The No Party State

Ambient Occlusion

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?

Black Swan

EDIT: Moved to Politics main forum from Political Theory.

troposphere

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

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.

Fergus_Nash

Ambient Occlusion 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?

Are you talking about 166 Independent TDs?

Chazz Michael Michaels

troposphere wrote: »

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.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Fergus_Nash wrote: »

Ambient Occlusion 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?

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?

Gurgle

Ambient Occlusion 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.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Gurgle wrote: »

Ambient Occlusion 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.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sarumite

Ambient Occlusion 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 FTW.

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

Chazz Michael Michaels

sarumite wrote: »

Ambient Occlusion 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.

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?

sarumite

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

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.

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?

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?

Nodin

Ambient Occlusion 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Icepick

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Why not a cap on campaign spending, correctly regulated?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

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.

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.

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.