A new political paradigm?
Envisioning a world beyond partisan politics
I grew up relatively wealthy. Dad was a VP at Coca-Cola, Mum was a journalist — we had a boat, seaside home, cook, maid, dinner parties.. But neither of my parents grew up wealthy. They both had to work hard to get ahead. They both believed in Thatcherism and for good reason: the free market had served them well in their careers.
When I was ten, we moved to Austria. I proceeded to spend the next twenty-seven years of my life in Europe. After studying in the UK, I landed my first job as a graduate engineer in Holland. My time spent in Europe, and I emphasize, not in the UK, exposed me to socialism in all its glory (and horror). I saw how government regulation could noticeably affect free markets as well as national psyche.
After living in Amsterdam, I came to dislike social housing. Over 50% of residences in the city are subsidized by the state. There I was working 60 hours a week to live in an admittedly over-sized apartment, only for our unemployed neighbor to be renting exactly the same unit above us for a fifth the price. I saw how company execs became ambivalent about raises or bonuses above a base income of €70,000 per annum, as anything more than that was taxed at a minimum of 52%. I also observed how poor people didn’t really exist, certainly not homeless people. How healthcare was affordable to all and how education remained essentially free.
Combining these different approaches to capitalism and building on my life experience of growing up wealthy, struggling in my twenties and living in different countries — including the US where some of my family resides — I’ve developed a unique view on governance and economic policy.
What I’ve come to notice is how people in the same society, with largely similar values, work-ethic and life approaches, are at each other’s throats for marginal differences in opinion. I’ve also come to recognize the extent of polarized political thought; you’re either Left or Right, Labor or Tory, Conservative or Democrat, Red or Blue. You’re either a conservative baby boomer or a woke youth. You either believe in the free-market or you’re a dyed in the wool commie. And despite getting along culturally, enjoying similar hobbies, laughing at the same jokes — if one discovers one’s counterpart as belonging to ‘the other side’, it can be the end of conversation, and in some cases, friendship or family bond.
And yet, we’re all human, and largely appreciate the same things; family, friendship, achievement, giving back, doing the right thing and warm, cozy living rooms with a fire to sit beside. In fact, we all have the same values. I know of no one who wants to do the wrong thing. Who wants to be a bad brother or husband. Or who wants to be a racist. Most of us feel fundamentally that we are good people and just want the best for everyone and want to see fair play.
Party culture
How does this apply to political parties? All politicians, and I mean all of them (every single, last politician) shares the same fundamental values. Let’s list a few;
Physical security, dominion over one’s own body, the importance of new life, national security, personal liberty, the danger of guns, the right to prosper, the right to work hard, the right to be remunerated for one’s work, care for those in need, the right to free speech and political discourse, respect of property and land, and many, many more…
Can you give me an example of a politician who would disagree with any of the values above? Indeed, going into politics, most politicians fundamentally want to serve their country and make it a better place, the only way they know how. Most of the time, politicians do not choose service in order to become wealthy or to damage the interests of others. But alas, as time goes on, most politicians become rather jaded. There is so little understanding across party lines, so much discord, so little respect, that their work soon devolves into tit for tat actions, outright vengeance and even libel.
Focusing on the US for now; the above state of affairs manifests as a stream of filibusters, vetoes, executive orders, opinionated supreme court nominees and the deliberate disassembly of the previous party’s policies every four to eight years. The lack of consensus in US politics itself poses a national security risk. A country divided cannot stand together to confront whatever unexpected challenge may be thrown in its way. It shows other countries that its policy is not coherent, that internal processes are conflicted and obstructed, that the ship is not stable — in fact it’s taking on water.
The incessant division, radical opinions and disrespect towards each other in politics trickles down into society. People become angry, less accepting, less respectful and more separated. Instead of bringing the country together, today’s politicians are dividing it, and as a result, the population is left listless and uninspired.
So how do we move away from this rather dramatic conundrum? How can we come together as a nation, believe in each other, and share hope for the future, built on unity of purpose and common trust?
As is the case for almost all our activities, how we behave depends on the context in which we operate. What are we exposed to? Where are our boundaries? What are our legal options? For we are but simple beings who need structure, rules, and ideologies to operate.
Ancient principles
One obvious way would be the disbandment of political parties altogether. But what else could replace our current political system?
Communism! China! There’s only one party there — the CCP — now in power for seventy-five years thanks to Mao Zedong. In control of over one billion people, or an eighth of humanity. It implements decisions and strategies, without objection or much debate, and over policy-friendly forty year timelines.
Or dictators! Benevolent would be the best kind. And at least Putin can make quick decisions, even if he’s steadily destroying his country. And needless to say, there was a string of Five Good Emperors who safely and steadily expanded the Roman empire for the entirety of the second century AD.
The problem with a communist party structure is that it has collapsed once already, and the current one is really more capitalist and totalitarian than anything else. And dictators are great, until they’re not.
What about ancient Greece and the Roman Republic? We might be onto something here. They ran democracies and elected representatives, similar to ours today. But here’s the interesting thing; their parties were much less present in the process of running their lands. Philosophers in ancient Greece particularly, believed that ‘party politics’ would be the downfall of the democratic system and as such should be avoided at all costs. Even in Rome, senators voted on policy, rather than along party lines. The voting mass was one unified body, guiding the Republic, and led by consuls who governed in pairs (all decisions to be made in harmony) and only for a period of a year before new ones were elected. What if in today’s society, as a representative of the people, whether a member of congress or parliament, a lord or a senator, you could follow your heart and vote for your values, rather than your party?[1]
Of course, these ancient representatives were often from the elite of society — wealth and family ties the determining factors as to whether one reached high office. And the downfall of the Roman Republic was partly due to the popular belief that senators were only interested in maintaining their wealth and influence, instead of working for the common good of the people (and frankly, that was correct).
What if we could have our representatives elected by the people but not of a party? In fact, what if people with similar political views could run against each other, and we simply elect the person we thought most capable to implement those views? And what if we had two or more ‘presidents’ or ‘prime ministers’ working in tandem?
Parties differ because of values. As we’ve discussed, those values are often shared, and it’s how they’re prioritized which turns out to be the problem. Let’s dive into a few already listed. Below is a speculative outline of how Democrats and Republicans could rank values differently. At the bottom of each ranking is how each may result in a different policy.
Even though we share values, a different ranking can result in polar differences in policy. However, just because someone is for gun control, doesn’t mean they don’t believe in national security or personal liberty. And similarly, just because someone is against abortion, does not mean they don’t value autonomy over one’s own body. Yet if we focus simply on political views, it can seem that we don’t share any values whatsoever. There’s a misunderstanding which is exasperated by the personal nature of some of the policies and how they effect individuals’ lives. Whether somebody can’t have a baby, has lost a child at birth or has had a friend killed by gunfire. These are personal stories which are emotionally charged and whose progenitors do not take kindly to invalidating sentiment.
To honor simplicity, below is a depiction of today’s politicians and ostensible party lines. The depiction is compared to what shared values would imply if parties did not exist.
A new paradigm?
The reality of overlapping and mixed values points towards how Western democracies should be run. As a cohesive whole representing core values and implemented by elected leaders. Such a mix of ideas will allow for better decisions — but mainly the system will be stable, inclusive and unifying. A similar system was implemented briefly in the UK between 1940–45, known as the ‘war cabinet’. The ministers in the cabinet originated from all parties and were selected on merit rather political views. Another similar system arguably is a coalition government. But the bickering and unstable nature of coalition structures often makes them ineffective.
Here, we are talking about the end of four to eight year political cycles. A constant governing body, in which individual parliamentarians or congressmen and women are elected intermittently, along with co-governing presidents or prime-ministers who both need to agree with each other before policy is implemented. Debate still exists, but it’s more constructive. In such a way, policy can be kept and can endure over 20–40 years, rather than succumb to constantly changing political winds.
Real, long-term change can be implemented in this way. Long-term polices could specifically focus on the big challenges facing us today, such as climate change, social inequity, crumbling infrastructure, lacking public healthcare and erratic foreign policy. We could address these challenges consistently and over the long-term, and kick-off long-term aspirations that will benefit us for generations to come; large-scale improvement in our infrastructure, deployment of renewable energy, the preservation of the natural environment, workable social safety nets and even space exploration.
The idea of doing away with parties in politics, and even prime-ministers and presidents, will be ridiculed by many and ignored by most. But I leave you with this; is it less absurd to let the world suffocate under its own division, to choke on its own pollution, to allow for the rise of popular dictators or even to devolve into civil war?
[1] Democracy without political parties: the case of ancient Athens, George Tridemas, University of Ulster, May 2019
