Strength And Weakness Of Catch-all Parties

Many political parties, as mediating institutions between the state and diverse societal elements, are converting themselves into a catch-all type, a term coined by Otto Kirchheimer to denote the party’s weak links to society, fading loyal opposition, cartelisation and professionalisation of politics thus weakening the state. As a result, the links of people to the polity with the ability to organise them, aggregate their interests and articulate their demands into the realm of public policy, parliament, polity and the state remains delicate. The multiple communication channels through their political and intellectual representatives which normally play a critical role in balancing the inputs and outputs of the political system are cramped.

People use alternative channels of feedback between leaders and voters, a condition vital to keep democratic equilibrium vibrant. Yet the informational revolution has also deconstructed class representation of political parties, their worldview and institutional structures. Now one finds the rise of multi-classes in both capital and labour. As a result, political parties as an adaptive response have developed catch-all tendencies to inspire followers of all strata of populations for functional representation and source of legitimacy. It has eased joint democratic struggle, electoral and governmental coalition.

Basic values

Catch-all parties communicate to the public without basic values.  They appeal to a broad spectrum of political opinions, beliefs and even ideological persuasions for influence, not transformation of the ties of political parties with the society and social classes. Party membership does not require confirmation of its ideology. It has softened the social cleavages, created overlapping membership patterns and coalitions of any type in power struggle thus easing the process of conflict dilution, if not mitigation. The consensus of three major parties to settle politics in a syndicated regime and lingering question of transitional justice can be attributed to this.

 But the critical question is: why Nepali parties as a political sub-system less able to stabilise both the constitutional and democratic system? Is there a disharmony between its internally designed political system and externally integrated business and civil society? Obviously the projection of parties in the state is not weak. Its efficacy in social integration of diverse societies through political socialization and national integration through the mobilization of national feelings is feeble and febrile. Nepali political parties have always acted as drivers of political change.

 The mainstream parties — Nepali Congress, Communist Party of Nepal Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML) and CPN Maoist Centre have developed this trend and amassed support from all strata of the population.  Rastriya Swatantra Party and Rastriya Prajatantra Party too seem to follow this pattern and formulate strategies and programmes to adapt to the appeal of diverse Nepali society. This shows that other parties are also following suit in line with political democracy, market economy, human rights, social justice, freedom of press and autonomy of courts and civil society. Constitutional provision of social inclusion and proportional representation demands Nepali parties to become democratic in character which is vital to widen the social base of polity. 

Nametags of political parties notwithstanding many of them are maintaining ideological and class neutrality in the political sphere. The friction within catch-all parties is not principled. Each shares the same political culture of winning power through agitation and election and does not bring fundamental change in society even if they are elected. As a result, they are facing problems in the internal discipline, voters’ rising, swinging from one to another party, even dealignment, political apathy and declining membership. The weaknesses of catch-all parties are:

Ideological vagueness:  Mainstream political parties of Nepal have lifted up their sharp ideological and policy veil when they were created by their founders during democratic struggle. Now a disjuncture exists with their current goal. Their ideological positioning across the political spectrum is largely blurred. This has moderated their position regarding issues and eased the accommodation of several special interest groups, NGOs, civil society and corporate class and even provided them opportunity for representation in parliament and leadership positions for the purpose of seeking financing electoral and political campaigns. It has created certain tension between those honest cadres and leaders who supported the party building during critical times and the new forces who are attracted by lucrative positions.

 The issue of financial transparency surfaces in the public sphere during both elections and after where media and intellectual discourse offer sordid details.  Their common neo-liberal educational, health, economic and labour migration policies invert the liberal spirit of Nepali constitution. They prepare common minimum programmes and have built a constitutional consensus on socialism-oriented economy through with different layers of policy support and multiple interpretations about its contents.  Nepali parties have thus faced a dilemma between the rule of law which amounts to the status quo and distributive struggle which demands a change in political economy. De-ideologisation has negative effects on volunteerism and politicisation of society to reduce the cost of politics.

Leader-for-Life: Leader-for-life and its top-down formation is the general tendency of parties. It has generated social and intergenerational tensions and growing demands from leadership for political justice. One irony is that the leadership succession is marred by factionalism. As a result of this, cadres and followers are leader-oriented, not party-oriented for their successful career. Those raising critical voices against top leadership are marginalised, subdued or expelled from the party invoking party discipline. The voices of inner party democracy are growing in all the parties as well as term and age limits of leaders. 

Political mobilisation takes place around the personality of leadership, not their qualities and meritocratic performance regarding the delivery of their promises. The public sphere is dominated by jarring speeches of leaders against each other’s side rather than assuming public accountability to resolve the nation’s problems and prevent the polity being vulnerable to toxic agents. Given the heterogeneity of Nepali society, the nation will continue to host a multi-party system even if the anticipated constitutional amendment aim to curb it.

Centralised internal organisation: Despite the formation of various layers of committees at horizontal and vertical levels, Nepali political parties have built strongly centralised organisations where decision-making power and authority are situated at the top. Lower levels receive the command, directives and policies of the upper echelon of leadership. Candidate selection in the elections, decision-making and authority flows from the top without much political deliberation with local committees. 

As a result, party defection of aspiring candidates has become common. The rise of independent candidates is attracting followers across the party lines to win elections. Obviously, all left parties practice democratic centralism rather than democratic decentralisation. Non-left parties are afflicted with patronage politics while others are driven by personality formation. The Madhes-based parties have witnessed fissiparous tendencies of split and reunion along personality lines unabated, demonstrating a penchant towards deinstitutionalisation.

One irony of parties’ political culture is that they do not feel comfortable to stay in opposition except the Peasants and Workers Party which has shown no interest to join the government. The other is politics of negation which has stoked many configurations of oppositional politics — parliamentary, street, populist, conservative and revolutionary. Political stability in Nepal requires decentralisation of party structures, their democratisation and enticing them into peaceful democratic competition. 

 Strengthening of local party committees, cultivation of local leadership and developing a listening culture in the meeting of national conventions and central level committees help to democratise political parties and harness a political culture of transparency and accountability. Given Nepal’s adoption of shared rule, political parties too have to adapt to this reality and resolve the tension between federal, provincial and local bodies in matters of mandate, personnel, resource sharing, coordination and collective action problems.

Meritocratic performances

Building capacity to win election: Catch-all parties are interested more in vote maximisation than improving the quality of democracy and developing meritocratic performances of representative institutions and the polity. One can see the formation of many caucus groups across the social classes and party lines and proliferation of social movements, demanding the realisation of their constitutional rights, recognition, resources and opportunities. Integration of these groups in political parties and their connections with the political axis of polity and constitutional bodies is essential to promote political democracy, political stability and widen the social base of inclusive and participatory democracy. 

Efforts are being made in social inclusion and projection of diverse social classes in the public institutions including parties, inclusive commissions, constitutional bodies, public administration, police, army, judiciary, etc. Still, inclusiveness in party politics is not enough unless they retain coherence and responsive capacity in matters of providing public goods. Similarly, they need to cultivate social modernisation to erode tribal conformity to national institutions including the state and shift from clientalist political culture to transformational ones attuned to changing democratic values, technology, new stratification of society, information glut and creation of digital political space and link formal institution to network-based culture. Parties' are veering to mass-based catchall-party style is not a problem if they democratically perform and harness a civic culture.

(Former Reader at the Department of Political Science, TU, Dahal writes on political and social issues.)