In most advanced democracies, a large center-right partycompetes with a large center-left party. Of course, the extent to which anelectoral system favors large parties – by having high popular-vote thresholdsto enter parliament, or through winner-take-all constituencies – affects thedegree of political fragmentation. But, by and large,the developed democracies are characterized by competition between largeparties on the center left and center right. What, then, are true centrists like Mario Monti, Italy’s respectedtechnocratic prime minister, to do?
To be sure, regional and ethnic allegiancesplay a greater role in some places in Europe – for example, Scotland, Belgium,and Catalonia – but far more so in emerging countries, where political cleavages also reflect specific post-colonialcircumstances and often the legacy of single-party rule. Nonetheless, even in“emerging market” democracies, such as Chile, Mexico, South Korea, and India, aleft-right cleavage plays an important role – while those who claim thepolitical center generally remain weak.
The British Liberal Democrats, for example, have tried fordecades to become a strong centrist third party, without success. While thepolitical vocabulary in the United States is different, the Democratic Party,since Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, is indeed a center-leftforce, the Republican Party occupies the right, and no other significantparty exists.
In France and Germany, there is more fragmentation.Politics is still dominated by a large center-left party and a large center-rightparty, but smaller groups – some claiming the center and others the right andleft extremes – challenge them to various degrees. In some countries, the“Greens” have their own identity, close to the left; but, despite remarkableprogress in Germany, they remain unable to reach the electoral size of thelarge center-right and center-left parties.
Variations of this basic structure exist in Spain,Portugal, Greece, Turkey, and the Nordic countries. The situation isparticularly interesting in Italy, where Monti, having decided to contest theupcoming general election, has had to position himself on the right (which hesignaled by attending a gathering of the leaders of Europe’s center-rightparties). He and former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi are now fighting forspace on the right, with the center-left Democrats leading in the polls.
There are at least four differencesbetween center-right and center-left approaches to social and economicchallenges. The right has greater confidence in markets to allocate resourcesand provide appropriate incentives; favors private consumption over publicgoods; is minimally concerned with economic inequality; and tends to be morenationalistic and less optimistic about international cooperation.
The left, by contrast, believes that markets, particularlyfinancial markets, need considerable government regulation and supervision tofunction well; gives greater weight to public goods (for example, parks, aclean environment, and mass-transit systems); seeks to reduce economicinequality, believing that it undermines democracy and the sense of fairnessthat is important to well-being; and is more willing to pursue internationalcooperation as a means to secure peace and provide global public goods, such asclimate protection.
When looking at actual economic policies as they have evolved over decades, wesee that they always combine center-right and center-left elements. Repeatedfinancial crises have tempered even the right’sfaith in unregulated markets, while the left has become more realistic andcautious about state planning and bureaucratic processes. Likewise, the choicebetween privately consumed and publicly consumed “goods” is often blurred, aspoliticians tend to reinforce citizens’ understandable tendency to demandpublic goods while rejecting the taxes needed to pay for them.
As income inequality has increased – dramatically in somecountries, such as the US – it is moving to the forefrontof the debate, reinforcing the traditional political divide. Nonetheless, thecenter right and the center left are arguing about the degree ofredistribution, not about the need for some progressivityin taxes and transfers. Both also agree on the need for internationalcooperation in an increasingly interdependent world, with differences mainlyconcerning how much effort to spend on it.
So, given that differences in policies as they areimplemented have become largely a matter of degree, why do centrist partiesremain weak? Why have they failed to unite moderates on both sides of theideological divide?
One reason is that only a minority of any population isactive politically. Active party members hold more ideologically consistentviews – and hold them more strongly – than most of those who are politicallyless engaged, giving activists disproportionate influence in the politicalprocess. After all, more nuanced ideas and policy proposals are relativelydifficult to propagate effectively enough togenerate broad and enthusiastic popular support.
But there also really are fundamental differences in valuesand economic philosophies, as well as in economic interests, leading to afairly consistent positioning of voters on the right or left. Disagreement maylead to compromises, but that does not change the underlying differences instarting positions.
It is probably a good thing that structured competitionbetween large center-right and center-left parties persists. Such parties canhelp to integrate the extremes into the political mainstream, whilefacilitating alternation in power, which isessential to any democracy’s dynamism; a system in which a large centrist partyremained permanently in power would be far less desirable. Those, like Monti,who want to mount a challenge from the center,however personally impressive they may be, have steepobstacles to overcome, and for good reasons.