Parties and Political

Stability:
Modernization and
Parties
Pat Ray M Dagapioso
2009
Political Community in
Modern Society
• Mobilizing new people into new roles
modernization leads to a larger and more
diversified society, which lacks the
‘natural’ community oif the extended
family,or the tribe.
• Either these groups that are mobilized will
become assimilated into the pol’l system or
they become the source of antagonism or
revolution against the sytem.
 National Integration and
Political Assimilation
• The common problems of nat’l
integration & pol’l assimilation is the
expansion of pol’l consciousness and
participation produced by
modernization.
• Instability – polities: participation and
institutionalization at low levels
• Stable – polities: large scale modern
pol’l institutions with extensive pol’l
participation.
 Political Parties
• Society with well organized pol’l
parties w/ low levels of pol’l
participation shows less
destabilizing expansion of pol’l
participation.
• Example: Malaya (60s) is more
stable with single party that
composed of diverse ethnic
groups than Thailand w/ virtually
no pol’l parties.
 Different Context in the
World Over
• Societies w/ low levels of
participation and partyless monarchy
were unstable, e.g. Libya 60s.
• Societies w/c lack effective traditional
and modern pol’l institutions faced
highly unstable futures, e.g. Haiti
(Duvalier) & Dominican Republic
(Trujillo).
 Modernizing Societies
• Societes w/ highly developed
traditional pol’l institutions may evolve
to higher levels of participation through
the adaptation of those institutions.
• Pol’l Parties become necessary to
organize & to structure the expanded
participation.
• The creation of modern pol’l insitutions
then supplements the need to expand
pol’l consciousness, e.g. pol’l parties
 The Case of Modernizing Countries

• Early attention to the problems of pol’l

organization and the creation of modern pol’l
institutions makes for an easier and less
destabilizng process of modernization.
• Soviet Union – the NEP had reconstruct and
strengthened the party, reinvigoration of the
cadres, before the the industrialization of the
Soviets and collectivizaion fo agriculture in the
30s.
 The Case of Modernizing Countries –
Episode II
• China – first priority was given to extension of
party control and the refurbishing of the party
organization (1949); late 50s economic
development move to forefront party’s
objectives.
• Turkey – Mustafa Kemal consciuosly laid first
the national and pol’l basis for his society
before turning to social reform and economic
development.
 The Case of Modernizing Countries –
Episode III
• Tunisia – Neo-Destour gov’t: prime objective was to
building of the state; second, formation of the formal
ruling class; and after that Tunisia in 1961 turned to a
program of economic and social development.
• Modernizing society: ‘building the state’ means the
creation of an effective bureaucracy and more
importantly the creation of an effective party system
capable of structuring the participation of new groups in
politics.
Political Parties and
Consequences
• Parties organize pol’l participation,
party systems affect the rate at w/c
participation expands.
• High level of participation produces
anomic politics and vioence.
• Low level of particiaption ends o
weaken pol’l parties, institutions and
other socia forces.
 More on Parties
• 1. Party and Party system with mass
support is stronger than a party w/
restricted support for the former and with
increased pol’l participation for the latter.
• 2. Participation w/o organization
degenerates into mass movements, &
organization that lacks participation
degenerates into personal cliques.
 More on Parties – Part II
• 3. Strong Parties require high levels
of support and pol’l institution.
• 4. Parties are instruments of
mobilization.
• 5. Elections w/ parties provide
mechanism for pol’l mobilization w/n
institutional framework.
• 6. Strong pol’l parties results in larger
voting turnout.
 The Fragility of No-Party State
• Traditional parties do not have them,
modernizing politics need them, but does not
want them.
• Opposition of pol’l parties in the society are:
Conservatives, administrative opposition and
the populistic and Rousseaunian groups.
 Conservatives
• They oppose the parties because they see them as
challenging the existing social structure.
• Parties are innovations threatening the pol’l power of the
elite based on heredity, social status, and and ownership.
• Ruling monarchs see p. parties as divisive forces w/c
challenges his authority or greatly complicate his efforts to
unify and modernize his country.
• Its ability to modernize politically, economically, socially is
limited.
 Administrative Opposition
• They accept the need to rationalize social and
economic structures, but is unwilling to accept
the implications of modernization for
broadening the scope of popular participation
in politics.
• Goals: efficiency and elimination of conflict.
 Populist-Rosseaunians
• They deny the need for any intervening
structure between the people and its pol’l
leaders.
• They want partyless democracies.
• In short: conservatives – party challenges the
hierarchy, administrators – threat to
rationalized rules, and populists- obstacle to
expression of general will.
 Overall Arguments Toward Parties

• Washington: 1. parties promote corruption and

administrative efficiency;
• 2. split society against itself and promote
conflicts;
• 3. encourage pol’l instability; encourage pol’l
weakness;
• 4. lay the state to influence from and
penetrated by external powers.
 Party’s Rebuttal: Strong Parties
• Those arguments are characterisitcs of weak aprties, not
the strong ones.The truth is parties appear as factions and
exacerbate conflict and disunion in the early stages of
development.
• Yet, strong parties become buckle w/c binds one social
force to another and creates the basis for loyalty and
identity.
• Party forments stability and orderly change in the
government by regularizing the procedures of leadership
succession and assimilation of new groups into the pol’l
system.
 Party Suppression
• Anti-party suppression prevail in many
modernizing states.
• Elites, tries to prevent the emergence of the
parties and declares them illegal.
• Such systems maybe stable, yet the
suppression of the pol’l parties in these states
(Thailand, Iran) made them presumptively
unstable.
 Party Survival in
Suppressing Societies

• At, some point, parties are allowed to be

formed w/n a traditional parliament.
• Yet, these societies always try to limit the
pol’l power in the system and pol’l
participation of the parties (Morocco).
 Consequences of Societies w/ Pol’l
Parties
• Military dictator assumes power after parties have
become weakened or fragmented.
• Asia – military coup occurs where parties were
proscribed
• Spain – Franco regime promotes pol’l passivity
• Further, the suppression of parties usually accompanies
substantial efforts to decrease the level of pol’l
consciousness and pol’l activity.
 Party and the Traditional State
• No-party state is the natural state for a traditional
society.
• Modernization brought traditional societies to
become anti-parties: conscious efforts to prevent
and suppress parties were made.
• Further, they furnish party substitutes, for new
ways of pol’l participation.
• More hostile government = greater instability, i.e.,
more coups be frequent.
 Strong Parties and Pol’l Stability
• The stability of a modernizng pol’l system depends
on the strength of its pol’l parties.
• A strong party can be said when it has
institutionalized mass support. Strength = support
and levels of institution.
• Society must have at least one strong party.
• Countries with strong party base also finds a way to
reduce military involvement in politics.
 Strong Parties and Pol’l Stability – Part
2
• Military intervenes in politics by: 1. decline in
party strength, 2. fragmentation of leadership, 3.
evaporation (condensation, you know what I
mean) of mass support, 4. decay of organizational
structure, 5. shift of pol’l leaders from party to
bureaucracy, and 6. rise of personalism.
• Military coups do not pestroy parties; they ratify
deteriioration w/c had already occurred.
Strong Parties and Pol’l Stability – Part
3
• Institutional strength of a pol’l party is measured by its
ability to survive its founder or charismatic leader who
first brings it to power.
• Example: Congress Party (India) shows adaptability with
its changing leadership.
• Puerto Rico – PPD leader Munoz Arin retire from
leadership and uttered ‘I’ve begun to prove that the Island
can get along with me’ and had fostered
institutionalization.
• Weak parties, depend upon its leaders.
• Deaths of leaders had shaken the disintegration of parties,
e.g. Senanayake of Ceylon, and Aung San in burma.
 Thank You!

Ajde!

Merry Christmas!!!

Happy Costume Day unya Hapon!!!!

I love you all!!!!!