What use are political parties?

Political parties have been around for so long now that it is seldom that anyone stops to ask, ‘What is their purpose? Why do we have political parties?’ and more importantly, perhaps, ‘Do we need political parties?’

I want to suggest that, not only do political parties serve no constructive purpose, they are actively inimical to democracy and we should outlaw them altogether.

Political parties in Western democracies, are generally agreed to spring from the Petitioners and Abhorrers (later, by adoption of the derogatory terms that opponents used to belittle them, they became known as Whigs and Tories) of seventeenth century England. And it’s all been downhill from there.

The cheery website of the Parliamentary Education Office (“Educating Schools, Students and Teachers about Parliament”) pushes the line that political parties aim ‘to have members elected to Parliament so their ideas can affect the way Australia is governed’, which is rather like describing a pederast as someone who ‘cherishes time spent with younger people and enjoys introducing them to new ideas and practices’.

Political parties are piratical bands, united only by self-interest, which aim to have members elected to Parliament to protect and further their interests. The one thing all political parties have in common with all others is that they seek to make the common wealth of the Commonwealth less common and more particular.

The objection might be raised that some parties—especially the so-called single issue parties—are not seeking large scale redistribution of wealth, but are only concerned to have a particular concern addressed, but this is a naïve objection. All political parties start life as ‘single issue’ parties. There is always one underlying, fundamental issue or concern used to amass support. The reason is simple: you cannot chant a manifesto. Once a political party has its slogan, has its single issue audience, those who lead the party expand its policies to cover the entire range of their self-interest. Its supporters, whose only concern is the single issue they have rallied behind, continue to support the party because they continue to identify themselves with that single issue.

Whether you accept my view of political parties or not, however, should not determine your position on whether we should continue to allow political parties to exist. You may believe that some parties are led by some people who are well-meaning, honest, and motivated by a love of their fellow humans or love of their country. I cannot prove you wrong. Nonetheless, I would ask you to explain how it helps democracy to flourish to allow citizens to form bands of interest. How does this advantage democracy? And if it doesn’t advantage democracy, why should we permit it?

Remember that political parties only sprang into existence at a time when parliamentary democracy was a pale and weakly bairn. Parties – the Petitioners and the Abhorrers – formed in order to ensure the people’s voice was heard. Conditions have changed. We live in a society with a literate and informed population which has an expectation of having their voices heard, and there are ever more, and ever more effective, means of individuals expressing their opinions. Allowing formal aggregations into political parties can only stifle variety of opinion. How does that assist democracy?

Most frequently, when people attempt to justify the existence of political parties, they avoid talking about democracy and talk instead about governing. They think it would either be impossible to form a ‘stable’ government without party allegiances, or ‘the same people would group together in an ersatz political party anyway’. Neither of which, if you consider it, is much of an argument.

In Australia we have had ‘stable’ (read: moribund) government for much of our post-colonial history, but that has largely been as a result of a very limited number of political parties and our system of preferential voting for the lower house, which means that if my preferred candidate is not elected, my second preference is counted and if that candidate is not elected, my third preference is counted, and so on. In this system, candidates with extreme views are generally winnowed out, leaving the fight between the two candidates judged least objectionable by the whole electorate. It’s not a bad system, actually. But the stability of the governments thus created has nothing to do with the political parties involved. If you look at the experience of other countries, you will find that the least stable governments are those where two, three, or more political parties try to form government. We have the illusion of stable government formed by one of two major parties, but this has been due to the absence of other political parties. In other words, the existence of political parties lessens the chances of stable government.

The second objection is not an objection at all. If ‘the same people would group together to form an ersatz political party’, then you have lost nothing by outlawing political parties; but you provide yourself with one huge advantage: the candidates who group together in a loose coalition will not feel bound to ‘follow the party line’ if they happen not to agree with it. Imagine if every locally elected candidate were free to represent their local community honestly. In Australia, political parties sometimes allow certain contentious issues to be decided in Parliament by a ‘conscience vote’. This is clear evidence of the hostility of political parties to democracy. Surely every vote cast in Parliament ought to be cast as a conscience vote!

People sometimes make the argument that voters ‘vote for their parties’. This is a hardly a reason to keep them, however. It is, on the contrary, a powerful reason to do away with them! Reducing a complex decision to a choice between two or three poorly understood alternatives may make it easier to make a decision, but it does nothing to ensure one makes the right decision.