Would democracy be better without political parties?
Opinion | Election campaigns and results from ballot boxes push our democracies into fierce battles and endless negotiations. Fighting, immobility, ideology, disrespect… The evils are deep.
The life of a politician is a priesthood. We cannot take that away from them. But do they need a lid to carry out their mission? What if we eliminated political parties? A thorny question, as multipartyism is in the anchoring of democratic security. The single party is obviously to be banned. But are these bodies, whether they are 2, 3, 10, 50, still guarantors of our democratic freedom? And the assurance of a controlled and responsible power?
The game of blocs
Have these political organizations not become influencial companies under the leadership of an omnipotent office, or even mini dictatorships, in a political environment with ultra-controlled communication? Can politicians, as well as all supporters of these parties, still publicly express their deep opinions without risking the opprobrium of their president or the party office, under the sword of Damocles of exclusion? Have they become pawns to follow and defend a program defined in advance, regardless of their intimate thoughts and the voice of citizens? Are they essential to finance an electoral campaign?
The debate
The wealth of a democracy is debate. Through speaking and listening. It's often found within meetings of party members. But outdoors? Where is this debate? Where is the healthy confrontation of trying to bring together divergences towards a convergence in the service of citizens for a tolerant, efficient, united, fair and rigorous society. In principle, this controversy must be audible to all in the chambers of parliament. But also in the public sphere and in the media and social media networks. Where the dice are loaded is when this discussion is only a comedy of decisions taken downstream, within closed party circles. Of course, the parliamentarian has the right to speak at the podium or from the chamber. But can he still overturn "what has been decided" with his words, however fair, however chosen, however relevant they may be? Above all, does he not risk losing the support of his fellow partisans by deviating from the "program" and "strategy"?
The sum of individuals
And if, rather than under the color and banner of a party, our future elected representatives presented themselves only on a single, non-partisan list, in a personal capacity. With their charisma, their motivation, their citizen meetings, their work and their speeches, in their soul and conscience, with a fair subsidy identical for all candidates. Without being parachuted in, they will then bear all the responsibility and risks of their choice to sacrifice time and energy in the service of the State, with a predefined and controlled budget. No more immunity, money and party coverage. We would then have a group of individuals, healthy in body and mind, with the assurance of freedom of expression of a voice heard by all, in compliance with the laws and opposing ideas. Where each voter will be able to choose to give their vote to a person, and no longer to a representative of an organization, based on their ideas, their heart, their morals, their probity, their experience and their personal history.
Flourishing State
At the end of the elections, if they are among the selected candidates, the elected official will then vote with their parliamentary colleagues, the government that will lead us among volunteer candidates from civil society, with the technical and professional skills required to successfully carry out the challenges of their ministerial portfolio. Throughout this mandate, the deputy or senator will thus ensure that his or her exercise is carried out for the good of the functioning of institutions, justice, the economy and international relations. With his or her gut, with his or her heart, without the pressure of routine and party precepts that he or she could not betray. Without forgetting to comply with a consultation by referendum for the essential questions that agitate our societies. Let us dream and meditate…
(MH with Olivier Duquesne – Picture: © Wikipedia – Senate of Belgium - Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license)