4 minute read
Fractions may develop political parties.
Fractions can strengthen a party
We need to present a united front. This seems to be the reasoning of most political parties, particularly during an election year. But is it true that dissenting groups and factions are harmful to a party?
In order to find out, political scientist Ann-Kristin Kölln has received SEK 15 million in an ERC Starting Grant.
EVEN THOUGH MOST political parties have factions that hold ideas that differ somewhat from the party line, this is a field for which research has shown almost no interest at all. There is not even a proper definition of what is meant by a faction within politics, explains Ann-Kristin Kölln, Associate Professor of Political Science. – But you could say that it involves a group that is ideologically different from the main party line on one or more issues, but not to the extent that they try to start a party of their own. One Swedish example is the so called “Stureplan” faction of the Centre Party. The general view is that factions lead to discord and conflict within the party, which creates mistrust among the electorate. However, my hypothesis is that this is not necessarily true, instead factions may be good for a party, as long as everyone still has the same overarching goal.
THE EXTENT TO which differences of opinion will strengthen or weaken a party may depend on the size of the party, Ann-Kristin Kölln argues. – My hypothesis is that factions may be beneficial in big tent parties that are engaged in many different issues. In such cases, factions may help develop the politics and also attract floating voters. Furthermore, perhaps a rightwing faction in a left-wing party can have negotiations with a left-wing faction in a right-wing party, and thus speed up a compromise. Small and niche parties on the other hand, that focus on a specific issue, will probably not be able to tolerate any great differences of opinion without appearing divided.
ANN-KRISTIN KÖLLN has now received the prestigious ERC Starting Grant to investigate a really extensive area: it concerns factions in parliamentary parties across all 27 EU member states, as well as Great Britain. In addition, she will look at three countries in particular detail: Great Britain, Germany and the Netherlands. – The reason I have selected these specific examples is because there is unusually good archived material to research. But the countries also represent three different electoral systems, which it will be interesting to compare.
The United Kingdom has a single member plurality system, or first-past-the post, which means that the candidate who receives the most votes in a constituency wins the mandate.
– In the UK, a candidate can become prominent by having a dissenting opinion on an issue that is important in his/her own constituency, and thus win votes that the party would not otherwise have received.
THE NETHERLANDS has a proportional representation electoral system in which the parties, unlike in the United Kingdom, control who stands in the election. – This of course makes it more difficult for individual party candidates who have a slightly different opinion than the party leader to make a name for themselves. On the other hand, there is no impediment for small parties, which has led to a diversity of parties pursuing their own issues. In the 2017 election, as many as 17 parties entered parliament.
Germany is interesting because the electoral system there is something of a middle ground between the British and the Dutch systems. Each voter has two votes, one for a single member constituency where you vote for one person, and one is a plurality vote where you vote for a party. There is also a 5 percent threshold for a party to enter the Bundestag.
SO WHAT DO THE citizens who are going to vote think? There are two main theories, says Ann-Kristin Kölln. – According to one theory, you simply vote for the party that best represents your views. But according to the second view, people vote for the party that seems most credible, with the most competent party leader. Regardless of which theory is correct, my hypothesis of factions fits into both ways of thinking.
The fact that Ann-Kristin Kölln has now received an ERC Starting Grant means a lot to her. – The European Commission uses the term “high risk-high gain” to explain the purpose of the initiative: only by daring to take big risks can you achieve truly groundbreaking results. And starting a project that goes against the accepted general perception, I probably would not have done that if I had not received such generous funding. But I would not have got this far without all the help from the Grants and Innovation Office, especially Meike Froitzheim, who has been fantastic.
My hypothesis is that factions may be beneficial in parties with a wide range of opinions that are involved in many different issues. In such instances, factions may help develop politics and also attract floating voters.
ANN-KRISTIN KÖLLN
Text: Eva Lundgren Photo: Johan Wingborg
Ann-Kristin Kölln has received the prestigious ERC Starting Grant for the INTRAPARTY project, where she will investigate the impact of political factions.
