Let's hear it for the party activists

Reports that Reform UK’s membership was greater than the Tories’ attracted attention and accusations of making up figures at the end of December. On Boxing Day, the party’s ‘digital counter’ suggested that membership had surpassed 131,680 across the UK and had increased by 10 per cent to 5,844 in Scotland. Kemi Badenoch maintained these were fake figures.

It was, however, not the first time a nationalist party’s claims were challenged. Some years back, diligent work by Wings Over Scotland (traduced but avidly followed by the Scottish commentariat), showed that something was seriously amiss with SNP membership claims.

It took a leadership election to force the SNP to accept that it had falsified its figures. The SNP probably never had 125,000+ members, though membership undoubtedly soared in the wake of the independence referendum. These claims were an attempt to maintain the pretence of momentum. It must have been obvious to SNP activists that members were drifting away but daring to suggest that clothes were fast falling off the empress’s back was treated as heresy.

While the SNP’s membership has slumped from its peak, its active core has been less affected and probably still around the level it was before the referendum (though this varies considerably across Scotland).

Mass influxes mean more members but a higher proportion of inactive ones. There is little in the way of due process in joining a party and central membership systems limit local gatekeeping. This can create problems especially if screening fails to identify those who cause embarrassment if subsequently chosen to stand for public office or assume important roles inside the party. No major party has been exempt from such embarrassments and all try to suggest another’s embarrassment as evidence of a deeper malaise in that party. Many who join in a surge are best understood as party identifiers, unwilling to contribute much beyond an annual subscription. They are amongst the first to leave or let membership lapse, though may still identify with the party.

Most party members are inactive, others are active intermittently (campaigning at election time) and then there are the super-activists. Activist members donate significant amounts of time and money to party activity. They provide a reservoir of candidates for public office. They campaign in all weathers, confronting cynicism and occasional abuse while providing the party with a local public profile. But they are sidelined in policy making.

The image of the swivel-eyed fanatic is a grossly unfair caricature of the super-activist. Super-activists are rarely out for themselves. These include people who take annual leave to attend party conferences (admittedly involving socialisation with old friends) and election campaigning, as well as attending endless dreary local meetings. These people are like devoted football fans except they don’t just cheer from the sidelines and moan about the management and poor results but choose the management and take part in the game. A few will get their moment in the limelight (or spotlight in some unfortunate cases) but few seek personal glory.

Parties are often referred to as broad churches but inevitable differences of opinion are treated as pathological. Lazy commentary portraying serious debate as a ‘split’ in a party inhibits genuine debate.  We should encourage policy debates within political parties. Expecting uniformity discourages much needed engagement with complex challenges faced by Scottish society. “I regret the day I compromised the unity of my party by admitting a second member,” quipped the witty republican nationalist Oliver Brown. There is something unhealthy in an uber-united party.

The role of members in policy making has become, at best, attenuated. Party conferences are now rallies with occasional set-piece debates. Policy is determined by the leadership, especially when the party is in power. But while the policy making role has declined, ordinary members now have more say than in the past in choosing the leader and candidates in many parties. They are the selectorate who choose candidates for public office, though rules on eligibility and whether some people are favoured over others are set by the leadership.

This means that tiny numbers of voters decide who will become our MPs, MSPs, and councillors. Ian Dunt, in his book How Westminster Works…and Why It Doesn’t, noted that the British press spends more time covering the Iowa caucus in the US than it does on any pre-election procedures in the UK. In the long lead up to last year’s general election, Michael Crick provided a valuable service monitoring candidate selection across parties in Britain. We need something similar now for next year’s Holyrood election to systematically monitor and report on the rules, processes and local selections that decide who will ultimately serve in Holyrood’s sixth session.

Spare a thought for the poor bloody infantry of democratic politics. But let’s bring these unsung heroes and the decisions they make into the light.