Political parties are inherently undemocratic.

[Hazelnut]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I have, for sometime now, been debating in my head whether the British, or any representative political system, is truly the best system to govern a country by. Out of this rather insanity leading debate one question has stuck me over and over, is the system of political parties flawed beyond repair? However, if the conclusion that I keep on drawing is true then the world seems much darker than it should be. I’m fairly certain there is a easy and complete counter argument to be found, however I am too mired down to find it. So I need a fresh mind to find the problem for me, and yes I am aware this has probably been debated a hundred times over, but I am struggling to find references.

Democracy is people power, a representative democracy is a single man acting for the wishes of those he represents.

A political party is a organisation which attempts to form or influence government. This is done by getting its own people elected into government. These people who are elected then act on behalf their party. By voting with their party they do not represent people, but their party and those who fund their party. This is undemocratic, because the peoples voice is not heard.

Yes there are some exceptions but for the most party this analyze is correct, from what I have worked out. I have more detail and points but this is the core of the argument. Any other points are most appreciated.

[I WUB PUGS]

The best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. Saddly, those haven't existed that often and we the people are content to believe that we know what is best for everyone as a whole.

I've become less and less democratic the older I've become. I don't know why this retard should have a say in what other retards are bound to under the law and I sure as hell don't want other retards making laws that govern my life.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The "argument" of the OP is hopelessly non-specific. Political parties will inevitably form in any remotely democratic system. In the case of Republics and representative democracies, I do not know much about the British system. I do know that the US Constitution grants the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances (Amendment I ). That right makes political associations and lobbies possible. Political parties are not arbitrary organizations. They are political interest groups formed by concerned citizens. As the parties grow, they obviously become partisan and bound by powerful interests that may obscure their connection to the individual membership, but that does not make the very concept of political parties undemocratic. In fact the only time a political party is completely undemocratic is when there is only one, such as in any modern authoritarian regime.

The US political system is especially plutocratic and the two-party monopoly makes true democratic discourse increasingly difficult, but your "it is possible to wreck cars therefore cars are bad" argument is far from "correct." You would need to be much more specific and show what you've "worked out" for your argument to have any relevance.

As I said, political parties are an inherent feature of any system with democratic elements. Banning political parties would only be possible in a dictatorship or permanent oligarchy of some kind, or in direct democracy; both of which have been proven much less economically and socially successful by the historical record and the empirical elements of political theory. Dictatorship is only perfectly successful in an expansionist or global government scenario, and that's true exclusively from the "might makes right" perspective. Direct democracy is a disaster, as Greece has proven throughout the millennia. Anarcho-syndicalist collectives only work in the abstraction of Marxist purist theory. Jacobite assemblies only work in the mind of Rousseau. The kind of "benevolent dictatorships" I WUB PUGS wants only exist in the mind of Hobbes. Hence the essential question is not one of political parties, practical application of political theory, or even of systematic theory, but of premise: Can man govern himself?

I would argue that the historical record not only confirms the affirmative, but that man governs best when he governs himself. Man never functions well under absolute authority. The State constantly needs to manufacture fear and confusion in order to keep Man from rebelling. True anarchy cannot exist, because Man is a social being and is sociologically bound to form associations. I would argue that the British parliamentary system and the perfected version, the US Constitution, are the best (not perfect, but best) systems devised to date, as evidenced by the historical record and sociological manifestations of human nature. No system is perfect and none ever will be, but to argue against political associations is to argue against individual self-government, and to argue against this is to argue for societal devolution.

[Vizsla]

There is a conflict in all forms of government between the people and the people with the power. In democracy in theory the people have the power, literally: Demos (people) and Kratos (power).
In practice it never works out that way because someone always has the power and the people who do are always :wub:s.
The fundamental problem is that the kind of person who wants power is exactly the kind of person who should not be given it.
Political parties are a way in which lots of unsuitable people can band together in order to increase their chances of getting power.
So far there is only one solution and that is to make it so that the people with the power have as little as possible. This is achieved with regular elections, a balance of competing hierarchies within the state and different political parties competing for power.

One possible way to improve things further is if we could persuade governments on assumption of power to immediately cancel everything the previous government did except for those things they decide to permit. This would drastically reduce the long-term consequences of being governed by idiots.

[AqD]

So far there is only one solution and that is to make it so that the people with the power have as little as possible. This is achieved with regular elections, a balance of competing hierarchies within the state and different political parties competing for power.

Doesn't work - powerful people always change the system to whatever they want.

The solution is to turn everyone into greedy, power-hungary :wub:s.

[Hobbes]

Direct democracy is a disaster, as Greece has proven throughout the millennia.

Greece isn't even 200 years old.

[mishkin]

vote for a political party that seeks the welfare of citizens, not their own. seems impossible to find a political party like this, but if you (we) are so concerned, you can organize a political party or a social platform (or join an existing one).
unfortunately, in political terms, we usually have what we deserve.

[Arch]

In my dreams the entente didn't win WW1, not destroying the Austrian school and starting the age of populism democracy. It is quite obvious these days that a system where the majority of a vote controls a violent robbery machine, commonly known as the state, for four years isn't really an ideal for long term prosperity and individual rights. It could work with a more direct democratic system whereas people with a taste for power and putting themselves above others wasn't the mechanics of this very machine, like the system of Switzerland which I see as the only really successfull case of this system, but such a system is only possible for relatively small countries.

My thought is that the larger the nation, the larger the individual rights have to be or the nation will have to be decentrialised on a small-community level. The opposite gives us Soviet, modern USA and the European crasheconomies.

[Col. Tartleton]

In my dreams the entente didn't win WW1, not destroying the Austrian school and starting the age of populism democracy. It is quite obvious these days that a system where the majority of a vote controls a violent robbery machine, commonly known as the state, for four years isn't really an ideal for long term prosperity and individual rights. It could work with a more direct democratic system whereas people with a taste for power and putting themselves above others wasn't the mechanics of this very machine, like the system of Switzerland which I see as the only really successfull case of this system, but such a system is only possible for relatively small countries.

My thought is that the larger the nation, the larger the individual rights have to be or the nation will have to be decentrialised on a small-community level. The opposite gives us Soviet, modern USA and the European crasheconomies.

The problem is the trade off of devolution is a loss of influence.

When Britain had an Empire and was friendly to the US the US could stay more conservative but the British vacuum led to an American hegemony.

[King Gambrinus]

I'd like a return to Athenian democracy too. Representative democracy is just choosing your oppressor.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I'd like a return to Athenian democracy too. Representative democracy is just choosing your oppressor.

Oh lord....

[Col. Tartleton]

I'd like a return to Athenian democracy too. Representative democracy is just choosing your oppressor.

You do realize the Athenian government was awful right? Like totally inept.

They'd make military decisions Monday and by Friday a new government would have formed, send word to recall the commanders and have them executed for disobeying new orders...

[King Gambrinus]

Oh lord....

You do realize the Athenian government was awful right? Like totally inept.

They'd make military decisions Monday and by Friday a new government would have formed, send word to recall the commanders and have them executed for disobeying new orders...

The absurdity of the system was the beauty of it...


Seriously though, we now have the means to have direct democracy on most issues.

[Col. Tartleton]

The absurdity of the system was the beauty of it...


Seriously though, we now have the means to have direct democracy on most issues.

The problem was it wasn't really a faceless direct democracy the way an electronic referendum would be, it was an assembly. A few faction leaders called the shots and the mob decided the rest.

Aww. I meant to edit... oh well.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The absurdity of the system was the beauty of it...

Viv' l'anarchie!

Seriously though, we now have the means to have direct democracy on most issues.

Do explain. This oughtta be good

[King Gambrinus]

Viv' l'anarchie!

Anarchism can be more democratic than democracy itself.

Do explain. This oughtta be good

Well, I had the US political system in mind. No need for the delegate system or the college thingy system. Just elect your president on popular vote.

The British constituency system is no better. It means you have "safe" seats that are guaranteed to go Labour/Tory, so any person who wishes to vote for another party in those constituencies might as well draw a penis on his ballot.

Overall, I believe we should be able to have referendums on most key issues this day and age. Maybe not fine print economical decisions, but at least on social and justice issues so people shut up once the popular decision is made.

[MathiasOfAthens]

You do realize the Athenian government was awful right? Like totally inept.

They'd make military decisions Monday and by Friday a new government would have formed, send word to recall the commanders and have them executed for disobeying new orders...

Yep, pretty much. Alciabiades is a prime example.


The founders of the US knew political parties would form but there is very little you can do to oppose them because they are technically just factions within government. To pass anything you need a majority and from there you get factions.

My opinion is the best solution is a parliamentary style election system. If factions are inherently undemocratic then the more factions in power competing with each is better. But once you get down to 2 factions you have less democracy than a government with upwards to 10 political parties.

[Col. Tartleton]

Also, a Democratic system is nearly unworkable. Its hard enough to get 435 people to work together in the house and it's even harder together them to work with 100 other people. It would be impossible to have a functioning government with millions of voters voting in thousands of up and down referendums. You'd still need a guiding governmental force to oversee it. Even if legislation was proposed by petition and voted on by the whole you'd see an even more flaky system than the current one. Brilliant People who do politics for a living struggle to read, understand, debate, compromise, and approve law. How can the uneducated masses, absorbed in the delights of modernity and working for a living afford to do a better or equal job?

Not to mention how democracy can vote away the protections of minorities at will. It's hard to lend counsel to a mob, we aren't all Alexander Hamilton or John Adams. How many of us would really get between a suspected criminal and a lynch mob an harangue the crowd as a bunch of terrorists.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Political parties, the competitive and well structured ones are crazy-filters... Democracies need a large base of voters to function. But in order to LAST they also need at least 2 or 3 political parties who are not only equally able to obtain and maintain power but also technically and ethically prepared enough to keep it within the rules and terms of Democracy(the Liberal Democracy kind).

If a large voters base is a condition for ''continued'' order, a competitive catalogue of powerful and united Political Parties who are willing to be pragmatic and logical are key to ''accountable'' order.



A reasonable number of numerous(as in membership) and well-structured political parties, well structured as in: financed more or less with clean money, with internal cohesion toward a programatic base, control of it's representatives and open(competitive) internal elections tends to generate Poliarchies by operating through the ''Liberalization''(which is basically accountability and responsability) variable.

[Axeman]

All of the main points I wanted to make about factions have already been made in this thread, but if you want to look at some older theories I suggest reading #10 of The Federalist Papers.