Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Party discipline and democracy

By Peter Bowden - posted Wednesday, 6 September 2017

This article puts forward a simple thesis – the expectation that the elected members of a party toe their party line is the complete antithesis of democracy. The current hiatus in elections worldwide is evidence that the elected parties are not representing the majority viewpoint. The are many examples of party positions that do not reflect the views of all its members, let alone the whole nation. I will start with just one.The Australian Greens senator Lee Rhiannon, who says she is being bullied and harassed.

Expelling her from the party is an option under consideration. It seems that her sin was breaking the Greens party rules and acting in bad faith by failing to tell her colleagues that she had decided to campaign and vote against the education bill,while other senators were still in official negotiations with the Government. Bob Brown calls her a wrecker.Lee Rhiannon has since been suspended from taking part in any decisionsin the Greens' party – a totally undemocratic decision in this writer's opinion.

Senator Rhiannon has been an active politician since 1999, fighting for many issues: the cross-city tunnel in Sydney, electoral matters, on law and justice, the NSW taxi industry, the increase in prisoner population, and the ombudsman and police integrity commission. She has many supporters. We do not even have to delve into her position on the education bill, to reach the conclusion that her voice, her position must be heard. It is called democracy.


Related issues are the toeing of the line by the current Australian Prime Minister to ensure that his party speaks with one voice. The current refusal to pass legislation on same sex marriage is an example. Another is the conflict with Christopher Pyne, minister for Defence Industry. Pyne agitated publicly for a same sex marriage.The former prime minister Tony Abbott has accused Mr Pyne of disloyalty. One Liberal said fury about Mr Pyne was widespread. The conflict is bewildering. There are many people in Australia who approve same sex marriage. Why cannot a member of the Liberal Party also speak out in favour? Christopher Pyne has since apologised. Again, a totally unnecessary and undemocratic action.

The right wing senator Cory Bernardi, has also lashed out at his colleagues for disloyalty. To him, they must all toe the same party line of obedience to Tony Abbott. It is an unbelievable view point.

We see the same problem overseas. Even in the US, where party loyalty is less rigorously enforced, members of the Republican Party in the US are castigating each other for supporting or not supporting a Medicare bill that is of dubious benefit to the American people. They were split over their response to the Medicare program for the elderly and they are equally split over the current medical insurance impasse. There is a widespread expectation that all Republicans should agree with the new bill. This despite the fact that 24 million people will lose their health benefits under this legislation.

In Britain, Brexit has proven to be a disaster. But the political parties are committed to continue with it. The majority of Brits, however, have seen the light. They want out

In 1943, at the height of World War II Simone Weil produced an essay titled "On the Abolition of All Political Parties." Weil's first argument against parties is that they prevent democracy from finding out the true, correct solutions to problems. "the general will cannot emerge". Her second argument is even stronger: Political parties," she writes, "are organizations that are publicly and officially designed for the purpose of killing in all souls the sense of truth and of justice." Members of a party delegates their conscience to the party, accepting its verdict on all political and moral questions.

If we did not have political parties; if each one of us voted for that candidate in our electorate who best represented the political views of each of us; If those candidates financed themselves; if they then elected the prime minister from the candidates who put themselves forward; or preferably, we have a separate vote for the Prime Minister; and if the Parliament selected ministers from those who appeared competent, then we would have true democracy. None of us could complain, for it would be a genuine government that reflected the majority views of all the people. If our representative did not support the views voted by an electorate, then we change him or her at the next election We could even have a recall system, where 30% of the electorate could call for a re-election.


It might be difficult finding a candidate that did represent your views. This writer believes totally in private sector management. The smaller the government, the less that is operated by public servants, the more productive is the economy. And the lower will be our taxes. On the other hand, I totally reject budgets like that of Tony Abbott in 2014. We do have an obligation to help people who are mentally afflicted, born into a disadvantaged family, or otherwise incapacitated. The age of entitlement, equality for all, should be our aspiration. These views are represented by opposing ideologies of both the left and right political parties in this country. And in many other countries. Finding a candidate who represents both view will be difficult. But there will be such candidates.

Senates could be voted in the same way (although it would be a very complicated voting ballot.). But it is not that obvious that we need a senate. To abolish the upper house is not such a strange idea. Other democracies have done so: New Zealand, Sweden and Denmark, for example and the sky has not fallen in. Queensland and the Northern Territory have also abolished their upper chambers and do not seem any the worse for it than other Australian states. The ACT never had one.

Democracy says that we act as most people want. That means we will not always get what we want, but we should acknowledge the majority. Loyalty to political party platforms are why we are experiencing such difficulties today .

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

10 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Peter Bowden is an author, researcher and ethicist. He was formerly Coordinator of the MBA Program at Monash University and Professor of Administrative Studies at Manchester University. He is currently a member of the Australian Business Ethics Network , working on business, institutional, and personal ethics.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Peter Bowden

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Peter Bowden
Article Tools
Comment 10 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy