In continual fear of the people

With the fall of the Balkenende IV cabinet, the debate on the functioning of political parties within our democratic system is flaring up again. Puffed-up egos, over-ambitious politicians nd party political power games all stand in the way of true democracy. But the debate is nothing new.

Maartje Janse: ‘The importance of associations and parties as an instrument for democratisation is often underestimated.’

Wonder

Historians Henk te Velde and Maartje Janse have been awarded a so-called 'Small Programme in Free Competition in the Humanities' by NWO. The programme on: The Promise of Organization. Political Associations, 1820-1890, Debate and Practice studies the development of mass political organisations in the nineteenth century. 'We're not interested in the content of the associations,' says Janse, 'We're only interested in the form. We want to know how they have changed the practice of politics and what suddenly gave rise to the idea that associations could be a very strong weapon for bringing about change in society. The importance of associations and parties as an instrument for democratisation is often underestimated because for us it's obvious that politics is founded on parties with supporters. But, of course, there was a time when associations were a new phenomenon and far from self-evident. We try to look at this phenomen with the wonder of a nineteenth-century observer.'

Highly dangerous

Modern political parties as we know them today developed at the end of the nineteenth century. Their precursors were political associations that were able to mobilise large numbers of supporters. Because of their size, the associations were extremely powerful. They disturbed the way debates had always been conducted. The established order at the time regarded this as a highly dangerous development. Associations were described as enormous manipulation machines that should be resisted. The pioneers of the associations regarded this new format as a means of promoting democracy, for example by putting the expansion of suffrage on the political agenda, or enforcing rights for minorities. It was moreover a decent way of organising the masses, without bloodshed. And this is where the contradiction lay. On the one hand reformers wanted to channel the revolutionary enthusiasm of the masses, but on the other hand the establishment had a horror of actual direct democracy and the 'unbridled passions' of the people. The fierce debates aroused by this contradiction form the starting point of the research.

Populism

Henk te Velde: ‘On the one hand I understand the anxieties of the politicians of the time.'

You don't need to be a political scientist or historian to recognise a parallel with the discussion on populism that is now being conducted so fiercely in the Netherlands. 'On the one hand I understand the anxieties of the politicians of the time,' says Te Velde. 'Many people adopt the same position now on populism. It has a negative connotation and is not regarded as a means of invovling as many people as possible in politics, but rather as an instrument of manipulation. On the other hand, the nineteenth-century debate teaches us how difficult it is to judge new forms of conducting politics. In theory, populism should be a powerful instrument for democratisation. Maybe we'll think later: why didn't people at the time see what was really happening?'

______________________________________________________________________
Veni-subsidy

Maartje Janse has also received a Veni award, incorporated into the research programme. She will be conducting research into the phenomenon of pressure groups. British, Irish and American reformers in the period between 1820 and 1840 developed the technique of mass politics, in pressure groups against slavery for example, and alcohol abuse. Why were these first pressure groups so contested? From digitised newspapers it appears that contemporaries realised that the invention of pressure groups brought democracy irretrievably closer by. Not everyone was happy about this.
______________________________________________________________________

Optimistic

The researchers are optimistic about the role of political parties in the democratic process. Janse: ‘Previously, the only way ordinary people could enforce political change was through violence and revolution. The pioneers of the nineteenth century found a new way of allowing these people a role in thinking about the future. Certainly in the beginning, mass associations were a disciplined form of revolution. Democracy is only possible if it is structured. Parties and the associations that already existed have been most effective in shaping democracy. Historians have always paid a lot of attention to those representing power, such as parliament and government, but it is the system of participation that makes politics possible. That's why we believe it's time to make a new study of this form of political organisation.'

Radical abolitionists revolted against the American government. They claimed proudly that their morals were better than those of the state and they were prepared to defend their morals against the state; if necessary with such posters as this.

(2 March 2010/Marl Pluijmen)