Parties and Political Stability: Modernization and Parties

Pat Ray M Dagapioso2009

Political Community in Modern Society• Mobilizing new people into new

roles modernization leads to a larger and more diversified society, which lacks the ‘natural’ community oif the extended family,or the tribe.

• Either these groups that are mobilized will become assimilated into the pol’l system or they become the source of antagonism or revolution against the sytem.

National Integration and Political Assimilation• The common problems of nat’l

integration & pol’l assimilation is the expansion of pol’l consciousness and participation produced by modernization.

• Instability – polities: participation and institutionalization at low levels

• Stable – polities: large scale modern pol’l institutions with extensive pol’l participation.

Political Parties

• Society with well organized pol’l parties w/ low levels of pol’l participation shows less destabilizing expansion of pol’l participation.

• Example: Malaya (60s) is more stable with single party that composed of diverse ethnic groups than Thailand w/ virtually no pol’l parties.

Different Context in the World Over

• Societies w/ low levels of participation and partyless monarchy were unstable, e.g. Libya 60s.

• Societies w/c lack effective traditional and modern pol’l institutions faced highly unstable futures, e.g. Haiti (Duvalier) & Dominican Republic (Trujillo).

Modernizing Societies

• Societes w/ highly developed traditional pol’l institutions may evolve to higher levels of participation through the adaptation of those institutions.

• Pol’l Parties become necessary to organize & to structure the expanded participation.

• The creation of modern pol’l insitutions then supplements the need to expand pol’l consciousness, e.g. pol’l parties

The Case of Modernizing Countries

• Early attention to the problems of pol’l organization and the creation of modern pol’l institutions makes for an easier and less destabilizng process of modernization.

• Soviet Union – the NEP had reconstruct and strengthened the party, reinvigoration of the cadres, before the the industrialization of the Soviets and collectivizaion fo agriculture in the 30s.

The Case of Modernizing Countries – Episode II

• China – first priority was given to extension of party control and the refurbishing of the party organization (1949); late 50s economic development move to forefront party’s objectives.

• Turkey – Mustafa Kemal consciuosly laid first the national and pol’l basis for his society before turning to social reform and economic development.

The Case of Modernizing Countries – Episode III

• Tunisia – Neo-Destour gov’t: prime objective was to building of the state; second, formation of the formal ruling class; and after that Tunisia in 1961 turned to a program of economic and social development.

• Modernizing society: ‘building the state’ means the creation of an effective bureaucracy and more importantly the creation of an effective party system capable of structuring the participation of new groups in politics.

Political Parties and Consequences• Parties organize pol’l

participation, party systems affect the rate at w/c participation expands.

• High level of participation produces anomic politics and vioence.

• Low level of particiaption ends o weaken pol’l parties, institutions and other socia forces.

More on Parties

• 1. Party and Party system with mass support is stronger than a party w/ restricted support for the former and with increased pol’l participation for the latter.

• 2. Participation w/o organization degenerates into mass movements, & organization that lacks participation degenerates into personal cliques.

More on Parties – Part II

• 3. Strong Parties require high levels of support and pol’l institution.

• 4. Parties are instruments of mobilization.

• 5. Elections w/ parties provide mechanism for pol’l mobilization w/n institutional framework.

• 6. Strong pol’l parties results in larger voting turnout.

The Fragility of No-Party State

• Traditional parties do not have them, modernizing politics need them, but does not want them.

• Opposition of pol’l parties in the society are: Conservatives, administrative opposition and the populistic and Rousseaunian groups.

Conservatives

• They oppose the parties because they see them as challenging the existing social structure.

• Parties are innovations threatening the pol’l power of the elite based on heredity, social status, and and ownership.

• Ruling monarchs see p. parties as divisive forces w/c challenges his authority or greatly complicate his efforts to unify and modernize his country.

• Its ability to modernize politically, economically, socially is limited.

Administrative Opposition

• They accept the need to rationalize social and economic structures, but is unwilling to accept the implications of modernization for broadening the scope of popular participation in politics.

• Goals: efficiency and elimination of conflict.

Populist-Rosseaunians • They deny the need for any

intervening structure between the people and its pol’l leaders.

• They want partyless democracies. • In short: conservatives – party

challenges the hierarchy, administrators – threat to rationalized rules, and populists- obstacle to expression of general will.

Overall Arguments Toward Parties

• Washington: 1. parties promote corruption and administrative efficiency;

• 2. split society against itself and promote conflicts;

• 3. encourage pol’l instability; encourage pol’l weakness;

• 4. lay the state to influence from and penetrated by external powers.

Party’s Rebuttal: Strong Parties• Those arguments are characterisitcs of weak

aprties, not the strong ones.The truth is parties appear as factions and exacerbate conflict and disunion in the early stages of development.

• Yet, strong parties become buckle w/c binds one social force to another and creates the basis for loyalty and identity.

• Party forments stability and orderly change in the government by regularizing the procedures of leadership succession and assimilation of new groups into the pol’l system.

Party Suppression

• Anti-party suppression prevail in many modernizing states.

• Elites, tries to prevent the emergence of the parties and declares them illegal.

• Such systems maybe stable, yet the suppression of the pol’l parties in these states (Thailand, Iran) made them presumptively unstable.

Party Survival in Suppressing Societies

• At, some point, parties are allowed to be formed w/n a traditional parliament.

• Yet, these societies always try to limit the pol’l power in the system and pol’l participation of the parties (Morocco).

Consequences of Societies w/ Pol’l Parties

• Military dictator assumes power after parties have become weakened or fragmented.

• Asia – military coup occurs where parties were proscribed

• Spain – Franco regime promotes pol’l passivity

• Further, the suppression of parties usually accompanies substantial efforts to decrease the level of pol’l consciousness and pol’l activity.

Party and the Traditional State

• No-party state is the natural state for a traditional society.

• Modernization brought traditional societies to become anti-parties: conscious efforts to prevent and suppress parties were made.

• Further, they furnish party substitutes, for new ways of pol’l participation.

• More hostile government = greater instability, i.e., more coups be frequent.

Strong Parties and Pol’l Stability

• The stability of a modernizng pol’l system depends on the strength of its pol’l parties.

• A strong party can be said when it has institutionalized mass support. Strength = support and levels of institution.

• Society must have at least one strong party.

• Countries with strong party base also finds a way to reduce military involvement in politics.

Strong Parties and Pol’l Stability – Part 2

• Military intervenes in politics by: 1. decline in party strength, 2. fragmentation of leadership, 3. evaporation (condensation, you know what I mean) of mass support, 4. decay of organizational structure, 5. shift of pol’l leaders from party to bureaucracy, and 6. rise of personalism.

• Military coups do not pestroy parties; they ratify deteriioration w/c had already occurred.

Strong Parties and Pol’l Stability – Part 3

• Institutional strength of a pol’l party is measured by its ability to survive its founder or charismatic leader who first brings it to power.

• Example: Congress Party (India) shows adaptability with its changing leadership.

• Puerto Rico – PPD leader Munoz Arin retire from leadership and uttered ‘I’ve begun to prove that the Island can get along with me’ and had fostered institutionalization.

• Weak parties, depend upon its leaders.• Deaths of leaders had shaken the

disintegration of parties, e.g. Senanayake of Ceylon, and Aung San in burma.

Thank You!

Ajde!

Merry Christmas!!!

Happy Costume Day unya Hapon!!!!

I love you all!!!!!