Even if a party is exceptionally disciplined and hierarchical, conflicts in local chapters and among local members is basically unavoidable. The conflict could be about anything: who gets to run for a specific position, or whose policy position will prevail in an important local issue. If the party is wide enough, there will surely be some basic ideological conflicts – but that is the nature of parties that want to grow and govern. Sweeping these problems under the rug, or solving them by brute force won’t work. These disputes have to be constructively addressed by party leaders, for which we provide some insight below.
Understanding the nature of local conflicts
Let’s say a local conflict gets so serious that it reaches the level of the party’s board. The first task is to find out exactly what is behind the conflict. It could simply be about a political position, but that is not enough information. It could be about the political influence, or, sadly, it could be simply about the money that comes with the position. Solving these is hard, and some bad blood will surely remain between the parties involved.
The dispute could also be about some local policy goals or decisions. Local representatives can be very passionate about policy disputes: an important part of their identity is to make their constituency better.
Or it could be about something deeper than policy disagreements: disagreements based on ideology. That is much harder to solve, but the party’s ideological direction can come in handy.
These types of conflicts are never easy to solve – party leaders tend to avoid them when they can. But if they remain unresolved, they can break the whole party. One good example is how Hungary’s once-dominant party, the Socialists (MSZP) were unable to either integrate or push out the party’s former prime minister, Ferenc Gyurcsány. In the end, Mr Gyurcsány waited for the right opportunity to leave the party – mostly – on his own terms and founded a new party, which is currently in the process of absorbing MSZP.
High-level intervention: when and how
Maybe the most important criteria is that serious local conflicts cannot be solved by party operatives or lower level politicians. The party’s President, Vice-President or another high-level, well-known politician and their charisma is needed to successfully solve local conflicts. Sending a party operative could even backfire, if local chapter members feel that they are not taken seriously enough.
Of course, not all conflicts should be solved on a higher level, as it would drain the time of the most important party leaders and operatives. Local (e.g. county-level) leaders should have enough political power within the party to be able to solve most of these local disputes without involving the party’s board. That means they have to be viewed by local members as the extended arm of the party’s leadership.
Local leaders should almost always try to solve the conflicts without involving party leaders, but have to notice when their problem-solving methods hit a wall. Escalating a conflict to the party’s board is not about whether the conflict is about ideology, policy or political position. It is much more about the level of risk – if one party is threatening to quit, or leak some information, or otherwise looks like he or she will go rogue, it’s time to involve the board.
Keeping conflicts local and confidential
Conflicts should also be kept local, and be solved before any other chapter in the party learns about them. Gossips about local disputes can spread fast, and it could affect other party members’ motivation.
Fostering unity through external campaigns
If the local conflict causes bad blood among members, basically splitting the chapter into two, consider starting a local campaign against an external ‘opponent’, for example against the local government and some unpopular plans. There is no better way to develop team spirit than an actual campaign on a divisive local issue.
Every party leader knows how, in the last few weeks of every campaign, all members put aside their internal disputes to focus on the common goal. With enough political will, that can be replicated outside of campaign periods.
There is a very fitting Hungarian example, although it was about how parties opposed to Viktor Orbán came together to form a joint coalition for local and national elections. Although opposition parties and their base were wary of each other (especially the formerly far-right Jobbik and the party of former prime minister Ferenc Gyurcsány, DK), at the end of 2018, these parties facilitated a huge protest wave against a proposed law dubbed ‘Slave Act’.
The law almost doubled the maximum number of overtime hours that can be issued by companies, which led to the first joint opposition protests. Even though Jobbik’s politicians once talked about how Mr Gyurcsány belongs to jail, and DK called Jobbik a Nazi party, the parties were able to mend their broken relationship by protesting against the government. There they were together on a stage, a few months after saying that they will never cooperate with one another.
Seeking external conflict resolution expertise
If all else fails, seek outside help: conflict management experts with experience in politics can arrive in a politically heated situation without any prejudice and emotion, providing guidance and support.
Outside help might be needed even if a party’s president and most liked leaders cannot solve a local conflict. If neither a carrot nor a stick works, and the local chapter is on the brink of splitting into two. Another sign is when the gossip has reached completely unrelated local chapters and politicians, and the local conflict is consuming the party’s internal communication channels.
Of course, any conflict management professional won’t do the trick – politics is much, much different than some multinational company. Make sure you find someone who has a track record in a political setting, or at least in the field of NGOs.
