Anthony Barnett (London,OK): There is another spate of end of political party articles, with a stronger than usual theme of blaming the internet, triggered by John Lloyd as he contemplates the fate of Labour. Mick Fealty provides an excellent overview, which means there is no need to worry about your FT registration.
I think the issue - which is a real one in terms of the steady decline of tribal voting overall - needs to be seen much more broadly. First, people have a greater sense of their need to try and make political judgements and affect matters 'at a distance': the rise of NGOs, ecological thinking, the reflexive knowledge of the market that ensures its behaviour can never be predicted (hat tip George Soros), debates over a Bill of Rights and the role of various elements of constitutions, international forces of influence. If people feel powerless it is not because of apathy.
Nor is all this leading to a wiki politics where everything is individualised. This is a wet-dream of those who want to skim the market of desires by telling us all there should be less politicians. What I think is interesting is the way that, when there may be a chance to make a difference, people act. Are political parties becoming less important in Scotland, the only place I know of where there is a government that is not supported by any major newspaper or broadcaster? Could America now have a presidential candidate who opposed the invasion of Iraq if it had not had an open primary system within its parties? Whereas in UK politics, where unlike the States a majority opposed the war, this option still seems remote.
In both Scotland with the SNP and the USA with Obama even more, new methods of communication have helped. But organisation remains decisive. The forms of organising are changing and are becoming potentially more democratic. But the need has grown as organic loyalties of place and class decline.
