Weakness of Brazilian Political Parties Causes Corruption

In many democratic systems, political parties are mainly viewed as a means by which candidates obtain power. In fact, the average voter seems to feel some level of distrust towards political parties. Though it may be true that the main purpose of political parties is to get candidates into office, political parties actually serve many different functions in various democratic systems. Without them, democracy is undermined and democratic institutions are jeopardized. This phenomenon is clearly displayed in the current political crisis in Brazil.

Political scientists Steven Levitsky and Maxwell Cameron illustrate the importance of parties in their analysis of regime change in Peru. They argue that parties are critical to ensure a well-functioning democracy for various reasons. Three of their arguments are crucial to understanding democratic weakness in Brazil. First, parties provide voters with crucial information about candidates in the election process. Without political parties, voters have difficulty differentiating between a myriad of candidates vying for their support. Second, political parties make politicians less self-centered and shortsighted. In systems where party organizations are weak, politicians often sell their vote to the highest bidder in exchange for financial benefits. Third, parties provide a vehicle whereby voters can hold politicians accountable. These three weaknesses exacerbated Peru’s institutional crisis and led to the rise of Fujimori and the military dictatorship. These same three principles can also be applied in the context of the current democratic dilemma in Brazil.

Brazil currently has 35 political parties, 25 of which have representatives in the national legislature. Of these 25 parties, Brazil is actually governed by a coalition of the five dominant parties; the Workers’ Party (PT),  the Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB), the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB), the Democrats (DEM), and the Progressive Party (PP). However, these parties are structurally feeble, are unresponsive to voters, and have inefficient governance structures.

These weaknesses have contributed to the Brazil’s current predicament. Former PT President Dilma Rousseff was impeached after being found guilty of misconduct and being complicit in the regarding Petrobras, which has been called the “largest corruption scandal in Brazilian history.” Since Rousseff’s impeachment, scores of other politicians have been removed from office and jailed. In essence, an entire generation of Brazilian politicians have been discredited. Rousseff’s vice president, Michel Temer, a member of PMDB, has held the presidency since her departure. However, he and many of his allies have also been linked to the Petrobras scandal. Brazilian markets have suffered, voters are disenfranchised and disillusioned, and extremist candidates are gaining steam in the run-up to the 2018 presidential election. It is easy to draw similarities between Brazil’s current political situation and the difficulties faced by Peru in the 1980s. Both countries are plagued by the same underlying problem; weak political parties that are unable to provide the three important functions mentioned above.

fiscal pedaling scandal

First, Brazilian parties are unable to provide voters with information about candidates. This problem is partly due to the enormous size of Brazil’s electoral districts. Brazil is divided into 27 states which serve as electoral districts. Although it initially makes sense that districts should be divided by state lines, the Brazil’s is unique. Brazil’s largest district, Amazonas, is more than twice the size of Texas. São Paulo the most populous state in Brazil, is home to more than 44 million people. With such large and populous districts, it is extremely difficult for Brazilian parties to widely disseminate accurate information about their candidates. During one election in São Paulo, more than 20 percent of the electorate abstained or made a mistake on their ballots. Parties’ inability to provide information about candidates has allowed corrupt politicians to gain office because voters know little about them before election day.

            Second, Brazil’s weak parties fuel politicians’ self-interest and greed. In order to attract voters in such large electoral districts, politicians need money. However, Brazil’s weak political parties are unable to provide the funds that politicians need to buy votes. Brazilian companies are happy to donate to politicians in place of parties, but they expect to receive government contracts once a politician is in office. This relationship between politicians and businessmen was the root cause of the Petrobras scandal. If political parties had a stronger and more established donation network, politicians could rely on parties rather than corrupt financial interests for donations and avoid corruption scandals. 

        

    Finally, party weakness in Brazil inhibits voters from holding politicians accountable. In a parliamentary system like Brazil where voters cast their votes for a party rather than a candidate, weak party structures allow politicians to frequently change their affiliation, jumping from one ship to another. Although Brazilian voters can choose to not vote for a party that they believe has performed unsatisfactorily, the politicians who switch to another party are not held accountable for their performance in elections. Furthermore, unlike most proportional representation systems, party leaders in Brazil do not decide who wins the seats that the party is allocated. Brazil is an open list rather than a closed list electoral system. While seats are awarded in proportion to the votes that each party wins, the candidates who win seats are those who receive the most votes within each party. This characteristic of Brazil’s electoral system weakens party organizations by taking away their ability to choose who gets to fill the seats that they win.

            In conclusion, Brazil’s volatile political climate has been caused because political parties do not have the sufficient strength to cultivate strong democratic institutions in Brazil. If parties were strengthened enough to perform these three essential functions, the future of Brazilian politics would be much brighter.

German Far-Right Leader in for the Long Game

In 2015, amid growing uncertainty and skepticism towards to the European refugee crisis spurred by increased violence in the Middle East, many Germans began to embrace nationalistic and protectionist ideologies. Right-wing pundits and ideologues started to amass unprecedented followings as they championed strict immigration regulation, and the “protection” of German ethnicity and culture. As the 2017 Federal Elections neared, a new German political party emerged. The Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD) party, conceived by a group of far-right German professors, quickly garnered members and grew in popularity among low-income, white Germans. In the run up to the September 2017 Federal Elections, political analysts expected significant party defection from the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Germany’s resident conservative party, to the AfD, which had continued to build support and as regional conservative factions joined its ranks. Sure enough, on September 24th, the AfD won 12.6% of the vote, clearing the 5% threshold by wide margins and entering Bundestag as the third largest political faction.

We can understand the movement that led to the AfD’s unprecedented electoral success by examining the cultural and historical undercurrents of German society, but we can understand the AfD and it’s institutional goals through John Aldrich’s three-pronged theory of party goals and challenges.

Aldrich suggests that political parties face three distinct challenges in their efficacy: getting politicians elected, passing policy, and maintaining support and collective action. Parties attempt to gain standing and power in a political system by getting their candidate elected to office. Once in office, they use their platform to promote policies that appease their constituents in pursuit of the third goal -- to maintain support.  It appears that Frauke Petry, the chairwoman of the AfD, is willing to sacrifice policy goals  in exchange for long-term support from the conservative base.

The AfD succeeded beyond projections due to its unified campaign promises of comprehensive nationalists policies. Winning 3 directly-elected seats and 91 more from their party list, the AfD’s strategy of uniting various highly conservative factions in order to enter the Bundestag worked well to achieve Aldrich's first party goal, but presents unique problems as the AfD sets out to achieve the next goal -- passing policy.

The day after the AfD’s unprecedented electoral success, Petry announced her departure from the party at a press conference originally intended to celebrate the previous day’s winnings. Petry, who stood on the moderate side of the party, cited conflict among the ranks of the party leadership as grounds for her exit. As party leadership rushed to regroup, rumors spread that she may forge ahead and create a more moderate (but still right-wing) party called the “Blaue Partei”(Blue Party).  According to Aldrich’s theory, Petry’s behavior initially appears highly irrational as it dashes any hopes the AfD had to pursue policy that would have advanced their cause.

Although the AfD’s election results were impressive, they still only captured 94 of 709 seats in the german parliamentary body. The likelihood that the newly fractured parts of the AfD could garner enough votes in the Bundestag to pass any new legislation is practically zero. Aldrich posits that policy formation and execution is a highly partisan endeavor which requires strict party discipline to achieve. Petry’s exit from the party may signal her shaken confidence in the party’s ability to pass policy that would favor its base. It also may be her attempt to address Aldrich’s third challenge of partisanship, maintaining support.

If Frauke Petry believed that a unified AfD had little chance of passing policy and that the party would face challenges maintaining the support if its should remain unified, it may have made political sense to sacrifice current policy goals for long-term support and future legislative successes. German political experts suggests that this AfD win may light a fire under liberals and initiate a shift back to liberal ideals. Should that happen,  Petry would be stuck on a sinking ship within the AfD. As the leader of a more moderate right-wing party, should would likely be able to maintain much of the AfD’s current base and probably gain a number of adherents from more liberal parties as well.

Whether they consciously choose it or not, politicians likely act to address the three distinct challenges of winning elections, passing policy, and maintaining support. Petry’s surrender in the fight for policy wins may be an indicator that she’s playing the long game for maintained collective action and support from highly conservative German voters.

Bundestag Photo Credit: https://dailybrief.oxan.com/Analysis/DB224666/German-election-results-point-to-three-party-coalition

Petry Photo Credit: https://cdn4.img.sputniknews.com/images/105770/44/1057704490.jpg

Government Shutdown and the Republican Brand

This past Thursday night, Rand Paul single-handedly shut down the government.

On the brink of a government spending deal, the Kentucky Senator held up the final vote by giving a speech. Paul warned and shamed fellow Republicans who were supporting the deal, saying that it was fiscally unconservative and not at all consistent with Republican values. While it ultimately passed, the measure raised spending caps by $300 billion, and has come as an unwelcome surprise to many conservatives.

While some pointed to the hypocrisy of Paul’s move (Paul voted to support a spending plan under the Obama administration that added 1.5 trillion to the national deficit), his actions have a unique significance given the current situation of the Republican Party. One of the most important aspects of any political party is the party brand – the image that the party presents to voters through the policies it supports. While party brands can and do change, it is a slow process and doesn’t happen often, and for a good reason. Voters use party brands to make inferences about what kinds of policy choices these parties will make. In the instance of the Republican Party, whose brand has traditionally included the idea of fiscal conservatism, people who vote Republican know that sending a Republican to office means supporting fiscal restraint. But when these ideas that make up the party brand come into question (for example, when Republicans in Congress support a spending bill that doesn’t appear to be very conservative), the party brand becomes fuzzy, and this can influence voters’ choices on election day.

With this in mind, we can see Rand Paul’s speech as more than a brash political statement. His speech makes more sense when viewed as an effort to remind his fellow Republicans to stick to the Republican brand. But with the Republicans generally in support of this spending bill, one could argue that their brand becomes damaged. Voters, dependent on brand consistency, have now received a confusing signal from Washington.

Viewing this event on its own, it seems to be a simple irregularity. However, when viewed against the backdrop of the Trump presidency, it takes on added significance. President Trump, for better or for worse, has changed the Republican party. With an inconsistency on policy positions, as well as attacking the media, the FBI, and his own Justice Department, President Trump has introduced a considerable amount of uncertainty into the Republican party and brand.

This uncertainty is something that the Republicans could be penalized for in the 2018 midterms. Strong Republicans aren’t likely to leave the party over Trump’s confusing policy statements (and in fact, some argue that Trump’s base is rather pleased with how he’s done thus far). However, most of our electorate is not comprised of ideologically-strong voters, but of what are referred to as median voters, voters who are often uncertain or frankly disinterested in certain policy areas, and who look to parties to provide clear guidance and choices. These individuals are important in an electoral system like ours, where candidates must secure the majority in order to gain office. But with the Republican brand wavering, median voters might look across the aisle for a more stable choice.

Trump’s policy inconsistency and his changing of the Republican brand could also change Republican voters’ positions on policy. Data shows that voters are highly responsive to cues from party leaders. For example, since Trump has become a candidate and then President of the United States, Americans’ approval ratings for Vladimir Putin have risen significantly, especially amongst Republicans, whereas during the Obama administration, Putin’s approval was uniformly low. As Republican leaders file behind President Trump and support his policies, Republican voters will respond to these cues from their leaders. This could prove to be troublesome if, post-Trump, the Republican party attempts to shift back to a more traditional brand of conservatism.

As the party makes this transition, it makes clear sense why Senator Paul went to such extreme lengths to remind his Republican peers about the importance of brand consistency. Whether the party can impress this changing brand in a favorable way upon voters remains to be seen.

Muddy waters- the Political Battles Between Keeping Power and Hydrating Citizens
Mackenzie Douglas 

More than four million people who reside in Cape Town’s South Africa, have been living in a state of emergency. The aired Southern hemisphere is experiencing the worst days of a three-year long drought. For millions of people this means that they are now under strict quotas to use less than 13.5 gallons of water per day. If the crisis is not solved in the coming weeks South Africa’s most notorious and prosperous city will run out of water. 

            The national government is in the literal hot seat as the drought is continuing to get worse. Professor Graham Jewitt, who is the Umgeni Water Chair of Water Resources Management and director of the Centre for Water Resources Research speaks out against many who say the water crises is all to blame on climate change. “It has become just another scapegoat for the blame game of the politicians”. The ruling African National Congress (ANC) represents the majority party rule in eight of the nine provincials that comprise South Africa. Since the end of the apartheid in 1994, the ANC has yet to claim victory in the Western Cape. This Provincial is run by the Liberal Democratic Alliance. Many are speaking out against the minority ruling party in this area, because evidence of the drought becoming a reality was pushed to the back burner in favor of keeping the local wine economy running and prosperous. Over one third of the city’s water allocation was given to the agricultural districts. Now the citizens are suffering life altering consequences.  

            Internationally things are not looking good for the nation of South Africa. Earlier in the year the Israeli government reached out in hopes of helping them create desalination plants. There was so much back lash and disapproval for their help that the event was later canceled. What does this mean for the Liberal Democratic Alliance in future elections? The ANC has been power hungry to grab the seats held in the Western Cape Provincial for the past 25 years. If this water crisis is devastating enough, the ANC could have the advantage in the next election to secure 113 more seats in the government. If that were to happen the ANC would then have an almost absolute monopoly over the nations representation seats.

            Rahm’s Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates is a good representation of what Cape Town’s future could look like. He predicts that voters use short cuts and strategy given to them by the parties or candidates outlined policies to vote. Although he is arguing that a voter will vote one way no matter what information is presented, this same theory could be used in the case of South Africa. The upcoming election is going to be determined on the grounds of who or which party can influence the voters more. The ANC will do everything in its power to prove to the people that Liberal Democratic Alliance is weak and crumbling, in hopes to gain their votes. Even then, the ANC is experiencing its own national political crisis. The current party leader and head of the state Zuma is facing allegations of corruption. Possible successors of the president are tirelessly working to improve the situation in Cape Town, and the national standing of the ruling ANC party.    

https://theconversation.com/us/search?utf8=✓&q=South+Africa+water+crisis&sort=relevancy&language=en&date=all&date_from=&date_to=