new parties need friendly institutions, anti-Islam parties don't have it

Submitted by myth (Germany), Jul 17, 2016 at 09:37

When new parties appeared in Europe's politcal arena, those who had the support of friendly institutions could establish long term election success. The Social Democrats across Europe enjoyed mutual support from trade unions. The Christian Democrats were affiliated with organised churches as well as big business lobby groups. When the Greens rose in the seventies, they too could count on institutions such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International and various local environmental groups.

What is the benefit of affiliated institutions to political parties? Institutions as single issue organisations can attract attention to that issue whereas a party must make political sacrifices, betray the issue, to serve the broad spectrum of policies. Institutions can put an idea into practice in the absence of legislation. Institutions can get people actively involved in one political issue without the necessity of being a memeber of a party.

The new anti-Islam parties lack affiliated institution. That's why I believe they will fail.

Following that thought I wonder why Europe does not have any audacious anti-Islam insitutions at all. I have in mind, just as an example, say an institution that would specifically support jihad victims. Or say an insititution that would actively support free speech in muslim countries.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".