The Individualisation of Party Politics: The Impact of Changing Internal Decision-Making Processes on Policy Development and Citizen Engagement
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-856X.12035 |
| Author | Anika Gauja |
| Date | 01 February 2015 |
| Published date | 01 February 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
bs_bs_banner
doi: 10.1111/1467-856X.12035
B J P I R : 2 0 1 5 V O L 1 7 , 8 9 – 1 0 5
The Individualisation of Party Politics:
The Impact of Changing Internal
Decision-Making Processes on Policy
Development and Citizen Engagement
Anika Gauja
Research Highlights and Abstract
This article
•
Applies the theoretical framework of ‘individualisation’ to political parties and policy
participation.
•
Suggests a new model of policy development in social democratic parties where
increased prominence is given to ordinary citizens and supporters.
•
Presents illustrative case studies of new forms of policy participation, including
community consultations and online forums in the UK Labour Party and the Aus-
tralian Labor Party.
•
Assesses the implications of individualisation on political parties as sites for policy-
making, participation and representation.
This article examines the changing nature of the connection between citizens, party members and
elites in the creation of party policy through the theoretical prism of individualisation. Using
qualitative case studies of recent policy-making initiatives in the Australian Labor Party and the
UK Labour Party, the article develops a new model of policy transferal that is not built upon the
mass-party model of parliamentary politics, but rather upon organisational evolutions such as
community consultations, online participation and supporters’ networks. These evolutions, or
reforms, typically emphasise the individuality of policy-making and accountability, promote new
technologies for facilitating decision-making, and attempt to engage with a new style of politically
active citizen. Each of these developments carries implications for how political parties facilitate
participation, accountability and responsiveness in modern forms of representative democracy.
Keywords: political parties; political participation; United Kingdom; Australia
Scholars of political participation generally agree that the norms of participation are
diversifying and shifting away from duty-based and institutionalised forms of col-
lective action, towards more individualised and direct forms of political participa-
tion (Inglehart 1997; Norris 2002; Bang 2003; Stolle et al. 2005; Bennett 2008;
Dalton 2008). Within the context of this change, political parties are seen as one of
the primary victims with membership losses so pervasive that party scholars have
questioned the continuing relevance and future of these organisations (see for
example, Mair 2005). In this account, membership decline is equated with organi-
sational decline.
© 2013 The Author. British Journal of Politics and International Relations © 2013
Political Studies Association
90
A N I K A G A U J A
This article adopts a different perspective by examining the extent to which political
parties have adapted to these changing participatory norms, with a particular
emphasis on the notion of ‘individualisation’ as an expression of the broad char-
acter of citizen preferences for contemporary political participation. The analysis
proceeds from the assumption that political parties are adaptive institutions, with
the capacity to both accept and adapt to new demands for access to political
decision-making processes (see Cain et al. 2003). Consequently, individualisation is
used in this article to describe two separate, yet inter-related phenomena. It is a
characteristic of individual citizens, who are becoming less attached to groups and
more oriented towards their own interests. However, it is also a reflexive property
of political parties, which define and organise themselves in terms of individual
citizens rather than group interests.
To examine and consider the nature of these changes, the article focuses on the
creation of party policy, a prominent example of a core party function and a
decision-making process that citizens can potentially access. Theoretically, the
article considers a new model of intra-party policy creation that is not built upon
the mass-party model of parliamentary politics, but rather upon several organisa-
tional evolutions now evident in many parties across the world. These evolutions,
or reforms, typically emphasise the individuality of policy-making and accountabil-
ity, promote new technologies for facilitating decision-making (particularly through
online communications), and attempt to engage with a new style of politically
active citizen. Rather than memberships and affiliated organisations taking prec-
edence as the primary source of policy input and accountability, this role is now
shared with individual supporters and groups in the broader community. Each of
these developments carries implications for how political parties facilitate partici-
pation, accountability and responsiveness in modern forms of representative
democracy. To illustrate these arguments, the article provides a series of case studies
presenting what could be regarded as new or emerging processes of policy devel-
opment and transferal, focusing on two social democratic parties: the Australian
Labor Party (ALP) and the UK Labour Party. These studies include the role played
by supporters’ networks in the creation of policy, the establishment of online policy
‘think tanks’ and widespread community consultations.
The Changing Nature of Politics and Party Organisation
The political and social environment within which political parties exist is con-
stantly changing, yet—as a moving target—the effect of these changes on the nature
of party organisation and decision-making is not fully understood. Political parties
are generally accepted to be adaptive organisations, but how and why party change
occurs is open to a variety of interpretations—amongst them environmental, insti-
tutional, electoral and intra-party factors are seen to play a role (see for example,
Harmel 2002). The uncertainty regarding the drivers of change also feeds through
into its consequences. One such example is the widespread evidence of party
membership decline (see for example Scarrow and Gezgor 2010; Whiteley 2011;
van Biezen et al. 2012), which has received significant attention from party scholars
and is exemplified in the party decline thesis (see for example Bartolini and Mair
2001; Delwit 2011; Pemberton and Wickham-Jones 2012). What is not certain,
© 2013 The Author. British Journal of Politics and International Relations © 2013 Political Studies Association
BJPIR, 2015, 17(1)
T H E I N D I V I D U A L I S AT I O N O F PA R T Y P O L I T I C S
91
however, is whether falling memberships reflect political parties in terminal crisis,
or might perhaps suggest a new form of party organisation that requires us to
re-think the nature and mechanics of parties as participatory vehicles in contem-
porary society.
The often-invoked analytical connection between party membership decline and
organisational decline is built upon an understanding of party politics that concep-
tualises political parties, both empirically and normatively, as mass-member organi-
sations (Mair and van Biezen 2001, 7). However, the notion of the ‘golden age’ of
mass parties has also long been challenged—whether this be through the incre-
mental evolution of new models of organisation (catch-all, electoral professional,
cartel etc.) or questions as to whether this model ever existed in the first place (see,
for example, Katz and Mair 2009, 754; Scarrow 2000). Instead, what is necessary is
a contemporary examination of the relationship between social trends and party
organisations and processes without deference to out-dated normative and empiri-
cal models.
A fruitful connection might also be made by bringing together insights from the
literature on political party organisation with that of political participation. By its
very nature, party organisation scholarship takes the party as the key unit of
analysis and often downplays the interaction between parties and individuals. On
the flip side, participatory scholarship focuses on the demand side rather than the
supply side of politics, a focus that Hay (2007, 55) laments and one that Bang
(2009) suggests needs to shift. Hay argues that ‘virtually no consideration is given
to a range of potential supply-side factors ... changes in the substantive character of
the “goods” that politics offers to political “consumers” ’. Not only does supply
designate the policies (or goods) presented to the citizenry, it can also encapsulate
the participatory opportunities on offer, particularly if we conceptualise political
actors as operating within a competitive marketplace for participation (Bruter and
Harrison 2009, 2; Whiteley 2007).
One of the key themes associated with contemporary social and political develop-
ments is that of ‘individualisation’. As a form of behaviour, individualisation cap-
tures the notion that citizens seek to fulfil their own private desires rather than the
common good, and has been interpreted within the party literature as a catalyst for
party decline, due to the ‘progressive weakening of those networks of organizations
and collective identities that formerly constituted the principal framework for
political involvement and participation, as well as the increasing demand and
search for new units of identification’ (Bartolini and Mair 2001, 333–334; see also
Voerman and van Schuur 2011, 93). Driven by social changes such as increasing
pressures on time, money and effort, a decline of working-class communities and
trade...
To continue reading
Request your trial