You Betta Belize It.

Belize’s Prime Minister of 10 years was arrested and served corruption charges by the newly elected government in 2008. Said Musa was Belize’s third Prime Minister since it’s independence in 1961. The People’s United Party (PUP) of which Musa is a member was the first and only party in Belize and has been out of power only three times since the country’s inception (for them it’s like a dream within a dream). Thirty-five of the country’s fifty years have seen the PUP reign supreme with twenty-five of those years under the rule of one man, George Cadle Price, lovingly referred to as “Father of the Nation” by PUP members. In his book Why Parties? John Aldrich makes some sound arguments for the purposes and roles of parties in the political system. He even outlines what is called the Responsible Party Thesis which lists the four duties of a good party and follows by suggesting where the thesis falls short with the first one being that it assumes only two-party rule is good. The obvious alternative would be to have multiple parties. But, as in the case of Belize, what if there’s only one party? What if a party's dream of political rule just keeps moving to a deeper level (a hotel with some blonde chick at the bar resembling Paris Hilton and a navi avatar), and then a deeper level (Mt. Everest without the oxygen tanks and a conveniently located confine with guards that couldn’t hit Michael Moore with a sawed-off shotgun using bird shot). Until one day it goes too far and limbo seems as inevitable as a Katy Perry on the radio. This seems to have been the fate of the PUP. Almost immediately after the UDP (United Democratic Party) gained control of the government, the new Prime Minister Dean Barrow brought Said Musa to justice, or at least the court where his charges were read: stealing $10 million from a $20 million grant from Venezuela. Despite Musa being freed from the charges the UDP promises to appeal. Thanks to the rise of a competitive two-party system the Nyquil-induced dream state of Belize maybe ending. The question is will the top fall for Said Musa?

Syria's in-eficiency secret

Syria’s in-efficient secret:

            In his in depth analysis of the British Parliament between 1850 to 1870, political analyst Gary Cox discovered what he called the “efficiency secret” in governments.  Cox defines this secret as the “nearly complete fusion of the executive and legislative powers.” Cox discovers that in the latter end of the 1800s, the British Parliament drastically increased power to the Cabinet.  Other government institutions gradually diminished their power and importance.  Even backbenchers saw their influence greatly weaken. 

            As a result, Britain’s Cabinet achieved more policy implementation than ever before.  Party discipline rose, MP policies driven by pork incentives decreased, and a party oriented electorate formed.  In essence, regional representation was replaced by a centralized power system.  This, therefore, allowed higher “efficiency” within the Cabinet.  Policies set forth by the majority party could be passed quicker than ever before.

            In theory, a dictatorship should naturally have a built in “efficiency secret”; for better or for worse.  What the dictator wants immediately is implemented.  What is strange, therefore, is Syria’s lack of ability to achieve the efficiency secret’s competence. Perhaps this is the reason why civil war broke out.

            In his twelve year reign as President (Syria is democratic in name only), Bashar al-Assad continually stumbled with attempts at policy implementation.  A recent article from the International Crisis Group stated,

“Many decisions witness a contest between various lines of thought that

coexist within the regime, each reflecting a slightly different worldview,

diverging private interests or personal rivalries. Some decisions ultimately

reflect a balance between diverse institutional power centres; others, a more

decisive victory by a particular one ... Further confusion arises from the fact

that officials occasionally take initiatives or make pronouncements that are

inconsistent with the authorised line – in an attempt to influence it; as a

means of drawing attention to themselves; in order to express frustration;

or, quite simply, out of ignorance.”

            International relations with western states suffer as a result of this.  President Assad will promises one thing, but will not (or cannot) deliver on his promises the next day.  The real question is whether this “inefficient secret” is either a calculated ploy to remain in power, or a true lack of control over the Syrian government.  Perhaps the inefficiency of Assad‘s quest for democracy is a well-calculated maneuver to stay in power.   Yet at the same time, he could not successfully destroy a rising rebellion.  President Assad has quite efficiently killed thousands of Syrian protestors and political enemies over the years, yet stumbles to reform important democratic policies. 

            In effect, President Assad is either a cunning genius or blundering fool.  The outcome of the civil war will decide how Syrian history books paint this picture.

Whitaker, Brian. “When is a dictator not a dictator?” guardian.co.uk. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/18/dicator-syria-bah

Cox, The Efficient Secret. 1987. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Hara Kei and Political Priorities

After the Meiji Restoration in Japan, the Genro (oligarchs surrounding the Emperor) were seen as responsible for the selection of prime ministers.  This was not a constitutional right the Genro enjoyed; as the Genro grew old there arose an opportunity for parties in the Lower House to field their own candidates for Prime Minister.  The man most instrumental in the growing power of the party at this period in Japan’s history was Hara Kei, who rose to lead the Rikken Seiyukai.  Hara began as a member of the party but not a member of the Diet (the legislature).  Various leaders of the Seiyukai rapidly left the party or were assassinated, paving the way for Hara to advance swiftly.  He became a member of the Diet in 1902 and by 1904 had gained control of the Seiyukai.  Although Hara officially shared power with two other men within the party (one of whom, Saionji, was a Genro), in reality Hara Kei had gained virtually complete control of the party.  From this position Hara Kei began to oppose the government (other politicians; not the Emperor) and promote his party.  Hara Kei eventually realized his goal of gaining a majority in the Lower House.  He later became Prime Minister himself in 1918.

Hara Kei is an excellent example of John H. Aldrich’s argument that politicians do not always prioritize winning office.  A rational candidate naturally desires to win an election.  However, Hara Kei was primarily interested in raising the power of the Seiyukai.  His own personal power outside the party was a secondary concern.  Because of this, Hara was able to orchestrate Saionji’s ascension as Prime Minister many years before Hara himself became Prime Minister.

The Seiyukai itself served Hara Kei as a vehicle for his political views.  The Seiyukai could be said to have served Hara Kei in a different sense than parties serve politicians in the United States now.  Through the Seiyukai, Hara Kei managed to fundamentally change Japanese politics and the function of parties in his country.  Current American politicians do not intend to use their political party to change how our government operates.  Few could boast as much control over their party as Hara Kei could.  But the similarity between Hara Kei and individuals such as President Obama, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich is that parties exist to serve their needs.  And, like Hara Kei, current American politicians may place the power of their party or policy change above their personal power.

Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties?. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Najita Tetsuo. 1967. Hara Kei in the Politics of Compromise 1905-1915. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Median Voter Theorem

The median voter theorem is something that has pressed my mind politically lately with the current GOP race. To put it simply, the median voter theorem suggests that the swing vote is what matters the most in elections.  Politicians are constantly competing to win this vote, or at least they should be.

In the recent GOP race, I have been watching closely how these candidates are running their campaigns, what their stances are on policy, and where they fall on political spectrum as pertaining to how conservative.  I have seen accusations against candidate Mitt Romney for not being conservative, conservative enough, or for being “the moderate.” But from what I have learned recently studying political science I would see nothing wrong with that.  In fact, my understanding of the median voter theorem would put that “moderate” candidate ahead of the race and more likely to win the election since that candidate would likely pull the median votes their way.

Recent news (such as CNN after the 26 January 2012 political debate) has consisted of discussion over where independent voters will end up casting their vote.  According to Anderson Cooper from CNN, independent voters in a poll are currently leaning more towards Obama.  The economy is on the way up right now, and if it continues to head that direction, it will be very difficult for Republicans to obtain votes from independent voters.  Obama will receive a significant added measure of support for making substantive efforts towards fixing the economic condition our country is currently facing.

In order for candidates to obtain the median voter’s support, they need to target the issues most important to them.  Polls show that swing voters are currently not impressed with what Obama has done with the economy so far.  It appears that Obama’s only chance at obtaining swing votes is to take what time he has left before the election and get the economy rolling in some noticeable way to give swing voters incentive to keep him in office for another term.

Of the GOP candidates, I would throw Romney in as the best candidate for winning swing votes.  The other candidates have tended to pride themselves in their conservativeness and, as mentioned earlier, criticized Romney for his lack of conservatism.  That being the case, I do not see how the other candidates would succeed at getting the swing votes while Romney seems to have a decent shot at obtaining them.

Is Vagueness the Key?

Many are stating that Mitt Romney’s platform is still somewhat unclear in some aspects and that it is a detriment to him in his campaign for the republican nomination. He is being branded as a flip-flopper and has been accused of not being as conservative as the Republican party would like their nomination to be. However, through all these so-called negatives Romney is consistently finding himself as a frontrunner of the race, which begs the question of what conservative voters are really looking for. One idea is that Romney’s vague platform has allowed him to reach out to a vast number voters which has boosted his campaign numbers.

Mitt Romney has followed a key principle found in Jacksonian Democracy[1]. When Andrew Jackson was running for office, he had a very vague platform which in the end worked for his benefit. The vague platform allowed him to reach out to a large number of organizations who joined his party because they were not constrained by any former policy. They were more willing to follow and support Jackson, because there was not any restraint to change their ideological view, therefore he was able to mobilize the masses for his benefit. Romney, however not attempting to create his own party, is in a certain way following the same concept, and because elections, especially for nomination within a single party, have become more candidate-centered, he has to create his own following. Romney has continually found himself with a majority of support even though his policies have been

found somewhat vague. Romney’s background in the private sector has been very successful but has led him to the claim of being a “Washington outsider”. His life in the private sector has made him very popular, but his lack of participation in public office has left his ideological views ambiguous, especially since some of his known views have changed overtime. This is comparable to Jackson before he took office, he was popular from his few short times that he had spent in public office, but his policy stance was very ambiguous.

Romney has tended to follow this principle of vagueness and has been able to reach out to a vast amount of different groups. While one of his competitors, Ron Paul, has kept his ideological stance very pointed with some extreme views which many voters have enjoyed hearing, but it has kept his support solely from those who directly relate with his narrow view and may not even be voters who would regularly participate in a general election due to the lack of candidates who sympathize with their views. Romney on the other hand, has been able to gain support from vast masses of voters and continues to gather voters as a frontrunner of the republican race.

[1] Aldrich, John H. (1995). Why Parties?. Chicago, Il: The University of Chicago Press.

For Love of Country

As Americans, we champion ourselves as the pinnacle of democracy. Though the ride has been a bit rough at times, we consider ourselves successful. Yet through all of this, through all of what we tout as our success, we as a people have done very little to make it happen. Voter turnouts for elections throughout the decades has fluctuated since 1960 but overall remained around 50%. Even as the number of registered voters has increased, the percent remains the same (Federal Election Commission, Infoplease)

Many solutions have been offered to remedy this problem, but few do much. But what is the problem? Why won't we vote? Professor Aldrich of Duke University explains that it is the result of what is called the Collective Action problem. Simply put, the more people that participate, they less worth you find your vote having and the lesser benefit you feel you will receive from voting. Seems fair enough, right? But what if I told you that there was a country that completely ruined that notion. There is in fact such a country.

Sweden gained its democracy uneventfully compared to most democratic countries in the world. Notwithstanding this fact, though, Sweden stands out as an unusual case in politics. Not only does their constitution authorize a monarchy and their tax system pay everyone back the same amount (Politics of Sweden Wiki), but their voter turnout is amazing! Why is this significant? Because Sweden for 65 years (1932-2006) has had only one major party. Only within the past decade has another party come to challenge it. Within those 60 years, voter turnout was 80% or higher, 30% higher than Americans in the same period! But why would they bother voting? If you have only one real choice on a ballot, would not you feel your vote was basically pointless? By all means you should.

Here's the difference. Sweden has 18 minor parties. Which one do you hoist up to compete against the juggernaut? Even in the past 2010 elections, 5 minor parties received around 5% of the vote each. So, although the collective action problem still seems to be of no concern to the major problem, thus causing problems with Professor Aldrich's claims, many minor parties give much reason for voter participation, thus bolstering voter turnout.

The Shooters and Fishers

     The Australian Shooters and Fishers’ party arose out of support for gun owners after a series of high-profile mass shootings in the early 1990s. The party’s platform is to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens, and their use of firearms for legitimate purposes. The party also advocates hunter rights, supporting policies that will open up public land for hunting. However, the Shooters and Fishers’ party was deregistered twice, once in 2004 and another in 2006. The party was deregistered in 2004 for failing to contest a federal election within four years. Afterward, the party reregistered, but was deregistered again in 2006 for not having a representative sitting in Federal Parliament.[1] The question is, were these legitimate reasons for deregistering a political party?

There are seven functions of political parties:

·      Candidate nomination

·      Electoral mobilization

·      Issue structuring

·      Societal representation

·      Interest aggregation

·      Forming and sustaining government

·      Social integration

     If one uses these seven functions as guidelines in determining registration status, would one find legitimate grounds for deregistration in 2004 and 2006?

1. Candidate nomination – The party nominated candidates for elections held in 1996, 1998, 2006, 2007, and 2011.
2. Electoral mobilization – Support is small, but the party gets them to the polls.
3. Issue structuring – They do have an official platform, prominently supporting gun owner’s rights.
4. Societal representation – They represent maybe 0.8 percent of the vote, but they do represent.
5. Interest aggregation – Although their interest aggregation may be limited, they do have a conservative view on the family and a solid platform on protecting the environment.
6. Forming and sustaining government – They contribute when elected.
7. Social integration – They have passed legislation while in office to support their cause, showing they are efficacious. 

     According to the above guidelines, it is clear that the Shooters fell short in 2004. They did not contest an election that year, and I suppose that is grounds for deregistration. However, I find no grounds for this in 2006. They did contest an election that year. In fact, they ran two candidates that year, although they both lost. Deregistration may have been legitimate in 2004, but not so in 2006.

---

[1] "Shooters and Fishers Party." enotes.com, n. d. Web. 25 Jan. 2012. <http://www.enotes.com/topic/Shooters_and_Fishers_Party>.

In Why Parties Aldrich describes how Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren created an alliance in order to increase the power of the Democratic Party. Jackson merges plain Republicans with the planters of the South. Two factors played into his successful merging of different interests. The first reason Jackson was able to recruit differing factions for the Democrats is that he could offer them the spoils of victory. Another reason was that he was vague about positions. Different factions felt comfortable joining Jackson’s party, because when groups said they cared about a particular issue it never contradicted the party platform.

So how do these principles apply to political parties in Israel? The last Israeli election took place in 2009. Binyamin Netanyahu faced the same problem as Jackson. He needed a broader base in order to maintain power. Like Jackson, he merges different groups in order to achieve the alliance he needs.

Part of the reason Netanyahu was able to form a majority coalition is that he was able to offer the spoils of victory to leaders of various parties that form his majority coalition. Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the far-right Yisrael Party, now serves as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Ehud Barak, a leader of the left social welfare Labour Party, serves as the defense minister. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/24/israel-labour-likud-netanyahu).

However, Netanyahu’s Likud Party did not have vague policy positions like Jackson did. So was Aldrich wrong in his assertion that vague policy positions were crucial in Jackson’s success? Van Buren’s struggles to maintain the coalition, because his policy positions were clearer suggests that Aldrich was correct. So why was Netanyahu able to form a coalition of diverse groups successfully? The reason is that each party in Netanyahu’s coalition possesses the ability to defect if an important issue for that party does not go their way. Netanyahu’s desire to preserve the current government ensures that minority needs are addressed even if the Likud Party would prefer to handle the issue differently (http://www.jstor.org/stable/27638560?seq=2 ). Settlements in the West Bank are an example of an issue that continues largely because of a minority party influence.

ANC Dominance Highlights Need for Ranney's Principles

For decades the African National Congress (ANC) fought for equality and justice while being led by luminaries such as Nelson Mandela. However, in recent years there has been criticism about how the ANC has taken advantage of its lack of competition and has lost its way. When measuring the ANC against the four precepts that Ranney lists as identifiers of a responsible party the ANC fails three of them.

Ranney’s first precept is that responsible parties “make policy commitments to the electorate”; this is the only principle that the ANC follows and even in doing so it fails miserably. The ANC has a broad and appealing platform on which it bases its policies. Most of them deal with ending apartheid era discrimination and opening economic opportunities. With a 24% unemployment rate and 50% of citizens living under the poverty line it is no wonder that promises are easy to dole out while unfortunately being so hard to keep. Promises have gone so far that President Jacob Zuma even stated that entrance to heaven would be given to those who voted ANC!

Ranney’s second principle states that responsible parties “are willing and able to carry them out while in office”; this is where the ANC begins to fail. A common excuse for the ANC’s inability to fulfill its promises is to blame the apartheid era. However, so many promises have been broken that even former ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema has organized rallies to condemn the government for years of broken promises.

Ranneys’s third and fourth principles of “developing alternatives to government policies when out of office” and “differ sufficiently between themselves to ‘provide the electorate with a proper range of choice between alternative actions” are broken simultaneously by the iron like grip the ANC holds over the vote of its people. Because the ANC brand is so powerful they are never out of office meaning that there is little influence for alternative options. Furthermore, the ANC is so dominant that no other party comes close to defeating it during elections. Concerning this issue Nobel Prize winner and former ANC supporter Archbishop Desmond Tutu said to the effect, “that he could no longer vote for the party and the country would benefit from more competitive politics, leading commentors said that South Africa has suffered as a result of the ANC's electoral dominance.” While it is not the ANC’s job to lose elections, its continued dominance is beginning to show why multiple parties that follow Ranney’s principles are needed.