Why we should abandon political parties

As a matter of principal we should vote for independents.

The idea is not new, - the original argument was based on the French revolution of 1789, as we shall see in a few minutes. But the reason today on why we should support independents is that the major parties, left and right, have lost contact with, and commitment to, the needs and beliefs of ordinary citizens.

In the United States, the most powerful country in the world, the split between the parties, Democrats and Republicans, has almost reached the point of civil war. It has become a world wide problem with people turning to street protests to voice their grievances. It is widely agreed that representative democracy is a valid form of democracy. We in Australia are not as confrontational as are the parties in the United States, but we still have several problems with our parties, the main one of which is that their concern is with being elected, not running the country effectively. The current government, a coalition of the Liberal Party and the National Party leaves much to be desired on climate change. The National Party appears to oppose any climate action. It certainly supports the continued mining of coal. Coal is the big problem in reducing climate change.

Josh Frydenberg said if Australia did not appear to be "transitioning in line with the rest of the world," it would face reduced access to capital markets.

"Reduced access to these capital markets would increase borrowing costs".

The naked ambition of those who wish to be king, or at least Prime Minister, is another problem that we have with the party system. Five prime ministers in five years is a noteworthy Australian achievement. Most of them were knifed by an ambitious party member wanting to become Prime Minister. Malcolm Turnbull who was later knifed by the now current Prime Minister in his book A Bigger Picture, termed this ambition "The Aphrodisiac of Power." Henry Kissinger

made the same proposition, "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac". Echoing Lord Acton: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" or Max Weber : "Power is the ability to control a man against his will".

Will ending political parties end the drive for power? The answer is no, for the drive for power is endemic in the human race, or at least those of its members who get close enough to the ultimate aphrodisiac. But it will end the destabilising effect of power struggles within parties. The French revolution, discussed below, will lend historical support to this concept.

What are the other benefits of abolishing political parties, apart from a clearer policy on climate change? And less backstabbing? A major benefit will be the adoption of policies more in line with the wishes of the Australian people. Independent candidates have to respond to the wishes of their electorates.

Two examples stand out: Most Australians want the Bilolela family to be accepted and settled in Australia. There has been a national campaign to keep the family. Yet they are still in limbo. The second is the offshore refugee policy, described as one of the world's most brutal offshore detention policies. Most Australians would prefer a softening of the offshore detention. The current policies are primarily due to party political reasons

But now to the French revolution. Many of its ideas are considered fundamental principles of liberal democracy, but a French philosopher has used the history of the revolution to argue against political parties - Simone Weil.

Albert Camus, André Gide and T S Eliot recognised her as one of the greatest minds of her time. Among Weil's best-known works is On the Abolition of All Political Parties, translated here. She uses the Club des Jacobins as her main argument: "At first it merely provided an arena for free debate. Its subsequent transformation was by no means inevitable; it was only under the double pressure of war and the guillotine that it eventually turned into a totalitarian party." They and the Girondists, another party formed during the revolution were also responsible for the terror, in which 50,000 people died, many under the guillotine.

There are further arguments against political parties. British parties not in government call themselves His/Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, a practice adopted in many Commonwealth countries. Why they should oppose, instead of jointly trying to seek the optimum approach, is a product of history that has long been a question to this writer.

Read also Amy Chua 's Political Tribes. She argues that we are naturally tribal: "Once people belong to a group, their identities become oddly bound with it…they will penalise outsiders … even kill and die for their groups".

What would eventuate if we did abandon political parties? An analysis by two Australian newspapers of 50 interviews with 39 members of the Liberal party in the 2021 parliament suggests that parliaments would divide into factions (James Massola: "Who's who in the Liberals left, right and centre factions?"). The factions that were identified were three broad groupings: Modern Liberals or Moderate (Simon Birmingham), Centre Right (Scott Morrison) and National Right or Hard Right (Peter Dutton). Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister, is a "natural conservative" not an "ideological conservative"

The Moderates have a subgroup, Modern Liberals or New Guard Moderates, typically inner-city representatives or in the Senate, progressive on social issues and on climate change policy; sometimes terming themselves as Menzies Liberals (after the founder of the party).

Most Centre Right are members of the prayer sub-group – a sub faction that includes the Prime Minister.

The Labor party divides along strict left - right lines with some smaller sub factions sometimes allied to specific trade unions

In attempting to analyse the impact of these findings on Australian politics, this writer estimates that there might be up to eight or more positions on contentious or widely discussed issues. Under a democratic system the decision is that of the majority. Those who lose out have no recourse. But the vast majority of political decisions would have an overwhelming majority, with only the small minority at either extreme losing out. A final benefit would be a more committed implementation by the public service, who one assumes, reflects the average Australian political viewpoint, but who, at times, must at times be obliged to implement decisions with which they strongly disagree.

There is a move afoot to bring this about this change. Climate 200 is an initiative founded by Simon Holmes a Court, clean energy advocate and son of Robert and Janet Holmes a Court. It will support progressive independents at the next federal election, building on the success of the likes of Zali Steggall.

But the news media tells us that the Liberal bigwigs are urging a much-admired Gladys Berejiklian to stand against Zali Steggall at the national level. This once again, is party politics opposing the national interest. Both are competent women. We need more women in parliament, and more competent parliamentarians. But this party proposal is a loser for all of us.