wilson, 2008, p.124). The policy of cross filling has also undermined the strength of political parties in America. This practice, cross filling, allows individuals to be listed on more than one political party and can participate in primary ballots of all parties where they are registered (Sabato & Ernst, 2006, p.88).
The candidates who use this strategy aim at reducing competition, thus weakening political parties. This policy is still in effect in some states, which weakness the ideology. Moreover, the use of cross filling in the primaries resulted in reduction of political parties responsibilities.
Moreover, voters in primary elections can influence nomination of their opposing party through crossover voting. These kinds of policies limit the influence of political parties on their candidates since they do not have the right to chose or vet candidates in their parties. Moreover, the external interference in political parties through crossover voting weakens political parties in the US.
Contrary to this, political parties in the United Kingdom do not have any interference from supporters of other parties; hence, they retain their objectivity in their core issues. The United States, through federal and state governments, closely regulates and it has decentralized the political parties. These actions of the government have contributed to weakening of political parties in America (Wilson, 2008, p.124).
Political Action Committee (PACs) and special interest groups
The decline of political parties can also be attributed to the rise of political action committees (PACs) in the elections in particular in fund raising. Candidates in the American political scene have their own PACs, which help them to collect funds for their political activities. Therefore, the candidates are more inclined to their committees than to the party, thus weakening party cohesion (Bardes, Shelley, & Schmidt, 2008, p.248).
However, political parties in the UK get finance from their membership contribution, donations i.e. from trade unions and the opposition parties also financed from the government kitty. Therefore, parties in UK are generally stronger than parties in US due to better finance availability. Moreover, funding of political parties from public kitty promotes internal unity among party members with in turn promote party cohesion.
Subsequently, monies issued to support elections in the United States are given directly to the candidates. However, any money given to candidates tends to weaken the political parties, since the candidate becomes more independent and less reliant of the party. Conversely, public funding of political parties in the UK is channeled through the parties and not the candidates.
Therefore, funding promotes part strength since the party leaders have leverage to induce their ideologies. Moreover, parties limit the amount of resources that an individual candidate can contribute to their campaign in order to protect the party’s influence.
Additionally, political parties in American are influenced by their private donors, hence leading to partisan politics that decrease the strength of the party; however parties in the UK are less likely to be influenced since they do not over-rely on private donors for funding. Since action groups can access public support and resources, they have been undermining political parties that do not support their ideologies hence weakening of parties.
Voters
The social and political environment, in which the party operates, has a great impact on party cohesion. In addition, the development of an increase of number of independent voters has given rise to weakening of the political parties.
Generally, a considerable number of voters in America are not registered in the two main political parties, thus the two key political parties have been declining in recent years. Further, the participation of voters in direct primaries to determine the candidate to run under a certain party weakens political parties (Sabato & Ernst, 2006, p.110). Nevertheless, the political parties have not been able to attract public loyalty due to social changes.
Furthermore, there is a trend of voters disengaging from party politics due to disappointments from political parties in the past. This is as a result of the fact that most American political parties are not engaged actively in their citizens’ lives, leading to high number of non-partisans.
Conversely, the public in Europe and particularly in the United Kingdom are still inclined to party politics as they join and register in political parties, pay contributions to their parties and participate in party activities i.e. attending meetings (Wilson, 2008, p.125).
Moreover, interest groups and citizen groups are competing with political parties for influence and loyalty among the citizens. However, party loyalty has declined since the inception of interest groups among the people in the United States. In deed, citizen action groups are actively replacing the role of political parties as a result of their weakening.
Conclusion
The United States and the UK have some dominant political parties and other smaller parties. Generally, the role of political parties in democracies is to educate the public on their civic rights and duties, to participate in influencing of public policies and recruiting and training candidates for public office.
The strength of political parties is determined by the amount of influence a party has on its members and the cohesion in the party. However, there factors that undermine the strength of political parties namely rules and regulations, electoral systems, change of attitude among voters and modern campaigning techniques. Additionally, the rise of Political Action Committees and citizen interest groups has also undermined the strength of political parties especially in America.
The United Kingdom has been able to retain the strength in its political parties due to the fact that they are able to control the selection and funding of their candidates. Moreover, the parties have restricted candidates from being independent from the party, hence creating reliance and influence.
Through primary election in single-member district system, political parties in America have lost their influence in selection of candidates. Besides, a policy like cross filling of candidates during the direct primaries also contributes to the decline of parties (Shepherd, 2005, p.337).
Further, the political parties in America are not funded by the government; rather, the candidates are funded directly. Consequently, this direct funding from the government makes the candidates independent from their parties. However, in the United Kingdom system, the government funds political parties directly, which in turn dispatch funds to their candidates. This mode of funding ensures that political parties maintain their influence over their candidates, hence creating cohesion and party strength.
References List
Bardes, B., Shelley, M. & Schmidt, S., 2008. American Government and Politics Today. Belmont: Cengage Learning.
Duverger, M., 1963. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activities in the modern State. London: Taylor & Francis.
Medvic, S., 2009. Campaigns and elections: players and processes. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Sabato, L. & Ernst, H., 2006. Encyclopedia of American Political parties and elections. NY: Infobase Publishing.
Safran, W., 2003. The Secular and the Sacred Nation: Nation, Religion and Politics. London: Taylor & Francis.
Schmidt, S., Shelley, M. and Bardes, B., 2010. American Government and Politics Today, 2010-2011. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Shepherd, M. 2005. Mastering the National Admissions Test for Law. London: Routledge.
Swanson, D. & Mancini, P., 1996. Politics, media, and modern democracy: an international study of innovations in electoral campaigning and their consequences. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Wilson, J. Q., 2008. American Government. OH: Cengage Learning.
Few presidents were as divisive in the American society as Donald J. Trump. Numerous controversies surrounding his actions and statements have polarized Americans. Even the Republican Party, which supported him, also faced substantial division of opinion regarding Trump. Yet, one surprising fact remains: after Trump’s term, the number of evangelicals in the US has increased despite the common belief that there is a general tendency of Americans becoming more atheistic (Burge, 2021). Understanding how modern American Christian worldview derives from process philosophy is essential in ascertaining why the Republican Party is currently associated with evangelicalism.
The entire conception of process philosophy is centered around change. Each entity in the universe exists in relation to another one, thus affecting it, being affected by it, and changing as a result (Martin, 2006). Subsequently, any society exists in relation to the surrounding circumstances that shape it as a result. This implies that the Republican Party originated as a response of American society to particular challenges. However, it continues to exist and change because the environment influencing it changes as well. As such, the unexpected increase in the number of Republican evangelicals after Trump’s term should follow a certain social development that forced many Americans to change religious affiliation.
The presumed aspect of personal philosophy that that has impacted American society is the reaction toward social changes. One of the reasons why Trump won the 2016 election lies in his appeal to conservative ideas. From using Reagan’s era slogan “Make America Great Again” to promising to take a more hardline approach with competing powers such as Iran and China, Trump’s aggressive rhetoric was met with sympathy from many American voters who believed that the US’ position in the world was weakening (Gorski, 2019). The same fear also caused the Republican Party to slightly change its party platform, which was evident when more Republicans started to “play upon rising Islamophobia by framing Muslims as cultural enemies” (Whitehead et al., 2018, p. 150). Essentially, Trump applied process philosophy in that he used the US foreign relations to influence the decisions of voters.
However persuasive Trump was he could not have achieved victory had the society not been apprehensive of external threats. This is where Christian worldview was reinforced with ideas of nationalism and fears of immigrants. Trump knew that a large proportion of Americans believed that America was “muddied by non-European immigrants, corrupted by ‘‘secular humanists,’’ and infiltrated by ‘‘radical Islam” (Gorski, 2019, p. 348). Furthermore, Trump was extremely subtle in showing his acceptance of Christianity, which could be seen in images of him sharing a prayer (Burge, 2021). Whether Trump was really religious or merely using Christianity to win support is irrelevant, as the fact remains: many Americans did become evangelicals because they believed in Trump’s conservative appeal. The Republican Party attracted more white evangelicals and became more religiously unified.
Altogether, it should be evident that the interconnectedness of process philosophy explains how Trump used religion to win public support and inadvertently increase the number of evangelicals in the US. Process philosophy presupposes that everything changes in relation to each other. As fears of immigrants and Islamophobia were on the rise, more Americans supported Trump who used Christianity to win support. As a result, by the end of Trump’s term the number of evangelicals has increased, which has also significantly affected the Republican Party.