Topic: Politics without political parties. (Read 224 times)

You were making sense from the beginning of your statement but it seems you lost it from the part I bold in your post. I agree with you that some positions are being given to unqualified people as a compensation for being in the party but it is still much better compared to when there's no political party. Political parties serves as a check on the candidates in their various platforms and even recommend those to appoint when necessary and also reject some appointments if they are not well convinced with it but with no existence of political parties, this check and balance will not longer be there and politicians can misuse such opportunities to appoint whosoever without any recommendations or objection. I really understand your point but believe me, a system without political party will be the worse system especially in Africa continent where Nepotism is at it peak. The existence of multiple parties is the best practice for them to minimize the abuse of power by politicians.

Again, not all appointments are being distributed to party loyalist, there are few appointments given to opposition too to maintain balance of power. The problem with this political party is that, politician has created enmity among themselves in different parties and make it look like a rival. It's not suppose to be so, in fact, opposition can also be a contributor to a better nation by offering ideas to party in power but they choose to make things worse in order to take advantage of the situation and market themselves.

Political parties often have one common ideology, goals, aims and objectives which every of its members are expected to abide by and work towards. This means individual ideologies does not count. In a normal society free of corruption (which is kind of impossible anyway),  having Political parties with good ideologies is just what the people need. An elected leader with a selfish agenda might not be able to actualize his aims because there are other political members available correcting his every moves.

But, the statements above are just like a mirage, they don't happen in real sense as every politician wants a share of the national cake too. There is also no guarantee that if there are no political parties and qualified candidates are voted base on the people's choice, things will be fine. Such a system is capable of making the elected leader too powerful. Remember the words of Lord Acton

Mostly those who are in political parties win the elections because of their wide influence among the voters and there are only a few candidates in our country's history that actually demolished their opponent despite being independent. they are those who have enough fame to promote themselves without getting into political parties and most of those people are senators. President on the other hand cannot handle such things except when people request them to run.

Political parties are formed by the people democracy works best when governments have incentives to pursue broadly inclusive policies that benefit citizens as a whole. This is likely when political competition is strong and the government can effectively legislate. Reduced competition between political parties and political fragmentation that increases as the number of parties in national legislatures increases is bad for democracy.

Yes I think an independent candidate or individual candidate can be held accountable more than the political party candidates because they hold allegiance more to the people and not to few in power only. Political parties don't run inclusive government, it favours the people in the party more than the generality of the people.and that is what leads into corruption.

The advantage of nominating a regional head through the independent route is that it is not regulated by the party, all policies are up to him, whether he wants to help anyone, whether he wants to build any infrastructure is up to him, if the independent regional head is honest and trustworthy, it is easier for the people to convey their aspirations to him so that People's aspirations are achieved and realized in terms of building villages and places of worship for their own people without any obstacles or obstacles, but if they are not trustworthy and honest, regardless of whether they have parties or not, they will not follow their own principles, they will not build and accommodate community aspirations.

And the advantage of regional heads going through the independent route is also placing service heads who suit the standards and the right objectives, according to their respective fields, without being mixed up by parties, they have to raise them according to their wishes, it's all up to him, so if he really builds It's definitely better, because now politics is cruel without anyone wanting to know, both relatives and friends, if they don't help them during the campaign they won't help them either.

It would be nice to be governed without politics. What about trustless, decentralized anarchy [governance without government] ?

Somehow because I think the system of government will be different and terrain too will look different, maybe the common people who are not in government will benefit more because it will be actually the government of the people unlike the government run by political parties as we see today where the political parties become the contention and means of distributing dividend of government to the people which doesn't get to the grassroot but to the few family members of those running the parties.

However, political parties by default is organized to win election and form government but if we could have independent candidacy where an individual doesn't necessarily need to belong to any political party to contest an election, win and run the government. In such kind of government, the masses will benefit more because those gluttonous political party bottlenecks would have been avoided.

We can't play politics without political parties,  let me start by saying a political party is made up of group of persons who have the same political views and goals,  one man can not ay politics all by himself, he will need colleagues, supporters and a platform to sponsor his political ambitions that's where the political party comes in, we problems we experiencing politically in our society is not just the political parties, we are all part of this problem,  and we have to correct it together, because the political parties is still made up of 'WE" the people in the society.
And what actually develops a country is not politics, but good governance, so I will say after elections, everybody should be seen as one not as someone that's in another political party.

Politicians are the policy makers of any country so we can't expect any changes that is not beneficial to them. And literally politics is not really for the people and by the people, it's the one who rule everyone else for that they need influence, power and dominance that's literally why the parties are existing.

politics without political parties is not politics. because whether you like it or not, political parties make the political system more competitive, more orderly, and have many other benefits in democratic countries. even though in many cases political parties make many detrimental cases or mistakes, they are political parties in the political system. if you eliminate political parties from the political system, it is like you amputating someone's leg, because the political system will not work properly. therefore political parties still exist and operate in almost all countries in the world.

If you need some examples of your point of view, you can learn about politics in some countries like North Korea, China,... What I want to say is that no matter how good the governing apparatus is, it is impossible to receive complete trust from the people, there will still be opposing forces. It can be verified that historically, with a political system based on citizens as its foundation, it will prosper for many generations, but then there will still be a process of moral degeneration leading to contradictions. Inequality in society, this is an unavoidable rule, it is not a partisan issue because if it were fair, every operating apparatus would have positive/negative aspects inside. Anyway, the responsibility of each citizen in each different local area is that we should respect and comply with the country's laws and then talk about international issues.

This is a primary definition of nepotism and this already been practice by our leaders as a result of this party system unqualified is been positioned for a sit he/she can't handle because they belong to a ruling party why the next qualify person who is in another party is not offered anything even if your qualify as Long your not in the party your not important.

Party system is not the best tool for democracy and it reduced the quality of leadership, and produced mediocrity in the means of excellent qualify people for a particular thing. The use of open system of no party but been choosing by the masses is best, because any with the desire of leadership must show deep example of work to satisfied the citizens but the party system has cut off such as no leader is ready to work because it's now by party selection not by the masses.

I think it depends on what kind as there are a lot of different types of implementations of political parties. For example we have USA where they only have two political parties which are namely The Republicans and the Democratic. I think this number of political party is very limiting and does not give enough options for voters.

On the other hand there are countries with basically unlimited political parties which allows for these parties to choose a candidate they feel really is the best choice for their advocacies.

It's possible to do politics without a party, but in democratic countries, for example, if you want to appoint a regional head or president, there must be mandatory provisions that must be fulfilled because as basic capital and proof of the trust of the community, for example, having a number of supporters with the identity of the community
population attached, usually also without a party or independence, the figure of the politician must be someone who is mentally and financially stable and has a high leadership spirit and is known by the wider community. Maybe that is the picture if we don't have a party and are involved in the world of politics.

It actually differs from country to country and every country practices what is obtainable and what the system permits to be practiced in the country. What you are describing as politics without political parties is being practiced by the United States of America and they call it independent candidacy. The economy of some countries especially the third world countries might not be firm enough to produce independent candidacy. Even if they could do so the corrupt politicians would never let it be because if they are allowed to go solo they random person with a clean personality can win them in the pool. But with the help of political parties they will have their allies everywhere around the country and they would have more possibility and chances of manipulating the electoral results since their members will be everywhere helping them to win even when they are not popular.

Everyone being on their own will still result to political parties because if we’re all on our own, you may go gather your people so they can come together to vote for you, and then they’ll look for more people who will want to vote for you. What then do you call that? It may not have a name but that’s a political party because you’re coming together to raise one person. That’s what’s happening today so? What’s the difference?

In some countries, there are opportunities for independent candidates to run in an election. However, the problem is that these individuals might not have the structure or manpower that will help them win major elections like presidential or state governorship. This is why most politicians depend on political parties since they have the technical, human, and even financial resources that a candidate needs to win elections.

Political parties don't totally produce unqualified candidates since there are always primary elections where members of the party select who becomes the party flagbearer in an election. Although some political parties lack internal democracy which has led some unworthy candidates to secure election tickets through dubious means like bribery, religious or tribal sentiments, violence, and electoral malpractice, political parties still produce qualified candidates.

Political parties ha e done more arm to the country especially in third world countries where majority wins the vote no matter how bad or corrupt their candidates is. Down here in my country there are only two political parties that are rivals. It makes it a government with incompetent leaders, because citizens votes for political party and not for the candidate.

This is done base on their selfish interests, and to have pride that their party is ruling, while after elections, these so called party members lavish in anguish and poverty, because their candidates are now in offices and have abandoned them. You will see that in a state only one political party will keep ruling and there is no room given to another political party to come into power. Even when the party on sit is not doing well, they will not still allow another party to take over.

This is what kills a country government and the economy of that country.

Politics should only be in the interest of the country which is the overall welfare of the country and common man. In most countries today, politics is spreading for the sake of group interests - which have a lot of money. Most of the political parties put more emphasis on their muscle power and even more money. In this case, by forming a single political party, you can get into a bad situation - because of the lack of tolerance of the big political parties. But if your principles or morals are honest, it is possible to move forward despite the odds - here you have to rise above your personal interests and keep an eye on the interests of the nation.

I think that it depends on the type of political structure in a country, but in the modern politics, where democracy is practiced, political parties are important, where the opposition will be checkmating the excesses of the ruling party. I think that one party system will not eradicate corruption and bad leadership, because politicians will still form cliques in the one party system, so despite the system of governance that a country adopts, what matters to the masses is good leadership. One party system can breed dictatorship, where there'll be no external forces outside the party that'll call them to order if they're not doing the right thing.

Politics is a game of interest which is not just about governance but of factions such as the politics party differences.
Anyone that's not listed in any of the functioning political parties in a society is not accepted to be a political instead you're just one of the floor masses to abide to the governance of the governments.
Even those of the political followers are being attached to any of their interesting parties. I hope we don't get this complicated that it's just a party or factions which in every contexts of competitions there'd always be that individual interests to support their candidates as a group or sections. Apparently that's also said to be party differences.

So the essence of a political parties is to set maximum and acceptable competitions among the parties for the masses to rate them different via their governing system of which party has the best leadership.
So anyone who's expected to be the people's choice as you may say Op, he's also privileged to embrace a party and if yeah truly he's the peoples choice of course he'd be considered to be voted in.

I agree political parties sometimes can end up being the source of much of the corruption which goes around unpunished in a country, as someone living in south America, I can assure you it is something common when there is no system of check and balances to keep those political parties and their leaders at bay.
Though, because of how western democracy works, it is very unlikely for us to continue to function only with a bunch of independents running the government, in the end of the day, people gather together according to their ideology and whether they have anything in common among themselves or not.
Even if there is no party to represent people in the left or the right, it would be just matter of time before those in power who started as independent candidates started to form qualitions and alliances.

Also, keep in mind in many European democracies, in order to form a government is required for the parliament to be held as a majority (defined by a party or alliance of parties) otherwise a government/administration cannot be formed...

It varies per country on what kind of politics and government they have. For some reasons, I'd agree about politics and having no political party is the best. Like everyone is from individual sectors that they're representing and whatever the economy is demanding, they might be the best leader at that time.

Monarchy is what you're describing and based on the long term effect of it, it seems good to those countries that have this type of government. But I'd love to hear it from an actual person living in those countries that have this form leadership. Because by the books, they look great but in actuality, I have no idea.

Politics without political parties functioning in a country will be the best.
When contesting for election The only people that are qualified to run are those forwarded by a political party as there candidate there by making it hard for the people's choice to run.
When a political party is functioning in a country and one among which is on power any other person that those not belong to there political party will be seen as an opposition, that is why you see position being given to people that are not qualified for such position all because they are in the same political party there by causing damage to countries economy.