NationStates Jolt Archive

Unfortunately, they aren't, of course. However, I thought it would be interesting to see what people would think of political parties being completely abolished. Now I understand this applies mainly to residents of the United States, but I know that it does in a few other countries as well. I wanted to see what people thought of elections that were more than two sided (or possibly more or less depending on your country of residence). So by all means, please, give me your opinion, argue, enlighten me.

Unfortunately, they aren't, of course.

Some are. Many countries have abolished Nazi parties for instance. In several countries there is only one party.

I wanted to see what people thought of elections that were more than two sided (or possibly more or less depending on your country of residence). So by all means, please, give me your opinion, argue, enlighten me.

It is perfectly possible to have political parties and more than two sides. Hell, many coalition governments consist of 3 parties with 5 or so in opposition.

You are very right. Like I said, I am sort of mainly talking about the U.S. however narrow-minded that may make me. It just seems to me that in some places it's become too much about the politics and no longer about the welfare of the country and it's citizens. I do realize however that in many cases political parties are fully supported by and do help the citizens of that nation, of course. This isn't exactly supposed to be an ultimatum, I just thought it would be an interesting prospect to consider.

You are very right. Like I said, I am sort of mainly talking about the U.S. however narrow-minded that may make me. It just seems to me that in some places it's become too much about the politics and no longer about the welfare of the country and it's citizens.

What do you mean when you say it has become too much about the politics?

Politicians main concern for the most part is themselves I'm afraid. Take away the party system I think it may get even more corrupt ( if thats possible) although I agree I feel the US needs to break the two party stangle hold it has on US politics

Unfortunately, they aren't, of course. However, I thought it would be interesting to see what people would think of political parties being completely abolished. Now I understand this applies mainly to residents of the United States, but I know that it does in a few other countries as well. I wanted to see what people thought of elections that were more than two sided (or possibly more or less depending on your country of residence). So by all means, please, give me your opinion, argue, enlighten me.

With poltiical parties abolished then It wouldn't be ademocracy , So the better question Is what do you people think of your goverment reforming and choosing a new status?

With poltiical parties abolished then It wouldn't be ademocracy , So the better question Is what do you people think of your goverment reforming and choosing a new status?

It wouldn't? How so?

With poltiical parties abolished then It wouldn't be ademocracy , So the better question Is what do you people think of your goverment reforming and choosing a new status?
My country has political parties only for formality's sake, they don't mean a thing, but we are called a democracy.

Unfortunately, they aren't, of course. However, I thought it would be interesting to see what people would think of political parties being completely abolished.
You are invited to my country and see how lack of political parties would most probably mutate the political system into personality-driven politics, which, IMHO, is a lot worse. Without political parties where people can associate with like-minded individuals and help form ideas, governing would be up to individuals and whoever people in power who incidentally agrees because it is in his/her best interest.

With poltiical parties abolished then It wouldn't be ademocracy , So the better question Is what do you people think of your goverment reforming and choosing a new status?
You can have a non-partisan democracy. The Nebraska legislature is nonpartisan, various Swiss Cantons are nonpartisan, local governments are mostly nonpartisan. There's nothing to say a country can't do it at the national level either.

THE PARTY

The party is a contemporary form of dictatorship. It is the modern instrument of dictatorial government. The party is the rule of a part over the whole. As a party is not an individual, it creates a superficial democracy by establishing assemblies, committees, and propaganda through its members. The party is not a democratic instrument because it is composed only of those people who have common interests, a common perception or a shared culture; or those who belong to the same region or share the same belief. They form a party to achieve their ends, impose their will, or extend the dominion of their beliefs, values, and interests to the society as a whole. A party's aim is to achieve power under the pretext of carrying out its program. Democratically, none of these parties should govern a whole people who constitute a diversity of interests, ideas, temperaments, regions and beliefs. The party is a dictatorial instrument of government that enables those with common outlooks or interests to rule the people as a whole. Within the community, the party represents a minority.

The purpose of forming a party is to create an instrument to rule the people, i.e., to rule over non-members of the party. The party is, fundamentally, based on an arbitrary authoritarian concept - the domination of the members of the party over the rest of the people. The party presupposes that its accession to power is the way to attain its ends, and assumes that its objectives are also those of the people. This is the theory justifying party dictatorship, and is the basis of any dictatorship. No matter how many parties exist, the theory remains valid.

The existence of many parties intensifies the struggle for power, and this results in the neglect of any achievements for the people and of any socially beneficial plans. Such actions are presented as a justification to undermine the position of the ruling party so that an opposing party can replace it. The parties very seldom resort to arms in their struggle but, rather, denounce and denigrate the actions of each other. This is a battle which is inevitably waged at the expense of the higher, vital interests of the society. Some, if not all, of those higher interests will fall prey to the struggle for power between instruments of government, for the destruction of those interests supports the opposition in their argument against the ruling party or parties. In order to rule, the opposition party has to defeat the existing instrument of government.

To do so, the opposition must minimize the government's achievements and cast doubt on its plans, even though those plans may be beneficial to the society. Consequently, the interests and programs of the society become the victims of the parties' struggle for power. Such struggle is, therefore, politically, socially, and economically destructive to the society, despite the fact that it creates political activity.

Thus, the struggle results in the victory of another instrument of government; the fall of one party, and the rise of another. It is, in fact, a defeat for the people, i.e., a defeat for democracy. Furthermore, parties can be bribed and corrupted either from inside or outside.

Originally, the party is formed ostensibly to represent the people. Subsequently, the party leadership becomes representative of the membership, and the leader represents the party elite. It becomes clear that this partisan game is a deceitful farce based on a false form of democracy. It has a selfish authoritarian character based on maneuvres, intrigues and political games. This confirms the fact that the party system is a modern instrument of dictatorship. The party system is an outright, unconvincing dictatorship, one which the world has not yet surpassed. It is, in fact, the dictatorship of the modern age.

The parliament of the winning party is indeed a parliament of the party, for the executive power formed by this parliament is the power of the party over the people. Party power, which is supposedly for the good of the whole people, is actually the arch-enemy of a fraction of the people, namely, the opposition party or parties and their supporters. The opposition is, therefore, not a popular check on the ruling party but, rather, is itself opportunistically seeking to replace the ruling party. According to modern democracy, the legitimate check on the ruling party is the parliament, the majority of whose members are from that ruling party. That is to say, control is in the hands of the ruling party, and power is in the hands of the controlling party. Thus the deception, falseness and invalidity of the political theories dominant in the world today become obvious. From these emerge contemporary conventional democracy.

"The party represents a segment of the people, but the sovereignty of the people is indivisible."

"The party allegedly governs on behalf of the people, but in reality the true principle of democracy is based upon the notion that there can be no representation in lieu of the people."

The party system is the modern equivalent of the tribal or sectarian system. A society governed by one party is similar to one which is governed by one tribe or one sect. The party, as shown, represents the perception of a certain group of people, or the interests of one group in society, or one belief, or one region. Such a party is a minority compared with the whole people, just as the tribe and the sect are. The minority has narrow, common sectarian interests and beliefs, from which a common outlook is formed. Only the blood-relationship distinguishes a tribe from a party, and, indeed, a tribe might also be the basis for the foundation of a party. There is no difference between party struggle and tribal or sectarian struggles for power. Just as tribal and sectarian rule is politically unacceptable and inappropriate, likewise the rule under a party system. Both follow the same path and lead to the same end.The negative and destructive effects of the tribal or sectarian struggle on society is identical to the negative and destructive effects of the party struggle..

where i come from (jersey) there are no political parties (not coherent ones anyway) and the vast majority of candidates are independents. works well enough, but then jersey is very very small. i don't know if it would necessarily work on a larger scale though. i'm an advocate of local autonomy though so, yeh.

With poltiical parties abolished then It wouldn't be ademocracy , So the better question Is what do you people think of your goverment reforming and choosing a new status?

that's not true. if anything parties obstruct democracy by sticking to party ideologies rather than acting on their promises that got them elected.

i dont see what good would come from abolishing political parties.

wouldnt they just re-form under a different name so that they could wield enough power to get their legislation passed?

and if you found a way to keep that from happening, doesnt it just give MORE power to the rich and powerful since there would be no organization to keep legislators in line?

its hard enough now to keep the various democrats in congress together enough to pass the things that need passing. how would it get done without the party to organize and put pressure on them?

where i come from (jersey) there are no political parties (not coherent ones anyway) and the vast majority of candidates are independents. works well enough, but then jersey is very very small. i don't know if it would necessarily work on a larger scale though. i'm an advocate of local autonomy though so, yeh.
Do candidates form factions or groups around who to elect as Chief Minister, and help other similar candidates get elected to the States, out of interest? I'm wondering whether a nonpartisan system would develop into a partisan one naturally.

With poltiical parties abolished then It wouldn't be ademocracy , So the better question Is what do you people think of your goverment reforming and choosing a new status?

I don't exactly see how it wouldn't be a democracy, but I would definitely support changing the status quo of our government, sure.

You are invited to my country and see how lack of political parties would most probably mutate the political system into personality-driven politics, which, IMHO, is a lot worse. Without political parties where people can associate with like-minded individuals and help form ideas, governing would be up to individuals and whoever people in power who incidentally agrees because it is in his/her best interest.

You make a very interesting point there. It is definitely possible that without political parties to be loyal to then the candidates will shift loyalty to themselves rather than the citizens.

its hard enough now to keep the various democrats in congress together enough to pass the things that need passing. how would it get done without the party to organize and put pressure on them?

Also a very good point, you sort of have to weigh and prioritize things. It would indeed be a more troublesome process to actually pass things, but once you do get all those different legislators to agree on one things, it has got to be pretty good.

What do you mean when you say it has become too much about the politics?

What I mean is that a lot of politicians will, for example, make tons of promises that will get them elected into office, but most of those are never acted on, and if so with a certain lack of "enthusiasm". Politics, to me, should be about guaranteeing the country's welfare rather than beating the other party(ies).

Do candidates form factions or groups around who to elect as Chief Minister, and help other similar candidates get elected to the States, out of interest? I'm wondering whether a nonpartisan system would develop into a partisan one naturally.

there's been more of that recently i think, but i've been away for a while and there's been a complete overhaul of the system so i'm not entirely sure how it works now. there's not really been any sort of coherent partisan movement except around this one guy called Senator Vibert who was a dodgy character who had to leave australia after some shady dealings in politics. the guy's in a mental institution now, not sure what's happened to his 'party'. mostly it's just individuals pushing for their own policies, there's to many egos really for anyone to support anyone else. occaisionally some giant charismatic ego like Vibert comes in and causes a ruckus but mostly everyone keeps everyone else in check i think.