DRAFT Attending Political Parties Congresses Michel Perottino Faculty of social sciences, Charles university in Prague.

Transcription

1 DRAFT Attending Political Parties Congresses Michel Perottino Faculty of social sciences, Charles university in Prague Introduction Political parties are classically analysed from the point of view of their organization, their membership or their programs for instance. One of the most important (at least symbolically) moment of their existence seems nevertheless to be hard to understand and to explain: we are speaking about the party congresses. How shall political scientist cope with this quite ephemeral moment. In reality the congresses are quite different not only from a party to another (considering quantitative and above all qualitative criterions), but also from time to time. This paper is a result of a more than ten years research and analysis of forty Czech political parties congresses we attended to (ODS, ČSSD, KDU-ČSL, Greens, KSČM, TOP 09, and so on). 1 At the beginning, the aim of our interest in the Czech party congresses was to analyse classically the evolution of Czech political parties mainly in terms of elites discourses and programmatic. But starting with the first congresses in 2004 (KSČM and ODS), it was very astonishing to note the absence of political scientists during such events (except those colleagues linked to the party which held the congress, as we will see below) and the fact that at that time the people who know really the parties from inside were the journalists 2. We will present here a general perspective, starting with the common principles (especially those given by the law, but also by the organizational needs) and present the specificities of those congresses in the frame of a more general theory. The legal frame (legal obligations) should play an integrating role, as each party has to respect some general rules, but our observations shows that the parties are very different indeed and not only in terms of programmatic or voters. The party organisations differ quite hugely and this is to be seen during party congresses. The first assumption of this paper is that the congress is not only a meeting more or less formal of delegates giving to their party a day or two in a week end, but that it is a sort of condensed reality of what the party is, even if it has some specificities that have to be taken on mind (especially due to medialization of the event 3 ). The second assumption linked to the first 1 Congress, rallies or conferences: we will use the term of congress in this paper also even in Czech there are some different words used too (sjezd, sněm, kongres). All in all we will speak about the same type of event considered by the parties themselves as the highest (collective) organ from which derives legitimacy and power. 2 Today the situation is nevertheless completely different even in this respect. About ten years ago, some journalists were specialized on one or two parties and work on and with them continually, today the changing situation within the Czech media implicate that almost nobody is so specialized. 3 Our long term observation lead us also to some other (secondary) findings, especially on the question of the way the medias do their work and a quite important change of the media coverage (diminution). But this should be quite specific to the Czech realities. 1

2 mentioned is that each party has its specific congress rules. Some of these rules are formalized some are not, and therefore it is important to be on the place (studying the written is not sufficient). Some details should be more important than they appear at the first glance and should bring interesting light on the reality of the concerned party. The third assumption is quite classical (starting at least from R. Michels): the elite will try to maintain their domination on the party and the congress is also the moment to affirm, to confirm or to reinforce this legitimate domination. In this paper we will focus on the congresses of Czech political parties we attended in the last twelve years, especially by focusing on major parliamentary political parties, especially ODS, KDU-ČSL, ČSSD and KSČM. These parties are present quite constantly 4 in the lowest chamber of the Czech Parliament (the Chamber of deputies) during the last more than twenty years (they are also constantly in the Senate). To these parties we will add some other parties that are interesting considering their long existence (the Greens) or their practically longest existence than it appear at the first sight (TOP 09) or last but not least a party that is claiming its newness and a non-party character (ANO 2011). This paper will not directly deal with the question of intra party democracy, nor it will develop the topic of parties programs, even if some aspects of these problems should be evoked. Our aim will be to present some finding related to classical party theories, especially starting with the mass party ideal-type and ending with the business firm party, on the basis of an anthropological observation of these specific moments which are the party congresses (in a sort of continuation of the works of Marc Abélès in general or Florence Faucher-King who works more specifically on political parties and conferences/congresses). The main assumption will be that the original party layout does matter; especially in the sense of A. Panebianco s paradigm and that the direct observation of party congress shall lead to interesting results not only in terms of struggle, power or ideology, but also in terms of organizational layout and party identity. Considering the theoretical framework, we start from the classical party theories and ideal types, especially some of them: the mass party, the catch all party and their cartelisation process (or let say the cartel party). It seems also relevant to use the model of electoral-professional party, but at least in the Czech cases we should assert without problem, that all the parties are a sort of a mix of various models, even if some genetical layout stay relevant (at least as persistence of some historical specificities that should be seen as identity elements carried by the party organization). The very specific case of ANO 2011 lead us to use also the model of business firm party, even if there some specificities that have to be taken into account. Last but not least we emphasize also the idea of party change, using both Panebianco and Harmel and Janda works. As we will try to explain the observation of Czech parties congresses lead us to this result which is maybe not so innovative indeed, but support and enlighten in another way some classical theories and approaches. 1. Basic information about Czech political parties 4 The KDU-ČSL didn t pass the threshold in 2010; but managed to return in the Chamber in the next elections in 2013 (being the first party to succeed its return to the Chamber). 2

3 Our starting point will be here a sort of historical point of view. Today existing parties should be divided into some general categories depending on their period of apparition. From this point of view the oldest existing party will be the social democratic one (Česká strana sociálně demokratická, 1878), even if, of course this party has change a lot since its apparition. One of the major problem of this point of view will be the fact, that this party was fused within the Communist party in April 1948 and re-emerged in Nevertheless the continuity is now broadly recognized and it is symbolically underlined by the numeration of the party congresses: the last one in 2015 was the 38 th. 5 Heavily cartelized and professionalized, but this party still have some classical social-democratic aspects (especially its linkage to the Unions) and it conserves some feature of a mass party. This party is historically one of the most dominant of the Czech political scene with the ODS (see below), and it is actually leading the government coalition. The second formally oldest party is the Christian-democratic KDU-ČSL (Křesťanskodemokratická unie-československá strana lidová). The ČSL was created in 1919 on the basis of some local catholic party organisation. It present the specificity to be the only party to have been present in the government of the different Czechoslovak-Czech regimes (notably during the communist period, when the party was one of the existing parties of the National front). The systemic change after November 1989 has not broken this party, it has mainly changed its elite and some ideological aspects, and its story goes on. The only real challenging moments were when the KDU-ČSL lost his leader Josef Lux ( ) and when the Christian-democrats after a split of the elite (and the creation of a new party we will see below, the TOP 09), it does not pass the threshold of 5 % and was evicted from the lower chamber of the Parliament for three years. Since 1989 it has an average result of 7 to 10%. This very classical party of the center is also cartelized, and even it claims that it is not the pro-catholic or religious party it was in the past, some features remain very specific, confirming that the party is still strong in the rural and mainly catholic areas of Czech republic. The last but not least historical party is the communist party of Bohemia and Moravia (Komunistická strana Čech a Moravy). Formally it was created in 1990, but in reality it is a party in continuity with the former Communist party of Czechoslovakia created in 1921 after a split of the Social democratic party. Its average result is about 12 % and it is the only party to have deputies since the beginning of the renewed parliamentary regime, even if it was never in the government after the transformation (the Social democrats in 1995 adopted a resolution in order to avoid any cooperation with the Communists on the national level). The Czech communist party is specific in the frame of the Central European parties as it is the only former ruling party to survive (even if it was seen during the 1990 s as unsuccessful due to the fact it was not able to social-democratize ). This party claims always its workers nature, but as we will see the situation is quite obviously different. Paradoxically, even if the party is rejected by all the other, it is quite specifically a part of the Cartel. One thing is also evident from the research ground : Czech communist are no longer revolutionary. 5 The congress of renewal of the ČSSD was held in Prague in February 1990 as the 24 th. This congress was held in Břevnov where the party was originally created in The renewal has not only symbolical dimension but also practical and financial). 3

4 Another group of parties is constituted by those parties which were created during the beginning of the Czech transformation. Considering only those which still exist on the parliamentary level, this group has only two members : the Greens (Strana Zelených) and the Civic democratic party (Občanská demokratická strana). The Greens are in fact the oldest party in this group. The party was created in the late 1989 on the basis of some environmentalist groups. Its beginning was quite good, but very quickly the party was in trouble and was not able to pass the 5% threshold. The situation began to evolve after 2002 and the party get not only into the lowest chamber of the Parliament in 2006 but also in the government. Even if the party has some affiliated senators, this was its only real success. Some features of the Greens are quite specific and for instance their democratic approach is very well confirmed by their congresses. The ODS was created in 1991 on the basis of the former large movement Civic forum. The main figure (founding father) was and to some extend still is Václav Klaus, now well known not only thanks to his presidency of the country ( ) but also as one of the Eurosceptics. The party has grown as the main governmental party until 1997, when part of it tried to eliminate the President and Prime Minister V. Klaus. He nevertheless win and his critics has to leave the party (and form another similar conservative-liberal party without the Eurosceptical basis). The ODS was since 1991 to 2013 the second dominant Czech political party. The crisis of the ODS after 2013 certainly changed the party in some of its important aspects, especially considering the leaving of a considerable part of its elite and one can say, that the ODS was not really able to face this crisis. In the last elections in 2013 the ODS was cruelly defeated (its result was only 7%) and it is still in the phase of restart under the presidency of Petr Fiala (a professor of political science). From the point of view of congresses, the ODS is specific by the number of congresses organized (the last was the 27st congress), and it was one of the first parties to differentiate voting and programmatic congresses. Finally the third group consist of those parties which were created in the last years (practically the last decade). This group is quite heterogeneous because one party is de facto a creation (mainly) of former Christian democrats who have knowledge of how to do and to make a party work and after the creation of the party how to maintain the leadership within it. The party TOP 09 6 was created to compete during the early elections in These elections were nevertheless aborted by the Constitutional court (the deputies shortened their mandate unconstitutionally) and the party have to survive one year before its first election. From the very beginning of this party it was formally leaded by Karel Schwarzenberg, but really controlled by Miroslav Kalousek, a former president of the Christian-democrats, a very well-known and criticised politician who became finally president of TOP 09 in In the second case the situation is on one hand more blurred (a large part of the members are former members of other parties across the political scene) and on the second hand quite singular and obviously specific due (the party is hold by a businessman and it is almost classified as a business firm party): ANO The party, claiming the need for a real political 6 TOP is an acronym for Tradition, Responsibility, Prosperity, 09 means the year of foundation: ANO is an acronym for Action of dissatisfied citizens, it means also in Czech yes and one of the slogans of the party was Yes, it will be better, which is also the web address of the party: anobudelip.cz. 4

5 movement against the corrupted parties, was created officially as a civic initiative, but was from the very beginning leaded by the businessman Andrej Babiš. The pillar of ANO 2011 is the agro industrial group Agrofert, which still heavily finances the party (not only Agrofert as itself, but also numerous firms from the holding), help in this work by some firms involved in the agricultural industry 8. The party is composed not only of Agrofert s people, but also of members coming from other parties (namely ODS and ČSSD mainly). Nevertheless, as we will see, the party is under the control of its leader (president, main figure and minister of Finances). ANO (Action of Dissatisfied Citizens) ČSSD (Social democratic party) KDU-ČSL (Christiandemocratic party) KSČM (Communi st party) ODS (Civic democratic party) TOP 09 Creation (recreation ) Ideology In the CD Number of members 2011 Liberal (?) (increasin g) 1878 (1990) Socialdemocrat 1919 Christiandemocrat 1990 (former CzCP: 1921) 1991 (split from the platform Civic Forum) 2009 (partly created from KDU- ČSL members) Communis t Conservati ve Conservati ve (stable) 1989 (exce pt ) (decreasin g) (decreasin g) (decreasin g) Electoral result (2013) Governm ent since 2000 Congress periodicity 18, years 20, ; ; years 6, years 2006; ; ,91 never 4 years 7, Each year at least , years 8 The Agrofert holding owns also the media group Mafra (mainly daily news Mladá fronta Dnes and Lidové noviny, but also TV Barrandov). Even if it is not possible to say, that Babiš directly influences his media, it seems that at least there is a sort of auto censorship which in some cases help to interpret news in a certain way 5

6 Zelení (Greens) 1989 Environm entalist , Each year at least 2. Party congresses from a general point of view Czech political parties congresses are quite different indeed and practically there is nothing that unite the practices but the law on political parties, which doesn t define any precise rule or obligation, nor the principle of democratic functioning of the parties. The congresses are from this point of view the highest realisation of the idea of intra party democracy. There is nevertheless nothing that could be compared for instance with the British parties conferences (see Faucher-King 2005). The first basic point is of course that all parties (not only parliamentary ones) are based on the principle of distinction of party organs. The Congress is always the supreme authority. This means, above all, as we have already indicated that the Congress discuss and approve the most crucial decisions: especially who will lead the party and possibly how will look like the party program. Although de facto programmatic documents production should be conferred to other formalized or less formalized party institution especially the expert committees and eventually the party leaders notably if there is an externalized process. Nevertheless the congress usually should allow the definitive and official version of electoral or more broadly general political program of the party. Actually, in the Czech case the programs are generally speaking the result of diverse intraparty process, in some cases the party (ODS or TOP 09 for instance) can organize ad hoc programmatic conference 9. The Congress has, as we will see also other dimension, but it is logical to start with just these relatively well-known statement stemming from the party statutes, possibly from other documents arising from the statutes. The congress is of course a very complex reality, beginning quite long ago before it takes place. We have to take on mind that a congress means also programmatic debates on lowest levels, definition of the basic rules concerning the delegates and their designation, but also, and as we will see it should be very important, the decision on where will be hold the congress. The party congress is typically included between plenary authorities (along with membership meeting basic party organization or regional conferences) and it is logically presented as the highest body of the party. All the congress has a minimal temporality, starting from one congress each year to each four years in the case of the communist party. It is officially convoked by the leading collective organ, eventually it should be convoked in advance (extraordinary congress) if there is a proposal coming from below (this means a demand coming from a large part of local organizations). All in all the congresses are presented as the highest level of intraparty democracy, even if the reality, as we will see, should be quite different. 9 In the case of the ODS, the programmatic conferences are a very interesting topic, showing to some extend the internal situation of the party: the very first conference occurred in 1999 (ie. after the crisis of 1997) and one the most important step was the definition of the eurorealistic program (Eurosceptic). After that the party organized some other programmatic conference without any rhythm or logic nor intraparty problem solving. 6

7 Usually and logically the delegates are selected in advance, democratically by the party members on local levels, on the basis of number of delegates defined by the leading organs. The rules are indeed constant, given by the statutes, but the head of the party decides of the number of delegates. This number logically differ from a party to another but also it should vary in time mainly for political reasons. The decision of the head to restrict the number of delegates should be legitimated by financial reasons, or on contrary the head should enlarge the congress for symbolical reasons (ČSSD in 2015 enlarged the congress to 752 delegates. This means 110 delegates more than the previous congress. This number has to be noticed also considering the quite small number of members of this party. In this respect the social-democrat congress should be seen as highly democratic (in terms of representation of the party basis), but in fact the number doesn t reflect the real situation and the capacity of the members to influence the situation (especially in the case of the members who are delegates for the first time) and the congress therefore turn to a great show 10. To some extend the effective number of members (the effectiveness) of a congress is various and quite specific to each party. Some party members are directly nominated as delegate without ad hoc vote on the local level: the party leaders (head of the party, members of the collective leading organ, MEP) are automatically delegate with all delegate s rights (participate in the debates, vote). The party managers designed by the head should have the status of delegate but without the right to vote. The parties always allow a number of hosts, mainly these are important members of the party or sympathizers, eventually people elected under the banner of the party. They also use to invite representatives of allied parties but also for instance ambassadors. Hosts are allowed only to hear the congress debates (even eventually when the congress decide to evict the media for a while). In some cases some of the hosts are invited to present a speech (this decision is practically in the hand of the steering committee which prepares the program) and in some cases (for instance the KSČM or the Greens) hosts can ask questions or present a speech. In the case of the Greens we should note a very democratic practice, when the rank member can attend the congress and ask request to speak. In such cases the congress (the delegates) vote and eventually allow such an intervention. In this part we should also differentiate the parties on the basis of who participate in the congress steering committee and more generally the congress staff: some parties rely on volunteers coming from the local party organization which has to support the staff designed by the centre. It is especially the case of the Communist party or the Christian-democrats, this means parties with the largest membership. Partly it will also match with the Social-democrats or the Greens, even if in the case of the firsts they prefer to hire the services of local company and the seconds have too little basis to rely on. This nevertheless should be very different from time to time and in some cases the congress organization should be partly professionalized (practically in the hotel where the congress take place). This solution is financially challenging but much more secure in some practical details, and give the central office better control over these tasks. By doing this the congress should lose its spontaneity and partially identity. In the case of the ODS, the long term practice is to rely on externalization, even the stewardesses are not member of the 10 And the most important aspect of this congress for the delegates was the food (problematic distribution, taste and so on). 7

8 party and practically just hold the doors. TOP 09 rely on trainee who are generally not members but ideologically very close to the party, namely close to the party leader and his staff. After the official beginning of the party congress (all the parties play the Czech national anthem), it deliberates and votes the congress organizational rules, the congress leading organ (at least the moderators) and the program. The personal part should be more important than the delegates imagine, and there are quite differences between congresses leaded by people who have the knowledge of how a congress function, what have to be done and how, and those who cannot rely on such experienced people. Another practical factor of smooth functioning of the congress is the experience of the delegates themselves and their will to discuss as we will see. The adoption of the congress program is often also a strategic point, especially if the party has to elect a new direction: election first or discussion first should give completely different result and therefore sometimes happen a very hard struggle on the program schedule. In all these aspects the head of the party have a strategic role and can influence the development of the whole action. The delegates also formally adopt the voting rules specified in the congress organizational rules. The practical main difference between the parties is in the possibility to use modern technics. For instance the Greens use electronical device allowing to choose three possibilities (yes/no/abstention), and even if they use such apparatus for a quite long time, there is always some delegate who didn t understand the system and ask for an explanation at the end of the congress.. This very modern voting system should be nevertheless difficult to practice for the oldest generation of delegates. This type of voting system offer in general an almost automatic answer. The election of candidates in diverse function are nevertheless classically done on paper. Delegates get candidates list, chose on the paper their preferred candidates and throw the list in the ballot box. After a given time the boxes are taken by the voting commission which count the votes. In the case of TOP 09 is maybe one of the more progressive party: the delegates vote on tablets (they have first to get a code in a sealed envelope and then to enter their individual secret code in the tablet to get the possibility to vote). Naturally these voting rules are not only formal or objective. One of the question involved is also the image of the party as far as these topics should be seen as interesting for media which will present them to the large public. But the main aim is at least to favor the image of intraparty democracy. These rules will not play an important role if the delegates understand the principles and if they are able to use such mechanisms. Nevertheless even there should be an opportunity to see some atopic practices. The problem is classically for the leaders to maintain their dominance and for the intraparty opposition to gain better position. As we will see some details should matter much more than we should a priori think, especially the spatial layout. But we have to emphasize for instance the decision of the Social-democrats to avoid some practices limiting the principle of the secret vote: they asked the delegates to give up their mobile phone when they enter the voting booth. This decision was justified by the fact, that some delegates photographed their bulletin in order to prove to their regional boss they voted as they have to do. This is of course an extreme situation, but the observation of the delegates behavior tend to support the hypothesis of regional voting and of the control of the voting by party managers (not only in the case of the ČSSD). This point has to be linked not only to the question of ideal 8

9 type party (ie. the difference between mass parties and for instance electoral professional parties), but also to the problematic of party membership (see Van Haute 2011) and the decline of the role of the party members (Van Biezen, Mair and Poguntke 2011 for instance). Formal aspects of congresses can only hardly help to define ideal type specificities on the base of the classical political parties theories. The only formal difference should be the long period between two congresses. It is quite short (from one to two years) in the center-right parties (ODS, TOP 09) which should be seen as modern cadre parties or electoral professional parties. The long period is quite obvious considering the Czech communists who stay on a classical model of a very long time period between congresses (four years). This should be also the situation of the Social democrats, even if the period is not so dramatically long. This didn t nevertheless match with the Christian-democrats, but this mismatch should be eventually explained by the internal problems they have and the fact that it should be hard to find a stable coalition within the party. Such an explanation is nevertheless too weak and we have to look at the congresses in another way. The periodicity differs from a party to another, the average periodicity is two years, but it should depend on the internal situation of the party and the need to solve a heavy problem: classically it should be the change of the leader or leading group, especially after elections, but it should be also a way to solve dramatic internal problems. This was especially the case of the KDU- ČSL (after the split of 2009) or the ODS (mainly after 2013). In some cases the party have more than one congress in a year (ODS and the Greens). The only real exception on the long term is certainly the KSČM, even if at the beginning of the 1990č it has shorter periodicity than a decade later. In 2005 the party leader resigned (M. Grebeníček) and he was officially replaced by the congress in What should be seen during a congress A show We have to start with the presentation of the program of the party, of the elite (eventually the groups of elites or fractions). These points are practically very often presented in the medias, some times it should be caricatured by them, but some other interesting phenomena and realities should be also seen. The very first condition to apprehend them is to be present during the party congress Our basic hypothesis is that we should analyse the party congresses not only to see how a party evolve (program, elite and so on), but also to point out some more general and deepest phenomena of the party life and party organizational layout. This point is more or less linked to the classical ideal types of party organization, this means mainly cadre, mass and eventually catch all party, but also some newest ideal types such as modern cadre party or business firm party. These ideal types are to some extend underlined by the phenomena of cartelization, which should be also pointed out in some aspects. Of course, as mentioned Florence Faucher, parties use their main conference as an opportunity to project a positive image and to promote their key politicians (Faucher 2003), this is also 9

10 true in the case of the Czech political parties congresses. Naturally almost all the parties try to cooperate with media and to promote their own interests especially in terms of image (with the exception of the extreme right). For instance all the considered parties frame their congresses in the media time schedule in order to be able to present their elites (and programs) at the key moments (TV news). If the congress for a reason or another is unable to match with this type of necessity, the leaders should leave for a moment the debates in order to have a live television appearance. Parties also try to be very users friendly for the media (of course not only during their congress), even if there are quite important differences between the parties and in time. It depend also on the way the different media refer about the congress life. But generally speaking event those parties who have problems with the ways some media cover their activities will try to do their best during their congress (even if the coverage will be depending on the news of the day, the parties doesn t have such a priority, even the biggest ones). The question of the relation parties-media (especially leaders-media) is also an opened question that should be the subject of a deeper research 11. In our case, we should point out at least one atypical situation: in 2008 the Greens have their congress in Teplice. It was a time of trouble for the party, especially due to the fact the Greens were for the first time in the lowest Chamber of the Parliament and in the Government and the leaders (namely M. Bursík) faced a large opposition within the party. The Bursík s group used various formal congressional techniques and informal practices in order not only to win, but to crush the opponents. The result was one of the worst congress experience we have seen leading to the certitude that any other party would have been severely criticised for using such practices (and claiming to do the opposite), but at that time the Greens have a large capital of sympathy among the journalists and the media coverage gave a very slightly objective result. The congresses (electoral or programmatic) are mainly the moment when party s elites present themselves and their ideas. In almost every cases their speeches are available online, but a speech is also a performance and there is a very large space for behavioural analysis. For instance some people have very different capacities to speech in front of a camera (especially on TV or during a TV debate) and in front of an audience. One of the most interesting cases in the last years are the public performance of Petr Fiala, now Head of the ODS, a professor of political science. He can talk very warmly, sharply and meaningfully, even apparently without a paper, in front of party delegates, but his appearance is completely different on TV, where he appears as very boring speaker. This difference should explain different vision of ODS leader in and out the party. Let say also that some parties give the possibility to the speaker to use a teleprompter and read his speech without a paper. This type of technique is nevertheless quite expensive (but this appreciation should be relativized considering the general costs of a congress) and require 11 Generally speaking both journalists and party leaders need each other, but the actual situation is now slightly in favour of the media, even if the situation should be rather different from a party to another (especially if we take into account the specificity of Andrej Babiš and ANO 2011). This should be inverted in the case of the ministers of the Government because they can block the information sources for the specialized journalists (these are almost also specialized on some parties). 10

11 specific skills or at least drill for the speaker. It is also quite ineffective in the case of a small party congress. Considering the speeches of the leaders, we have to underline another important dimension requiring the presence of the political scientist (or sociologist) in the congress room: the speech is a more or less real dialogue between the leader and the delegates. More or less because in the case of the less important leaders or speakers some delegates should leave the room, but in general, in the case of the most important people and key moment almost all the delegates are listening. And the way they listen is also very important key of understanding the intraparty life. The reaction (positive, negative or even neutral) has to be seen in situ. To look at the retransmitted speech (online or on TV) give a completely different result in the sense that we can t logically see the reaction of the audience. This is also true if we think about the local reactions: traditionally the delegates sit during the congress at table divided region by region and sometimes there are regional reactions that should reveal local dissonances and specificities 12. Once again, there is a (huge) difference between the speech (the words) and the people. For instance, once again in the case of the ODS, everyone will tell that it is a conservative (or liberalconservative) party, and this should be proved looking at the programs and the speeches of the elites. But Petr Fiala in one of his first speeches talked about the necessity for the party to do a contra-revolution of the ordinary people. These words, the mention of a contra-revolution, that should be understand as a trial to get back to the traditional conservative identity, were ineffective not only for the ordinary people (the voters) but also for the delegates. These seemed during the congress unable to understand what the notion of contra-revolution means (we heard some delegates asking if P. Fiala means contra- the Velvet revolution of November 1989). This type of mismatching should be seen only on the moment and it is naturally a very ephemeral moment. The behaviour of the delegates and the guests have to be analysed even if it is naturally a difficult scientific task, highly depending on the tools we use. For the moment we shall at least point out other important details linked to the congress realities. For instance it is quite important to track the organisational dimensions of the congress, especially the routine of the congresses (mostly in the case of the parties who organize frequent congresses, in the Czech case the ODS and the Greens), the capacity to use the knowledge of some people (the more there is a high personal turnover, the most the congress shall be erratic and therefore problematic). On the other hand the preparation of the congress should be also crucial and give to the party leaders dominancy that should be strategic. One of the most important key is given by the predefined program of the congress, which should be modified by the delegates, but it gives a small advantage to the first deciders: most of the delegates are people without experience and they mainly follow few people they trust (regional leaders, party leaders) and their capacity to change the program is very small indeed. For instance there was a game concerning the program during the ODS congress in 2014 in Olomouc, when Petr Fiala was elected. There was a short 12 The map of the tables give also very quickly an idea about the regional coverage (the dominance of some regions). 11

12 but hard discussion on the point of what has to be first: the election of the new direction (people first) or the political discussion (ideas first). The election stay first but it was quite obvious that a change in the program should weaken the chances of Petr Fiala to be elected. From this point of view the game was largely done after the refusal to change the congress program. In general it happens quite often that there is a first round on some technical and uninteresting questions that might be boring for a large part of the new delegates. It is not always obvious that it is a trial, but the result of such tests should be important for the leaders in order to know what their practical possibilities are and where eventual problems to solve lies. In some parties nevertheless such opportunities are practically absent (for instance TOP 09 and mainly ANO ). The question of who governs the congress is one of the most important (in some ways it is another form of the classical question of the intra-party democracy applied to the congresses). It is logically linked to the knowledge and knowhow of congresses rules, but also on the capacity of the party leaders to control at least a small group of people. Generally it will be a group of people of the permanent party staff, sometimes personally linked to the head of the party. Here it should be interesting to focus on the TOP 09 party. First of all during the congresses it was quite obvious that the president (K. Schwarzenberg) was not the most important man in the place and that he played only the role of an interesting image for a part of the voters. The power was in the hand of the founder of the party, M. Kalousek, and he was finally elected president of the party in Few people around him (J. Poláček, P. Severa) help him to conserve the control over the party in general and the control of the congress in particular 14. This fact is quite well known in Czech republic for everyone interesting in politics, but even those were quite astonished by the fact that during the congress delegates picked up in small baskets and wear badges with the text I Kalousek, even if the party used for electoral purposes similar badges with Schwarzenberg... During the last congress, K. Schwarzenberg was elected president of honour of the party, but he was less surrounded and helped than two years before, when he was the main figure of the party. These details also very often disappear from the media reports. The observation of the case of ANO 2011 give us also very interesting result based mostly on the reactions of the people present in the hall during the congress. Almost every journalists focused on the result of he election of the president and founder of the Party, but the fact that he practically assured the re-election of his vice-president (all the counter candidates take back their candidature leaving Faltýnek being the only candidate) was much more important or the comprehension of the functioning of the party than the almost 100% result of A, Babiš. Babiš was also constantly present during the congress doing a sort of self-control of his own party (even if he claim of course that the party is a collective work, he later assumed that first his 13 This is the actual situation, but in the case of ANO 2011 it was largely different some years ago, when A. Babiš underestimated the capacity of his opponents within the party (and more generally he underestimated the formal aspects of the intra-party democracy). This leaded to critical moments during the congress in 2013 and to dramatic solving at the last moment. 14 The congress of TOP 09 is a quite secondary event considering for instance the fact that even the delegates are able to vote a shortening of their speech time in order to finish the congress as soon as possible. 12

13 party is a party and not a movement but mainly that it is his own party 15 ). This is also one of the possibilities how to track the reality of a business firm party type. The question is also linked to the problem of the chair of the congress and his/her/their capacity to lead the debate in accordance with the party statutes and congress rules. The party which organize frequently congresses ordinary have some few people who are accustomed to fulfil this moderating role. This is particularly true in the case of the ODS (namely Filipová and Zahradil). They should also be backed by some specialized people who are able to present a legitimate interpretation of the formal rules. Paradoxically the communist have sometime difficulty to control their congress and for instance during the last one the chairmen were not always able to lead the debate without losing control over some delegates. TOP 09 shows another model, when the pair of moderators (one man and one women) can rely on the indication they receive from the congress manager sitting in the background with his staff and communicating through pc. Practically all the parties use the same basic model, when delegates sit in front of a stage. In some case they don t sit at table but in an auditorium (this type of configuration means that the delegates are expected only to listen some speeches). The classical model is based on the principle of communication between all the congress actors, especially delegatescandidates/elites. The clash of the ODS after 2013 and the change that occur in the party after this date (not only the change of the president, but mainly the flew of numerous members and especially the experienced ones) leaded to the will to renew the congress format, to bring a modernisation (practically a modernisation brought by new people without the knowledge of the ancient members and therefore without the party and congress culture or identity). The main change was in the discussion that take place at the end of the congress, when members of the head of the party sit in front of the delegates. The idea was to promote a new form of relation, but even if it was used at least two times, the result was on contrary to create a new barrier that doesn t exist before between the plebs and the elite, the delegates and the head of the party, with too artificial communication (in a sort of a show moderated by the press spokesperson). The idea nevertheless shows to be to hard do implement successfully especially because it was too far away from the long-time used practices and give a counter productive result. The place where the congress is held is also quite important and it should interfere. Most of the (former) mass parties tend to choose towns in the regions in order to show that they are not prago-centered, and in most of cases they use classical building for such massive encounters (this means with the capacity to host three or four hundred delegates), especially local Houses of culture (Dům kultury) existing in all major but also smallest towns in Czech republic. This allows also to solve in the same time the problem of catering. Another classical way to is to organize the congress in exhibition centres (mainly Prague and Brno). Another way to solve practically all on one place is to hire a biggest hotel with congress facilities, but the number of solution is in this case a little bit more complicated and above all financially very costly. In the 15 One of the greatest question about ANO 2011 is what will happen after Babiš leave it. From our point of view the perspective is quite obvious (i tis the party of one man having the capacity to control everything important, he finances it, and the party is not sufficiently institutionalized for the to survive the leaving of Babiš). 13

14 case of the ODS the solution was for some congresses given by the Clarion hotel in Vysočany in Prague, obviously with better costs arrangement. The mass parties try to pay for the accommodation of the delegates (and all the expenses but the alcohol) but most of the other parties organize just the reservation and the delegates have to pay fees. The hotels have another advantage: there is a lot of quiet spaces to prepare the vote, to secretly deliberate and so on. By the way we should also try to differentiate the parties by considering the catering (from the one-two dishes for everyone in the mass parties to the banquet of the electoral professional ones). Another important aspect of the congresses is that it is also a sort of show for the party itself. This means that it should be a place where the party present itself for itself in the sense of the presentation of the party milieu, its identity (mainly by focusing on the long term evolution, on the development phases of the party, its leaders and so on, but also the organizations directly linked to the party) or the party world (mainly the European party). This is particularly true in some cases, such for instance the Christian-democrat KDU-ČSL sometimes presenting a very large panel of more or less Christian associations and organisations. Last but not least, if we speak about the party identity, it will not be very surprising that communists will sing the International anthem 16, or that the Greens and some other parties will stand and listen the Ode to joy and manifest therefore their attachment to the EU. But for instance the delegates of the KDU-ČSL will not only receive officially the information about where and when they should attend the mass in the town where is held the congress, but they will also sing one the oldest religious anthem, the Saint Wenceslas Chorale. Even if they will argue very vehemently they are not so linked to the Church as they were in the past. ANO 2011 gives us another point of view concerning the party milieu: the great panel with the names of donators. The biggest investor remain A, Babiš himself, but a lot of firms of his holding also donate and some other firms linked to the agricultural sector also. These information quite relevantly emphasize the fact that this party is a business firm party, even if there should be some specificities. The Social-democracy is also a good example of the interest of a direct observation allowing to see better what the real party is: during the congresses the party give the possibility to the organizations from its milieu to present themselves (and invite them to do so). It is obviously not for the external public nor the media but only for the internal information. It is an opportunity for the friendly organisations (more or less formalized, from the factions up to the labor unions) to show, to present their products (programs, books, individuals) and try to attract new people from the ČSSD. It is especially interesting in the case of the Unions which are traditionally linked to the party. It is really interesting because the party obviously has succeeded to renewal boundaries that existed before the Second World War and constituted one of the most important feature of this party. These boundaries of course disappear for almost forty years (at least after 1948). The linkages between the ČSSD and the Unions (namely 16 In reality, the songs should be interesting also: on the first of may and other traditional celebration, Communist sing the Czechoslovak anthem, considering they are still in favour of the former common state. The congress is nevertheless a different official moment that have to respect the law in such detail. 14

15 ČMKOS) are evident and well known (the leaders of the Unions use to candidate on the party lists), but the evidence from the party meeting (and especially the congresses here) indicate clearly a symbiosis party-unions that doesn t exist in other parties. The other party that try to show during its congresses such a social base is the Communist one, who invite not only Unions but also for instance associations like the association of Retirees or the group of former border guards. This party nevertheless much more emphasise it international relations and the presence of members of other communist parties (German, French, Russian, Ukrainian and so on) and the representatives of embassies (China, Cuba, Vietnam or for instance North Corea). The last example of specific identity should be the children corner or place that we might seen at almost all the Greens congresses. Conclusion The possibility to attend political parties congresses is always a refreshing possibility to confront the reality (realities) with the theory (theories). The vigour of Panebianco paradigm (the genetical approach) is quite obvious, as are pregnant other theoretical works. The fact is that even if the parties have the tendency to adopt similar solutions face to face with the medialisation of the political life or their cartelization, and naturally the imperative of the domination. They stay much more than formally attached to their organizational culture that influence their practices. The observation of parties congresses enlighten very clearly some persistence of ideal types even if almost all the parties are practically very deeply cartelized (even the Communist party, which have never participated to the government since 1990). We should put apart the culture of mass parties (ČSSD, KSČM, KDU-ČSL) even in the case of the party that disappeared for almost forty years and therefore we shall not obviously wait a continuity (the Social democracy). Other parties are very (extremely) democratic (the Greens, with all the positive and negative implications it have for the congress and the organisation), some very personally oriented (the ODS and TOP 09, each in its way). The weight of the power is very present in some cases (and times) for the two dominant parties (ie. the ČSSD and the ODS, the congresses are also the moment when a lot of people that are not members try to get some advantages). The congresses are also the moment when formal and unformal structures and power are maybe the most visible and tangible. The congresses are nevertheless also very ephemeral moments when only anthropological approach can give key for the understanding of the functioning of the party. References Abélès, M. (2000). Un ethnologue à l'assemblée, Paris : Éd. Odile Jacob. Aït-Aoudia M. et al (2010). Enquêter dans les partis politiques. Perspectives comparées, Revue internationale de politique comparée 17 (4), pp