Political Parties are Not Like Companies
Introduction:
- Political watchers frequently hold the belief that political parties are like businesses and their leaders are like CEOs, especially in the days following important elections. The analogy is used to emphasise the argument that political party leaders should also be held accountable for disappointing election results, just as CEOs should be for a poor quarter.
- This analogy is flawed and gives the wrong impression of how political parties function. This is particularly problematic in India because there is little possibility for negotiation and compromise in politics there, as opposed to, say, the United States. Therefore, an understanding of political party behaviour is crucial to understanding Indian politics.
Differences:
- A key distinction between the two is that whereas businesses have employees, political parties have candidates and volunteers. Every aspect of the two entities’ operations and decision-making are impacted by this distinction. The objective of a political party is to take over the state in order to further a specified social agenda.
- The party must be seen as a microcosm of society, with its organisation being populated by volunteers rather than paid employees, in order for this goal to be justified.
- Because of this, even though all parties employ some paid personnel, honorary positions like area presidents and in-charges give their holders the opportunity to make political decisions and assume executive authority. Despite this, there are many applicants fighting for each position, regardless of the reputation or position’s authority.
- On the other hand, the vast majority of private companies operate in a constrained, apolitical market. Politics in the sense of expressing a value judgement about the direction society is taking and the trade-offs that arise is not part of a corporation’s duty.
- Although political judgement plays a part in how the business runs, it is used at the highest levels rather than by specific employees at their level. Paid employees who perform clearly defined, non-overlapping roles and have the reasonable expectation that their professional abilities will be sufficient for their task make up the entirety of a company’s workforce.
- It is obvious that comparing a political party to a company doesn’t make much sense given the aforementioned context. A political party must forge agreements, broker deals between numerous conflicting interests, and then rally the electorate behind its chosen narrative. This ecosystem is less defined than one where predetermined goods and services are exchanged for profit.
- The fact that there are many applicants for each position will surely muddy the pitch for the party’s activities. Even while the power of dissidents is frequently curbed, political parties are by their very nature open to the public, so it is not wise nor practical to forbid people from participating in how the organisation is conducted.
- Political parties are in the business of generating opinions, especially in an environment where elections are competitive. As a result, internal conflict and conflicts of interest have a direct impact on how well a party performs.
- Examples include a lack of action, leaks and sabotage, dissident candidates, and contradictory statements made by party leaders during important campaigns. Every aspect of the party’s operations, from fundraising to outreach, is affected when such internal factionalism is made public.
- It is now possible to suggest that a political party may allay these worries by enforcing “discipline.” Political functionaries cannot be “fired” like workers because many of them were never employed in the first place.
- This is so that, in addition to performing their duties as political functionaries, they can represent a variety of interests. Therefore, the ability to enforce discipline throughout a political party is directly impacted by the leadership’s ability to consolidate control at the top.
- This emphasises a crucial difference between a political party and a business: authority in a political party is more loosely structured and variable than in a business. Hierarchy, compartmentalization, professionalisation, discipline, and responsibility are examples of organisational ideas that do not translate well within a political setting.
- In a corporation, the promoter can assign management to a “professional” without worrying that they will lose control as long as they own the majority of the shares. A political party’s delegation of power could be lost, nevertheless, if the represented interests realign.
Current trends:
- It is feasible to spot trends towards the “corporatization” and “professionalisation” of political parties given these anomalies in how they run. Political parties are starting to exclude political judgement from a number of positions, including spokespersons, whose presentation of the party opinion is completely unrelated to actual decision-making authority.
- Similar to this, the anti-defection act limits elected officials to the whip and grants party leadership complete authority over all decisions, robbing them of their political freedom.
- Chief Ministers who avoid Ministers by using the bureaucracy and the hiring of political consultants who avoid the party machinery are two further examples of the professionalisation of political parties.
- Instead of enhancing efficiency, this has instead contributed to a worsening of the public good. Political discretion has been taken away from positions, which has affected the negotiation abilities of persons in those positions and made them replaceable like employees.
- Thanks to the “professionalisation” of politics, political bureaucrats are now able to move parties like workers changing employment. This reduces the legitimacy of the political system as a whole.
Conclusion:
- Politics is ultimately a pursuit of values. Corporateization of our parties is not the way to go, even though we should demand competence and accountability from political representatives.
