Feb
17
British democracy depends on political parties. But they are anachronistic, irrelevant and incomprehensible. Political parties require personal compromise, class identification and a culture of collective responsibility and deference – all of which are being eroded by changes to society.
This is a problem because although they may not be formal state institutions, governments can’t be formed without them. If the situation gets worse, democracy will be weakened or major constitutional reform will need to take place.
I’ve been thinking about this for a couple of weeks now and want to find out what you think it amounts to. Is this just really obvious, not as complicated as I’ve suggested or just vacuous?
Why did political parties work?
These parties served an important practical and philosophical role. Political parties:
• synthesised a number of competing interests and beliefs,
• organised people into two or three groupings and
• provided a clear choice at election times
You had the Labour party for the labourers – the industrial working classes and the Conservative party for those who wanted to maintain the status quo – largely made up of aristocrats, the wealthy, landowners etc. Most people were one or the other and a swap represented a significant change of personal fortune. They were formed in these structures because it was also the best way to ‘game’ the electoral system.
Why political parties no longer make sense
British political parties don’t make sense to a middle class population with Sky+ and the freedom to go to a different supermarket if they have a customer complaint.
British political parties depend on a broad identification with a small number of social groupings. But we don’t identify ourselves with that. Most of us think we’re middle class.
We’re not prepared to accept the compromises and synthesis necessary to create a programme for government. In a world where you can download the track you want rather than buy the album, watch the TV programme when you want, rather than when the TV company wants, it makes no sense to accept one policy (say, cut in carbon emissions) just because you accepted another (higher energy costs). And where would you go to be challenged on this contradiction: The local butcher or a Facebook Group?
Personal freedom and personal responsibility now matters more than collective organisation. On a FiveLive phone-in yesterday, callers debating the merits of the military in society challenged young officers. A frequent point was that if you know a particular order to be immoral, you shouldn’t go along with it. That, of course, is no basis to run an army, but many couldn’t comprehend those who chose to sacrifice personal freedom to a collective chain of command. On a different scale, my recent post about George Monbiot’s criticism of Hazel Blears attracted a number of comments from people who couldn’t understand why a minister would vote in favour of the government so frequently without resigning or speaking out.
Personal identity matters more than collective identity. The authenticity provided by the personal blog can’t be delivered by politicians repeating ‘the line’.
Political parties are going to become less relevant
1. The pick and mix of options for activism provided by single issue groups and social networking websites further undermine the collective action required by parties
2. The instant feedback loop provided by the internet can’t be delivered by political parties
3. The limitations of collective responsibility are absurd in an online world where everyone has a view, the freedom to express it and is immediately accountable for it.
This might just be one elaborate argument for a change in the electoral system. But I think it goes much deeper than that.
Related posts: