Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ban political parties?

K

kabbes

First intersubjective, then internalised
As regards the general political environment: I'm convinced that it is the presence of political parties that is killing democracy in this country. It creates tribalism and substitutes loyalty for thought.

Imagine a democracy with no political parties at all. You would have to make the effort to really understand what your prospective representatives thought about issues. That means far more penetrating questions and understanding of political issues would be necessary before you knew who you would vote for. And it would mean that candidates would really have to make a case why we should vote for them, specifically.

And when those representatives went to the House, they would have to take a stance on an issue based on what they really believed in rather than being told to be pro- or anti- something just because that is the party line.

Ban political parties now. They do nothing but get in the way of democracy.
 
kabbes said:
As regards the general political environment: I'm convinced that it is the presence of political parties that is killing democracy in this country. It creates tribalism and substitutes loyalty for thought.

Imagine a democracy with no political parties at all. You would have to make the effort to really understand what your prospective representatives thought about issues. That means far more penetrating questions and understanding of political issues would be necessary before you knew who you would vote for. And it would mean that candidates would really have to make a case why we should vote for them, specifically.

And when those representatives went to the House, they would have to take a stance on an issue based on what they really believed in rather than being told to be pro- or anti- something just because that is the party line.

Ban political parties now. They do nothing but get in the way of democracy.
Click to expand...
I assumed that this was how democracy initially worked but that humans natural tribalism evolved it into the party system we now have. Anyone know?
 
How many representatives would you limit the voting to?

Personal representatives, or community ones?
 
I like the idea but when you think about it enforcement could create some problems. People with similar ideas and policies want to talk to each other and work together - and in fact they need to work together in a parliamentary system. At what point do you say it's illegal? When they've had chats over coffee? When they've met a suspicious number of times? When they've developed an informal grouping of likeminded people who almost always vote together? When they hire a policy analyst to do some research for them? When they start raising money to advertise their policy ideas?

Even if you can decide where the line is, enforcement of it would require considerable surveillance. Which I think is why the formation of political parties is generally considered to be protected under 'freedom of association'.
 
How about working the problem from the other side, and try to reduce the power that parties already have?

Scrapping the whip would be a start. Secret ballots for all votes.
 
It's not people collaborating that's the problem, it's elected representatives being prevented from voting with their consciences or having to explore issues for themselves because of the party structure.
Discussion of matters between like-minded individuals isn't the issue, freedom to choose is. e.g. the existence of whips.
 
perplexis said:
It's not people collaborating that's the problem, it's elected representatives being prevented from voting with their consciences or having to explore issues for themselves because of the party structure.
Discussion of matters between like-minded individuals isn't the issue, freedom to choose is. e.g. the existence of whips.
Click to expand...

How do you ensure there isn't a secret whip? And how do you ensure that the absence of whips wouldn't lead to the development of a more subtle but sinister system of carrots and sticks for parties to keep their members in line?
 
I'm really not trying to defend the party system btw. It sucks arse. But I think it's a lot more difficult to get rid of than just saying 'no more parties' or 'no more whips'. People would just find ways round that.
 
Crispy said:
How about working the problem from the other side, and try to reduce the power that parties already have?

Scrapping the whip would be a start. Secret ballots for all votes.
Click to expand...
Don't think secret ballots work. This is different from you or me voting. MPs need to be held to account for their actions by those who voted them in, so every vote they make must be public.
 
The party system sucks - it takes power away from the electorate and puts it in the hands of political parties - but I don't know how much any legislature would be able to get done without it, trying to cobble together agreements on health care etc. from hundreds of representatives sent to parliament with mandates like "improve the parking situation in Luton North" would take forever.
 
Crispy said:
How about working the problem from the other side, and try to reduce the power that parties already have?

Scrapping the whip would be a start. Secret ballots for all votes.
Click to expand...

How the hell would people be able to hold their representatives to account for their actions then.
 
Reprensentation is the problem itself (or participation if viewed from the other side) You can't stop people who hold similiar views or who think they have similiar interets from banding together in defence or furtherance of them - apart from being authoritarian it replicates (and would actually encourage) classic liberal infantile individualism and the myth of freely competing equals let the best man win bollocks. Parties sitting on top of a shit system isn't the main problem, the system that produces them is.
 
Talkie Toaster said:
I assumed that this was how democracy initially worked but that humans natural tribalism evolved it into the party system we now have. Anyone know?
Click to expand...

The party system as we know it is a nineteenth-century creation. Before that there were 'parties,' but they were more shifting alliances of factions than parties in the way we think of them, and there was a lot more scope for MPs to act independently. I think there's something to be said for trying to find a way of getting back to that sort of situation, but brainaddict's put his finger on the problem: where do you draw the line between collaboration and party discipline?
 
butchersapron said:
Reprensentation is the problem itself (or participation if viewed from the other side) You can't stop people who hold similiar views or who think they have similiar interets from banding together in defence or furtherance of them - apart from being authoritarian it replicates (and would actually encourage) classic liberal infantile individualism and the myth of freely competing equals let the best man win bollocks. Parties sitting on top of a shit system isn't the main problem, the system that produces them is.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. My solution would be a parliament chosen by lottery.
 
butchersapron said:
Reprensentation is the problem itself (or participation if viewed from the other side) You can't stop people who hold similiar views or who think they have similiar interets from banding together in defence or furtherance of them - apart from being authoritarian it replicates (and would actually encourage) classic liberal infantile individualism and the myth of freely competing equals let the best man win bollocks. Parties sitting on top of a shit system isn't the main problem, the system that produces them is.
Click to expand...

What alternative would you have as/to a central legislature?
 
Roadkill said:
The party system as we know it is a nineteenth-century creation. Before that there were 'parties,' but they were more shifting alliances of factions than parties in the way we think of them, and there was a lot more scope for MPs to act independently. I think there's something to be said for trying to find a way of getting back to that sort of situation, but brainaddict's put his finger on the problem: where do you draw the line between collaboration and party discipline?
Click to expand...
That's what I thought - it seems unlikely that the party system we have was designed. It seems to have evolved. What's the next stage of evolution though?

I like Crispy's idea about no whipping though ... although all votes should be public knowledge ... can we have one without the other?
 
Idaho said:
What alternative would you have as/to a central legislature?
Click to expand...

i.e who would clean the sewers eh: *prods self in chest*

Within the current set of social relations i don't think it makes that much difference, but there are many models of devolved govt, local intitiative, direct democracy etc that enocourage wider participation.
 
Crispy said:
Scrapping the whip would be a start. Secret ballots for all votes.
Click to expand...

Absolutely essential. How anyone thinks they're getting their views represented when the ruling party has, IIRC, never lost a parliamentary vote is beyond me. Parliament as it stands is a bad joke.
 
Combustible said:
How the hell would people be able to hold their representatives to account for their actions then.
Click to expand...

Do you think we do that now? Your MP will vote as he is told to by the top brass of his party, he doesn't give a rat fuck where you stand on the issue, he just wants to keep his job.
 
Brainaddict said:
How do you ensure there isn't a secret whip? And how do you ensure that the absence of whips wouldn't lead to the development of a more subtle but sinister system of carrots and sticks for parties to keep their members in line?
Click to expand...
Because there'd be no central "party" authorit[y/ies] for the representatives to adhere to, at worst it could become cliquey, if people are socially weak and feel the need for approval from their peers.
Ideally there'd be no motivation for them to organise themselves into party-like blocks because it would have no personal advantage- no better offices, no bigger funds, no army of staff. Each could have that independently of a larger machine. No?
 
perplexis said:
Because there'd be no central "party" authorit[y/ies] for the representatives to adhere to, at worst it could become cliquey, if people are socially weak and feel the need for approval from their peers.
Ideally there'd be no motivation for them to organise themselves into party-like blocks because it would have no personal advantage- no better offices, no bigger funds, no army of staff. Each could have that independently of a larger machine. No?
Click to expand...

No :p Unfortunately certain people are motivated by power even when there is no money attached. And it's not just about people banding together because they are 'weak'. There are practical reasons for it - because otherwise it would be difficult to get anything done.
 
butchersapron said:
i.e who would clean the sewers eh: *prods self in chest*

Within the current set of social relations i don't think it makes that much difference, but there are many models of devolved govt, local intitiative, direct democracy etc that enocourage wider participation.
Click to expand...

In the vain hope of a simple answer - how about describing a model for just the central legislature? Are you saying there would be no central/federal law?
 
butchersapron said:
Yes and we'd all ride unicorns to work in the sewers.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this sums up your contributions to these boards butchersapron. You have plenty of cutting remarks, sarcasm, critical analysis. But beyond that you never get off the fence and commit to anything. It's obvious you are intelligent, but I wonder whether you haven't got as far as positive alternatives in your thinking, or whether you ideas are so fragile that you fear to expose them to discussion.
 
It's more that i know your game every time you ask me a question and it's game i'm not interested in playing today. I'm not going to derail the thread beyond that now.
 
Talkie Toaster said:
I assumed that this was how democracy initially worked but that humans natural tribalism evolved it into the party system we now have. Anyone know?
Click to expand...

It's not so much tribalism per se that causes parties and groups, but the inherent nature of people preferring one idea over another. I realise the difference is a marginal distincation, but i think it's an important one.

Why not let different 'communities' try different ideas with no bias to preference. That way the best ideas work and can be copied where others fail. A little simplistic, but you get the idea.

Dogma is deadly and has to be replaced by the notion that what works is best, not what is to be believed that works. We can see at the moment what happens when the latter is foisted upon billions of people...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Veronika94
What's happened to classic,old-fashioned political scandals?
Replies
27
Views
882
tim
tim
Pickman's model
yvette cooper's pitiful politics
Replies
0
Views
176
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
savoloysam
The Urban 75 Political Party
Replies
14
Views
665
SpineyNorman
SpineyNorman
N
Ever had a negative reaction to a political T-shirt?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
154
Views
7K
LeytonCatLady
LeytonCatLady
Kid_Eternity
Collective - new left wing party?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
153
Views
5K
redsquirrel
R
Back
Top Bottom