Ideological pluralism within political parties is a myth

May 13, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – The PPP is engaging in myth-making in seeking to perpetuate the narrative that it is now an ideologically plural party. Nothing could be further from the truth. The party has been seized by the bourgeois class. This class has completed its capture of the party by forcing to delink from Marxism-Leninism.

The notion of ideological pluralism is often touted as a hallmark of democracy and inclusivity.  But this only applies to the wider society and nation and not to political parties. Ideological pluralism within political parties suggests that political parties can accommodate diverse ideologies under a single umbrella. It implies that a political party can have represented a wide spectrum of beliefs and values.

But this only exists in theory. In practice, the presence of a wide spectrum of ideologies, including contesting ideologies, is a recipe for divisiveness and a lack of internal cohesion.

The existence of multiple ideologies within a political party is a myth. Political parties, by their very nature, are built on cohesive ideological foundations that guide their actions and policies. While they may exhibit some degree of flexibility or variation in specific policy positions, the core ideology of a party remains fundamentally singular.  Parties are inherently driven by a dominant ideology that shapes their identity, agenda, and decision-making processes.

Political parties are organizational entities with distinct ideological orientations. A party’s ideology serves as its guiding principle, providing a coherent framework for understanding the world and articulating its vision for society. Ideology permeates all levels of party politics. It shapes its behaviour, responses and decisions

For example, conservative parties typically espouse values such as individualism, free markets, and traditional social norms, while liberal parties prioritise principles such as equality, social justice, and progressive reform. These ideological orientations are not mere labels but represent deeply ingrained sets of beliefs and values that inform every aspect of a party’s functioning.

A party’s ideology is essential for maintaining internal cohesion and unity of purpose. There is a reason why Jagan transitioned the PPP to become a Marxist-Leninist party. He was keen to build a more disciplined outfit based on the dictatorship of the working class.

But there are also other practical benefits for a party embracing a specific ideology as opposed to having a hodgepodge of belief systems. A party’s ability to effectively mobilize support and govern depends on its ability to present a clear and coherent ideological platform to voters.

Ideological consistency allows parties to differentiate themselves from their rivals. This provides a clear basis for electoral competition and voter choice. When parties deviate from their core ideological principles or exhibit internal divisions over fundamental issues, they risk alienating their base of support and undermining their electoral viability. As such, political parties have a strong incentive to uphold the integrity of their ideological identity and minimise internal dissent that could threaten their unity and electoral prospects.

To appeal to voters and win electoral support, parties must present a systematic, coherent and consistent ideological message. Attempting to accommodate multiple conflicting ideologies within a single party – under the notion of ideological pluralism – risks diluting its electoral appeal and confusing voters about its identity and priorities.

The operational dynamics of political parties reinforce the dominance of a singular ideology. Parties are hierarchical organisations with centralised leadership structures that exert significant control over the party’s agenda and decision-making processes. Party leaders, often represent the ideological vanguard of the organisation. These leaders wield considerable influence in shaping the party’s direction and enforcing ideological discipline among its members.

Who can forget that within the PPP, Khemraj Ramjattan was summoned before a disciplinary committee for criticisms of the government, and eventually was expelled? Another low-level comrade was reportedly also subject to a disciplinary hearing and told that a criticism of the government in power was a criticism of the party.

Dissent or divergence from the party line is typically discouraged or marginalised, as it undermines the party’s cohesion and effectiveness. In this context, the notion of ideological pluralism within political parties appears increasingly untenable. If ideological pluralism was tenable there could hardly be objection to criticism of the party, regardless of whether the party is ruling or in the Opposition.

There is a tendency to ideological factions developing within political movements. This has been the downfall of many such movements. However, while it is true that political parties may contain factions or interest groups with divergent policy preferences or priorities, these groups must not be seen necessarily as ideological factions.  They are often distinguished by their differentiating interests, interests not defined by ideology. Within the PPP’s leadership for example, there was opposition towards Jagdeo’s policy that led to the withholding of advertisements to Stabroek News. But these differences were not ideological.

There has been an attempt to argue that the Democratic Party in the United States is a Big Tent formation or that the Christian Democratic Union incorporates conservative and Christian democrats or that the Liberal Party of Canada is centrist with various factions. But all these parties quintessentially fall within a particular position on the ideological spectrum.

The Democratic Party, for example, is at its core a liberal party even though there may be factions that advocate for more progressive or centrist policies. Despite internal disagreements and varying policy priorities among its members, the overarching ideological orientation of the Democratic Party is rooted in liberal principles. While the party may accommodate a diverse range of perspectives, its fundamental commitment to liberal values shapes its identity, agenda, and approach to governance.

Throughout history, political parties have undergone periods of ideological realignment and transformation in response to changing social, economic, and political conditions. However, these transformations have typically been driven by shifts in the dominant ideology of the party rather than the emergence of multiple competing ideologies within its ranks.

The PPP is therefore only engaging in hollow rhetoric, when it claims to embrace ideological pluralism. The old communist guard within the PPP are being very guarded now with their public pronouncements for fear of being labelled as deviationists by the bourgeois elements that now control the former vanguard party of Cheddi Jagan.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)                       

 

 

---

---