|
|
|
|
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 IV: Citizen Outreach Chair: Larry Diamond, NED This session explored the difficult relationship between political parties and nongovernmental actors in civil society. There was wide agreement that political parties must address more effectively the concerns of the mass public, and that to do so, they must reach out to independent movements and organizations in civil society. Participants differed, however, over how this outreach should be done, and in particular, over how civil society should relate to political parties and the electoral process. The relationship is plagued by mutual suspicion; a Korean participant observed that when translated purely into Korean, the phrase, “parties reaching out to civil society,” sounds like an effort of the former to co-opt the latter. Civil society organizations promote more effective citizenship by offering citizens avenues of participation between and beyond elections, but parties may see some forms of this participation as threatening. Many participants drew encouragement from the diversity of methods that are being used to establish positive relations between parties and civil society organizations. Political parties and civil society: antagonists, partners, or both? The discussion explored many elements of the difficult relationship between parties and civil society. One participant with wide experience in party development around the world observed, “I have yet to find a democratic society that does not have a healthy tension between political parties and civil society. Politicians often see civil society as wanting the benefits of political influence with no pain. Civil society sees parties as wanting to monopolize the political terrain.” Yet civil society and political parties do share the common goal of making democracy work, and in this sense they can and should be complementary. An additional difficulty is that civil society is treated differently by government and opposition parties. Opposition parties are more receptive to the critical posture that civil society often brings to political discussions. Governing parties are more wary, and know that they must deliver on the demands of civil society organizations if they engage them at all. The range of possible tensions between parties and civil society was sharply illustrated by an extended continuing discussion of the “blacklist” campaign against allegedly corrupt and unqualified National Assembly candidates in Korea. This campaign was inaugurated when a number of major Korean civic organizations came together in January 2000 to launch the Citizen’s Coalition for General Elections. One explicit purpose of the new group was to blacklist candidates in the forthcoming election who had engaged in corrupt activity, violations of election laws, or military coups or other antidemocratic activities. These civil society groups found that institutional reforms were being blocked in the legislature, and that the only way to carry out institutional reform would be to change the legislators. The Coalition determined the criteria for the blacklist from a public opinion poll. The blacklist campaign, as noted above, had significant success. Not only were the majority of the blacklisted candidates defeated in the April election, but the campaign reflected and crystallized a public mood that induced the major parties to recruit younger candidates not tainted by corruption or authoritarian associations (the “3-8-6ers”). A civil society activist involved in the blacklist campaign vowed that this was only the start of a wider effort to expand the influence of civic organizations into the political sector. Several other Korean participants argued that this was a laudable and necessary initiative, not only to raise the caliber of Korean politics but also to reduce the influence of regionalism on people’s voting decisions. One participant called it “a second June 1987 movement,” referring to the month of peak popular mobilization that brought down the military authoritarian regime. Other Koreans criticized the blacklist campaign for offering only a negative appeal. Views differed as to whether the civic groups should in the future actually endorse specific candidates (rather than merely opposing some), or whether the focus should be on issues. One participant criticized the Korean NGOs for choosing a moral agenda rather than one focused on policy issues. The sweeping moralism of their campaign, he argued, was driving a wedge between parties and civil society, rather than building means for positive engagement. One of the problems with the current campaign, in his view, was that the alliance of civic activist groups included hundreds of members, making it difficult to craft a common agenda on policy issues. Another Korean participant praised the goal but criticized the method as illegal, in that it violated the ban against campaign activities more than one month before the election (as well as another law banning civic groups from engaging in campaign activity). One civic activist dismissed the notion that civic groups were violating laws as “conservative ideology” without public support. A debate ensued about whether citizen groups are justified in violating laws to further their democratic goals. One participant from outside Korea warned that it is dangerous to take the position that a group can violate a law as long as the majority of citizens do not believe in the law. It may be justified in an authoritarian state, but even in an imperfect democracy, no matter how strong the will of the majority, citizens do not have the right to violate the law. Another international participant responded that there is in democracies a tradition of civil disobedience that recognizes the rule of law by being willing to accept the consequences of breaking a law viewed as unjust. An Asian participant agreed that it is important to push the limits of freedom, but there must be a further step. When the government is not responsive, civil society must look for or present an electoral alternative. There is an illusion that politics are only for parties; the people should realize that they can legitimately influence politics through their voting power. He argued that parties will listen to NGOs only if the latter can deliver the vote. Strategies and Techniques for Linking Parties and Civil Society: There was general recognition of the fact that citizen participation does not always happen naturally. Parties must take active measures to elicit it. Public opinion polls offer an important means of identifying the issues that matter to the public and what citizens expect of their legislators and government officials. In some of its assistance programs, IRI has not only used public opinion polls but has encouraged legislators, who often have no support staff, to seek research assistance from civil society organizations. A party can also benefit by promoting dialogue with groups not traditionally part of its base, but it must be patient enough to cultivate these groups over an extended time. A Thai participant shared his party’s efforts to build a closer relationship with the public. These include a regular party political broadcast (using broadcast time that is allocated equally to all the parties); regional meetings between members of parliament and local councillors; a quarterly journal to inform members about the party platform; speeches by senior party members to clubs and forums in each of the 76 provinces; and a Web site that party members and the public can use to criticize the party or the government. Another participant agreed that a party must portray itself as receptive to new ideas. One strategy that was successful in Ireland was opening up party congress sessions to the public, and allowing nonparty people to voice their concerns to the party, live on television. The party also held hearings around the country and issue forums that involved NGOs that had been critical of the party. The leadership of the Liberal Party in the Philippines decided to establish an NGO, the National Institute for Policy Studies (NIPS), that is sympathetic to the party but not formally affiliated with or funded by it. With the donations from private citizens, NIPS provides political and human rights education, promotes basic civic education, conducts issue forums and poll-watching seminars, writes issue briefings for legislators, and provides a secretariat for a network of Philippine human rights organizations. NGOs like NIPS also provide valuable feedback from citizens to political parties. The Citizen’s Action Party of the Philippines has similarly established an Institute for Politics and Government. Its “Batman” (Barangay Training Manual) program, funded by the Ford Foundation, conducts civic education programs at the village level and promotes self-help activity to raise the living standards of poor communities and to make them more independent of political bosses. Conclusion: Part of the tension between parties and civic groups derives from the multiple roles that the latter play in many democracies. First, they voice public concerns and grievances and advocate particular policies. Second, they act as a watchdog to check and expose the abuse of power by parties and government officials. But third, they may become active in election campaigns, to a degree that appears to be openly partisan. There is a need for civic groups and political parties not only to check and scrutinize each other but also to cooperate. However, many countries have yet to find a healthy balance between these different functions. Political parties can do much more to incorporate civil society into politics than government can, so it is important (both for the quality of democracy and for their own political vitality) that parties establish outreach programs. Civil society organizations cannot become appendages of particular parties without losing the autonomy that places them in civil society to begin with. Yet meaningful partnerships can be formed. To the extent that parties reach out to hear the concerns of civil society organizations and cooperate with them on specific issues and reforms, parties will become stronger institutionally and more respected in society. This can only improve the quality and vitality of democracy. |
|
| |