The Purpose of the Party
By Dr. Jackson Janes and Dr. Tim Stuchtey

In a recent poll for the German weekly "Stern," 61 percent of Germans favored an Obama presidency in the United States. But would they also support the Democratic Party? Right before the Democratic National Convention in Denver, a draft for the Democratic Party Platform was published. The Party Platform comes closest to what in Germany is known as the party program. But those who read the fifty-one-page document will be either disappointed about the lack of depth or will start thinking about the differences between the German and the U.S. democracy.
 
We will try the latter, as this is the only rational way to explain how a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas and a doubling of fuel efficiency standards in the automobile industry is demanded yet a lowering of gas prices and a subsidy to compensate for rising heating costs is proposed in three consecutive paragraphs of the platform. Of course, German party programs are by no means coherent in what they promise, but one finds a higher level of detail about the measures and programs proposed. Also, the elevated position of the presidential candidate differs significantly from the candidate for chancellor, which makes it obvious that parties and their programs have a different function within the respective democracies.

When a German chancellor or minister-president (equivalent to a U.S. governor) distances his agenda too much from his party's agenda, his critics will warn that the party may degenerate into nothing but a loose association of people just to secure the majority in parliament without an ideology or political agenda. Instead, it is important that a party and its main candidate are prepared to take over the burden of governing. One way to achieve this is to bring the party's expert knowledge together and draft a party program. The draft will then be discussed at the party convention, changed around, and then decided upon. The program documents for the electorate and the media what a party stands for. The content should then be represented well by and through its candidates. If, for example, for some reason during the term of a legislative period a minister-president steps down, the governing party will nominate a successor who ideally will continue to govern on the basis of the party's program.

We admit right away that this is a bit of an ideal description of the German party system. Often party programs are replaced by coalition agreements and the reality of governing - in particular the limits of the public budget - leaves some promises of the party program unfulfilled. Also, the election campaigns from the past few years have showed an increasing focus on a party's candidate. But the party still remains as a corrective which rebels when the gap between the reality of governing and the programmatic promises of a party grows too wide. Maybe the early end of the second Schröder administration and his call for an early election is an example of this thesis.
 
In the United States, parties have neither constitutional nor political significance. From the standpoint of a German they would be seen as nothing more than a 'Wahlverein,' a group of people who have placed winning elections at the top of their agenda. In addition, parties in the U.S. two-party-system cover a much wider political spectrum than in the German five-party-system. The fact that a U.S. president or governor is elected directly by the people - unlike in Germany where the chancellor or the minister-president is elected by parliament - gives them a greater degree of freedom from their party and at the same time supports the personalization of a campaign. The same effect can be observed with Members of Congress and the majority-voting-system. This "winner takes all" system does not have a second vote for the party or for the party's list of candidates. But it is the latter that gives parties in Germany - especially the smaller ones - influence over their candidates and elected officials.

While in Germany the parties are indirectly responsible for filling top positions within the administration, in the U.S. not only are Members of Congress elected by the people but so are some heads of local or state institutions. This way there is a higher accountability for the elected officials vis-à-vis their electorate and a lower dependency upon their party. The role of the party is reduced to a service organization for electoral campaigns and fundraising. To a much lesser degree they are responsible for establishing policies and coordinating the appearance of party coherence on the state level.

The Democratic Party attempted to go in this direction when they drafted their recent party platform. To achieve this, the party organized hearings all over the country to hear ideas from their electorate and related interest groups. The result of this effort fed into the party platform, which remains vague enough to not estrange other constituencies or to offer the other political party too many talking points. The result can be seen as a wide portfolio of policy options out of which Democratic candidates can draw. But it is by no means meant or able to constrain a candidate.

A German observer would frequently recognize with some astonishment that in the American system a single Member of Congress feels much more accountable to his electoral district than to his party. When it comes to a vote in the House or the Senate there is no strict voting according to party affiliation. Members of Congress can often vote on an issue according to their own conviction with little regard for their party. Of course, like in Germany, party leadership and in particular the majority leader on the floor tries to impose a certain discipline within the party group. In order to obtain such discipline it is not uncommon that Members of Congress ask for the party's support for the programs that would most help their constituents (and aid in their reelection). But in general every vote requires building a new majority in which every member has to question himself, his conscience, and the interests of his electorate. The party platform is the last thing that comes into consideration in the decision-making process.

Since party membership does not say much about how a future elected official will vote, for the U.S. electorate it is more important to be represented by someone with a strong character. Many Americans seem to be convinced that the most capable candidates for political office in Washington are the ones who make decisions on the basis of high moral integrity, with the right basic political convictions und with deep roots in their home state. That is why their past political record, their private life, people they are surrounded with, and their religious beliefs play such an important role in election campaigns. Their past life, single statements, changes in their position, and even gestures are investigated, analyzed, and discussed from every angle and in every detail. One does not seek the candidate with the most convincing proposals for the country's problems but a leader who for a limited time is entrusted with the fate of a nation. The eventual winner will likely be the one who is trusted most to make the right decisions out of instinct even at three in the morning.

In Germany the private life of a politician does not play a big role in the debate. One does not look for the better person but for the better policy. However, in a media driven democracy it is not enough to have a convincing party program. Instead the program needs to be represented by a convincing candidate or team. Nonetheless, a happy-go-lucky attitude in a politician's private life is easier forgiven than in substantive political issues.

However, one can observe a tendency of Americanization in German politics. The best example for this might be, although unwillingly, the Left Party. Their two charismatic leaders, Oskar Lafontaine and Gregor Gysi, let their supporters forget about the Left Party's program with its numerous promises, vague solutions, and sometimes even contradictive statements.

Jackson Janes is Executive Director of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies (AICGS) in Washington, DC. Tim Stuchtey is a senior research fellow and Director of AICGS' Business & Economics Program.

A version of this essay appeared in the August 27, 2008, edition of Der Tagesspiegel. This version appeared in the September 5, 2008, AICGS Advisor. For a German version of this essay, please click here.