Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The No Party State

  • 10-05-2012 7:55pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 122 ✭✭


    Now we all know that single party states are an absolute no no. On the other hand with multiple parties there's the problem of indecisive and incompetent coalition governments. I'm wondering then, if there were no parties how would it play out most likely?
    It should theoretically rule out the coalition government problem and the authoritarian threat in one go, but it also removes pointless competition and would (hopefully) force politicians to band together. Through this more attention could be given to problems and issues resulting in more satisfactory conclusions.
    Would the loss of inter-party competition actually undermine these possible benefits and would the loss of a party's collective consensus weaken a potential no party government's resolve?


Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,212 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    EDIT: Moved to Politics main forum from Political Theory.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 174 ✭✭troposphere


    Wouldn't you just end up with a lot of rich people getting elected because they could finance their own campaigns?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,159 ✭✭✭mrkiscool2


    Have to agree with the comment above! You'd just have a load of rich people trying to push through legislation that helps them and screws the poor. Also, big issues such as Social Welfare, Health Reform and Education could fall through the gaps in a no-party system.


  • Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭Fergus_Nash


    Now we all know that single party states are an absolute no no. On the other hand with multiple parties there's the problem of indecisive and incompetent coalition governments. I'm wondering then, if there were no parties how would it play out most likely?
    It should theoretically rule out the coalition government problem and the authoritarian threat in one go, but it also removes pointless competition and would (hopefully) force politicians to band together. Through this more attention could be given to problems and issues resulting in more satisfactory conclusions.
    Would the loss of inter-party competition actually undermine these possible benefits and would the loss of a party's collective consensus weaken a potential no party government's resolve?

    Are you talking about 166 Independent TDs?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭Chazz Michael Michaels


    Wouldn't you just end up with a lot of rich people getting elected because they could finance their own campaigns?

    Why not a cap on campaign spending, correctly regulated? While we are tearing the floorboards up, we may as well add a few rules to prevent such issues.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭Chazz Michael Michaels


    Now we all know that single party states are an absolute no no. On the other hand with multiple parties there's the problem of indecisive and incompetent coalition governments. I'm wondering then, if there were no parties how would it play out most likely?
    It should theoretically rule out the coalition government problem and the authoritarian threat in one go, but it also removes pointless competition and would (hopefully) force politicians to band together. Through this more attention could be given to problems and issues resulting in more satisfactory conclusions.
    Would the loss of inter-party competition actually undermine these possible benefits and would the loss of a party's collective consensus weaken a potential no party government's resolve?

    Are you talking about 166 Independent TDs?

    Yes, I think he is. It could possibly work, but not under our current ways of thinking. So some outside the box thinking is required to discuss this one, I think.

    I am interested in seeing how this thread pans out. Hopefully it won't descend into a shambles like every other thread on here.

    I can dream, can't I?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    Would the loss of inter-party competition actually undermine these possible benefits and would the loss of a party's collective consensus weaken a potential no party government's resolve?
    We would have to come up with a new name for this system, lets go with 'Representative Democracy'.

    Ideally, this would be a step closer to direct democracy (with the safety net of the constitution). TD candidates would have no party to carry them, they would have to stand on issues and principles. With the parties gone, voters would have to think about how to vote based on whose issues and principles match their own.

    As for the government functioning, we don't need a Taoiseach.

    The president can do the meeting & greeting while the various departments are run by committees. Every elected TD required to sit on at least one department committee (and show up for work or no paycheck). Within the committee, decisions are made (after debate) on a simple vote.

    All votes on all issues to be published, so we know if they're voting against their election mandate.

    Yes, I've thought this through before.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭Chazz Michael Michaels


    Gurgle wrote: »
    Would the loss of inter-party competition actually undermine these possible benefits and would the loss of a party's collective consensus weaken a potential no party government's resolve?
    We would have to come up with a new name for this system, lets go with 'Representative Democracy'.

    Ideally, this would be a step closer to direct democracy (with the safety net of the constitution). TD candidates would have no party to carry them, they would have to stand on issues and principles. With the parties gone, voters would have to think about how to vote based on whose issues and principles match their own.

    As for the government functioning, we don't need a Taoiseach.

    The president can do the meeting & greeting while the various departments are run by committees. Every elected TD required to sit on at least one department committee (and show up for work or no paycheck). Within the committee, decisions are made (after debate) on a simple vote.

    All votes on all issues to be published, so we know if they're voting against their election mandate.

    Yes, I've thought this through before.

    Reading that, you can see why no TD and most party followers would ever want it. Too much work in making decisions for both.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    Now we all know that single party states are an absolute no no. On the other hand with multiple parties there's the problem of indecisive and incompetent coalition governments. I'm wondering then, if there were no parties how would it play out most likely?
    It should theoretically rule out the coalition government problem and the authoritarian threat in one go, but it also removes pointless competition and would (hopefully) force politicians to band together. Through this more attention could be given to problems and issues resulting in more satisfactory conclusions.
    Would the loss of inter-party competition actually undermine these possible benefits and would the loss of a party's collective consensus weaken a potential no party government's resolve?
    Parish pump politics FTW.

    Though wouldn't a two party system avoid both problems. No coalitions governments, and no absolute powers.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭Chazz Michael Michaels


    sarumite wrote: »
    Now we all know that single party states are an absolute no no. On the other hand with multiple parties there's the problem of indecisive and incompetent coalition governments. I'm wondering then, if there were no parties how would it play out most likely?
    It should theoretically rule out the coalition government problem and the authoritarian threat in one go, but it also removes pointless competition and would (hopefully) force politicians to band together. Through this more attention could be given to problems and issues resulting in more satisfactory conclusions.
    Would the loss of inter-party competition actually undermine these possible benefits and would the loss of a party's collective consensus weaken a potential no party government's resolve?
    Parish pump politics

    I hate that term. This forum seems to be obsessed with it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,627 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    mrkiscool2 wrote: »
    You'd just have a load of rich people trying to push through legislation that helps them and screws the poor.


    Isn't that what we already have?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭sarumite


    I hate that term. This forum seems to be obsessed with it.

    I don't actually think its the term but what it represents. I personally don't care either way about the actual term. If you have a better way of describing the type of politician who uses populists local issue while campaigning to hold office at a national level then I will be happy to use that instead. Not really sure if its worth getting bent out of shape over the specific terms people use.


  • Registered Users Posts: 122 ✭✭Ambient Occlusion


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    This is why I started this thread, to investigate that exact problem.
    Consider democratic meritocracy though. The role of the politician is eliminated in Ireland and people with relevant qualifications and competence are elected to specific seats, with the cabinet elected independent of the main election. In this way we appoint people whose speciality is the office in which they operate hopefully allowing them to come to an agreement. These people have no affiliation to any political movement with the exception of their commitment to the state itself.
    That's pure speculation now, but how well might that work?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭Cork boy 55


    I find like many people the multi-party pariliment democracy is an odd animal which results in all sorts of weird and unintented side effects
    and a democratic defeict. We see the weird system of the USA with a blue party or a red one or else we see fragmentation and ungovernable states with other places with deadlock.

    I imagine like most people I am all over the political spectrum
    on various issues. and don't want to vote for just one party and manifesto
    every few years. I want politics that work not a left wing verus right wing
    musical chair punch and judy show.

    That said looking around the world
    has any state come up with an alternative?
    even the swiss direct democray system is still at heart a multi-party system just with some referendum added on.

    new technologics should allow new systems to develop.

    I envisage a system with stong local government to look after local issues
    and a small national executive(25 ministers) all directly elected
    by people all chosen(in theory) for intelligence and skillset
    so you have direct elections for each role( finance, transport,etc)
    So in theory you end up with an elite techocratic government of the best of the best all tailored for role at hand.
    Of course you would have to design an alternative system which holds this executive to account.
    Political parties can still exist but become or megre into the various lobby and activist groups that all ready exist


    Anyone got anylinks to how a non-party system might work
    or to theories?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Now we all know that single party states are an absolute no no. On the other hand with multiple parties there's the problem of indecisive and incompetent coalition governments. I'm wondering then, if there were no parties how would it play out most likely?
    It should theoretically rule out the coalition government problem and the authoritarian threat in one go, but it also removes pointless competition and would (hopefully) force politicians to band together.

    .....forcing them to band together is back to square one, isn't it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 514 ✭✭✭bedrock#1


    We had David Farrell the political scientist as our lecturer last year for a political reform module in college and this came up. He told us about some studies that were done using game theory modelling of a political system comprised totally of independents. They found that in a situation like that eventually people will group together according to some common philosophy or ideology whether political, economic or social. It allows effective strategic manoeuvring within the system and the pooling of power and resources gives those who co-operate a distinct advantage.

    So it simply wouldn't stay independent.


  • Registered Users Posts: 122 ✭✭Ambient Occlusion


    Nodin wrote: »
    .....forcing them to band together is back to square one, isn't it?
    Well, there'd be no point to it at all if none of them could agree and be unable to come to conclusions. A healthy amount of criticism would be desired though.
    Thanks to Bedrock too for your help.

    The fundamental reason why I put this idea forward is because I am trying to visualise how democratic meritocracy might work in Ireland. Since we can't just elect meritorious citizens to the cabinet, there would need to be a way implemented to do so that also still works democratically. :/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭Chazz Michael Michaels


    sarumite wrote: »
    I don't actually think its the term but what it represents. I personally don't care either way about the actual term. If you have a better way of describing the type of politician who uses populists local issue while campaigning to hold office at a national level then I will be happy to use that instead. Not really sure if its worth getting bent out of shape over the specific terms people use.

    You're saying that there are no words or phrases that grind your gears? Everyone has one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 122 ✭✭Ambient Occlusion


    This is slightly off-topic, I'd like to put forward the idea of a No-Party Seanad. In this case, political parties would retain the freedom to operate but no candidate could be eligible for the Seanad if they were associated with one. This would mean we would have a completely independent Seanad in stead, as only independents would be eligible for it. This could be even more effective if it was based on the ideals on meritocracy; only those with relevant knowledge could run for candidacy. Preferably no career politicians would sit in the Seanad, simply scholars, economists, political scientists and the like.
    While this would (hopefully) provide a more varied and more broad analysis of matters discussed in the Seanad, perhaps it could also act as a trial-run for a fully Meritocratic Oireachtas. Anyone have any thoughts on this?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭Fenian Army


    You'd have to change the system. If you changed to to a system based on soviets then there would be no need for political parties.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,452 ✭✭✭Icepick


    Why not a cap on campaign spending, correctly regulated?
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    I don't think a no party state would work in today's society, I don't think we as people would be able for it, as it stands two party systems are basically the most effective forms of governing a country in the first world.

    Wouldn't changing the existing system that's there now be a better and much more plausible option. Make votes on anything anonymous so TDs vote with their conscience instead of what they're told. Get rid of the whip system. Get a number of people outside of TDs into places of power, appointed on their ability, each ministry should have a team, for example the Minister for Health is there but there's 2 or 3 Junior Ministers for Health who are in someway qualified to be in that portfolio and can really influence decisions from a different point of view and a deeper understanding of the area.
    We have far too many ministers in cabinet who are vastly under qualified for the brief they have and because of this make many decisions off the word of the civil service.

    I believe working within what we have now is a better way forward than a wholesale change but there does need to be change, there has to be.


  • Registered Users Posts: 122 ✭✭Ambient Occlusion


    You'd have to change the system. If you changed to to a system based on soviets then there would be no need for political parties.
    A system based on the soviets is one of the things that this would hope to avoid. The USSR was a one-party authoritarian state which is almost the complete opposite of what I'm talking about.
    Get a number of people outside of TDs into places of power, appointed on their ability, each ministry should have a team, for example the Minister for Health is there but there's 2 or 3 Junior Ministers for Health who are in someway qualified to be in that portfolio and can really influence decisions from a different point of view and a deeper understanding of the area.
    We have far too many ministers in cabinet who are vastly under qualified for the brief they have and because of this make many decisions off the word of the civil service.
    While depending on the advice of other qualified people would be desirable, it only makes sense that those in positions of governance have a similar level of understanding and intelligence in their specific area. You wouldn't employ someone who has little to no relevant knowledge or experience to a managerial position in a company so it shouldn't be done in politics either. We're talking about the most important jobs in the country which requires something like this to be done. I just can't picture Meritocracy working any other way than with a No-Party State.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    sarumite wrote: »
    I don't actually think its the term but what it represents. I personally don't care either way about the actual term. If you have a better way of describing the type of politician who uses populists local issue while campaigning to hold office at a national level then I will be happy to use that instead. Not really sure if its worth getting bent out of shape over the specific terms people use.

    Point is, all local issues would be devolved to local governments, so the national government wouldn't deal with any issues only affecting a single parish - and I mean none whatsoever.
    On the national issues it did still deal with, politicians would be forced to vote the way the people want them to vote, not the way the whips want them to vote. It would be far more democratic than it is now, wherein lobbying your local TD means absolutely nothing since he or she is bound by the whip, so once the government decides on a policy it passes no matter how much lobbying we do. We' have far greater control over what they do once in office.

    I would dearly love to see such a system implemented.


Advertisement