How parties (don’t) protect: Party rules on hindering and handling harassment, intimidation and violence among members, candidates and elected representatives

In light of documented various forms of harassment, intimidation and violence in politics in general, and the #MeToo movement in particular, a pertinent question to address is whether – and how – parties organize to ensure that this does not inhibit their party members’ participation, candidates’ campaigning and elected office-holders’ representation. Did parties like other organizations and workplaces adopt rules and procedures to prevent and handle both the sexual harassment exposed by #MeToo but also the general harassment, intimidation and violence depicted by NGOs and research? And if so, what is the content of the rules and procedures, and how are they expected to effectively prevent and handle harassment, intimidation and violence towards members, candidates and elected representatives in the respective parties? Based on theories of party organizational change, interviews with party representatives and analyses of party documents, the analysis of parties (varying in size, age, number of #MeToo cases, and ideology) in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Germany shows a varied impact of the #MeToo movement on how parties organize, identifying a range of uptake of rules and regulations from no action to rules and procedures on sexual harassment specifically in addition to other forms of harassment and intimidation. Rules and regulations are strongly inspired by common workplace rules and parties are mostly concerned with the intra-party arena, leaving the electoral arena, in particular for candidates, without protection. In sum, parties are insufficiently organizing to hinder and handle the harassment, intimidation and violence which we know inhibit political representation.