Political parties need to give serious thought to how to use new technology to attract, retain and work with party members. The age of the top-down political machine is coming to an end but there has to be a meaningful role for members if political parties are to continue to be relevant.
It is not, however, all doom and gloom. Technology is not to blame for the decline of party membership and actually offers hope for enhanced individual engagement and participation in campaigns. If a relationship on this basis can be developed then it is more likely that votes will be forthcoming.
A recent article on Wired.co.uk by Jamie Bartlett concentrated on the fall in party membership and suggested that technology had played a role in this. These are though debates that have been raging for some time. The loosening of community ties, the failing strength in support for political parties, the demise of familial voting patterns etc. are all old arguments that date back decades. The erosion of traditional bases for political parties and falling membership rates did not begin with the advent of Twitter and Facebook. What is does show though is that the political parties have been very slow to adapt to these new ways of communicating. So changing patterns of behaviour are not solely caused by technology but it is potentially amplifying the effects.
In the same article, Bartlett uses the Italian example of the ‘loose movement’ founded online by comedian and blogger Beppe Grillo. This is very interesting but to try and read directly across from one political culture to another is fraught with danger. The way we view political parties, government, and Parliament are all very different.
Also, the rise in the use of online petitioning is not proof of non-party activity. The parties themselves often encourage people to take part in such activity. Also some petitions are run by political institutions themselves, not least e-petitions. The promise of an issue being considered by Parliament can be a spur to action.
Whilst the number of Twitter followers for the parties may be rising this does not necessarily equate to activity that has any real impact.
Bartlett is though undoubtedly right when he points to the selection of candidates as empowering members.
All this is relevant to public affairs campaigns as well. What makes people active and the type of issues they are prepared to get involved in all impact on campaigns and tactics.
If there is a loosening of central control then we would be looking at a very different form of political parties, decision-making and policy formulation.
It has to be remembered that part of the reason that the Labour Party became so obsessed with the media was because of the public spats between the party leaders and between the party leaders and the membership. You could not attend a party conference in the late 1970s or early 1980s without hearing the word ‘betrayal’ being bandied about.
Bartlett also suggests that ‘our political parties will have to get used to this new type of membership – elastic, less loyal and conditional – which can nevertheless be mobilised at election time’.
But elections are an almost constant feature of political life they do not just happen once every five years for a General Election.
The challenge for the parties is to work out how to utilise new patterns and ways of engagement to ensure that their campaigns are effective and, bottom line, that their candidates get elected.
For instance, the AFL CIO labour federation in the US is looking at ‘building a broad coalition to advance a worker-friendly political and economic agenda’. The New York Times outlined the federation’s consideration of developing formal partnerships or affiliates to bring in non-union members.
It is critical to enthuse people to get involved in campaigns. It is not just about giving them the tools to do so.