So from the public there are cultural, technological and economic pressures which prompt a desire for change. For major political parties this is a problem, but for smaller rivals it is an opportunity.

And from the policy perspective there is a sense that change is needed because existing systems lack the capacity to tackle the big modern issues.

This three-pronged challenge must mean a looming crisis of social and political legitimacy.

The 2003 Norwegian Study of Power and Democracy reflected on the decline of mass membership parties in that country and concluded that representative democracy may not be sustainable. It warned:

"A structure of links between the people and their representatives is falling apart, and what remains is the people on one side of the field, their representatives on the other side, and a void between them." [i]

Microparties can help to fill this void, but such a change will still fail to provide a solution given the impossibility of accommodating dozens, possibly hundreds, of such organisations within representative bodies.

So this means that even the wider choice of microparties may fail to address a point raised by Parvin and McHugh (2005):

"Many people no longer recognise the relationship between process and outcomes, contributing to a decline in the public's perceived efficacy of electoral participation which has severely weakened a central link in the 'causal chain' that connects citizens to their national legislature: the vote." [ii]

One suggested means of tackling the decline in participation has been the strengthening of local government, on the grounds that it is closer to the voters, more responsive and more accountable. But this continues to miss the problem that elections at a local level offer the same choice between a handful of parties as elections at a national level.

So the decline in participation and engagement will continue, and this may in turn prompt even greater disenchantment. As Andrew Russell (2005) has said:

"Of course, falling turnout illustrates the most obvious manifestation of lack of participant culture, and low levels of voting may be either the cause or symptom (or indeed neither) of a deeper malaise in British democracy. It is possible that low levels of turnout beget lower levels of turnout as the legitimacy of political institutions and the practice of voting are brought into question." [iii]

So there may be no way of avoiding this crisis, yet this is not something to fear. 

As Weinberger wrote in Everything is Miscellaneous, what matters most of all is that there is a process for participation and change. The old voices of power do not need to be the new voices of power.

"It's not who is right and who is wrong. It's how different points of view are negotiated, given context, and embodied with passion and interest.

"Individuals thinking out loud now have weight, and authority and expertise are losing some of their gravity."

And this dovetails with one of Anderson's points; that as individuals find new forms of self-expression and come to rely less on the old forms of authority, their satisfaction actually increases.

"Best-sellers tend to appeal, at least superficially, to a broad range of tastes. Niche products are meant to appeal strongly to a narrow set of tastes.

"That's why the filter technologies are so important. They not only drive demand down the Tail, but they can also increase satisfaction by connecting people with products that are more right for them than the broad-appeal products at the Head."

So people will want to move away from main parties and down the tail to the niche parties because they will be more satisfied as they do so, finding policies which more closely mirror their own views.

Why stand in the way of greater voter satisfaction on the basis of 'tradition', especially as the traditions look both anachronistic and ineffective?

The parties of today get their support because the political system is the equivalent of a small bookstore. It insists there is 'no room on the shelves' for more than a few bestsellers.

Choices are deliberately kept unavailable, and the traditional media, the parties and state institutions that nominally exist to serve the public interest have instead developed a shared interest in excluding other voices.

The fact that the media might profess independence or neutrality is neither here nor there. That it ignores, in the UK, the sixth largest grouping of votes indicates its inherent conservatism and bias towards to the status quo.

The media as it exists now is a deeply flawed means of mediating between the democratic options available and the public.

Polling evidence indicates the depth of public unhappiness with existing forms of governance. In the Hansard Society's 2009 Audit of Political Engagement just 33 per cent of Britons said that the present system of governing Britain works 'mainly' or 'extremely' well. In contrast, the number saying it could be improved 'quite a lot' or 'a great deal' stood at 64 per cent.

"There has been a gradual decline in satisfaction with the present system across the Audits, and the number of respondents who believe the current system works well has decreased by three percentage points since the question was asked in the first Audit  [in 2003]." [iv]

The internet will not only ease the creation of more parties but also help people realise they are much better represented by these niche parties. They are recognising it in other areas, and it's only a matter of time before the same principles are applied to politics.

The electoral and political systems are attempting to hold back the tide – partly because it will not be in the interest of those currently in power to lose it forever, and partly because those on the outside are hindered in gaining access to the existing system.

At some point, when turnout is low enough or when an even larger share of votes goes to candidates who are not represented within political structures, there will be a crisis of legitimacy. Profound structural and constitutional change will be needed if states are not to break down entirely.

Footnotes:

[i] Norwegian Study on Power and Democracy, quoted in Rogers, B. (2005), p. 606.

[ii] Parvin, P. and McHugh, D. (2005), p. 654.

[iii] Russell, A. (2005), 'Political Parties as Vehicles of Political Engagement', Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 58 No. 3, p. 556.

[iv] Hansard Society (2009), 'Audit of Political Engagement 6 – The 2009 Report', p. 4. Available at http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/1755/download.aspx [January 17, 2010]