In Defence of Political Parties

Last week the government launched its new e-petitions website (see http://www.atthegrapevine.com/wordpress/politics/launching-e-petitionsfor an excellent article by David Brownsey-Joyce), allowing the public to establish a petition on any topic they choose, with only limited constraints.  The idea, no doubt, was to increase public participation in politics outside of elections, and to allow the government to get a feel for what issues the electorate cares about.  With the publication of the first set of proposed petitions however has come a good deal of controversy.Topping the list of the most divisive petitions is the death penalty.  According to the BBC website, “dozens” of the petitions call for the death penalty to be reinstated in the UK, prompting a cacophony of opinions to be expressed in the media and on Twitter, centring on the #crimesworthyoftherope hashtag.  Despite the death penalty being outlawed in Britain for over forty years, the topic clearly still stirs up strong views and emotions in people.  Alongside the petitions calling for the death penalty to be reinstated were those that called for Britain to leave the European Union as well as a proposal that prisoners should be fed only bread and water.

These topics are all outside the mainstream rhetoric of politics in modern day Britain; no serious political party in its right mind would stand for election on a manifesto of capital punishment and bread and water for prisoners.  Yet, according to the vocal minority, these are policies that they would support.  Freedom of speech ensures that every person in the UK has the right to express their views (within reason) in whatever way they wish, yet the use of e-petitions can arguably be seen as taking this concept too far.

Political parties exist to provide a package of policies to voters encased within an easily identifiable ideology, allowing voters to express a preference for how they wish government to conduct itself.  The MP/constituency link provided by the First Past the Post electoral system means that outside of this generic package the public can further express their views on an individual basis to an elected representative.  What the e-petitions allow voters to do is bypass this system of preference indication in favour of a ‘pick and mix’ style of politics, where minority or more extreme views can be expressed in a public domain and portrayed as mainstream by the media or on social network sites.  The danger inherent with this system of individual policy proposal is that political parties will gain a false indicator of the salience among the public of a particular issue.  The publicity surrounding a petition could be enough to prompt a policy rethink, as well as the potential support in terms of people signing the petition.

In order to prevent false representation of public interest therefore it is essential to maintain the formal system of preference aggregation through political parties.  The current system ensures that political parties present a balanced and centrist manifesto at election time in order to have the best possible chance of being elected.  Once in power they can use referendums if an issue is deemed important enough to require a specific response from the electorate, and each MP acts to represent their constituents’ interests.  Through the further actions of pressure groups, think tanks and the media there are more than enough ways that views and opinions can be expressed in appropriate measures with appropriate safeguards.  E-petitions, as proved this week, are unnecessary and threaten the stability of the political system.