Does the political party best represent the public interest?

In westernised democracies, most political parties represent what they consider to be a rational “congress of individuals, determined to transcend the limits of their individualism by associative means” [Pettman, 2001]. As we understand, individualism is based and closely linked to a belief in reason; however, it can also act as a conduit to disconnecting people from their community. In order to compensate for the alienating effects of individuation therefore, politicians have preferred instead, to associate (or clump) with each other because they have a common interest or cause in representing the public’s best interest.

In the main, democratic political parties are charged with the responsibility of determining public policy on behalf of society, with a commitment to uphold the rights of freedom, reason, justice and toleration for all. Edmund Burke described the political party as “…a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours, the national interest upon some particular principle [policy] in which they are all agreed…” While this account may seem commonplace in today’s current political environment, it heralded a new way of thinking back in the 18th century. In that sense, Burke was a pioneer of his times.

Two hundred years later – are political parties still united in pursuing their nation’s best interests? And depending on the electoral system in place, which political party actually determines what is in the public’s “best” interest, and how that public policy is defined and debated? Is it the interests of society that are “best” upheld, or simply the interests of the party or its leader? Political parties are inherently problematic because their political interests can often be at odds with the collective whole. Take for example, the debate over the whether New Zealand should have remained a GE Free Food Producer. Despite all the international export economic arguments to the contrary, the former Labour government continued to balk or even debate the suggestion of retaining the moratorium for a further five-year period. Publicly they informed constituents that science meant progress and that New Zealand had the opportunity of increasing yield to help stave off hunger in third world countries. In reality, this was a political party who did not want to be regarded as retracting an election promise or acquiescing to the Green Party. Politics over principle or pride over public interest? I would argue that these conflicts of interests have the potential to undermine the necessary conditions for effective democratic governance.

James McGregor Burns describes political parties and their leaders as proponents of collective commitments. For Burns, leadership and political parties are nothing “if not linked to collective purposes”. However, he also holds to the view that politicians of the “best sort” do not so much represent citizens, as decide what challenges and interests they will present to the public. In my mind, this represents nothing short of anti-constitutional behaviour by which policymaking has been, and is being conducted particularly in the United States. In this regard, Nixon believed that trade-offs were necessary so that “the ends would justify the means”. He was also a great believer in Machiavelli’s teachings; particularly with reference to war in which he upheld the expression “Good laws and good arms” were necessarily in the public’s best interests. He believed that his Republican party must be able to use force to fight off necessary evil – even if it was difficult for the public to understand or match his methods to the situation. Nixon believed, as Machiavelli argued, that while integrity made for good leadership, so too did cunning.

In this regard, when we elect political parties in the assumption that they will embody a consistent set of values and principles, what can we really tell about their moral compass? And once in a position of power, how can we insist that these standards and are maintained to preserve our “best” interests?

In terms of world affairs, perhaps collectivism provides an alternative to other ideologies, although the attempt to build collectivist states have all failed to provide both freedom and security. Is this because they have not embraced the notion of Kant’s liberalism and the importance of the individual over any form of social or collective group? Perhaps we should we turn our attention to Aristotle who believed that the best form is a blend of democracy and elite leadership? Conceivably having each of these groups represented would produce the most stable and legitimate form of governance where the public’s “best” interests are upheld. It is difficult to ascertain the answers when the world is governed by so many different and diverse parties, all representing a myriad of unlike populations and groups.