In the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, it became evident, even beyond the realm of the academic discipline of Political Behaviour that the socio-economic landscapes across Europe having undergone significant shifts, required a move away from the “catch-all” paradigm of the party system, which was prevalent throughout the 20-th century, especially after the fall of the Eastern Bloc.
To summarize, political scientists
have delineated the history of party politics – mostly in the West where elections
and democratic considerations apply – into different eras, in order to describe
the nature and ideological content of political parties that competed in the
electoral arena. Thus, in the early 20-th century the political arena was
characterized by “mass” parties who were dubbed as such, due to their intent in
mobilizing masses of the electorate in order to achieve political power, mostly
appealing to a certain socio-economic class in the material sense.
In concrete terms, left-wing political
movements aimed at garnering the political energy of the working classes and
capitalize on their electoral power, with little consideration or interest of
mobilizing support outside this designated sub-electorate. Similarly, other
ideological appeals were aimed at specific socio-economical groupings, rather
than the electorate as a whole. Naturally, this is a generalization, but as it
is common in the Social Sciences we accept conventional generalisation that
serve as adequate frameworks of analysis.
After the end of WWII, the electoral
scenery was shaped to the political party reality that we have come to
understand in recent years. Ideology was put into a secondary frame and parties
were aiming to appeal and capture the vote of evermore wider publics, to the
point that political leaders would argue that any voter regardless of demographic
and social identity would be better off supporting them. This dynamic created two-party
systems in the majority of democratic countries, where centre-left and centre-right
were alternating in power, with a public that was switching their voting patterns
between electoral subjects and with political formations did not occupy the
extremes of the ideological spectrum and generally continued the same line of
policy in matters such as Foreign Policy, adherence to international
institutions and standards, as well as a generally centrist-mixed economic
policy, with no hardline libertarian or distributionist policies.
However, the 2008 crisis not
only upended economies but also sowed distrust in established political
systems. From the Tea Party on the Right, to the “Occupy” movement on the left,
in the USA, the two party-system was fragmented, as even in countries where the
First-Past-the-Post system basically ensured the hegemony of such a dualistic
reality, many factions based on niche ideological priorities and increasingly identitarian
focus, were proliferating.
In countries like Greece, Italy, and Spain,
which were hit hardest by austerity, this disillusionment was stark. Citizens
demanded alternatives, leading to the emergence of numerous political
parties—both radical and moderate—that aimed to either disrupt or reimagine the
status quo. Therefore, a clear theoretical break can be observed from the “catch-all”,
system. Polarization, “hardcore” ideology and identity politics were back on
the electoral menu, and in retrospect we can attest that these were not temporary
trends, but remained salient up to the point where the perceived “extremes”
have more positions of power and public influence in numerous countries such as
Italy, France, Germany, the UK and of course in the US, where primaries guarantee
that disruptions in the base of political parties will be reflected in Congressional
and Presidential races.
However, even though establishing
that the party system framework is outdated, is an evident statement, what is
replacing it, is not clear. We don’t only lack a consensus, but generally we lack
even theories when it comes to what the new era of party politics ought to be
names and what characterizes it.
For this reason, I conducted a
study focusing on the EU-14, countries with longer histories of democracy that
would allow me to encapsulate mature political trends and to see where the new parties
are driving the system as a whole.
What became apparent when I was
collecting the data was that contrary to the narrative that new parties are
primarily populist or extremist, - as alarmingly portrayed by the media – given
that out of 75 new political parties studied, roughly half (39) were classified
as anti-establishment, while the other half (36) were moderate challengers.
This balance underscores that dissatisfaction with mainstream politics was not
read correctly by all political entrepreneurs who came into the political “market”
with the same ideological and organisational proposition as hegemonic, old
parties. In the subsequent analysis, I prove that the only way an ideologically
moderate party – such as the “En Marche” of Emmanuel Macron – could only be
electorally viable and successful with they innovate in terms of organisation
and recruitment.
To fully comprehend the framework
of the study, I would like to underscore how when it comes to electoral issues
the political arena is similar to an economic market. Entrepreneurs (politicians)
offer a product (the party) which has to be more favourable to the consumer
(the voter) than their competitors. To do this in such a crowded market as that
of political parties is challenging and requires innovative strategic
management when it comes to how the party is organised and great marketing (campaigning).
Having run the analysis of
political parties that managed to survive their first years of existence and become
electoral powerhouses either in government, or major opposition players I came
to the conclusion that success for these new parties often hinges on a few
critical factors:
1.
Ideological Distinction and Positioning:
New
parties thrive when they communicate in strong terms against the status quo,
even when they lack a clearly definable ideological identity. The “par
excellence” example of this would be the “5-Star Movement” in Italy which
managed to get into power, employing a very rhetorically heavy campaign, whilst
not confining itself to traditional camps. Anti-establishment parties often
exploit populist rhetoric, presenting themselves as champions of the
"people" against a corrupt elite, and empirically this communication
strategy seems to resonate with the electorate, especially young voters.
2.
Flexibility and Organizational Innovation:
Unlike traditional
"catch-all" parties, successful newcomers tend to adopt decentralized
or innovative organizational structures. For instance, Italy's 5 Star Movement
leveraged digital platforms for member participation, creating a sense of direct
democracy. This openness contrasts sharply with the bureaucratic rigidity of
older parties. Digitalisation of the membership and decision-making process is
a MUST for any political party that wants to have electoral success in the
21-st century.
3.
Leadership and Accessibility:
Charismatic leadership remains a
cornerstone of success. Leaders with a pre-existing public profile or a clear
vision can rally initial support more effectively. EM in France branded the
political party with his initials and marketed himself as the embodiment of a
new movement, which was proven enough to gain presidential power, in a country
as fragmented and politicised as France. Beppe Grillo, Nigel Farage, Donald
Trump – are all proof that a good figurehead in today’s popular culture can be
sufficient to ensure political success, provided that people feel it is a mass
movement (easily accessible and with opportunities for personal growth and
careerism within the movement) and that it tries to replace the status-quo.
4.
Exploiting Socio-Political Moments:
Timing is critical, as is often
the case in other markets besides the electoral one. Many of the successful
parties capitalized on specific crises, whether economic, cultural, or related
to national identity. For example, the Brexit Party in the UK and Vox in Spain
rose to prominence by addressing national debates on sovereignty and immigration,
respectively. If there is a migrant crisis, any entrepreneur needs to act fast
and preferably first. The attention span of the public has decreased radically
the last decades, and if one employs rhetoric or tries to occupy an ideological
position that has been taken before, the electorate is prone not to pay
attention and to purchase the stock of the undertaking that first drew their
attention effectively.
Lessons for Today's Political
Entrepreneurs
These findings remain highly
relevant in today’s volatile political climate. For aspiring political
entrepreneurs, the winning formula involves:
- Tapping into unaddressed grievances or
societal shifts.
- Innovating organizationally to appeal to
disenchanted but digitally savvy voters.
- Striking a balance between charismatic
leadership and participatory mechanisms.
While the barriers to entry in
politics remain high, especially in more entrenched systems, the demand for
alternatives to traditional parties suggests that the door for new players is
far from closed. Understanding and applying these principles can turn political
discontent into electoral momentum, reshaping the political landscape for years
to come.
In wit, albeit what is presented
here is not a perfect “formula”, it should clearly signal that new political
parties if they want to break through in the electoral market ought to be
rhetorically strong, but ideologically flexible, digitally present and inclusive
for careerists and people who want to become activists; and crucially act within
time-frameworks where the established parties are vulnerable and fail to account
for new crises or realities.
Whilst I lack the hubris to name
the new party system, I can reiterate after looking at the numbers that the “catch-all”
system of political parties is dead, something that I believe most members of
the People’s European Party and Social-Democrats in Brussels can confirm.
Comments
Post a Comment