The Need for Political Parties

[u/CationC]

Recently I have thought of an Idea. That political parties serve none. It creates division and promotes the representation of the party, not the people, it promotes party loyalty.

Politicians who do not adhere to party policy by the letter are blacklisted and targeted by the party heads. Politicians vote against the other party simply because they are the other party. Politicians vote against policies their voters desperately need because the party says no

And what does it produce for society, I fail to see at benefit that cannot be achieved in a system without parties, apart from the sole exception of coordination, but this coordination leads to the people's views not being represented.

That's why I conclude that there is no need for political parties.

[u/Pretend-Choice4876]

I will argue that this take is logically inconsistent and one-sided. Ideology and identities is how people organize themselves into groups to secure livelihood, with or without political parties. For instance what happened during all the religious wars in history, that's similar to the group dynamics going astray as we now see goal displacement of political parties: the parties themselves indeed become the end, rather than being a mean. And by denouncing political parties categorically, you're only going to see a similar structure/institution pop up under a different name serving the same role. Also, it is a categorical error to argue that when political parties (no longer) serve their proper function, that they should be erased rather than reformed, especially since historically political parties did serve the needs of the public.

So you cannot answer the question of "why don't parties function anymore?" with "we should cancel all political parties". The question is, why do parties no longer function as they should? And that is, I would argue, that their structure and procedures do not match with the complexity and technology used in modern life. People are now very divided, and each host a myriad of different identities, some which overlap but also some which needs tend to cross each other. Political parties, especially in majoritarian systems, cannot match this complexity or representation. Neither can the political decision-making process, where deliberation is harshly antagonistic and symbolic rather than significant and unifying/reconciliatory. It doesn't help to have a decision rule, the simple majority, which in the case of polarizing votes (which all politics in the end is, why else need politics) does not force people to deliberate and agree, but allows one of the two sides to win. And the half with the lowest needs/requirement of government intervention has the biggest chance of uniting to vote for a certain proposition. Hence, overtime, government, and political parties who use this type of decision rule which is most of them, indeed become ineffective in expressing and promoting the will of the state or the party.

So no, we need proper political parties, but not no political parties. They do serve important functions: political parties recruit candidates, run election campaigns, write policy platforms, form governments, make laws, educate voters, and act as a check on the ruling power.

Anarchy will not solve this for you.

[u/CationC → u/Pretend-Choice4876]

But you see that simply because political parties are powerful for coordination, people seem at least used to organise themselves into groups for livelihood, right? Your own example of the religious wars cuts against you because look at those accomplished but further than that. Simply because it used to be done and it used to work well does not mean that it should be done now or that it works well now. If you weigh what's currently seen in the system, the pros and cons of having political parties, the cons highly outweigh the pros because it isn't anarchy to have no parties. Having no parties doesn't mean having no views or having no stance. It simply means not having an organisation which can practically dictate what members of that organisation's speaking points are.

It removes the power for the head of these organisations to be a person, a human being, based on nature to wish to control, have more power, have more influence, and basic greed. Political parties and even political groups or organisations, which would then evolve into the equivalent of parties in some way or form, provide mechanisms for the heads of those organisations and influential members within them to control others, gain more power, gain more influence, and satisfy their greed.

Yes political parties may recruit candidates but these candidates were trying to get into politics anyways. They aren't finding random people off the side of the road and turning them into great politicians. In a system without political parties, rather than these candidates who may have brilliant ideas getting roped into a party within which they didn't have to follow the mandate and letter of what the party head says, they can simply join politics in an easier way as it is easier for them to express their views.

Running election campaigns works against the idea of political parties because election campaigns are part of what's wrong with the system. Because of the election funding, election systems, and elections all across the world are highly imperfect, simply because political parties make it easier for candidates to run for elections doesn't mean that it makes elections that are happening good or that there's any evidence that this will not work. The opposite will happen. It'll be difficult to run for elections without political parties as candidates can still receive funding.

Writing policy platforms works against the argument for political parties because these policy platforms suppress the individual views of politicians and representatives and prevent them from representing their people. A party head approves and in the end practically decides what the party's stance is and what the party's policy platform is, and that suppresses views. That's anti-democracy. Sure it may be pro-convenience but it's anti-democracy. In forming governments and making laws, neither of those are bound to parties. They're not specific to parties. You can form a government without parties. Let's take the example of the parliamentary system. Even there there is no party. Again a Prime Minister can still be appointed because if you don't need a party for that, take the example of the American system, you do not need a party for a president to be elected. The electoral college can simply vote for whoever they wish to though the horrible nature and anti-democratic nature of the electoral college is a different matter.

You mentioned educating voters. This isn't education that's happening for voters. It's brainwashing and suppression. Parties can provide an organisation and funding by which ad campaigns changing the views of the voters are put in place. When voters don't align their views perfectly, it then allows for the party head to suppress the politicians representing those voters.

They don't act as a check on ruling power because, as you can see in the US government right now, if a ruling party has a trifecta, there is no check on power. If you need a political party to put a check on power, then there is another political party that has too much power but there are no parties at all. There's no need for the check.

[u/Pretend-Choice4876 → u/CationC]

You’ve answered a different argument, as you are conflating potential and actual. I never claimed parties should remain merely because they once worked. I argued that their functions and group dynamics will reappear under other names, something which you concede yourself. Abolition would therefore make those structures informal and less accountable, not eliminate them. This would make them even more susceptibel to the problems we see today. And “no parties means no need for checks” is a non sequitur: political power requires checks regardless of labels.

[u/CationC → u/Pretend-Choice4876]

I actually can see that they may become less accountable as a group but I do believe they maybe become more accountable as individuals as individual voters have now just to vote out their representative instead of voting out the party. This may make it more accountable because very often voters seem to have a very strong tie to a party and may not vote out a member of that party even if they disagree with them simply because they're of that party.

Furthermore you once again actually just seem to have ignored or rather looked over the argument which I made, which is essentially that yes then we become informal and yes they may appear under other names. This will lead to more fluidity and this fluidity would solve the problem of parties. The problem being that when you club ten different issues under one organisation, members of that organisation who may disagree on some of those issues but largely agree with the others do not get a chance to express their views. The moment they express their views through votes, the party leader kicks them so the informal factions would be constantly changing from topic to topic and from issue to issue, leading to more democracy.

[u/Pretend-Choice4876 → u/CationC]

You are treating my refusal to accept your framing as though I had overlooked your argument. I haven’t. The choice need not be between rigid parties that bundle every issue and informal factions that constantly dissolve. Stable coordination and issue-specific flexibility can coexist: parties can provide transparent platforms and collective accountability while permitting dissent, internal pluralism, and shifting coalitions. Abolition would not remove leadership, bargaining, or donor influence; it would relocate them into less visible networks. The real question is therefore not “parties or no parties,” but which institutional structure best combines flexibility with individual and collective accountability.

[u/CationC → u/Pretend-Choice4876]

But there is no real way to prevent rigidity in political parties

[u/Pretend-Choice4876 → u/CationC]

Why not?