Map 1.1 Location of Assam
2.4 Three faces of factionalism
Francoise Boucek in his detailed case study research of factionalized parties in mature democracies identified three faces of factionalism. These are---cooperative factionalism, competitive factionalism and degenerative factionalism. This analysis is based on functional aspect of factional politics.
2.4.1 Cooperative Factionalism
Sometimes, factionalism is cooperative, integrative and consensus building. At times, political parties start as a coalition of disparate groups or fragments.
Primordial loyalties and emergence of political elite along such affiliations are natural process in politics. Such political elites and followers belonging to separate political groups in society emerge as key actors during periods of political change, social movement etc. A factional structure may have a role to play in enabling the groups to retain their separate identities and membership while playing active role in consolidation of the political party. In the words of Boucek--
TH-1788_09614110
52
“By providing a structure of cooperation between separate intra-party groups, factionalism can diversify party appeals and accelerate the opinions and policy preferences of separate societal groups and mobilize separate memberships and communities of interests within a single organization, they can play a constructive role in building integrated parties.42
However, leadership in an environment of cooperative factionalism is expected to display judicious attitude to all factions operating within the party. Factional leaders and followers in such a party should also be committed to the collective democratic consolidation instead of seeking self interests. Factions with divergent aims and objectives operate as club and debating societies and add alternative perspective to official programme perpetrating a democratic culture in the party.
Then what is the reason behind faction formation when separate group interests can go hand in hand. The answer rests in human psychology. Humans are social beings who try to fit in with the group. However, as individuals they have a natural desire to differentiate themselves from the mass. For politicians, factional affiliations can fulfill this need for identity. In some parties, political office is handed down along family ties; for instance in Japan. In such a party, group allegiances based on family ties and local networks of political patronage can be the driving force behind intra party factionalism. In fact, factionalism can be good for parties and for democracy as long as it facilitates cooperation otherwise intra-party competition threatens the party unity.
2.4.2 Competitive Factionalism
Factionalism and competition are the two sides of the same coin. Even in cooperative factionalism there are competitions, cleavages which are managed by the party machinery to the advantage of the competing forces. Factional completion is not necessarily bad thing; it can be difficult to manage. But competitive factionalism is characterized by particularistic factional interests which are deep seated personal issues and unmanageable within party organization. Competitive factionalism indicates polarization, fragmentation and tendency for split in an organization. In such a competitive environment, factions are dead against each
42 Francoise Boucek, “Rethinking Factionalism”, Party Politics, Vol.15, No.4 (2009) : 15
TH-1788_09614110
53
other rather than simply separate groups within the organization. Too much fragmentation complicates decision making and the enactment of coherent policy packages. This type of factionalism is destabilizing for the parties and for the government. Competitive factionalism exists in all liberal democratic and communist parties. It is competition with fellow party men for augmentation of power rather than with opposition parties. Such lack of unity results in defeat in the elections. Sometimes, factional cleavages are ideological or issue oriented. For example, the bank nationalization issue in 1969 in case of the Congress party in India, signing of European Union Treaty (1992) in case of the Conservative party in Britain etc. In Russia, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 led to formation of multiple competitive factions creating chaotic party system which made legislation in Russian Duma almost impossible43. Such issue based fragmentation coupled with personal enmity characterizes political party structure in India. The Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) is a glaring example of competitive factionalism that suffered three vertical split within 20 years of its emergence.
One unique method of managing competitive factionalism in political party is invented by Christian Democratic Party (DC) in Italy and Liberal Democrats Party (LDP) in Japan. These parties have institutionalized factionalism. This means that factions are recognized and faction affiliation is effectively mandatory for the office seekers. The DC and LDP don’t shy away from the fact of factional rivalry. But instead of it all factions are effectively represented in party executive bodies and in the government in proportion to their size. DC and LDP factional leaders controlled candidate nomination, distribution of campaign funding and government contracts. Therefore, joining a faction was the best way for the advancement of political career. Co-partisans having factional affiliations compete for the same pool of votes in the districts trying to gain for their respective factions as well as for their party. This kind of career structure of office holders prevented excessive fragmentation and instability because it tied politicians to their factions.
43 Francoise Boucek, “Rethinking Factionalism”, Party Politics, Vol. 15 No 4 (2009) : 20
TH-1788_09614110
54
Ambitious politicians were reluctant to leave their faction for fear of losing career and electoral benefits linked to factional membership.
In a nutshell, competitive factionalism though poses a challenge to political party alternately helps in election performance, policy making and build intra-party democracy. Boucek observes that-
“Factions have the potential to broaden choices for voters and party followers by providing a mechanism of internal differentiation between leadership candidates and their respective agendas.
Factions can also moderate party leader’s policy stances and promote the nomination of moderate politicians in legislatures and governments. Moreover, a factional structure can empower party grassroots, activists, politicians and the rank and file by giving them a stake in party decision- making. Factions can provide group members with the means to communicate with their leaders and hold them to account…..By providing a method of elite circulation, factionalism can rejuvenate democratic politics in sub-competitive party system.”44
To keep factionalism under control, leaders need to be vigilant and sympathetic towards the dissenting groups within their party. Competitive factionalism without proper safeguard can destroy party unity and electoral performance.
2.4.3 Degenerative Factionalism
This is the most pervert form of factionalism. Degenerative factionalism may destroy a party. Factions if unchecked can grow incessantly and create a risk of collective action dilemma inside the party. Self serving behavior of faction leaders is both the cause and effect of degenerative factionalism which deviates focus away from the general interest of the party. This may lead to decisional stalemate and instability in the government. In the USA and in Europe, factional system rested on complex network of client-patron relationship. Distribution of political patronage (spoils system) creates corruption and imperils the party machinery on the ground.
Again, factional division of the spoils is unsustainable in the long run as state resources are limited. The Christian Democratic Party in Italy succumbed to degenerative factionalism. Its’ system of factional distribution of nomination, patronage etc encouraged more fragmentation. In 1982 it had 12 institutionally
44 Boucek, op cit., p 22
TH-1788_09614110
55
recognized factions competing for the support of the delegates. Sometimes, two or more factions would form factional alliances which were proved unstable. Minor factions were seen repositioning themselves simply to be within the winning coalition and demanded payoffs in the next government. Thus factionalism derailed the reform minded politicians of the DC and particularistic interests ruled.
Factional politics dictated the size and composition of Italian cabinet, unnecessary portfolios were created to satisfy factional leaders. The practice of exchanging private goods for votes became widespread. Top level appointment to government agencies, state holding corporations and public agencies were made strictly on the basis of factional affiliation. This factional capture led to amateurship in public administration.
Thus, degenerative factionalism signifies single minded pursuit of factional goals, leading to unaccountable governments, wastage of public resources, and the party becomes a value destroying brand45.
India after independence, while adopting western liberal democratic structure, has inherited the factional politics too. Indian party system is competitive and multiple political parties at national and regional level vie for capturing political power. As such, all potential elements in society are exploited by these parties while competing for limited political space. This results in fragmentation in society and degenerative factionalism becomes the order of political life in India. In case of regional political parties, social factions cooperate on homogenous political agenda and initially seemed to have been working for the achievement of these avowed objectives. Gradually, cooperation turns into competition, leading to factional clash of interests and neck breaking competition. Thus, results in degenerative factionalism. Most of the political parties in India have displayed such a trajectory of factionalism after the Independence. However, there is nothing predetermined in politics. Through institutional reforms or astute leadership, it is possible for a party to move from a mode of intra-party competition into one of cooperation.
45 Boucek, op. cit., p 24
TH-1788_09614110
56 Table 2.1
Three faces of factionalism
Cooperative Competitive Degenerative Factionalism
as
a Process of
Factions are Conditions for Existence of
factionalism
Function of factionalism
Outcomes
Partitioning under centripetal
incentives.
Separate Transition to Democracy. Party formation, splits, mergers party system realignment Consensus building.
Aggregates separate groups; blurs cleavages;
articulates sub-party group preferences and interests;
facilitates party consolidation and district level electoral coordination.
Intra-party
harmony. Integrated party. Preservation of sub-group identities in ‘big- tent’ parties.
Splitting under centrifugal forces.
Opposed Intra party
conflict/dissent/rivalries.
Polarized party opinion.
Fragmentation inducing incentive.
Diffuses conflict
internally; facilitates elite circulation; widens voter choice; moderates leaders and policies; empowers party followers.
Dangers: Growth in number of factions;
factional veto games;
fragmented party vote.
Intra party democracy;
balance of internal power;
Fractionalization/
Segmentation from excessive focus on factional interests.
Self serving
Privatized incentives.
Clientelism. Machine politics.
Promotes rent seeking and the exchange vote;
structures the division of the spoils;
encourages factional jockeying; shifts focus away from party collective goals.
Factional capture;
instability; decisional stalemate; wasted public resources;
corruptionvalue- destroying brand.
Potential party break- up or collapse.
Source: Francoise Boucek, “Rethinking Factionalism”, Party Politics, Vol. 15 No 4 (2009) : 16
TH-1788_09614110
57