Let's face it: We Germans are the world's best moaners. In Germany we moan and groan about disaffection with parties, equate this with disaffection with politics and even lump it together with disaffection with democracy itself (...). Indeed, the term crisis was quickly at hand and was applied to everything that represented change and transformation. If we take the term crisis and use it in a less everyday way, if take it seriously, despite the variety of ways it has been used in differing research contexts, then our current political situation and, indeed, the history of Germany turns out to be far less dramatic than the political leader writers would have us believe.

(...) In contrast: My theory for the following reflections is that set against the context of Germany's history but also against an international comparison (which I will not be considering further) we are actually trying to sing the praises of Germany's federal party state and that looking back at the last 50 years we are entitled to speak of a period of success for political parties, the party system and the party state. On no account, however, will I be glorifying this success and I will be voicing some criticism. I will purposely be bringing my theory to a positive head, in order to distance myself from the never ending complaining.

Political parties have a successful history

What does the term "party state" mean (...) in political reality? For the rest of the text, I will be using the colloquial understanding of the term party state. This is because a political or sociological analytical concept of what "party state" might mean, that is, a theory on the party state, remains to be developed. At the beginning of the Weimar Republic the term "party state" was used in a negative way against the concepts of democracy and republic. "Party state" was considered the opposite of the traditional office and official-based sate under a constitutional monarchy, which was regarded as a neutral state system free of politics and especially free of "party squabbling", not only independent of society, but which also stood out positively from it because of this very independence. The term party state, then, was charged with ill-feeling and prejudice against democracy, republic and against political parties.

Party state used as a negative term

In contrast to this definition, the rest of the text will regard the term "party state" in a positive sense as meaning representative democracy - usually parliamentary rather than presidential democracy - in which parties in constitutional reality, this means, the existence of political decisions and their legitimation, play a dominant role. If political parties are not the only bodies responsible for shaping political opinion, they are certainly the most important given that they take up society's differing particular needs and interests and communicate them in the constitutional executive and legislative bodies and, conversely, justify the decisions taken in these institutions to the people, thereby creating legitimation for the political system as a whole.

[For more detailed information in the parliamentary and presidential systems of government see the Main Subject Group of Democracy]

In this understanding of the term, the Federal Republic of Germany is a party state par excellence. This is demonstrated by the following, if somewhat formal, rules:
1. According to article 21 of the German constitution, political parties contribute to the forming of a political will. In the past this wording led to a situation in which republican German parties claimed almost entire reasonability for shaping political will, meaning that parties began to develop a monopoly position in this area.  
2. Article 21 also gives the parties special privileges, since only the German Constitutional Court can ban parties following a complicated and restricted procedure which must demonstrate that parties have contradicted the basic constitutional principles of freedom both in theory and in their political actions. In contrast, article 9 of the German constitution provides for associations to be banned by the home secretary or ministers of the interior of individual German states, should they violate the constitutional order or the principles of international understanding.
3. Parties are financially maintained by the state out of the federal and individual state budgets. This ruling applies to parties themselves and foundations closely associated with them, as well as the parliamentary parties.

[To find out more about the legal standing of political parties in the German constitution see the page on law]

In order to specify more precisely the significance of the parties in the party state, their responsibilities, that is, the functions they perform in constitutional reality, as allocated to them by political science and in particular by political sociology have to be addressed. By taking the relevant publications, we can produce the following catalogue of political functions:
1. Functions performed at an intermediary level between society and the political and administrative system, namely: Organizing elections; recruiting and selecting political personnel; articulating society's interests; aggregating society's interests within the parties; creating legitimation for the political system.
2. Functions performed at a governmental level: Forming a government; the structuring of parliament by the parliamentary parties; wording and implementing policy; selecting people for appointment to public office; being the addressees for demands coming from politics and society.

[See basic course 3 for the functions of the parties]

Several observers regard parties in the same vain as constitutional bodies in the way they perform these functions; bodies existing alongside the Federal President, the Bundestag, the Bundesrat, the federal government and the German Constitutional Court. But this understanding of their function is wide of the mark, that is, it is too one-sided in that it focuses exclusively on the state, or rather, the authoritarian state. Yet it is the functions parties perform in their role as mediators between society and the state and not their "state" functions that are decisive in making the party state work. Regardless of how difficult this ideal separation of society and state might be, parties and their concrete activities are indeed anchored in both sections "at home". All future attempts at formulating a party state theory or state sociology should take this mediating function as their starting point.

Parties as mediators between the society and the state

This catalogue, which is focused on the main activities of the parties between society and the state, can be narrowed down to four main functions: 
1. Selection function: Parties are responsible for recruiting and selecting the political elite from society - from the local council to the chancellor's office. The fact that parties were and still are organizations of patronage, that is, associations of citizens that have the power to appoint office, jobs, functions, promotion and careers is something that is often overlooked and ethically dismissed. There is absolutely nothing disreputable in this. It only becomes a political problem (and, of course, also morally questionable) when power is gained for its own sake, that is, when the implementation of political content becomes secondary. One of the greatest achievements of our parties during the 50s and 60s was the way in which the public sector was democratized.

Selection

Mediatorial function

Aggregation function

Peace-making function

Modern parliamentary systems of government are characterized by the fact that the executive, that is, the cabinet and the parliamentary majority crisscross closely to form a political entity, namely a government majority. That is faced by the opposition. This constellation provides a parliamentary democracy with a chance of control; this constellation, formed out of government majority and opposition, represents a separation of power and not a contrast between legislative and executive. Indeed, it is the political parties that form the brackets into which the differing branches of the political system (executive and parliamentary majority into government majority) can be fitted and - in the case of the Federal Republic of Germany - into which its differing levels, federal government, state government and local government are fitted.

[The separation of powers concept is explained in more detail as part of the Main Subject Group of Democracy]

It is well known that the Federal Republic of Germany has an extremely complicated system of separating power, controlling power and limiting power, which is perhaps closer to the American system of checks and balances than it is to the more simplistic British bipolar system in which the ins and outs face each other. In Germany the biggest say is reserved not for the individual states, the Budesrat, the municipalities, the Constitutional Court, two central banks in Frankfurt, the institutions of the European Union in Brussels and Strasbourg or NATO, but all manner of associations and interest groups. This means that the German chancellor, despite all his policy-making powers, is a "poor wretch", a moderator, who - if he/she wants to be counted among the greats - has to set priorities and implement at least two or three of his/her greatest goals during a given legislative period. If any chance remains for the primacy of politics in these times of globalization, internationalization, Europeanization and international economics then it is through the political parties.

Political parties are the putty holding together the political institutions at their heart and among each other - especially through informal agreements and cooperation. There is a word for this in Germany: "Elefantenrunden". It belongs to the essence of the parliamentary system of government and has nothing to do with secret societies or "cheating" when the head of the government - in Germany the chancellor - gets together with his/her key ministers and party leaders to exchange informally information, opinion and to establish consensus. In central legislative matters (but not matters of conscience for example) the government majority and opposition convene through party discipline. Put more clearly: The most important law in a parliamentary year, the budget, has to be supported by a parliamentary majority. If a majority does not exist, we are facing a clear crisis of government.

Parties as putty between the institutions

Those complaining that the classic system of opposition between the executive and legislative is being displaced by the parties; those wanting to establish compatibility between ministerial office and parliamentary mandate, between the chancellor's office and party leadership are still in the 1848 "Frankfurter Paulskirche", their understanding reflects a dinosaur parliamentarianism; they are trying to project the principle of absolute ruler and representation of the people and, indeed, the opposition it represents onto today's reality, they remain fixed - voluntarily or involuntarily - to the idea of an authoritarian state.

(...) Not least because they have become increasingly emancipated from their ideological and organizational ties, political parties in Germany have been moving ever closer to the type of party needed for a parliamentary system of government to work properly since the 1960s. They have increasingly performed the four key functions that I highlighted earlier.

In the beginning Germany's party system was very similar to the Weimar system in that it was widely spread out and displayed certain voting patterns. This changed during the 60s and 70s as a 2 ½ party system emerged in which two large people's parties and a small notability party competed among each other. There were three changes of government, which would seem to indicate that the interplay between government majority and opposition was working. Indeed, the turnout for general elections was over 90%. Political parties had been accepted.

We all know that these idyllic times are over. The new vogue is party disaffection. Are we facing a crisis of the party state and has it reached the end of the road? This real or alleged crisis of the party state is assumed for the following reasons: Surveys suggest that voters are dissatisfied with political parties and that acceptance of parties has deteriorated; large parties are losing votes; small fringe parties such as the Greens, the PDS and temporarily the republicans and DVU have all gained voters; the number of non-voters is increasing along with the number of floating voters; membership numbers in all parties with the exception of the Green Party, whose membership has stagnated, are sinking. It is clear that what we are facing disaffection with parties rather than a crisis of the party state. And we are certainly not calling into question parliamentary democracy itself.

Disaffection with parties

The question is: On what is disaffection with parties based. To answer this it is important to mention all the causes: The way in which people participate in politics has changed in this post-materialistic age, the tendency toward individualism is holding firm and politics have become more complicated and complex. Political parties have no hammered-out concepts to offer the voters. In actual fact, the parties themselves are responsible for creating some of the circumstances that have led to this disaffection and low regard for parties among the electorate. Included among these are the well-known affairs surrounding party financing, salaries and corruption. Much more serious, however, is the fact that while in full bloom - and continuing today to a lesser degree - political parties created the impression that they were both all-responsible and that they held a monopoly on the forming of a political will. Political parties in Germany expanded their political activities into areas which did not concern them. Examples here include the well-known and notorious TV and Radio councils, in which not only are decisions made from a party-political angle, but also in which "circles of friends" from differing party fractions meet before the councils convene officially. Parties are also guilty of too much expansion of patronage into the public sphere: Parties are not only at a loss to explain to the public why party membership should play a role in the appoint of theatre and opera directors, but also to explain why in some German states promotion from head teacher to senior head teacher depends on party loyalty. At a local level, political parties seemed or, indeed, seem to be omnipresent: They get involved in all manner of clubs and associations: In the local sports club, choral society, rifle association and even the voluntary fire brigade. This omnipresence, however, increases the impression that they are all-responsible. And it is here that the crux of the problem lies. By creating the impression that they are responsible across a wide range of areas, political parties have bred expectations to which they cannot live up to in Germany's political and social reality. In actual fact this claim of having a monopoly on the forming of a political will means that they are held responsible for many things for which they have nothing to do with. In clear terms: Individual parties cannot be held responsible for globalization of the capital markets, the internationalization of the labor market, deficits in the state budget or, indeed, the pressing need to restructure the welfare system.

The reasons for disaffection with parties

Another contributory aspect to party disaffection is the fact that the large political parties in Germany have a great deal of difficulty coping with their own fragmentation and segmentation, with their own variety and incompatibility. This is something that is currently being experienced more by the SPD than the CDU, also for structural reasons. In contrast to the image held by the public and several political scientists, the SPD and CDU are not huge hierarchical or oligarchic organizations. They actually represent what we have described as "loosely detached fragments" as "loosely detached anarchy".

German political parties have decentralized and fragmented organizations offering a large amount of autonomy for individual associations, from local associations to state associations, for a wide range of inner-party interest groups, the SPD's working syndicate and the CDU's union, and for the differing party fractions, from the local council to the Bundestag (German parliament); party activists, members and voters are colorful and varied, and parties do a kind of splits between very different sections of society; they are held together by a will to achieve power, by patronage, by traditional symbols, rituals and program planks taken from history and - if it still exists - by charismatic and/or skilful leaders. It may be said that parties do not present one uniform, harmonious image to the outside world - and this contributes to disaffection.

In addition to this, the negative historical connotations, which made party activity in the parliamentary system of government more difficult, remain to be completely resolved. It would seem that anti-party emotion is raising its ugly head again both among voters and social scientists.

And finally another contributory factor to disaffection is the continual process of change in which parties find themselves; while party names remain, their political content changes. This leads to confusion and annoyance. Meant here is not only the way in which the PDS has become a regional party in East Germany and the way in which the Green Party has transformed into a social-liberal party, resulting in a reemergence of the split in German liberalism a la Weimar Republic and Bismarck behind the backs of the political actors  - and that the FDP has taken up its position market liberalism. But much more the way in which the CDU and SPD have developed a completely new structure behind their old labels. Indeed, it is fair to talk about the evolution of a completely new type of party which is set to signal the end of the membership-based and activist-based party. This new party type is currently coming to the fore and can be described at three levels with the help of three indicators.

[For more information on the differing types of parties see basic course 2]

1. The new type of party presents itself as a media party. The national leadership of the party, be it an individual leader, duo or troika, communicates with party members, but also party sympathizers and the electorate directly using the media. To this end, the existing traditional structures for forming a political will within the party, the delegate system, is cut out. Meaning that party activists and the middle-ranking party elite are losing influence and power. Inner-party democracy as we have come to know it is being called into question: It was the party delegates, the party activists, who, while not performing an opinion-shaping function within the party from bottom up, were in a position based on their organizational and political-content skills to control the concentration of power and, therefore, also the leadership within a party and, if necessary, to present alternative political elites from competing inner-party groupings. The middle-ranking party elite, namely party conference delegates and party activists, have until now at least performed a potential controlling function on the party leadership. And it is this very group that the media party cuts out. Even the elements of direct democracy, which were introduced into the inner-party opinion-building process in the form of direct election of political representatives and party activists do not produce a new quality of inner-party democracy. On the contrary, this only serves in strengthening direct communication between the party leadership and its grassroots and further weakening the position of party activists. It should also be borne in mind that this communication process between the leadership and grassroots is by no means one-sided. On the contrary, opinion polls taken from party members and carried out by the media are becoming increasingly important. Membership polls represent a way in which the grassroots can express its opinion to the leadership. (...).

Media party

2. Political parties have developed into professional service-provider organizations. German political-party folklore would have it that party members and activists work diligently pasting posters to billboards and that party careers are begun "knocking on doors", that is, collecting contributions in the local association. In reality, it is advertising agencies that are responsible for the billboards and contributions are paid online directly into the treasurer's account. This development has been called "Americanization". It is actually true that American parties went through a very similar development, but are not actually to blame for the current situation in Germany in which parties are becoming increasingly professional. The modern, increasingly professional party provides three main services: They organize and finance elections campaigns. The political elite is selected and candidates are nominated for public office through the parties. And the party governs by being present in the differing parliaments and making available personnel for the executive, local administration and for cabinets at a state and federal level.

Service-provider party 

3. The former people's parties are developing increasingly into parliamentary parties. Party power, but also their organizational and financial resources are concentrated in the parliamentary parties (from the local council to the national parliament) and in the cabinets (at a state and federal level, and at a municipal level in the respective administrative bodies and departments). Parties govern in that party activists, that is, people within the party with certain positions, become members of parliaments and cabinets and executive bodies. Party functions, parliamentary mandates and posts in the executive are accumulated. The primacy of party organization as we know it from social-democratic history is being lifted. Real party power is concentrated in the parliamentary parties. Nevertheless, party organization still has a role to play. (...).

Parliamentary party

This new type of emerging party, which is increasingly displacing the people's parties as a membership and activist based party, contains the three elements of media party, professionalized party and parliamentary party. These parties, which are moving ever closer to becoming this new type of party, increasingly understand themselves as service-provider parties: They provide the management for election campaigns, recruit the political elite and appoint members to parliament and the government; they govern and administer. To this end, a new understanding of parties is developing, which would seem to correspond rather remarkably with the very definition found in American college textbooks on the reality of the American political system: "A party is to elect". According to this understanding, a party exists to recruit the political elite and put them into office. The more this new type of party comes to the fore, the less the parties can perform the functions traditionally ascribed to them, namely to take up the wide range of differing interests existing in society and to aggregate them, as well as acting as intermediary institutions between society and the political-administrative system, and in so doing creating legitimation for the political system as a whole. Today's party crisis and party disaffection, then, actually has its roots in this decline of the functions performed by parties. In reality, parties no longer act as intermediaries and institutions aggregating and representing interests (like during the 50s and 60s). Recruiting the political elite is increasingly become the function on which parties concentrate.

New understanding of parties

Nonetheless: The end of the road for political parties and the party state is not over by a long chalk. This is for historical and systematic reasons. Firstly, we have to bear in mind the enormous achievement of the Germany party state set against the Weimar Republic, which promises to give sufficient vitality to the political system going forward. One only has to think of the massive achievement made in the area of integration. Indeed, the former Nazis, left and right-wing extremist groups and parties, refugees, the extra-parliamentary opposition and the new social movements that were all based on a post-materialist mentality and behavior pattern were absorbed and integrated by the parties. This clearly demonstrates a high degree of flexibility. This, of course, has also meant changes to the political system itself; the old political culture based on an authoritarian state mentality has increasingly become more democratic, the willingness of citizens to participate in politics has increased and the demand for more direct democracy is today putting the parties under pressure. All in all it can be said that this integrative achievement has led to support and stability for political parties, but above all for the parliamentary system of government. Another element in this story of success for the party state is the democratization of state administration, largely because of the system of patronage stemming from the parties.(...).

End of the road for parties?

At the end of the day, however, there are no alternatives to political parties and the party state. Look where you will, no alternative organizations exist that would be capable of performing the functions currently undertaken by the parties, particularly in the intermediary area. Civil-action groups and one-issue movements complement the party state, but certainly do not call it into question. Indeed, even talk of a council-system - often mentioned during the student movement - has disappeared, not withstanding the fact that such a system does not represent a political nor social possibility.
(...) Those wanting to achieve something, to implement political interests and goals have to do it through the "party" institution. This being said, non-party organizations such as civil-action groups, social and one-issue movements and associations are set to play an increasingly important role in shaping political opinion. Yet even these organizations focus their efforts - deliberately - on the political parties and attempt to influence them in their favor.

[Text on civil-action groups]

Despite the fact that political parties continue to occupy a central position in Germany's political system, especially in shaping political opinion, they are currently reforming themselves. They have become more sensitive. This has been brought about by the gap between society and the political-administrative system; something that is demonstrated by increased party disaffection. Reforms are not being undertaken, however, for philanthropic reasons, for reasons of political education nor indeed out some abstract ethic, but rather out of a need for survival. You see, should this feeling of apathy toward the parties continue over the long term, a real danger exists that this might lead to social and economic unrest and ultimately to a feeling of disaffection with democracy itself. Our old friend anti-party emotion could come to a head and authoritarian political views and behavior patterns could prevail. Political parties themselves, then, also have an interest in listing carefully to criticism and taking action against the emotions targeted at them in the shape of reforms.

Reforming parties

Parties are also keen to retreat from a former position in which parties claimed all-responsibility in many walks of life. In more explicit terms, they are determined to dispense with an image of having a monopoly on the shaping of political opinion. In a wider sense parties would also like to see the promotion of other kinds of political participation for example civil-action groups, associations and social movements. Parties are also moving towards the careful adoption of new forms of political participation through the parties, for instance more openness for elements of direct democracy. It has to be said, however, that the consequences of the plebiscite elements introduced into parties to date such as preliminary elections and membership polls seem to have been insufficiently thought through.

No longer all-responsible

Reforming parties and the party sate, then, tops the agenda rather than abolishing them altogether. Political partiers, historians and social scientists, however, should all bear in mind the role parties should be playing in the parliamentary system of government, in the party state. Parties have to adjust to new political, social and economic developments, while at the same time adjusting themselves. The key to success is self-confidence and finding the right mix of differing elements in the soul of the party. Ernst Fraenkel hit the nail on the head almost 40 years ago with words that remain valid today: "What we need is "parties" that are not afraid to admit that their aim is to achieve strategically important political and administrative office for their leaders; parties that are not afraid to admit that they have to work hand-in-hand with interest groups without capitulating to them. Parties that are not afraid to admit that they put pressure on their MPs, because without parliamentary party discipline, parliamentary government is not possible. We need parties with the inner strength to break with traditions, which, because they were established under different political conditions, now represent a millstone around the neck of a working parliamentary system. But we also need political parties that, while acknowledging the necessity of maintaining a pragmatic approach to politics, at least hold on to some strand of wistful romance from their youthful dreams, when politics was so wonderful because we actually believed that principles ruled the world."

[Parteienstaat in der Krise : Überlegungen nach 50 Jahren Bundesrepublik Deutschland ; Vortrag und Diskussion einer Veranstaltung des Gesprächskreises Geschichte der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Bonn am 19. August 1999 / Peter Lösche. [Hrsg.: Dieter Dowe]. - Bonn : Forschunginst. der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Historisches Forschungszentrum, 1999. - 48 S. = 115 Kb, Text. - (Gesprächskreis Geschichte ; 27), Electronic ed.: Bonn: FES Library, 2000, ISBN 3-86077-843-9]