Informative and expansive exploration, Joanna. I think political parties have been nothing more than a way to power. There main importance has been the ability to organize voters in a democratic system. However, and as democracy itself, they were always highly inefficient. It is no surprise that their relevance continues to diminish as interest in politics declines, especially amongst the young.
With time, as politics become more centered on individuals, their monopoly as a tool for power will wane. They'll find themselves where the Republican Party in the US currently is: it needs Trump more than he needs it. Time will tell, but as their effectiveness as a way of mobilization declines in today's age of social media politics, parties could become hollow vessels whose only anchor is legality, not functionality.
Many thanks for reading Patrick and for providing such a thoughtful response. "I think political parties have been nothing more than a way to power" is such a cutting sentence because my focus is on the word WAY - it is a way to power, but what happens to power and how does it evolve when a party gets there? And what about the role of the collective, and collective decision-makers? Relationships are so fundamental to human nature and evolution that to not see this formed and sustained at a political level means that we are reversing instead of progressing. It's a fascinating topic!
Fascinating, indeed. I think your questions highlight a fundamental limitation of democracy and government in general. Those to whom power is delegated have a tendency to abuse it, and there are limits to what the citizenry can do.
You remember that time you went from Johnson to Truss to Sunak really fast ... a system that allows to change leaders, but the party in power remains - until the next general election. Obviously good, but still has inherent rigidity. Democracy is like Churchill defined it: the worst, except for all others. Like capitalism, it has its limitations, but it's still the best system there is. We should keep debating these limitations to keep them at a minimum.
Thanks, Joanna, always fascinating to read your takes on these things.
Informative and expansive exploration, Joanna. I think political parties have been nothing more than a way to power. There main importance has been the ability to organize voters in a democratic system. However, and as democracy itself, they were always highly inefficient. It is no surprise that their relevance continues to diminish as interest in politics declines, especially amongst the young.
With time, as politics become more centered on individuals, their monopoly as a tool for power will wane. They'll find themselves where the Republican Party in the US currently is: it needs Trump more than he needs it. Time will tell, but as their effectiveness as a way of mobilization declines in today's age of social media politics, parties could become hollow vessels whose only anchor is legality, not functionality.
Many thanks for reading Patrick and for providing such a thoughtful response. "I think political parties have been nothing more than a way to power" is such a cutting sentence because my focus is on the word WAY - it is a way to power, but what happens to power and how does it evolve when a party gets there? And what about the role of the collective, and collective decision-makers? Relationships are so fundamental to human nature and evolution that to not see this formed and sustained at a political level means that we are reversing instead of progressing. It's a fascinating topic!
Fascinating, indeed. I think your questions highlight a fundamental limitation of democracy and government in general. Those to whom power is delegated have a tendency to abuse it, and there are limits to what the citizenry can do.
You remember that time you went from Johnson to Truss to Sunak really fast ... a system that allows to change leaders, but the party in power remains - until the next general election. Obviously good, but still has inherent rigidity. Democracy is like Churchill defined it: the worst, except for all others. Like capitalism, it has its limitations, but it's still the best system there is. We should keep debating these limitations to keep them at a minimum.
Thanks, Joanna, always fascinating to read your takes on these things.