A lot of stigma is attached to what I find is incorrectly referred to as "one-party" government systems are witnessed during the era of Socialism in Eastern Europe and as seen, for instance, in China and Cuba.

Of course, I won't argue for specific present-day or past examples of these systems because when they were built, they may or may not have had the same ideas in mind as I do. What I will argue, is that when there aren't any more parties, it's actually a no-party system, and if done correctly, it can actually achieve more than the intrigue that we see in modern "democracies".

What my argument basically is, is that multi-party "democracy" is, in fact, undemocratic in the sense that most parties seem to hold loyalties to certain institutions and ideals rather than to the people. Corrupt parties with no backbone can be loyal to institutions, to corporations or some sort of status quo. Then, there are well-intentioned parties that obstruct their own progress to clutching to a pre-defined set of ideals rather than being pragmatic in their dealings and thinking of what would be best to do in the present moment, in the present situation, not what Marx or Smith would do.

Thus, I believe that political parties should be abolished for our own good and that any representatives run independently. I think that this will encourage more autonomy in their beliefs and conduct because they can be free from influences of the "party line" so to speak. They would not need to hold any allegiances to anyone but their people and rather than repeating something someone else said, politicians might be encouraged to form their own ideals rather than.

Thoughts?

Yeah, I know what you mean as far as them being 'no party' systems. I was shocked when a girl I knew from china described to me how it actually worked. Basically they elected representatives who in turn elected representatives to the next higher level of government.
So you might vote for a representative from your village/local area, who would go to a regional congress which would send representatives to a provincial congress, which does the same sending representatives to the national congress.
(I probably have the tiers wrong, just getting the idea across).


A no party arrangement certainly doesn't need to be tied to socialism, and certainly you could have most western systems of government (except for forms of proportional representation) working this way.

However there's a big problem. When you remove parties you have the unfortunate effect of having representatives concerned only with whats best for their district and not whats best for the country.
Countries with weak party discipline and legislative agendas more open to what might be called private members bills elsewhere can have big problems with pork-barrel spending by representatives.
Case in point - the USA
democrats and republicans are of course happy to unite to obtain federal money for their electorates.

In most westminster systems party(or parties) in government essentially hold a veto over what legislation can be passed and by definition has the confidence of the legislature, this sort of thing isn't as much of a problem - and if there is such reckless spending it can only be on the part of the government, who is then clearly responsible for it.
These systems can probably work without parties, but they lend themselves to the formation of parties, even informally simply due to the fact that a government and opposition will come about which will tend to form at least somewhat cohesive blocs. Even if you abolished parties you'd still probably end up with many MP candidates running for office on the promise of supporting a given candidate for Prime Minister.

In the US however, I would be worried that congress would be even worse as far as wasteful spending. At least there is *some* responsibility attached to the party that controls congress.
Without a party system there'd be the real possibility that congress would hold a complete orgy of pork-barreling, and more or less go unpunished at elections.

Do we really expect that average person to vote against their representative after he secured federal funds to build a hospital nearby?
The penalties for fiscal irresponsibility aren't immediate, and without a party to be held responsible and an opposition to lay into them over "the growing deficit" there's not really any reason that anything will happen about it - for that to occur you'd be asking people to vote against their immediate self interest, and risk losing their seat at the pork table while others are still frittering away the wealth of the nation.

This isn't to say that the party system in the US at present has worked at all - it hasn't.
But a no party system could be even worse.

one-party system tends to sucks ass. So do Two-Party systems. We need a multi-party system.


What my argument basically is, is that multi-party "democracy" is, in fact, undemocratic in the sense that most parties seem to hold loyalties to certain institutions and ideals rather than to the people.

to be fair, they were elected from certain demographics in the nation, represent those people due to regionalism, beliefs, etc so they are representing their constitutents. And that adds up for everyone meaning they represent the people as a whole..