|
|
|
|
International Forum >> The Democracy Forum for East Asia>> Inaugural Conference
|
|
|
Introduction
Session I: Party Structure Session II: Party Decision Making Session III: The Candidate Nomination Process Session IV: Citizen Outreach Agenda Participants |
Session II: Party Decision Making Chair: Marc F. Plattner, NED The second session considered the different types of party decision making and alternative means of democratizing them. The importance of reform—and how in practice it can be accomplished—was a recurrent theme. As one Thai participant observed, “We can’t avoid democratization of the party, or we won’t survive. Especially after the adoption of the new constitution, people are looking for more accountability and transparency in politics.” Another central concern was the necessity for political will in democratizing party decision making. There was also continuing discussion of where the impetus for reform of political parties comes from. Political will—a crucial ingredient of party reform: The starting point for the discussion on the role of political will was one participant’s argument that internal democratization of political parties is impossible without political will. International democratic assistance organizations like the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) have found that if there is not political will or readiness for reform among the top leadership and the grassroots, outside organizations can do little to foster democratic change. Political will requires an understanding of what the people want and a willingness to meet their expectations. Public opinion polling (obtaining both quantitative and qualitative data) can be useful in informing party leaders of these things. IRI, for example, has programs to bring legislative and party leaders together to review public opinion polls and to discuss how to bring party policies into alignment with public opinion. A participant with wide comparative experience in party development emphasized that small steps are important. Political will begins when a party asks for help in improving its structure to become more democratic. One participant observed, however, that in his party there is strong political will but no institutionalized and effective mode of organization. He pointed to the poor levels of education and skill of lower-level party leaders, and the lack of political awareness among constituents. Political will alone is not enough; political training and education are also necessary. The discussion identified a number of types of reform that could help to democratize political parties while strengthening them institutionally. Some of these relate to the individual party organization, such as programs to educate second-tier leaders, to involve important societal constituencies, to gauge public opinion, and to improve transparency in decision making. NDI has conducted a year-long intensive program to train second-tier party officials in leadership skills, organization, and party decision-making methods. Some reforms, however, relate to the party system overall. Among the reforms discussed were public financing of political parties and election campaigns, limits on election spending, independent audits of political party accounts, and mandatory public disclosure of private contributions to political parties and election campaigns. It was suggested that parties should begin to look at civil society organizations as participants in their decision-making process. The Liberal Party in the Philippines is now trying to reach out to student and youth groups, trade unions, and women’s organizations to involve them in debates about party policies. The party’s autonomous youth group has a place on the national executive, and the party holds periodic policy forums involving independent youth, women’s, and labor groups. Who makes party decisions? The discussion started with a participant’s presentation on the types and means of decision making under a democratic system. Strategic decisions involve long-term questions of party stance and direction. They should be made as democratically as possible, building a broad consensus. Tactical decisions are made under great pressure of time, so it is not possible to consult the rank and file. Tactical decisions must be left to the party’s executive decision makers, and the democratic character of these decisions depends on the degree to which those decision makers are elected by and made accountable to the members. There are essentially three methods for democratizing strategic decisions: referendums, party debates, and party congresses. The ability of a party congress to make decisions in a democratic way depends in part on how much time it has for debate and deliberation. The shorter the congress, the less democratic it will be. Participants discussed the implications of a popular leader using his influence to promote democratic decision making. As mentioned in Session I, there is usually little incentive for a leader to accept internal party democratization when he or she is already winning the votes. However, one participant argued that under a democratic system a head of government must serve all of the people, not just his or her party supporters. Therefore, the partisanship of government must be restrained. The question of reforming the decision-making process again led to discussion of whether democratic reform should begin with the democratization of political parties. One participant argued that change must come from within the party, where a formal system with clear rules can be established. Relying on individual leaders rather than an institutionalized system is not as effective. Ultimately, democratization of a country starts with democratization of political parties, he argued. In contrast, another participant argued that democratization of the entire political system is necessary if political parties are to be democratized effectively. Korea’s quest for party reform: Several Korean participants expressed a desire to see Korean political parties transformed from organizations that are dominated from the top down by individual leaders to more democratic, participatory, bottom-up institutions. Recommendations were made for short-term institutional reform to pave the way for long-term improvements in the education system that would promote more effective grassroots participation and a more democratic political culture. One Korean participant argued that democratization of one party is not enough to strengthen participatory democracy, because reform is needed throughout all sectors of politics and society. Real democracy requires multiple channels to hear the opinions of the people and to insure that their comments reach the relevant parliamentary committees and governmental organs. One officer of a Korean party described his party’s method for keeping in touch with voters’ concerns. The party takes note of all phone calls that come in to its headquarters from members around the nation. Responsible staffers report regularly to the party president. The opinions of members in the local district chapters are also written down and conveyed to the relevant party committees, and reports are written and received regularly by the party Executive Committee. Conceding that the process is a bit centralized, the official felt it enabled his party to respond to the opinions of its members on an ongoing basis, even though candidate nominations and other urgent matters “may look a bit undemocratic from the outside.” Several Korean participants mentioned the “Rejection Campaign” waged by Korean civil society organizations during the National Assembly election campaign that was underway at the time of the working conference. This “blacklist” campaign, which urges citizens not to vote for politicians who are alleged to be corrupt or incompetent, was seen as one means of educating voters. It also is a means of pressuring parties not to nominate corrupt and incompetent candidates. While some participants regarded this as a voters’ revolution, democratic in spirit, others argued that the information it disseminated was only negative and did not help voters decide for whom to vote. (In the April 2000 elections, the Rejection Campaign scored some notable successes, as a majority of the highest-priority candidates on the blacklist were defeated). A Korean participant argued that the rank and file of Korean political parties is not interested in democratization even though public frustration is rising. For the April 2000 National Assembly elections, parties turned to nominating attractive, young candidates described as “3-8-6ers” (aged in their 30s, educated in the 1980s, and born in the 1960s). As long as the structure remains in place, however, these new candidates will not institute change. A participant suggested that Korea needs a new party of reform that is democratic in its organization and decision making, yet capable of developing mass membership. There is a strong need, he argued, to tap into public frustration and to offer a clear alternative. Conclusion: Participants concluded that to become effective, a party must go beyond its existing structures and institute political reform to expand participation. The larger political context also greatly affects the prospects for democratizing the structure and decision making of parties. As in Session I, a continuing debate revolved around whether reform must come from within the party or from the public. Most participants agreed that the goals of democratization are accountability, transparency, and responsiveness, while preserving or enhancing efficiency in structure and some measure of flexibility in decision making. |
|
| |