The Internal Organization Level: How ‘Democratic’ was ND?

Abstract

Studying the early years of the German Social Democratic party, Robert Michels made his most often-quoted proposition on internal party organization: to speak of organization is, inevitably, to speak of a tendency to oligarchy.¹ Yet when applying this dictum to the early years of ND development, we are confronted with something of a paradox. After the end of military rule and the return to democratic politics in 1974, it was precisely the undisputed leader of ND, together with his ‘oligarchic’ inner circle, who actually urged that serious attention be given to the organization of the nascent party and, to a significant degree, became its real driving force.² At least at the formal level of inner party developments, most initiatives for the organization of ND originated from the top leadership of the party rather than from its grass-roots. This is remarkable, especially when taking into account the exceptionally high degree of charismatic popularity that the ND party leader commanded. Although there is considerable osmosis between charisma and oligarchy, the former concept is absent from Michels’ analysis. This may be because (following Weber) charisma is generally thought of as incompatible with organization.