Michael de Laine

By Michael de Laine, The Copenhagen Voice, 18 May 2009

Political parties’ fight for the votes in the centre of the political spectrum can lead uniform policies and risks draining the political system of colourful alternatives, according to a thesis to be defended this week.

In his thesis, ‘Voters’ Perceptions of Party Politics – A Multilevel Approach’, Stefan Dahlberg, who studies political science at the University of Gothenburg, adds that the collapse of clear alternatives increases the risk that voters will not bother to vote.

The consent principle in politics implies that the electorate, through free and regular elections, have an opportunity to influence the policies conducted directly by casting their votes. At the same time, many studies have shown that voters are often comparatively poorly informed about political questions. An electorate that is unable to differentiate between political alternatives to a greater degree is a serious set-back for the democratic system.

That voters are relatively unanimous about a party’s political standpoints is a sign that politicians have successfully explained the policies that are conducted. Earlier research has often pointed to individual factors as explanations why voters perceive the parties’ standpoints in different ways, but in Dahlberg’s study the perspective is expanded so it also includes the importance of the political institutions and the way the political parties present themselves.

“It is very important for democracy that voters perceive the parties’ messages in the correct way,” says Dahlberg. “If there is no unanimity among the electorate about what the parties stand for, then political representation become meaningless. This can imply that the voters no longer believe there is any meaning in taking part in the political process.”

Using statistics from 58 elections in 34 countries, Dahlberg has been able to ascertain that political representation works best in parliamentary multi-party systems characterised by a strong left-right structure, where the parties have stable and clearly differentiated standpoints. The responsibility for effective representation thus lies to a large degree with the political parties themselves.

“It may seem obvious that it is easiest for voters to have unanimous perceptions of parties that have constant and clear ideological positions,” says Dahlberg. “What is interesting is that the correlation is so much stronger also when consideration is given to many other explanatory factors that affect voters’ perceptions.”

In a Swedish perspective, the increasingly formal collaboration between the parties towards two blocs can be problematic, especially if the parties give up their own special points of view to allow the bloc to appear as agreeing on policies and dynamic.

“If bloc politics also results in an ideological uniformity in the fight for the voters in the centre, the Swedish multi-party system risks being drained of colourful alternatives,” Dahlberg says. “The goal of the electoral process to gather and articulate all Swedish voters’ political preferences in several different parties will therefore be more difficult to achieve, as it more difficult for many voters to find a home in the established parties.”

Dahlberg defended his thesis on 20 May 2009 in Gothenburg.