Why do reformist parties face internal conflicts after achieving power?

Question

Accepted Answer

Reformist Parties Confront Internal Strife Post-Ascension to Power

Reformist parties often experience internal conflicts after gaining power due to the inherent challenges of transitioning from a movement focused on opposition to a governing entity. The initial unity forged by a common enemy or injustice erodes once in power, revealing diverse internal factions with competing priorities and visions for governance. This shift from external struggle to internal organisation and administration precipitates a complex set of dynamics that can lead to significant discord.
The Erosion of Unity Post-Victory

The fundamental challenge for reformist parties lies in their genesis. These parties are typically born from widespread discontent, uniting individuals around a clear injustice or political foe, such as authoritarianism, institutional abuse, or corruption. This shared opposition provides a powerful, unifying force and a clear objective. However, upon achieving power, the focus shifts from dismantling the old order to constructing a new one, a task that is inherently more complex and less emotionally galvanising. For instance, the Pakatan Harapan government, which included PKR, collapsed within 22 months of its historic 2018 victory, partly due to internal defections like the "Sheraton Move," illustrating how internal dangers can emerge once the external common enemy is removed.
Divergent Factions Emerge in the Governing Landscape

Once a reformist party enters government, the previously suppressed differences among its various constituent groups—such as liberals, social democrats, activists, technocrats, and pragmatic politicians—become more pronounced. The removal of the common external threat allows these internal ideological and strategic divergences to surface. Governing necessitates making difficult compromises and policy decisions that may not align with the original, often purer, ideals of the movement. This can lead to internal friction as different factions clash over the direction of policy, resource allocation, and political strategy. The departures of prominent figures from PKR, like Rafizi Ramli and Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, highlight the ongoing questions about internal cohesion and the reasons individuals with different leadership visions may seek their future elsewhere.
The Transformation from Movement to Organisation

The transition from a grassroots movement to a structured political organisation fundamentally alters a party's dynamics and membership incentives. Early reform movements often rely on the commitment of idealists, activists, and volunteers who join with little expectation of personal gain, often at considerable personal risk. However, as a party matures into a governing entity, it requires formal structures, including candidate selection processes, funding mechanisms, hierarchies, and disciplinary procedures. This institutionalisation can attract individuals motivated by career advancement and power, rather than the original reformist ideals. Consequently, internal competition for positions, influence, and political appointments can become a significant source of conflict, shifting the party's focus from transforming politics to managing its own organisational machinery and personnel.
The Peril of Compromise and Normalisation

Reformist parties face heightened scrutiny and are often punished more severely for perceived hypocrisy compared to established parties. Voters expect these parties to uphold the high standards and ideals they championed in opposition. When a reformist government appears to compromise on core principles, engages in selective enforcement against corruption, or adopts practices similar to those it once condemned, the damage to its credibility is substantial. The core issue is not compromise itself, which is often a necessity in governance, but rather when the party's non-negotiable principles become obscured. This can lead to a state of "normalisation," where the party survives and retains its organisational presence but loses its capacity to inspire belief, with supporters remaining loyal more out of a lack of alternatives than a conviction in the party's vision. This gradual erosion of purpose represents a profound form of political death for movements that once promised fundamental change.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why do reformist parties face internal conflicts after achieving power?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends