Parties' Reinvention

Political parties in Western Europe have been developing throughout the past two centuries, reinventing themselves and reorganizing their structures to reflect socio-economic changes in their societies. Elitist parties that dominated European politics had to expand their support-base and include members from other social classes following the introduction of universal suffrage. The expanded parties – known as mass parties – were actively recruiting members and gaining supporters at the beginning of the 20^th century, adhering strictly at the same time to their ideological agendas and party doctrines. With the organizational modernization of contemporary politics following the Second World War and the birth of pressure groups and strong political bureaucracies, in addition to the expansion of public participation, technological advances and intense competition between parties and political opponents, mass parties transformed themselves to catch-all parties. These parties intended to appeal to a larger sect of the society and electorate, therefore modifying their agendas, focusing on specific issues at hand, softening their ideological approach and working on galvanizing support from different political cleavages. Finally, in the 21^st century, political parties took the form of cartel or catch-all-plus parties, acting as professional agencies and networks of political agents, dominating public institutions, which, rather than competing in order to win support from wherever it can be found, are content to ensure their access to the state by sharing power with others.

Examining the European experience against the Arab experience has been a rejected notion, considering the vast differences between the history, society, economy, culture and ideological orientations between Arab and European countries. What is however meant from the exposition of party development is highlighting the importance of western parties' adaptation to changes and developments occurring in their societies. A 21^st century party cannot follow the same line of actions, calls, aspirations and strategies applied 50 years ago. European and western communities and their political leaders customized their party systems, organization and structures to accommodate such changes and alterations in the general political culture.

Parties in the Arab world on the other hand have followed a different route and have passed through different periods that restricted their performance and - sometimes – their continuance and existence. Nonetheless, the Arab Spring served as an opportunity for party reorganization and reinvention, with the Arab populace eager to re-engage in political participation via elections and party affiliation. Parties, in this sense, must act as change-motors and adapt themselves to the new realities on the ground. Employing decades-old mentalities and reminiscing about past glories and political achievements is a romantic disconnection from reality that would lead to further social and political disorientation. Egypt's current political and social turmoil may be an excellent example of weak party development occurring in many Arab states. The country's social confusion may be attributed to the disconnection between parties and political elites on one side, and the public on the other. The polarization between public opinion (with right-left and confessional-secular cleavages) and the political organization (both parties and political establishments) have led to general chaos on Egyptian streets. This unfortunate reality is being fed by further regional and international intervention, leaving the Egyptian public to feel like a victim of a western-designed conspiracy or theological authoritarian ambitions. Millions have taken to the street to protest against an Islamic government, and millions have also taken to the street to protest its ousting. Millions are supporting democratically elected governments, and millions are supporting the preservation of security and freedom even if democracy were to be compromised. Finger pointing and exchange of accusations are common, and many – lamentably – seem to favour bullets to ballots. Both sides view state organization differently, and parties and establishments (military in particular) hold an entirely different view. This lack of a minimum consensus has a series of reasons and justifications behind it, but failing to address this issue is in itself a contributing factor to the growing schism between citizens, government and parties.

In the end, democracy has always needed parties to defend it and preserve it, acting as its loyal gatekeeper. Most importantly parties have always been the product of the societies from which they emerged. Unless parties learn how to reorganize, reinvent themselves, modify their approach, soften their ideological ideals, accommodate different orientations and interests of their societies with all its colours, and spread political education and culture, only two options would be available for the Egyptian (and other) political systems: democratic chaos or authoritarian stability.