I have argued previously that the automatic judgement of someone based on arbitrary criteria such as the colour of one’s skin, one’s gender or one’s nationality is something which I consider to be inappropriate and unfair (to say the least).  Should the same be true however for the judgement of a person according to the political party of which they are a member?  If one is to believe the British Press, then no; the headlines of this morning (December 14^th 2017) make it abundantly clear that certain parts of the British Press consider it perfectly justifiable to label and judge people according to the party they support…  The Daily Telegraph’s headline was “Mutiny in the Commons…” and the Daily Mail asked MPs “Are you Proud of Yourselves..?”

This followed a vote in the House of Commons last night which approved an amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill requiring that Parliament be given a vote on the final proposal for Britain’s departure from the EU before it is ratified with the EU.  A total of 11 Conservative Party MPs voted in favour of the amendment – against the stated policy of the government, and it is these MPs to which these headlines refer.

The reaction of the British press would seem to support a belief that if you are an MP serving in the government, then you should vote with the government – a postulate which would mean that any majority government would automatically win all of its votes and which (if the argument is followed to its logical conclusion) would render the need for Parliament obsolete…  Beyond the clear stupidity of such a concept however, this argument serves to underline the tribal nature of party politics, and bring into contrast the conflict which is inherent in a system of democracy; that of asking those elected to represent the views of their constituents, and yet at the same time expecting that these views be subordinate to the views of the political party of which the representatives form a part.

The party political system seeks to unite (presumably) like-minded representatives together in a group, so that the group can act in a co-ordinated manner, and through the derived collective power enable the implementation of policies and government.  Individual political parties each have their own method for determining policy; the Labour Party for example, have a National Policy Forum comprising some 200 elected members, and from this the National Executive Committee (39 elected officials) determine which policies are included in the party’s manifesto.  The Conservative Party on the other hand allows the leader of the party to define all policy in whichever manner is considered appropriate at the time.  What the different systems share however, is the expectation that all of the party members will (unquestioningly) support the key policies of the party.  British political parties operate a ‘whip’ system by which the Members of Parliament are obliged to vote in line with the declared policy of the party; whether this policy is in opposition to the desires of the constituents or not.  The effective result is that the when a vote is cast for a candidate of a political party, a vote is cast for the party and not really the individual – the individual’s concerns only become relevant if the event that the political party allows that individual freedom to be exercised.  The term obligation is used here, however the party cannot cast a vote on the individual MP’s behalf, but they can affect the career and progression of the individual through political influence and ultimately through a removal of support from the party which can greatly affect a candidate’s chance of being re-elected.

It can be argued that of course the voter’s freedoms are not being impacted through this process, since any voter who does not agree with the policies of a party (or indeed a candidate) can choose to vote for someone else or even stand as a candidate them self, but this is where the tribalism comes in to play.

One of the key features (perhaps even a benefit) of a party political system is the facility with which candidates can be identified in relation to specific issues; it is far easier to vote for someone because of their party than to investigate their specific beliefs: indeed, given that the candidates beliefs are subordinate to the principles of the party, one could even argue that the individual’s beliefs are irrelevant.  This easy identification of perceived common traits, leads naturally, I would argue, to the drawing of assumptions concerning groups of people; and judging someone according to an assumption is unfair discrimination.

Thus, blind support for any political party is nothing more than prejudice, which makes it all the more strange to my mind that the Leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn, still refuses to make clear his position on the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union.  As a voter, how can I know whom to support unless I know the policies that that they hold?  In a party political democracy, how can I know whom to support unless I know the policies of the political parties?  In the absence of this then, all I have is prejudice on which to base my decisions.  By refusing to declare a position, logically the only hope of Jeremy Corbyn can be that people will support him because he is Labour, he cannot hope to garner reasoned support without any position that can be reasoned!!

Party politics obscures reason.  If we want reasoned debate, then we need reason to debate! We need to be able to stand behind a principle, not a rosette!  If we remove the concept of party from politics, then we remove the need for politicians to hide what they believe.  If we want politicians of conviction, then we need to let them voice their convictions.  Support which comes from blind prejudice and not from reason is not support – it is faith, and politics should not be a religion.