To what extent does class de-alignment explain recent patterns of voting behaviour?
Introduction
Throughout the decades, interest in the changes occurring in the voting patterns of populations in western democratic states based on class persists. Some studies in the previous two decades have propounded the argument that class voting has declined because of the process of class de-alignment that made voting patterns more or less similar across the different social classes. ( & 1983; 1985; & 1991; & 1999) Other studies show that the changes in voting pattern are just a fluctuation that does not denote a clear trend ( 1989; . 1999; . 1993). The difference in perspective led to debate over the relationship of class and voting behaviour in contemporary Great Britain. However, recent studies (. 1999; . 2000) show that there was a decline in the degree of class voting in the UK in the 1997 elections with the movement of the Labour Party a notch closer to the middle of the country’s political spectrum. A consideration of the different studies show that while class voting has declined in the previous recent elections, class voting still remains a characteristic of elections in the UK but the strength of the relationship of class and voting behaviour requires consideration based on the context of the current political setting.
History of Voting
The right to vote or right to suffrage has become a fundamental right of every citizen in a democratic state ( 1999) such as the United Kingdom. This right has historical ties with class since voting was initially considered as a privilege allotted to the wealthy class or to men. In the early days, voting was done to select representatives of the county to the Commons. Every county elects two knights to represent the political territory in the Commons. Election of representatives for the bigger political unit of boroughs or towns was optional. Selection was considered as a communal activity. However, in 1430 the people accorded the privilege to vote had to be freehold landowners with properties providing the owner value worth more than 40 shillings every year. In the case of town elections, only male family heads who are paying their tax dues or those who are property owners were able to vote. This was the electoral system for more than 400 years. Due to these voting restrictions, by the end of the 18th century only 2 percent of the entire population qualified to vote. ( & 1999) This system implies that only male family heads earning income and paying taxes or landowners earning at least 40 shillings from their land can vote. These people represent the upper class especially since not many people own lands.
During the 19th century, reforms were introduced to increase the voting population. In 1832, the right to vote covered adult males who were renting land worth not less than a floor value followed by the extension of the right of suffrage to all males residing in the urban areas. Due to these reforms, the number of voters increased to 1.4 million individuals. By 1884 further reform was introduced that accorded men in the rural areas a similar right to the men in the towns and cities. This further increased the electorate to 5.5 million. ( & 1999) Prior to the reform in 1884, class again played an important factor in suffrage since the men living in the towns and cities belonged to upper income classes relative to the men in the rural areas.
By 1918, an important reform further extended the voting to men in rural areas who are above thirty so that age and gender became a determinant for suffrage. This resulted to the increase in the number of voters to 21 million. In 1928, the Equal Franchise statute extended suffrage to women who have reached 21 years of age. By 1969, all men and women who have reached the age of 18 were allowed to vote. ( & 1999) These reforms have lessened the impact of class on the right to vote because wealth and income were no longer the sole requirement for the right to vote. With a more encompassing voting requirement, many people in the lower social class were able to vote. However, while the right to vote was extended across the income groups, the voting behaviour of people still found links to class.
Class De-alignment & Patterns of Voting Behaviour
De-alignment refers to the process where significant portions of the voting population shift their affiliation without necessarily identifying with a new association ( 1985). This process is attributed to the trend of individualisation of voters in the modern age with voting behaviour determined by other factors other than class values or other factors together with class perceptions. There are two forms of de-alignment, which are class and partisan de-alignment. Class de-alignment refers to the process where members of a social class hold the perspective that they no longer belong to their previous social class and instead belong to another social class ( 1985). An example of this is the working class start to align themselves with the lower or middle segments of the middle class. Partisan de-alignment refers to the process with people no longer voting according to the preferences of their social class ( 1985). In the UK, this means that the working class is voting for the Conservative Party that happens when people lose their class loyalty to the party.
These two types of de-alignment are linked, with class de-alignment as a factor that influences partisan de-alignment. Historically, the hierarchical classes have exclusive links to the various parties, which in the UK is exemplified by the relationship of the working class to the Labour Party and the upper class to the Conservative Party ( & 2000). During the 1970s, class de-alignment was observed with some of the core voters in the Conservative Party supporting the cause of workers while core voters of the Labour party were advocating middle class interests ( & 1991). This persisted until the present as exemplified by the move of the Labour Party to increase its core voters by propounding as its voter appeal the call for a ‘middle England’. This involved the change of the policies of the party together with its media promotions in order to obtain the vote not only of the working class but also of the middle and upper classes. The result of the de-alignment activities of the Labour Party is its victory in the elections for successive terms. This indicates that the voting behaviour of the electorate has changed with greater allowance for flexibility instead of just deciding based on class-to-party alignments. The shift has been attributed to the change in the policies of the Labour Party directed towards a broader segment of the population that transcends class, the enhancements in voter knowledge, and the manner that media provoked voters to become critical voters. On the part of the voter, knowledge and critical decision-making results to a voter decision based more on the individual selection based on the influences of political and some social factors rather than class factors. (. 1999)
However, the British Election Studies between 1964-1997 by and (2000) showed that link between the social class of voters and their propensity to vote for either the Labour or Conservative party still supports the existence of class voting in Britain with the working class clearly favouring the Labour Party and the upper class voting for the Conservative Party. However, they recognise that there was a certain degree of convergence in the 1983 elections of the line between the classes. Even the 1997 elections showed a certain level of de-alignment between the classes reflected in their voting behaviour that commenced the successive wins of the Labour Party. Nevertheless, even in the 1997 election, class remained an important influence in voting behaviour although not as strong as the previous decades.
Conclusion
Class de-alignment explain patterns of voting behaviour, particularly the successive wins of the Labour Party in the UK elections, as one of the variables that determine the manner that voters will select their political leaders. Class de-alignment change the factors that people consider in selecting leaders from primarily class-based influences to political, social and individual value considerations. This means that while class de-alignment has diversified voter influences, this has not removed class as one of the factors that drive voting behaviour. Moreover, the influence of class on voting behaviour has been weakened by the interplay of other influencing factors but class remains an important influence on voters.
The current results of the UK elections with the victory of the Labour Party prove that the factors influencing voter behaviour have diversified with class interests, other socio-demographic interests, political stand of the party, media coverage, and personal values of the voter are some common factors that influence voting behaviour but class remains an influencing factor.
References
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment