Can Political Plurality Stop Extremism From Destabilising Democracy?

Extremist-led Disruption of Democracy

Interference in or the disruption of elections is a serious business. The idea of foreign actors influencing national politics, societal debate and policy decisions is far beyond creepy. It is immoral and dangerous.

While one can easily see how (state-sponsored) sabotage or social engineering can take place, how countries are so susceptible to influence is more difficult. How do extreme ideologies enter and spread across the mainstream? How do political parties become infected with radical elements, prompting shifts to the far left or right? These are questions for which there are no immediate answers. What may be easier to examine is how the makeup of political party systems can accommodate and propagate exotic ideologies. With this in mind, I will examine the features of political systems that feature two- (main) parties.

Political Plurality and the Broad-Church Dogma

Two features the UK and US have in common are (i) the deterioration of civil debate and (ii) a political system with only two (dominant) parties. Historically, these systems have facilitated productive discussion at the centre-ground or at the very least, maintained a set of valued conventions. Both in the UK and the US, vast ideological and political streams come together in a limited number of parties that as a result, view themselves as “Broad Church” organisations.

The Broad church philosophy and worldview means that far-left and far-right ideologies are accommodated and in some cases, applauded. The very “resident extremist” that are part of the “broad church” party system allows extremist ideas to propagate and gain legitimacy. The widely recognised European Research Group (ERG) is a primary example. Formerly part of the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party, the ERG represents the most extremist elements of British mainstream politics, along with the Brexit party and UKIP. The intrinsic support ERG members have received through Tory party membership highlights the problems associated with broad church parties. The same can be said about far-left elements (now taken over and bolstered by Momentum) in the Labour party. While on the face of it inclusion should be welcomed, the main concern now is that “rogue” politicians that operate on party fringes, allow explicit access to the epicentre of party (and government) power. It is the access and the right economic and political conditions that enable the normalisation and implementation of extremist policies within parties.

Do Diverging Ideologies Wreak Havoc in Duopoly Party Systems?

When in a binary political system, parties move away from the centre-ground, it is not surprising that voters follow suit. The politics vs real-life diaspora always has provided rich pickings for groundswells of discontent and firestorms. When society is polarised or divided around particular issues, bipartisan politics can become particularly explosive. The increasing influence of special interest groups (and their growing financial clout), have hardened political debate and wilfully fuelled weaponised campaigns. Under these circumstances, a fractured electorate becomes the result.

Enter the coalition government

A coalition government per definition requires the collaboration of two or more parties. In parliamentary democracies that are truly plural and governed by coalitions, the largest party (without an absolute majority) courts other parties, often based on policy goals. Critical in any such enterprise is the negotiation of a coalition agreement, specifying the policy goals to govern. This negotiation process is not necessarily transparent, but the agreement is often subject to publication and, therefore, open to public scrutiny. It is at the late stages of negotiations that party members have a say and sign off any agreement. Coalitions thus are based on agreed policy goals that flow directly from compromise. The compromise is the foundation of credible government.

How do coalition governments relate to mainstream extreme ideologies?

Coalition governments in a plural political system essentially mean that fringe views remain marginalised. It prevents parties from becoming broad churches that harbour “extremists” and protects against the disenfranchisement of moderates or centrists. A diverse party ecosystem also means that voters can choose from a broad and diffuse spectrum, allowing for the formation of parliaments that better represent viewpoints within society.

Did the Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition experiment fail?

One could argue that it did. From the Liberal Democrats point of views, it may have. But this failure is not because of the coalition with the Tory party. More likely, failure is rooted in a lack of transparency on the part of both parties (the Coalition agreement was vague), thereby failing to demonstrate the moderating effect each party had. In addition, the public was ill-informed on how coalitions work and the compromises that are required. This meant that the public did not understand the moderating effect the Liberal Democrats had on the Tory austerity agenda.

Where do we go from here?

Partisanship requires moderation. While a coalition government can be considered a vehicle to achieve unity, this view would be too simplistic. To allow coalition-based governing to do its work and bring about a meaningful change in political discourse, considerable reform is required. This reform should go hand in hand with the education of the electorate. Gift the electorate a deeper understanding of the workings, advantages and pitfalls of a coalition government.

Coalition governments, reform and education will provide the best protection against radicalisation.