Cohesion

The term cohesion in a political academic context has been developed in several understandings and frameworks. Some scholars focussed their discussion on party cohesion by highlighting the voting behaviour of the party members in the parliaments. It talks mainly about how the party attempted to control the voting behaviour of its members in the delivery of the party’s voice or interests in the legislative body and the reasons behind the presence of a cohesive or un-cohesive party related to the members’ attitudes in the parliament⁵⁸.

This thesis does not follow the same direction as those studies in understanding cohesion. Rather, this thesis regards cohesion as the capability to preserve existence and unity. The presence of cohesion in the party as a system, therefore, will be related to the capacity to unite and maintain all sub-systems inside the party, ensuring that all elements are working together to reach the main objective.

For this reason, the term cohesion will be used in the same manner as with the various terms such as unity, solidity, harmony and homogeneity.

Hence, the term cohesion is used to describe the situation where the party could maintain its unity and work together to reach its goals. In this regard, the problem of maintaining solidarity, party coherence and the reduction of tension among the party’s elements are essential. As a system that consists of sub-systems, in the context of cohesion establishment, the party will play a role that is described by Parson as “integration”, where “the problem of maintaining solidarity in the relations between the units, in the interest of effective functioning”⁵⁹.

58 Ergun Ozbudun, Party Cohesion in Western Democracies: A Causal Analysis, Comparative Politics Series (New York: Sage, 1970). Leon D. Epstein, “Cohesion of British Parliamentary Parties”, in John C. Wahlke and Heinz Eulau (eds.), Legislative Behaviour. A Reader in Theory and Research, (Glencoe:

The Free Press, 1959), pp. 132-143. Leon D. Epstein, Political Parties in Western Democracies, (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books, 1980), pp. 315-350. Gerhard Loewenberg and Samuel Patterson, Comparing Legislatures, (Boston: Little Brown, 1979). Robert Harmel and Kenneth Janda, Parties and Their Environments: Limits to Reform?, (New York: Longman, 1982), pp. 74-94. V. O.

Key Jr., Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups, 5^th Edition, (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1964), pp.

653-689. Maor, Political Parties and Party Systems Comparative Approaches and the British Experience, pp. 135-167.

59 Talcott Parsons, “Some Highlights of the General Theory of Action”, in Ronland Yound (ed.), Approaches to the Study of Politics, (Evanston: Northwestrn University Press, 1962), p. 294.

Some scholars have argued on the background of party cohesion. According to Mahendra Singh, in general, there are two factors explaining why the party is cohesive, namely the internal factors, which originate from within the party itself and the external factors, such as the socio-cultural situation and political system surrounding the party. Related to the first aspect⁶⁰, he believes that the party, which is based on ideology and not on pragmatic matters as a binding factor, tends to be able to preserve internal cohesion. It means that a totalitarian-ideological party would have more chance to be a cohesive party rather than a restricted-pragmatic party.

Moreover, he also believes that the party that applies a close recruitment policy, with limited members, would be more cohesive rather than an open party.

Singh considers that the party that implements a branch party model tends to be more conducive to internal cohesion rather than to a caucus party, where the power tended to be decentralised. In the light of this situation, the centralised party, hence, is more favourable to be a cohesive party rather than a decentralised one.

Singh also states that the party that clearly articulates its rules of the game, meaning to use them as guidance for all party activities, would have a better chance of preserving its cohesion compared to the party with a weak articulation that “does not lay down precise rules governing the internal structure of its basic elements and units and their integration with the party”⁶¹.

As for the external aspect, Singh considers the presidential system as the element that would potentially weaken party cohesion. He also considers that the federal state and use of the district system for election would play a similar role. He also believes, however, that such claims really could not be entirely confirmed, since in fact the phenomenon of un-cohesion could also be found in the states that used a parliamentary system, unitary state and simple majority for the election. It means that the political system tended to play as a complementary element in creating cohesion.

However, Singh believes that a fragmented society would potentially bring a negative effect to cohesion development, particularly for the parties that try to stand out above all groups and represent them in it. Moreover, in the situation where intraparty competition is strong, the tendency to have a consciousness to hold unity

60 Mahendra P. Singh, Cohesion in Predominant Party: The Pradesh Congress and Party Politics in Bihar, (New Delhi: S. Chand & Co (Pvt) LTD, 1975), pp. 12-19.

61 Ibid, p. 16.

in order to be able to win the competition sometimes paved the way for the emergence of party cohesion. However, using the case of the Congress Party in Bihar, Singh also indicates that such a situation actually could also happen in the situation where a party faces no serious competitor in its district⁶². In general, Singh confirms the relativity of external aspects as the only and important elements or source for party cohesion.

Other studies on political ideology suggest a correlation between ideologies and cohesion. Duverger’s study on party, for instance, suggests that left-wing ideology has more ability to discipline the party members, thus generating more consolidated parties. He believes that hierarchical parties, which are typically more to the left and centralised parties, are regarded as having a strong tendency to be a solid party. Furthermore, he argues that more extreme the ideology adhered to by the party, the more opportunity that party will have to avoid⁶³. In relation to the ideology, Kumar’s study on the Indian parties indicates the important role of ideology for party cohesion mainly as the uniting factor between factions and the variables that strengthen the party’s organisation⁶⁴.

Other scholars tended to see the role of party recruitment in the building of cohesion. In this case, Alan Ware suggests that solidity could more easily be maintained if the party is a ‘cadre party’, rather than a “mass-based party”, for the fact that a cadre party could guarantee more militancy and solidity among the cadres⁶⁵. On the other hand, Ozbudun reached a different conclusion with Ware, in saying that the mass party has some qualifications to be a supportive element to party cohesion, since this kind of party could guarantee financial independency and reduced patron-client relations in the party, which could endanger the cadres’ loyalty to the party⁶⁶.

Brass believes that the leader is the most important element due to his capability in uniting a group, based on his understanding of people’s problems, ability

62 Ibid, pp. 7-12.

63 See the discussion of Duverger’s opinion in Maor, Political Parties, and Party Systems, Comparative Approaches and The British Experience, p.137.

64 Kadar Nath Kumar, India Political Parties, (New Delhi: Mittal Publication, 1990), p. 328.

65 Alan Ware, ed., Political Parties, Electoral Change and Structural Response, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), p. 12.

66 Ozbudun, Party Cohesion in Western Democracies: A Causal Analysis.

to solve conflict and knowing the art of manipulation, including providing goods to maintain the followers’ loyalty⁶⁷. In line with this argument, according to Prassad, ideology plays a secondary role in maintaining cohesion, where the salient problem lies actually with the leader⁶⁸. Such studies confirm the important role of the elite in securing the solidity of the party. Myron Weiner also believes in the role of leader in cohesion, particularly as the element that maintains a compromise between factional disputes, source of prestige to the members and main source of articulation of values⁶⁹. Weiner also sees, however, other factors that play an important role in establishing party cohesion. He believes that other factors such as the tolerant attitude towards the existence of other factions and the presence of consensus or the crosscutting idealism similarity should be also taken into account when discussing party cohesion background⁷⁰.

On the other hand, some scholars put forward the discussion on the party structure rather than on the existence of political culture or ideology that surround the party, as a variable that should be explored to seek the reason behind cohesion.

Studies on the Western European social democratic parties indicate several situations behind the emergence of party cohesion⁷¹. These include the style of party organisation or organisational structure (where the centralised and disciplined party tends to be more conducive to party cohesion), the ideology (in this case social democracy) that united the party cadres and the followers of ideology, charismatic figures (particularly for the case of Spanish Socialist Worker’s Party), the presence of uniting values and external situations such as political system, national issues, the existence of rival parties.

The more specific study discussing the capability of Partai Keadilan (the Justice Party), PKS’ antecedent party, to preserve its solidity was conducted by Suhban Akbar. To some extent, this study is a closely-related study to the cohesion discussion. Akbar concludes that the phenomenon of party solidity is the result of the

67 Paul R. Brass, Factional Politics in an Indian State - The Congress Party in Uttar Pradesh, (Berkeley: University California Press, 1965), pp. 232-238.

68 R. C. Prasad, “Viable System” in “Our Political Parties: Seminar”, 24 December 1969, pp. 29-32 in Kumar, India Political Parties, pp. 300-301.

69 Myron Weiner, Party Politics in India: The Development of a Multi-Party System, (Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1957), pp. 241-242.

70 Ibid, pp. 242-246.

71 Bell and Shaw, eds., Conflict and Cohesion in Western European Social Democratic Parties.

party’s aptitude to have or to build a kind of uniting ideology with a leadership that put forward consultation and good cadrerization⁷².

The study on the internal activity of PKS, particularly that on Taklim Rutin Mingguan (Weekly Routine Training) or halaqah (the meeting or the development unit) by Prabowo, indicates the relationship between the presence of the halaqah and the capability to find super-ordinate goals or a sort of uniting values for PKS members, who eventually supported the party in maintaining its cohesion. In general, Prabowo, concludes that the presence of an institutionalised activity like halaqah in the party would enable the party to maintain its solidity⁷³. The fact that halaqah is one of PKS cadrerization elements actually suggests that the presence of good cadrerization is a prerequisite for party cohesion.

The above discussion indicates, therefore, several important factors in the development of party cohesion, which, in general, consist of external and internal aspects. With regard to the external aspects, they mainly include the social and cultural conditions surrounding the parties, its life and the existence of a political system. The internal aspects comprise several factors such as organisation style, party ideology, the role of the figures or leaders and good cadrerization.

The above exploration points out that fragmentation and cohesion were the phenomena that have several rationales behind their presence, which seem exclusive. However, the study of these issues essentially infers and indicates that the capability to avoid fragmentation by having or operating certain variables or dimensions are, to some extent, an entry point into maintaining cohesion. This thesis believes that one could use quite the same material factors or parameters to measure or discuss the presence or the absence of fragmentation and cohesion. In the above discussions, some factors seem to be less compelling however, due to the fact that they were not supported by convincing data or a real situation at the practical level. Some factors appear to have a contradictory position. The problem of organisation style, for instance, tends to be fairly argued against since fragmentation could potentially happen in both the “cadre” and “mass” parties. Ozbudun and Ware’s

72 Subhan Akbar, Partai Keadilan: Faktor-Faktor Penguat Soliditas, B.A Thesis, unpublished (Depok:

Extension Program, Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia, 2004).

73 Triatno Yudho Prabowo, Pengaruh Taklim Rutin Terhadap Prilaku Politik Kader Partai Keadilan Sejahtera dana Perspektif Teori Intergroup Relation, B.A Thesis, (Jakarta: State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah, 2006).

study, which gives a contradictory result from the relation between a cadre party and cohesion, represents that situation. Also the position of the leaders is quite debatable. To some, it is believed to be a supportive element for cohesion; but for the others, this situation has the potential to endanger the cohesion of the party.

On the other hand, it should also be noted that some of the comparative research findings reported above seem to be less relevant to this study. Thus, the relation between the left-wing ideology and the tendency to be able to maintain party cohesion and the correlation between the number of parties and the tendency of cohesion would seem to be irrelevant to the Indonesian case. For the former, this is because the terminology of the “left” and the “right” itself does not find its relevance in contemporary Indonesian politics⁷⁴, when the people tend to categorise the parties based on the degree of secularism or Islamism. And for the latter, the Indonesian case seems to contradict those comparative findings. Indonesia continually implements a multi-party system, but still faces the fragmentation phenomenon, even today in the extensive sense. In this context, the external system, although it cannot be entirely neglected, should be regarded as a supporting factor for party fragmentation, as the real problem is actually internal to the party. In other words, one should regard that in the case of Indonesian current politics as long as the parties can properly manage their internal matters, the party would tend to survive from fragmentation or a split.

What is quite omitted from these studies, however, is the explanation on the role of the absence or the presence of party institutionalisation in generating internal party fragmentation and cohesion, particularly in the Indonesian Islamic political context.

The existence of undemocratic leadership and the inability to solve internal problems independently, for instance, are basically related to the failure of the party to maintain the rules of the game and consistently follow their internal constitution.

Moreover, the existence of the fragmented elite should also be considered as a product of the failure of the party to create good communication and trust among them. This condition is actually the result rather than the cause of unmanageable conflict. On the other hand, the capacity to maintain trust and loyalty should be

74 Saiful Mujani and R. William Liddle, “Voters and the New Indonesian Democracy”, in Edward Aspinall and Marcus Mietzner: Problems of Democratization in Indonesia. Elections, Institutions and Society, (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asia Studies, 2010), pp. 75-99.

regarded as part of the success in maintaining cadrerization and enacting fairness and rules of the game. The capability to avoid the elites behaving as in the above constitution throughout the consistency in implementing and respecting the party’s constitution also played a salient role. The existence of a mechanism that could bring essential solutions to internal conflict also could not be neglected as an important background for creating internal cohesion. To sum up, this thesis will argue that the internal party situation leading to fragmentation or cohesion will be determined by the party’s capacity to maintain its institutionalisation.