Total Visits
Wednesday, 28 February 2018
Wednesday, 21 February 2018
Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar – A play for the modern age?
Shakespeare’s
Julius Caesar – A play for the modern age?
I recently went to see the production of Shakespeare’s play “Julius
Caesar” at the Bridge Theatre. The
Bridge Theatre is a new theatre on the Southbank of the Thames River, near Tower
Bridge and the London Assembly Building.
I originally booked it because I have a daughter who is doing A Levels
in English and Classical Civilisation and thought that the play would be good
for both. I wasn’t particularly pleased
when I saw that the Director (Nicholas Hytner) had done the play in modern
costume rather than as might befit the costumes that would have been
appropriate for the historical Julius Caesar.
I was completely wrong on this!
This production of the play is superb, very compelling and emotionally
convincing. The sound effects and stage
props gave a vivid and gripping image of the noise and ruin of modern civil
war.
The cheapest tickets were for people to stand in the pit of the theatre. The audiences seats are all around the
outside of the centre in which all the action takes place. You can’t therefore really call it a stage,
but the theatre had various sorts of clever ways of bringing stage props in and
out with the various parts of the floor raising and lowering and having the
crowd acting, in effect, as live props around whom the action was taking place
added tremendously to the atmosphere of the play.
We came in to a US Presidential style campaign rally with a fantastic
rock/punk style band with banners flying and being waved enthusiastically and
placards held up of Great Caesar! (David
Calder).
The Left/Liberal Directorship of the production actually didn’t grate at
all despite the attempts to introduce Trump style touches with red baseball
caps and, in fact, these seemed to simply make the whole play feel
that much more up to date.
The casting was multi-ethnic and also cast quite a number of women in
roles which Shakespeare had written for men and who were historically men as
well as being orignally homogeneously white Caucasian Romans, but these touches
of political correctness did not detract from the production.
The play has various relevancies to the modern world and not only with
Shakespeare’s superb language and ringing phrases, but also the productions political
messages include Brutus (Ben Whishaw) as the archetypal Left/Liberal elitist
obsessing about and making academic public speeches about abstract
constitutional theorising. This is including his unwillingness to follow through the logic of the
assignation to include the killing of Caesar’s immediate friends and, in
particular, Mark Antony. He is the
embodiment of the worst of all possible generals – the one who wants to be nice
to the enemy!
Mark Antony (David Morrisey) was superbly played, as Shakespeare draws
him, as a superbly effective, emotive and populist speaker but with more than a
whiff of dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Shakespeare’s play and this production rightly points out that most
people are not moved by appeals to abstract constitutional ideas, but are much
more ready to support and engage with ideas expressed with real emotional punch.
The play’s topical message for us therefore is that, in campaigning for England
and England’s future, we need to avoid the trap of the Brutus approach and aim
to be more Mark Antony, albeit an honest Mark Antony!
Saturday, 10 February 2018
REMOANERS/REMAINIACS MAY HAVE "NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER"!
REMOANERS/REMAINIACS MAY HAVE "NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY
DISORDER"!
The
article below caught my eye recently. I
thought the author’s take, on the self-serving and somewhat callous and socially
abusive attitudes of the British Political and Managerial Establishment, as
well as that of globalists and internationalists, is rather well explained in
the article. Although the author has fallen
into the regrettable jargonistic approach of all too many academics in British
universities who seem to take a somewhat snobbish view about explaining things
in language that could be easily understood by lay people.
I am not
a psychologist or psychiatrist but when I was at university I was interested in
psychology and did do a course on it before deciding that I didn’t think that
Freud and Jung etc., really offered both useful insights into human nature. Also I realised that their theories came with
deeply demoralising, not to say amoral, philosophical core. Even so it is interesting to see the
theory of “Narcissism” being applied rather effectively to criticise management
and politics.
The
thought provoking article also prompted me to wonder whether the same
theorising could be applied to the petulant, spiteful and socially abusive
behaviour of Remainers, who are exactly the sort of people to whom this theory
of Narcissism should be applied. This
behaviour is exactly the sort of behaviour that the theory of Narcissism would
predict that a self-serving elite would react in this way when they didn’t get
their way and when they felt deprived of their sense of entitlement, both in
the case of the vote for Brexit in the UK’s EU Referendum and also in America
as a result of the election of Donald Trump!
Consider this:-
"Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a
personality disorder in which there is a long-term pattern of abnormal
behaviour characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive
need for admiration, and a lack of understanding of others' feelings. People
affected by it often spend a lot of time thinking about achieving power or
success, or about their appearance. They often take advantage of the people
around them."
Sound familiar?
Then consider this:-
Signs and symptoms
"Persons with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) are characterized by their persistent grandiosity, excessive need for admiration, and a personal disdain for, and lack of empathy for other people. As such, the person with NPD usually displays the behaviours of arrogance, a sense of superiority, and actively seeks to establish abusive power and control over other people. Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition different from self-confidence (a strong sense of self); people with NPD typically value themselves over other persons to the extent that they openly disregard the feelings and wishes of others, and expect to be treated as superior, regardless of their actual status or achievements. Moreover, the person with narcissistic personality disorder usually exhibits a fragile ego (Self-concept), an inability to tolerate criticism, and a tendency to belittle others in order to validate their own superiority.The DSM-5 indicates that persons with NPD usually display some or all of the following symptoms, typically without the commensurate qualities or accomplishments:
- Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment from other people
- Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.
- Self-perception of being unique, superior, and associated with high-status people and institutions
- Needing continual admiration from others
- Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others
- Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain
- Unwilling to empathize with the feelings, wishes, and needs of other people
- Intensely envious of others, and the belief that others are equally envious of them
- Pompous and arrogant demeanour
What do
you think?
Here is
the full text of the article:-
“Narcissism
is increasingly being observed among management and political elites.
Recognising how it underpins policy making and how it becomes increasingly
prevalent in socially destructive ways is key to re-engaging citizens with the
political process, writes Marianna Fotaki.
Derived
from the ancient Greek myth of a beautiful youth Narcissus, who died through
falling in love with his own image, the term narcissism – coined by Sigmund
Freud – has travelled widely in the past one hundred years, shaping popular
culture, business and public policy.
Psychoanalytic
ideas present an important framework for understanding the rise of the culture
of narcissism in work, management and organisational settings. Narcissism, is
applied to individuals who are incapable of empathy, unable to relate to and
totally unaware of other people’s needs, or even their existence. Under growing
uncertainty and the ruthless striving for innovation that characterises late
capitalism, it is increasingly observed in business leadership. In 2000 Michael
Maccoby argued narcissists are good news for companies,
because they have passion and dare to break new ground.
But even
productive narcissists are often dangerous as they are divorced from the
consequences of their judgements and actions, whenever these do not affect them
directly. They will strive at any cost to avoid painful realisations of failure
that could tarnish their own image and will only listen to information they
seek to hear, failing to learn from others. Popular portrayals of corporate
figures as ‘psychopaths’ who unscrupulously and skilfully manoeuvre their way
to the highest rungs of the social ladder are presented as
fundamentally different from the rest of humanity. However, this is a
misconception obscuring the pervasiveness of narcissism and mechanisms that
enable it.
Susan Long has
persuasively argued that whole societies may be caught in a state of
pathological perversion whenever instrumentality overrides relationality – that
is, whenever narcissism becomes dominant, other people (or the whole groups of
other people) are seen not as others, like oneself, but as objects to be used.
For instance, when markets are seen as anonymous ‘virtual’ structures,
employees may be seen and treated as exploitable commodities. Such behaviours
are pathologically perverse in that people disavow their knowledge of the
situations they create through narcissistic processes.
Public
policies have been subject to these pathological perversions. Separating risk
from responsibility in the financial sector was not merely about creating
perverse incentives enabling people to engage in greed through financial
bubbles that were bound to burst, but about disengaging policy makers from the
all too predictable consequences of such policies.
Another
example is the dramatic shift in public policy that has occurred in Europe
where instead of ensuring liveable wages, access to affordable health care,
public education and a clean environment, there is an increasing preoccupation
with how to unleash the alleged desire of citizens to enact their preferences
of how public services should be provided. The justification is that citizens
want to choose between different providers to ensure that they get the best
quality. However, at least in health care services, this is not borne out by the evidence. In
reality, the logic of consumerist choice valorises individualism and
narcissistic self-gratification by undermining the institutions created to
promote public interest. The re-modelling of the public organisations as
‘efficient’ (read flexible and dispensable) business units, the widespread
privatisation of the Commons and the diminution of the value of the public good
are just a few of the means by which this have been achieved.
We see
the effects of these changes in the NHS: imposing a market ethos on health care
staff, and a focus on indicators and targets, has led to the distortion of
care. Studies
have shown the long term reality of the suffering, dependence and
vulnerability of mentally ill patients is disavowed, and the complexities of
managing those in psychological distress are systematically evaded. It is
replaced by work intensification and demands on the overworked front line staff
to show more
compassion. Equally, the needs of patients for relational aspects of care are
ignored as they do not fit with the conveyer-belt model of services
provided in 10-minute slots by GPs in England.
The
institutionalisation and systemic sanctioning of such practices involving
instrumentality, disregard for sociality and relational ties, and pathological
splitting from one’s own actions – all originating in individual narcissistic
processes – constitute a state of pathological perversion on a societal level.
The increasing narcissism among management and political elites is also enabled
by the public at large, who may be projecting on to them their own desire for
power while splitting off ambivalent feelings emerging from this desire. The
progressive marketisation of public services illustrates both the insensitivity
of policy makers to the impact of their policies on those who are less able to
benefit from them (i.e. the less affluent and less-well educated citizens) but
also in appealing to the narcissism of voters. Thus the issue of how much
choice is possible and what are the inevitable trade-offs involved (between
choice and equity or quality and efficiency in public
health systems) is sidestepped by politicians and their
constituencies.
A
narcissistic denial of reality deflects the citizens’ attention from a much
needed social critique. Understanding how narcissism underpins policy making,
and how it becomes increasingly prevalent in socially destructive ways of
managing employees and manipulating the public, is therefore a necessary first
step towards re-engaging with the political process.”
(Here is a link to the original article >>> Narcissistic elites are undermining the institutions created to promote public interest
Monday, 5 February 2018
THOSE IN POWER DEFINE THE MEANING OF “EXTREMISM”
THOSE IN POWER DEFINE THE MEANING OF “EXTREMISM”
I noticed
in the Guardian on the 23rd January edition an article by Peter
Walker, the Political Correspondent, entitled
“New national security unit set up to tackle fake
news in UK”.
The key extracts are:-
“The government is to set up a
dedicated national security unit to tackle fake news and disinformation,
Downing Street has said. The prime
minister’s spokesman said.
One
specific area agreed as needing new resources by the national security council
as part of the NSCR is the spread of fake news, he said.
“We are
living in an era of fake news and competing narratives. The government will
respond with more and better use of national security communications to tackle
these interconnected, complex challenges.
“To do
this we will build on existing capabilities by creating a dedicated national
security communications unit. This will be tasked with combating disinformation
by state actors and others.”
The unit
will “more systematically deter our adversaries and help us deliver on national
security priorities”, he added, saying there was as yet no information on where
it would be based or who would staff it.”
Here is a
link to the original article >>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/23/new-national-security-unit-will-tackle-spread-of-fake-news-in-uk
It is worth noting that Oxford Dictionary’s definition of “extremism” is:–
“The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism”.
Anyone
who is not a fully signed up multiculturalist or, to quote the Judicial
Appointments Commission (on the requirement for judicial office in our cartel
democracy), a person “who can demonstrate a life -long commitment to equality
and diversity” should bear in mind what I explained in one of my previous
articles called “Fight the Good Fight
with all thy might” (here is the link >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/fight-good-fight-with-all-thy-might.html) when I
pointed out that now even a scripturally based Christian has been re-defined by
the British Government as an “extremist”!
Also the expression of any view at odds with the official one is likely
to be classed as “offensive” just like the Electoral Commission calling our
slogan “England worth fighting for” offensive.
(click here for my article on that called “UK’s Electoral Commission rules that “England worth fighting for!” is
OFFENSIVE!” >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/uks-electoral-commission-rules-that.html)
This
means of course that we are now truly in a political landscape where it can rightly
be called out saying what John Tyndall did years ago, that:-
“The
first lesson is to realise that it is our lack of power not our so-called “extremism”
that is the big deterrent and anyway what is “extremism”?
At
different times across history extremism has meant different things.
So what
has changed since then? Has the truth
changed? Is what was true then no longer
true now? No. What has changed is power. Power then was in different hands and that is
what we are up against. Those who have
the power today…. they are able to determine what is mainstream and respectable
and what is extreme.
We have
to understand that “extremism” is a meaningless term. It is entirely what the current makers of
public opinion decide it will be. No
more, no less.
Our
activity must be geared to the winning of power. That still has to be said to some people…
They are crusaders for the truth but they don’t relate it to necessities of
winning power. It cannot be said
enough.
‘Power is
what must be won.’
First
just a little bit of power, then more power and finally complete power.
Activity
geared to anything else is a waste of time.
But we
one day will be answerable to our grandchildren and our grandchildren are going
to say to us when that great time of decision came what did you do? Did you give in or did you fight?
Are we
going to say to them well the struggle was too severe. The odds were too strong. Perhaps we left it
a bit too late. We hadn’t a chance and
therefore we lost our country, we lost our nationhood?
Or will
we be able to say to them with pride and honour I was one of those who fought
and there were more and more who came and fought with me. I went off into the streets and worked and
struggled for our Cause. We stood firm
like the men at the Alamo, like the men at Rourke’s Drift, like the men at
Blood River. We fought to the bitter end
and we won!”
So it is
worth bearing in mind that what is meant by the word “offensive” is also
changing.
In the
English Democrats Judicial Review Case in which we were judicially reviewing
the Electoral Commission’s removal of our long registered description saying
‘England worth fighting for!’ They claimed this is now offensive. Evidence was produced of the Electoral
Commission’s thinking which read as follows:-
“LE: I
would retain all the descriptions except the ‘fighting for’ one. They all advocate support for England, which
is itself exclusionist (ie, it excludes other parts of the UK). But favouring one part of the UK is an
established policy position that parties can and do hold, not just in relation
to England. If the slogans referred to
the English I would be more concerned, as that is a distinction based on
race. I don’t think you can read
‘English’ into ‘England’ in this instance.
In my view the phrase “worth fighting for” is commonly used and
understood in a non-violent context.
Phrased like ‘ideas worth fighting for’ or ‘relationships worth fighting
for’ are common (try a Google search), and would not be read to mean physically
fighting for them. If this description
was seen in the context of all the others, I think it would be reasonably clear
its intention was non-violent. Seen on
its own, however, as it could be on the ballot paper, I think that it is
arguable that the only way to ‘fight for England’ is a violent or militaristic
way. Seen on its own, I think it can be
viewed as offensive in the context of this by-election. It’s the potential for that to happen which
leads me to conclude that we should remove it.”
So it now
appears that it is okay to say as one slogan does which is still registered
with the Electoral Commission ‘Fighting for Wales’ and of course the Scottish
Party is allowed to ‘Fight for Scotland’, but the English are not allowed to be
“exclusionary”!
I
produced evidence in court of the Oxford Dictionary’s meaning of ‘offensive’
which is defined as follows:-
ADJECTIVE
1.
Causing someone to feel resentful, upset, or annoyed.
‘the
allegations made are deeply offensive to us’
‘offensive
language’
1.1 (of
a sight or smell) disgusting; repulsive.
‘an
offensive odour’
2. attributive Actively
aggressive; attacking.
‘offensive
operations against the insurgents’
2.1 (of
a weapon) meant for use in attack.
‘he is
also accused of possessing an offensive weapon’
2.2North
American Relating to the team in possession of the ball or puck in a game.
‘Shell
was an outstanding offensive tackle during his 15 years with the Raiders’
But
clearly the Establishment wishes to be able to re-define what it considers to
be “offensive” rather than taking account of what ordinary people think or even
what the Oxford Dictionary says that the word means! As per George Orwell’s 1984 “War is peace, freedom
is slavery and ignorance is strength!”
Welcome
to the Age of “Cartel Democracy” in the UK where even our English language has
been co-opted into the Cartel Parties determination to dominate us all and
extinguish English nationhood. Who is
willing to let them win without a fight?
Thursday, 1 February 2018
IS THE UK’S POLITICAL BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT NOW A CLASSIC “CARTEL DEMOCRACY”?
A few
weeks ago I was reading an article by the Conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan’s, in
the Sunday Telegraph called in the print edition “Coalition politics has turned
European democracy into a beige dictatorship”.
Here is a link to the original article >>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/21/coalition-politics-has-turned-european-democracy-beige-dictatorship/
In that
article he says:-
“Several
Western European countries have had German-style traditions of permanent
coalition. In some of them, favoured parties were more or less permanently in
office. These became known as the “cartel democracies”, because the ruling
parties used legal and financial barriers to prevent newcomers from breaking
through. Austria, Belgium and Italy were textbook cartel democracies for most
of the post-war era.”…
You can
always spot the symptoms. The public sector grows as the various coalition
partners scrabble to find sinecures for their supporters. In Austria during the
Christian Democrat/Social Democrat duopoly, every position, from the headmaster
of a village school to the director of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, might
be allocated according to party membership card. These membership cards, by the
way, were actual physical things: the Italian versions, beribboned and
bemedalled, were especially magnificent, signifying, as they did, a precious
IOU.
Cartel
politicians, being unchallenged, could award themselves handsome perks, such as
legal immunities and high salaries. When I was first elected to the European Parliament,
MEPs were paid at the same rate as a national parliamentarian in their home
country. The Austrians, Italians and Germans earned twice as much as anyone
else. The cartel parties were quite flagrant in their attempts to stop
newcomers from posing a challenge. In Belgium, for example, restrictions on
private donations made parties dependent on state funding – which was then
withdrawn from the Flemish separatists following a parliamentary vote by their
rivals.
Secure in
office, the old parties were able to ignore public demands for tax cuts,
immigration controls, powers back from Brussels or anything else they could
fastidiously dismiss as “populist”. Because leaders from a previous generation
generally decided who could stand on their party lists, politics remained stuck
in a Fifties corporatist consensus.
Only in
the Nineties did the system start to break down. Fed up with the complacency
and sleaze of their semi-permanent rulers, voters began to grope around for
battering rams to smash open the old system. In Italy, they found a
Trumpian avant la lettre – Silvio Berlusconi, who made a point of issuing
no party membership cards. In Austria, they turned to Jörg Haider’s
anti-immigration Freedom Party. In Belgium, they elected the Flemish
nationalists. Only in Germany has the old partitocracy remained intact – at
least until now.
Last
year, Germany’s Christian Democrats suffered their worst result since 1949. The
Social Democrats suffered their worst result since 1933. How will it look if
the two losers get together to form a government based on all the things that
had characterised the old racket – more immigration, deeper European
integration, little economic reform, and the dismissal of all opposition as
unconscionable populism?”
These comments chimed strongly with my experiences of the way in which
Labour and the Conservatives have embedded themselves within the State, in such
a way that for years now it has seemed to matter little which party was
technically in power. The classic “LibLabCon”
even when the other party is in power many of the key people within what is
supposed to be its rival still have plum political patronage jobs.
So I looked further and found the BBC’s Home Editor, Mark Easton, had written
an article which was published on the
12th June 2017. Which asked:-
“Has British democracy let its
people down?”
Mark Easton’s reply is:-
“Parliamentary democracy is one of the British
values that English schools are now required, by statute, to promote during
lessons - not debate, not discuss, promote.
If some
teachers interpret their new role as propagandists for this kingdom's existing
system of governance, that would be a shame, because right now there are
questions about how well our form of democracy is serving the UK.
Far from
providing the stability and legitimacy it promises, one could argue that our
democratic system has served to expose and deepen social divides.
Some
would say it has even contrived to leave our country vulnerable at a critical
moment in its history.
Rather
than seeking to close down critical challenge of our form of democracy, do we
need a serious and urgent conversation about how we can improve matters?...
Our two
main political parties were founded and evolved to deal with the social and
economic challenges of the industrial revolution.
Conservative
and Labour, Left and Right, capitalism and socialism - these ideological
movements were a response to the economic and cultural challenges of power
moving from the field to the factory.
But power
is moving again, from the national to the multinational.
How
citizens think we should respond to that shift is the new divide in our
politics.
It is
less about left v right and more about nationalism v globalism….
…Old-fashioned
political tribalism is actually on the wane…
And the
diminution of local government in England, the weakening of the trade union
movement, the impotence of political protest movements, the increasing
centralisation of overarching authority to one house in Downing Street - these
add to the sense that the "demos" (people) are increasingly excluded
from the "kratos" (power).”
I think
that much of what Mark Easton had to say here is right, particularly in his
analysis of what the division now is; not left and right, rather globalist/
internationalist as against nationalist/patriotic.
It was
said by many of the more astute commentators, including Professor Matthew
Goodwin of Kent University, that the appeal of Euroscepticism and of Brexit to
English nationalists anxious to “get our country back” and to “take back
control” was, when focussed solely on the EU, somewhat misconceived.
Professor
Goodwin in particular was saying that for people who identified themselves as
being English, that their desire to get back control was a confused response
because the problem wasn’t the EU, it was the British Political Establishment
which is seeking to break England up and to change English society and English
communities in ways that English people don’t want.
Its
support of the EU was a system of this attitude so the real struggle ought to
be focussed on England and on the English taking back control. The British State and British Political
Establishment not only no longer cares about them or about what they think
about things, but also actively works against English interests. Its default position is internationalist or
globalist.
I thought therefore I ought to look at what academics have written about
“Cartel Parties” and see whether that is a concept which helps to explain the
problems of power that we have currently got in England. So a quick search of the internet showed me
the article you find here>>> https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/77c01c49-8fe0-4c5f-a83e-c64362debb30.pdf
This
article actually found that the UK was not a Cartel democracy but that is
because the article was written in 2001 and not in 2018! For the last 20 years we have lived in the
sort of political environment which is all too clearly explained in this
paper. The key points of the article are
here:-
“Cartel parties in Western Europe?
Changes in organizational structures, political
functions and competitive behaviour among the major parties in Denmark,
Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
By Klaus
Detterbeck
University
of Göttingen
Introduction
Among the various attempts to pinpoint the changes
in West European political parties which have been going on over the last
decades, the cartel party model (Katz & Mair 1995) has been one of the most
provocative of… In their article Katz
& Mair (1995) are constructing an evolution of party types from the late
19th century onwards to show how parties have changed from being party of
society (mass parties) to being part of the state apparatus. The provocation,
the cartel party model entails, lies in its claim that the established parties
in Western Europe have adapted themselves to declining levels of participation
and involvement in party activities by not only turning to resources provided
by the state but by doing so in a collusive manner. The inter-penetration of
party and state, so the argument goes, has been achieved through co-operation
between the major parties - most obviously by unanimously introducing and
expanding public subsidies to themselves. The former opponents now run a party
cartel which excludes new and smaller parties. These changes on the level of
party competition are associated with decisive changes in the internal balance
of power among the individual cartel parties, their relationship to society and
the quality of the democratic process in Western democracies per se. Thus, Katz
& Mair (1995) are depicting a fundamental change of party democracy in
Western Europe since the 1970s. Precisely because the consequences of the
alleged cartellization would be so dramatic - a self-referential political
class unremovable from power dominating politics and determining their own
infrastructure- it is necessary to empirically review the central hypotheses of
the cartel party model.
Three
dimensions of party change
Analytically there are three dimensions on which
Katz & Mair (1995) are describing party change since the 1960s and on which
they are conceptualizing the cartel type. I will look at them in turn:
·
Political role: representative vs. governmental
functions
·
Party competition: cartellization and exclusion
·
Organizational structures: parlamentarization and
stratarchy
The political role of parties concerns their
position between the sphere of society and the sphere of the state. The cartel
party model postulates that West European parties have increasingly lost their capacity
and their eagerness to fulfil their representative functions for society
(interest articulation and -aggregation, goal formulation, political
mobilisation), whereas they became more strongly involved in executing governmental
functions (elite recruitment, government formation, policy making). The
professional party leaders thus became more concerned with the demands of the
parliamentary arena than with interpreting party manifestos or discussing
politics on party congresses. The near exclusive dominance of parliaments and
governments enabled parties to rely on a new source for financing and staffing
their organizations which made them relatively independent from party members
or donors. Cartel party are therefore characterized by a weak involvement of
party members and historically related interest groups (classe gardée) in party
activities on the one hand, and by an emphasis on governmental functions and
state resources on the other hand.
Turning to the level of party competition,
the mutually shared need for securing the flow of state resources has changed
the relationships of the political opponents towards each other. In a process
of social learning - facilitated through the daily interaction of professional
politicians from different parties in parliament - the party actors realized
that there are common interests among the „political class“ which laid the
basis for collective action (von Beyme 1996; Borchert 2001). The process of
cartel formation has two facets: cartellization aims at reducing the
consequences of electoral competition, basically through granting the losers,
the established opposition a certain share of state subventions or patronage
appointments. Exclusion aims at securing the position of the established
parties against newly mobilized challengers. This can be achieved through
setting up certain barriers for newcomers in the electoral competition (e.g.
thresholds), excluding them from access to public subventions or media
campaigns, or excluding them from access to executive office by declaring them
unacceptable coalition partners („pariahs“). However, a cartel doesn’t have to
be closed completely. The co-optation of new parties which are willing to play
according to the established rules of the game may strengthen the viability of
a party cartel. Katz & Mair (1995) argue that the formation of a party
cartel poses a fundamental problem for the West European party democracies as
it denies the voters the possibility of choosing a political alternative – “none
of the major parties is ever definitively out“ (ebd.: 22) -, and gives
munitions to the rhetorics of neo-populist parties on the political right. In
the long run, cartellization will widen the gulf between voters and politicians
and make it increasingly difficult to legitimize political decisions.
The organisational dimension is concerned
with the balance of power inside the parties. The “mechanics” of internal
decision-making are determined by the structural and material resources of the
various “faces” within the organisation. Cartel party are characterised by a
further strengthening of the “party in public office” which can be explained by
their direct access to political decisions in parliaments and governments,
their access to the mass media as well as by their better access to state
resources (e.g. parliamentary staff). The dominance of party executive organs
through parliamentarians, the marginalisation of party activists (e.g. through
member ballots) or the professionalization of election campaigns are
organizational indicators of the cartel type. The second organizational feature
of cartel parties consists in the vertical autonomy of different party levels.
Whereas the national (parliamentarian) party elite tries to free itself from
the demands of regional and local party leaders as far as political and
strategic questions on the national level are concerned, the lower strata
insist upon their autonomy in their own domains, e.g. the selection of
candidates or local politics: Each side
is therefore encouraged to allow the other a free hand. The result is
stratarchy“ (ebd.: 21).
Although the causal relationships between these
three dimensions are not clearly spelled out by Katz & Mair (1995), it
seems to be the logic of the argument that the increase of vulnerability (less party
members, more volatile voters) caused party change. Vulnerability brought about
a declining capacity of parties to fulfil their representative functions (e.g.
interest articulation) which led them
a.) to concentrate on their governmental functions (e.g.
selecting leaders, seeking parliamentary majorities, passing laws) and,
b.) to collude with their established opponents in
order to secure the required resources for organisational maintenance.
The freedom of manoeuvre which party leaders needed
to do both led to internal party reforms which strengthened the “party in
public office”. As a result of these changes, the linkages between the
professionalized party organisations and the citizenry further eroded, which in
turn intensified the trend towards the sphere of the state and towards
inter-party collusion (see Young 1998)…
The core element of the cartel party type can be
seen in the self-interested co-operation between the major parties which aims
at securing organizational resources (public subsidies, patronage) and career
stability (income, reelection, alternative political jobs) for the individual
politician.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)