Basically, all people around the world are grossly discontent with politics in their respective countries. You often hear: “Why they cannot just enact it? Just do it!” But it is a huge misunderstanding of the current worldwide politics. Do you want a better politics? Then get rid of clientelism in it!
Corruption, extreme inequality, conflicts, climate crisis, mistrust, polarization, bipartisanship, scandals, and faulty resource allocation to name just a few.
I am not saying that clientelism is responsible for everything, but in my humble opinion, it is the greatest threat. Because even gross corruption is a form of clientelism. So why not found a party that will get rid of clientelism?
History of clintelism
Clientelism, also known as patron-client relationships, is a political system where goods or services are exchanged for political support. This system has a long and varied history across different cultures and periods.
In ancient Rome, wealthy and powerful patrons provided legal protection, financial support, and political backing to their clients (often poorer citizens) in exchange for political loyalty and services. Roman senators and politicians relied on their clients to vote for them in elections and support their political endeavors, creating a network of mutual obligation and support.
During the medieval period in Europe, the feudal system was characterized by a similar structure. Lords (patrons) offered land, protection, and justice to their vassals (clients) in return for military service and loyalty. Monarchs also engaged in clientelism by granting lands, titles, and positions at court to nobles and other supporters to secure their allegiance.
In Renaissance Italy, city-states like Florence, Venice, and Milan saw the rise of powerful families, such as the Medici in Florence, who used clientelism to maintain political control. These families provided economic opportunities, protection, and political favors to their supporters. Wealthy patrons also supported artists, scholars, and architects. It only didn’t enhance their prestige but also secured loyalty and influence within the city-state.
The 18th and 19th century clientelism
Moving into the 18th and 19th centuries, European colonial powers often employed clientelism in their colonies. Local leaders and elites were co-opted by colonial administrators, who granted them economic and political privileges in exchange for their cooperation and support in maintaining colonial rule. In the United States, political machines like Tammany Hall in New York City exemplified clientelism in American politics. Political bosses provided jobs, housing, and other services to immigrants and the poor in exchange for votes and political loyalty. The “spoils system” of the early U.S. government, where public offices and jobs were awarded based on political loyalty rather than merit, is another example of clientelism.
Post-colonial and nowadays clientelism
In many post-colonial African and Asian countries, clientelism has been a prominent feature in politics. Leaders often distribute state resources and patronage to ethnic groups, regional leaders, and local elites to maintain power and stability. In some one-party states, ruling parties have relied on clientelist networks to ensure loyalty and control over the population. They often use state resources and positions to reward supporters.
In the 20th century, clientelism continued to play a significant role in various political contexts. Juan Domingo Perón’s regime in Argentina (1946-1955) is a notable example, where he used state resources to gain the support of labor unions and the working class by providing social welfare benefits and employment. The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in Mexico maintained power for much of the 20th century through a clientelist system, distributing economic resources, public jobs, and services to secure votes and political loyalty.
Why does it matter? And how to get rid of clientelism
Getting rid of clientelism can be achieved. The patron-client system is indeed ingrained in any action of all people who are not politicians. So we should have a guilty conscience.
However, it is the top of the top that is so ridden by clientelism the most. Because when you are rich, you want to lobby for your business, usually (with the super-rich families) the whole economic branches of the given country.
And the top of the top is the ruling politicians, therefore the most important decision-making authority which does or doesn’t make people’s well-being.
So when competing clientelism cliques fight each other, even the most skilled politicians cannot do something that improves the lives of people. The politics is completely paralyzed.
Also, we have a measure of dirrty corruption (because the super-rich cannot invest in the countries
Why do people vote really badly and how to fix it
All of the parties promising to eradicate corruption are involved in the patron-client schema. You cannot be a politician eradicating clientelism without having been voted with the patrons behind his or her back. You cannot rise on the party’s ladder.
So the real chance is in the hands of regular citizens. A scandal? You must go out! A single suspicion? You must go out!
We should establish media and a party whose single interest would be the eradication of clientelism (corruption is a part of it).
The anti-clientelism party and how to get rid of clientelism
Establishing a party and getting rid of clientelism could be a major step how to clear the clogged political process.
We have bankers, super-rich families, lobbyists, crooks, movers-and-shakers, and then a political face you see on the TV, social media, news, and so on.
Also, the projected party should have as many members (from common people) as it can get, so The Iron law of oligarchy would be much less prominent.
Let’s make an example of the Czech Republic which has 10 million people. One million people as party members would definitely make clientelism and corruption less possible.
A transparent party structure, with no lobbying or outside influence, would really clear the congestion.
Consequences of the party’s rule
Suddenly, all the old housing law problems, the poor justice system, overcrowded prisons, tens of billions lost in corruption, labor market issues, education system problems, political stability, and enormous inequality would fly away, getting rid of clientelism.
The country would be prosperous in terms of GDP, even though the subpar Czech culture would reduce the final outcome. Czechs are not Germans, British, or Americans.
How could a single party change everything
If people found such a party it would change everything. But this is a very dangerous idea (maybe I will be run over by a car because of this article).
The puppet masters are so powerful and people are such sheep waiting to be slaughtered.
Of course, parties should have some program, but when our politics is nothing but a Ponzi scheme with clientelism ridden in everything. So getting rid of clientelism should come as first.
Leave a Reply