NO PARTY!

Just a thought experiment. What would happen if instead of a two-party system or a three or four or more party system, we had a no-party system? Seriously, consider this.

Disclaimer: I'm not going to introduce or work with class, race, or capital in this post. This is a utopian thought experiment, not a deep issue engagement. These are vital, contemporary forces in our world and deserve attention that falls outside the scope of this very interior exercise.

What I have in mind is the idea that candidates would have to stand before the electorate, free of party doctrine, dogma or stance, and (relatively) unfettered, lay out their visions. As I mull this over, I can’t help but feel that it might prove inspiring in a few different ways.

One way is that people would have to confront ideas without a preset ideology dictating them what to feel, what to think, and whether they should support those ideas or the people proffering them. In theory, people would have to think more for themselves and be motivated to think more deeply about he matters that concern them and what the possible solutions to problems might be.

Another way is that the person running would actually have to give genuine thought to their platform; they couldn’t half-ass it as much – oh, did I mention that there would be no handlers and a cap of – oh, maybe ten thousand dollars for campaigning? They would have to articulate what they are saying, why they are proposing their platform and actually have to go into substantial detail.

Yet another way this would prove inspiring is that perhaps a candidate is running against several others who have similar ideas; some are better articulated and rounded out, others not so much but with germs of unique approaches to current issues facing the electorate (and this is at whatever electoral level you like: municipal, state, province, region, nation) and instead of each running against each, they find the commonalities and promote themselves as a de facto committee. In other words, there would be an organic process that develops a representative constituency. This wouldn’t be merely one person promoting their view on policy and social development, but a number of people willing to put themselves out there and who – finding others of like mind – recognize that they could better meet the needs of the voters than one person promising too much.

The last instructive element is what this would mean for the structure of elections. How would we agree on who is running for what office? How would the candidates get the world out? In my mind, I envision a truly grass-roots beginning; a writer, an accountant, a retail person decides that they have sufficient understanding of the issues and the requisite desire to serve the community. They talk to like-minded friends and family, drum up the ten thousand and begin a campaign. Others feel similarly and there is a meeting within 90 days of declaration that offices are open for election and the various individuals meet together (perhaps there’s a cap on the number of candidates?) It is at these conferences that candidates actually talk to each other, discuss ideas and begin to form forward-moving committees. Rather than have people drop out because they aren’t Republican or Democrat enough, there are coalitions built around the best way to address the problems at hand.

Not everyone will be on board with everyone else, but at least, there would be some consensus for moving ahead. There are public discussions and debates and a first round of elections to test the public’s response to the candidates. Those below a certain percentage drop out or offer their services if they feel so inclined. The remaining candidates refine their messages in response to public mandate. Have the emphases on issues shifted? Is there something new that needs to be addressed? 

At this point, perhaps there is another infusion of funding for this next round of campaigning. Another conference is held among the candidates and their teams, another discussion about solutions to problems, policies, and visions for the future.

A second run of a 90 day cycle of public engagement and response ensues. During this time, the candidates have retooled, refined, and reworked their platforms and approaches. I should also mention that in some cases, there are incumbents running for office, as well, but/and they bring their experience to bear and share with the other candidates in a non-winner-take-all spirit of collaboration. 

You may be running against me for Director of Health and Human Services. Maybe I’ve been very strong at management but not so much in the way of finding longer term solutions. The electorate likes me but doesn’t have a strong sense of what it is I actually do. You come along with some great ideas about how to move the department forward and meet more people’s needs; we agree much more than we disagree and arrive at some degree of unity. I have the option to cede the election to you if you garner enough votes but you’ll keep me on for smoothing transition.

I also include in this little thought experiment that politicians will receive reasonable salaries but nothing exorbitant. Perhaps different communities will recognize jobs well done with bonuses?

Election day rolls around and the battle ground is less battle and more geared toward who best for this job. All of this means that the electorate has to be well-informed (at least, better informed than now) about each position in the running. In fact, that’s one of the reasons why I’m thinking about the removal of parties altogether. Too many people vote along partisan lines with no genuine assessment of the individual’s work in a given office. A Republican might have been doing a great job in a position only to be displaced by an inept Democrat. Or vice-versa.

But what if the playing field was leveled so that only those who have accomplished something good can continue to do so without the incessant pressure to continue campaigning through their tenure as so many elected representatives are doing now, pretty much of necessity?

Also, what I have in mind here is a utopian ideal of candidates who are elected on their merit of generating thinking, reflection and genuine ideas that are shared with the public who, in turn, are now knowledgeable and thoughtful enough to speak to those ideas and engage meaningfully with the candidates. I stress that I wrote “utopian” there.

Is this doable? Is it reasonable? Is it worthwhile considering? To the first two questions, probably not. On the last one, yes. We are overdue to confronting the ignorance of both ourselves as an electorate and that of the people elected as representatives. I haven’t said anything about special interests and corporate lobbyists, but in this utopian world, these would be held to account with minimal influence on the workings of government. Industry might or might not be more regulated, but it would be based on data and not party ideology. Politicians would be forbidden from accepting any gift from any private individual unless it’s a family member or friend during holidays (and even then, what if there were sign-off on that?); again, this is conceptual.

The point is less about whether this is possible (or desirable, even) but is there a way to meaningfully engage in a way that isn’t proscribed by a “herd mentality” of groupthink? I mean this both from the point of view of an electorate that is more of than not, ill- or under-educated on the issues on which they hold strong feelings, and/or are lacking in genuine critical-analytical skills. I say this latter not from a sense of superiority (I have to say there are plenty of topics I’m at sea on, myself) but because, frankly, the electorate in this country particularly, does not know the basics of history or sociology, much less the nuances behind how legislation is developed and passed, nor on any number of vital processes that have led us to this point.

There is a strong argument that this ignorance is systemic, if not premeditated, but I want to leave that aside. I would like people to give some thought to what it would mean if all of us stepped back from the labels by which we present ourselves, the party-lines we wrap ourselves in like chainmail or flags, and one, interrogate our own ignorance and blind spots and two, find some common ground based on our shared concerns instead of making dogmatic statements or coming from a space of defensiveness or insecurity to promote something that represents our “values”. It’s likely that we share many of the same values, but the ways we choose to express them may be at variance.

I hope that this little conceptualization provides some measure of reflection or even promotes a desire to create a similar thought process in others. Sometimes, in order to think outside the box, you need to ignore the box completely.