Right. So it occurs to me, as a potentially rational individual with concerns about the way in which the next election in the UK might possibly go, that surely – and with all due respect – the end of party politics should be considered and, quite possibly, implemented without delay.
Let’s start with the ‘raison d’etre’ of a political party (with apologies for the lack of accents, it’s probably easy but I’m on a roll here). The stated aim of most political parties – and for which they receive the majority of their funding – is to “win an election.” Lookie here – http://www.conservatives.com/ – “campaign, fundraise, mobilise…” – just to win an election. The others are similar. Labour politicians talk about the importance of winning the election – the Liberal Democrats’ stated aim is to win the next election.
But for what? To be in government. Right – then what? To govern. Ok. But couldn’t you govern as effectively if there was a coalition of MPs with differing views, backgrounds, ideas and policy arguments? Why is it a requirement to be a member of a political party in order to make that difference, create a government working hard for a nation? Is it not sensible to redraw the landscape – create an atmosphere of intellectual freedom from the constraints of straitjacketed party politics?
Some would argue that it is fantasy to suggest such a thing; and, in reality, they’re right. Surely, though, there’s a niggling doubt in the back of every party activist’s mind – or, at least, those who give half-a-damn – surely they know that the answer to the prosperity of a country is not in the squabbles of the detail of the party machines. It’s not housed in a manifesto, a policy briefing or 3-line whip.
It’s housed in the individual creativity and soul within all humans. The ability to govern ourselves as part of a democratic union is one of the key elements of the human spirit in this century. 30 years’ ago this would have seemed alien – the allegiance to a political party was paramount. I remember growing up feeling the need to belong to a particular persuasion – as if your future were defined by it. I remember hating the Conservative party for Thatcher and the evil she wreaked, felt enlightened by the possibility of the John Smiths of this world. Friends of mine, though, would scorn and attach the proud Conservative label to themselves so that they would continue to be middle class and profitable.
Today, though, that doesn’t count. The badge you wear today is so much more individual. From Twitter to Facebook, in the choices we make and receive, we are all so much more individual. For those with the foresight and the intelligence to see it, tribalism must be the vanishing ethos. It is not the death of community that fosters this; it’s the exact opposite. As communities grow larger than they have ever been, people are recognising their individual positions and beliefs within those systems. As people work for charities, spend more time in childcare and develop wider senses of the world around them, all of this makes for an absolute need to start dismantling this aching, onerous monolith of party politics.
Political stalwarts will guffaw, draw heavily on the port and blast such a suggestion as unworkable. The requirement, they will say, to have a governing party is indispensable – otherwise chaos will reign. They’re wrong now. If we strip away the commitments to party causes and focus on governing by consensus – sure, there will be a steep learning curve. But take a bunch of economists – they will disagree but come to some sensible consensus. Then take a bunch of health experts – again, the discussion will be frank, but there will be overall, considered, consensus.
Take the party out of it and we will receive clarity. We need to move this way or risk stifling our society’s creativity for a long time to come.
Like this:
Filed under: Politics, party politics, society, uk politics
