Political parties – part of the problem

Lastly in a consideration of ends and means let’s look at political parties. The use of a political party is based on the idea that politics is a competition for control of the state, thus;

  • We have to fight
  • We need to band together
  • We will then win a majority and be able to have our way

If we unpick this in terms of the arguments presented in this book, rather than being a sound way forward it is in fact unlikely to work in the way those who embrace our limited representative democracy and party politics imagine;

  • Firstly, it is combative and not collaborative and so it is constantly reinforcing the behaviours we want to constrain and stopping the development and practice of ones that we wish to promote Note: Cross Party Cooperation
  • It represents an approach to ends and means that is out of kilter and lacks utility. The means may involve dirty tactics to verbal abuse, arm twisting, thinly disguised forms of bribery (offers of or threats to withhold support, preferment and promotion), character assassination, and all the other aspects of s but since these are non-lethal and exercised as part of the democratic process that is seen as ok. If the end is collaboration these ends a peculiar choice. Firstly (by the law of action/reaction) it does not have utility and will not work. Secondly there will (or should) be cognitive dissonance in both the perpetrator and onlooker; if we advocate good behaviour and practice something else we are plain, old fashioned hypocrites.
  • The use of the whip removes the elected representative’s incentive and ability to think through an issue or take their constituents wishes into account: the party line is conflated with electoral mandate in the hope that no one notices
  • It is top down, once elected we have it done to us not with us. None of it will stick – the changes that have become deep rooted in our culture are the ones that at the time seemed like add-ons, equality of gender and sexual orientation. These were in fact the ones that people wanted so the top down change was matched by an appetite to take it up.

The existing political parties may or may not be able to respond to some of this but if they are they are still bound by the iron logic of first past the post. This is no longer fit for purpose. it delivers majority government to a minority of voters, reinforced by the whip and driven by focus groups it is certainly is not delivering good governance. 

  • Labour’s tradition is that it is the parliamentary arm of the labour movement – almost guaranteeing that it starts from a class position is acts competitively
  • The conservatives are traditionally seen as the party of business
  • The Lib-Dems have failed to break through
  • The Greens don’t seem to be taking off
  • The Nationalists of various stripes have specific agendas with limited appeal outside their areas

So ends and means have to be balanced, the means must be in keeping with the ends to have long term utility. This means that practical politics to bring about change has to be conducted differently if it is to have any chance of success. 

We may assume that those who seek power are being honest, they surely want power to do stuff which they think will help. But based on their choice of tactics when subject to the test of utility, they most certainly do not seem likely to lead to more democracy, decentralisation of power, cooperation and collaboration. I credit them with not being stupid. So, the question at issue is this; if we do want those things how can the practice of holistic political economy’s alternative politics be designed in such as was as to introduced it bit by bit from where we are now?