|
|
|
|
The following text addresses the scientific debate on the deficiencies and future of the American party system. Will US parties move away from being purely election-fighting parties and begin presenting themselves as organizations with a political program and as mediators between the "people" and the "state"?
For years now American social scientists have been embroiled in an extremely differentiated debate on this issue of whether America's party system is in "decline or going through a period of (re)consolidation". Critics of the party scene point out a lack of party discipline and unity (for example the relationship between the president and a congressional majority, which often appears "antagonistic" despite the fact that both sides belong to the same party). Critics complain about a lack of clear policy alternatives between the two traditional rivals and point to the general increase in inefficiency and legitimacy deficits in America's political system. Indeed, during the sixties the famous political scientist, James D. Burns, was already painting a dark picture of the situation facing American party democracy and suggesting possible reforms, which have since been the subject of intense discussion. These reforms were aimed at establishing uniform political leadership, setting up calculability in political decisions, bringing about cooperation between the executive and legislative and creating transparency in the process of forming a political will, without which the public is denied sufficient means of controlling those in office.
The heated debate around America's party system intensified during the eighties. Critics argued that it was failing to come up with timely solutions for new problems in both domestic and foreign policy and, indeed, to implement them based on effective control of the instruments of power in the political decision-making process. Critics said that parties were breaking up, putting the workings of the political system in danger. Differing suggestions were made as to possible reforms, which eventually came to nothing. The reason for this was and is clear: In a nation whose political culture is greatly influenced by a sharp sense of tradition, far-reaching reforms are very difficult to realize. Indeed, this is only magnified when proposed reforms put into question established positions of power. Admittedly, opposing positions also exist which see a reconsolidation and revitalization of the American party system. Such voices are quick to point out the widening gap between the policies of the Democratic and Republican parties. Indeed, some authors even describe this as "ideological polarization". During the US administrations under Reagan, Bush and Clinton, the latter had, according to advocates of this position, led to a uniform voting pattern from the congressional party, which made it easier for voters to make a distinction between parties. But, above all, parties were consolidating, something that could be seen at all political levels, and were trying to create effective party apparatus. The quality and intensity of political participation at a grassroots level has, indeed, changed as a consequence of the civil-rights, student and anti-Vietnam movements during the sixties and seventies. Young political activists, more interested in policy than they are patronage, have managed to push the party's old guard and its pragmatism aside. In doing so, however, they have also sharpened the profile of the party(ies) at a local level and made parties something that can be experienced at a communal, local and state level. As a matter of fact, Republican organizations exist today in all fifty American states which coordinate to some degree with the Republican National Committee (RNC) in Washington, which has come out of its long hibernation. In addition to the RNC, there are another two national committees in both houses of Congress, which attempt to organize or at least to influence parliamentary election campaigns. All three national committees have been able to raise large donations for election campaigns over the last few years. These national committees have also intensified their efforts to select candidates and introduce training for public office and have even attempted to raise public awareness of these committees through national advertising campaigns. The Democratic Party is also showing the beginnings of similar moves. Nevertheless, it poses no competition at present to the Republican Party at an organizational level. It must be acknowledged, however, that the trend towards reconsolidation in the party system as a whole does not provide an adequate therapy for the far-reaching effects of the political crisis. If truth be told, the national committees of both the Democrats and Republicans - and the same applies to the parallel coordination institutions in both houses of Congress - remain no more than efficient service providers for elections campaigns and election advertising. They have not evolved into the type of organizations that actively make policy and represent interests and which, for example, would be capable of forcing the implementation of party manifestos at an individual state level or, indeed, nationally. From a European perspective these revitalized national parties also remain comparably fragmented entities. Considering the increasing personalization and individualization of American election campaigns, these casually expressed expectations that a well-organized party system capable of making policy according to national priorities might develop out of local, regional and group splits in parties seem rather unrealistic. [Hartmut Wasser; taken from: Informationen zur politischen Bildung 199, "Politisches System der USA", Bonn BpB 1997]
|
|
Subjects: Human
Rights I Democracy I Parties
I Examples I
Europe
I
Globalisation
I United Nations
I Sustainability
|
