1. Home
  2. Religion & Spirituality
  3. Agnosticism / Atheism
photo of Austin Cline

Austin's Atheism Blog

By Austin Cline, About.com Guide to Atheism since 1998

Dissatisfaction with Political Parties

Monday October 16, 2006
Across the board, Western democracies are experiencing deep dissatisfaction with their political parties. Each nation has its own excuses — scandals, corruption, problems — but given just how widespread this is, it's implausible that local conditions are the entire story. Evangelicals' dissatisfaction with the Republican Party is getting a lot of press attention, but it should be approached in the broader context of what's occurring in the West generally.

The Spring 2006 Wilson Quarterly discusses “Public Images of Political Parties: A Necessary Evil?” by Russell J. Dalton and Steven A. Weldon, in the Nov. 2005 West European Politics:

Respondents in 17 of 20 Western democracies surveyed in 2004 identified political parties as the institutions most affected by corruption. In surveys conducted between 1996 and 2000 in 13 advanced industrial democracies, only 30 percent of those polled (38 percent in the United States) said they believed that parties care what ordinary people think.

It’s not only the parties that are in bad odor with the public. But in the European Union, the public judged political parties the least trustworthy of a long list of institutions in annual surveys between 1997 and 2004. They won the trust of only an average of 17 percent of the EU population. Even big corporations, with the second-lowest trust level, did much better than that, passing muster with 33 percent of those polled.

If anything, Americans may be more trusting of their political parties than most Western nations, which might make the growing distrust of the Republican Party on the part of evangelical Christians — as well as secular conservatives — a long-overdue correction. There are serious problems for democracy that can result from this sort of distrust: lower voter turnout and lower participation in the political process, for example. On the other hand, people who have a strong desire for politics will seek other outlets and this may make democracy more healthy.

That dissatisfaction has spurred electoral reforms in the United States (e.g., term limits), Italy, Japan, New Zealand, and elsewhere. It’s also prompting “more involvement in nonpartisan forms of political action,” such as citizen interest groups and referendums. And, the authors believe, it will eventually lead to louder demands for direct citizen involvement in the details of policy administration. This “public skepticism about political parties is one piece of a general syndrome involving the public’s growing doubts about representative democracy, and a search for other democratic forms.”

Unfortunately, past doubts and anger with representative democracy have actually lead to anti-democratic reforms in some nations. Not every instance of doubt leads to positive improvements: sometimes people get so frustrated that they are willing to follow someone who says that we should just ditch the whole system and jump into something that provides a stronger leader with stronger social cohesion. In an era when people are dissatisfied and complaining, we should be very careful about whom we listen to and what sorts of advice is offered.

 

Christian Right & Christian Nationalism:

Comments

October 16, 2006 at 8:19 pm
(1) Kevin says:

In the US, the two-party system has done great damage to democracy because it subverts local decision making. For example, the GOP takes money from voters in Texas and spends it on elections in California to bolster support for the Republican candidate. Support that might be non-existent otherwise. At the same time, the Democrats take money from New Yorkers and spend it in Florida.

My suggestion to counteract this is to only allow donations to condidates for whom a citizen can vote. So, the typical voter could donate to candidates for President, her two Senators, and the Representative for her disctrict. This would elimiate the shuffling of funds that goes on now, would weaken the two major parties allowing new parties to have a chance, and would stop the massive campaign constributions made by corporations that cannot vote.

October 24, 2006 at 2:25 pm
(2) John Hanks says:

Absolutely NO monitary contributions should be involved in campaigns. Even exceptions for individuals provide a wedge for crooks.

The major parties have deteriorated because they are simply exercises in pandering and empty public relations. They are a direct transfers of funds from “contributors” to big rich media.

Campaigns should be no longer than 2 months, and even filing fees should be eliminated.

The active support and growth of third parties of every stripe will force the big parties to adopt real positions. This is impossible when rich corporate money gags the whole process.

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

Explore Agnosticism / Atheism

More from About.com

  1. Home
  2. Religion & Spirituality
  3. Agnosticism / Atheism

©2008 About.com, a part of The New York Times Company.

All rights reserved.