Why we should abandon political parties

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.