The code of good practice for political parties should deviate the reliance on influential leaders, to enabling a more democratic, accountable, credible and an ethical body running on policies rather than on people.
Source - Asad Photo Maldives via Pexels
Political parties are essential institutions of democracy. They are a group of people organized to acquire and exercise political power. The history of political parties originated in their modern form in Europe and the United States in the 19th century. The term 'political party' has since come to be applied to all organised groups seeking political power, whether by democratic elections or by revolution.
Political leaders are central actors in contemporary politics. Apart from steering their respective parties, they shape political communication and strongly influence public opinion. They are regarded as crucial to a party’s success. The right leader can offer gains that tip the electoral scales.
The London School of Economics (LSE) in multiple recent studies illustrated that one of the key drivers of party choice in democratic elections is voter assessments of the political leaders running for election. The key importance of individual candidates for voting behavior has led some authors to speak of a personalisation of politics.
A January 2021 report by LSE states that since 2010, the dominance of party attachment in guiding voting decisions have seen a steady decline in the last decade. This evidence supports the so-called 'dealignment hypothesis,' suggesting that voters are increasingly self-reliant and detached from party structures and communities. Therefore, the fading-away of partisanship has created room for leaders to emerge as the key determinants of vote choice in recent decades.
Similarly, an article published on 2 July 2021 in Frontiers magazine titled, 'The Personalization of Politics in Anglo-American Democracies' echoes a similar finding. According to the paper, key factors explaining the rise in importance of leaders in political parties are:
Defining the characteristics of a strong leader is challenging, but operationalising it is even harder. Strong party leaders are operationalised in two ways:
When political parties relinquish too much control to the leader, the outcome is a principal-agent problem – one which can be hard to recover from. While the leader and the party share common interests, at times they diverge. The leader may run the party for their own benefit, and their time horizon may differ from that of the party. They may favor immediate office and vote rewards rather than a slower and more sustainable growth.
Thus, we see successful leaders tend to be big personalities who dominate their party’s organisations, policy development, and electoral campaigns. The damaging impact of such strong leaders on their parties happen through a variety of mechanisms in three faces:
Margaret Thatcher was undoubtedly a powerful leader whose influence on the Conservative Party was near-complete. She dominated the party organisations, party policy and electoral strategy. Under Thatcher, the party got its best ever electoral results and she broadened its base to make it attractive to working class support that had traditionally only voted Labour. In effect, Thatcher created a new coalition that maintained power for almost two decades. She resigned the party leadership in 1990, after 15 years as leader. The Conservatives won a slim majority under her successor in the election 18 months later. It might be thought that after her period of dominance, she left her party in good shape.
Both the success and subsequent decline of the party in hindsight is often attributed to Thatcher’s dominance. As leader, she suppressed debate on issues that divided the party such as the relationship with the European Union, but those divisions remained, and festered. As leader, she effectively removed any challengers, in part by outliving them, but also by sacking and demoting them. She promoted John Major as her favored successor even though he was seen as weak and lacking charisma. Thus, after her reign, the party went into struggle with internal divisions and poor election results and this has been described as ‘political suicide.'
The Maldivian political scene depicts political parties heavily revolving around their respective founders. With Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) stemming its activities based off former President Mohamed Nasheed to the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM)’s dependence on former President Abdulla Yameen, it is evident how these figures are utilised in elections and for steering party grassroots movements and policy directions.
At the same time, in some parties, emerging leaders have managed to shatter the status quo leading to drastic changes and challenges to the incumbent party leader. Case in point, former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and his journey with the Dhivehi Rayyithuinge Party (DRP). With political quarrels and loosing control and power, President Gayoom resigned from his own party which he himself founded. Another case in point is the formation of People's National Congress (PNC) in 2019, am endeavor spearheaded by former President Yameen, who had left the PPM due to a dispute with the party's leadership.
A 2018 study conducted by two researchers, Eoin O'Malley (Dublin City University) and Despina Alexiadou (University of Strathclyde) tried to answer the question of whether dominant leaders damage their parties. Their study found that strong leaders do have a strong positive impact on the parties. Alarmingly, the study also found that parties end up in worse shape when the strong leader steps down. This is because:
Personalisation as a process is underway on a global level. From Donald Trump and The Republican Party, Mahathir Mohamad and Homeland Fighter’s Party to Bharatiya Janata Party’s reliance on Prime Minister Narendra Modi, personalisation of politics is occurring. Therefore, it is not surprising that political parties in many countries are facing a serious crisis in public confidence. They are being increasingly criticized and sometimes regarded as corrupt and serving narrow interests. In general, from the public’s perception, they often lack internal democracy, accountability and equality. The code of good practice for political parties promote general democratic principles, which in practice should deviate the reliance on influential leaders to enabling a more democratic, accountable, credible and an ethical body running on policies rather than on people.
