‘Implicitly denying an impartial state, the presence of a party-political system, proves that a society is immature, and unready for proper democracy; moreover, needing the fix of victory – both egotistically, and financially – adversarial politicians will not bequeath success, and thus shun long-term remedies for the ointment of today (opting to peddle popular snake-oil, instead of administering bitter panaceas); so, necessarily prejudicial, and in thrall to donors, party politics ought to be abolished – it being better to prevent the practices of – socially toxic – political factions, than to heal the ills they bring).’

To wit:

1. (Social division): ‘Party politics is, per se, divisive (a truth its exponents do not deny); moreover, the entities so created, seek to exacerbate, and capitalise upon social difference, through polarising views, and honing opposition (popular antipathy, being vital for their survival).’
   
2. (Disenfranchisement): ‘In popular democracies, though most voters vow they will, magnanimously, accept the outcome of the ballot, the truth is they will only do so, provided that whoever is elected does not pursue an agenda too detrimental to themselves (the same being true of pseudo democratic nations, who err to back democracy in other countries, until such time that the electorate in question votes in a regime they disagree with, post which the norm for the former, is to support revolution, or a military coup).’
   
   ‘Party-political systems, naturally exacerbate this problem – particularly in nascent states, ones riven with ethnic difference, or marked class divides – such that certain groups are placed in a position where they cannot accept the result of an election, by dint of the treatment they will, inevitably, receive at the hands of the victors; conversely, in a non-party system of unaffiliated representatives, though majorities would still hold more sway than minorities, social divisions would not be so polarised, personified, and thrown in to focus; in truth, partisan sentiments become diluted through independent dialogue, and diverse speakers for – despite demagogic ventriloquism, which has the public as a dummy – the voice of the people is a hubbub (individual views lacking uniformity, ‘til they are shoehorned into groups – usually through the use of cobblers).’
   
3. (Undemocratic nomination): ‘In choosing exclusively from among their number, who can run for seats and, by extension, occupy ministerial positions, and [mis]lead the state, political parties restrict the options of most voters, and thereby skew, and ruin, the electoral process from the outset (party-political rulers, in truth, being only voted into office by the, tiny, minority of the population who bother to join their club).’
   
4. (Susceptibility to entryism): ‘Notwithstanding the jealous exclusivity of their internal selection process, political parties are ever susceptible to corruption via entryism, such that their body can be commandeered, and used as a puppet by groups who, if unmasked, would alienate the electorate; this tactic is oft employed by radicals, who look to use mainstream parties as vehicles to destabilise society, and further their own extreme agendas (however unwanted, or boss-eyed they are).’
   
5. (Undemocratic collaboration): ‘By dint of party politics, often one group will win, by far, the most seats compared to its several rivals, but fall short of the seats needed to control a chamber, enabling the others to form cynical coalitions – the members of which have disparate interests – so as to circumvent fairness, and achieve power on a collective basis (which usually serves no purpose, other than to boost the puerile egos, of the said, mis-representatives).’
   
   ‘Similarly, small groups will support bills they dislike, and will vote against others they do not mind, or even secretly favour, so as to honour their part in unscrupulous, wonky political pacts, in a strange act of compromise-morality, which betrays the people, and sees them misled – by dint of ignorant subscription – while good gets neglected, and bad is left to fester.’
   
6. (Governmental deadlock): ‘For the sake of their own exclusive interests, petty beefs and feeble intrigues, political parties often err – wittingly, willingly, and by dint of inability – to let states run adrift, and be denied effective government, when no one among their insufficient number can drum-up enough support to run the, potty, chamber in which they operate; in this respect the public is doubly betrayed, for they either have to let one party command, and pursue its own prejudicial agenda, or they have to accept an antipathetic balance, which leaves their defunct republic rudderless, whilst their representatives bitch and bicker, per their respective bents (which, though always beneficial to themselves, seldom help the commonwealth).’
   
7. (Binary distortion): ‘Historically the left have erred, to find wrong answers to the right questions, whilst the right have erred in turn, to find right answers to the wrong problems; this paradox however, is merely one example, of the ills which come from exclusive viewpoints, for, putting pendular systems in a spin, most political issues, do not lend themselves to binary, left or right solutions (which prevent their proper address, through colouring them into red and blue hues, that deny their actual complexion); moreover, those who win power by dint of division, will never lead a united people (intolerant of dialogue, and deaf to reason, a people rent by bent rhetoric, being hard to reunite).’
   
8. (Closed systems): ‘Political parties, by their very nature, are made up of men whose minds chime – leastwise as far as the limits, of self-interest will permit – and thus the parliaments they populate, denigrate into echo chambers, where self-referencing, exclusive viewpoints, reinforce their own prejudices, at the expense of the commonwealth, whose broad church needs diverse, sincere sermons, and a varied diet, to healthily develop (not the unconstructive, dogmatic squabbling, of narrow-minded groups, the constitutions of whom operate on a basis, independent of, and distinct from, that of the state they say they serve).’
   
9. (Pseudo popularism): ‘Sans higher conviction, and particularly outside a meritocratic setting, political systems err to be corrupt, in varying degrees, and differing ways; commonly, when soliciting support from a, predominantly, unqualified electorate, politicians make hollow or impossible promises, then look to excuse their inability to deliver them; thus, avoiding unpopular, challenging policies, in pandering to the longings of the mob, the hobbyhorses of core supporters, and the yens of those who bankroll them, faction-run states can only function, via slyness, lying, and glib lip-service (mouthed by hollow politicians, whose dubbed utterings – to shorten Orwell – seek to use political language, to give wind solidity).’
   
   ‘Espousing common ideals, whilst pursuing their own interests, parties avoid administering the bitter, bad medicine, that surely cures social pathologies, yet obsess about politically correct cant, whose leechcraft, indenying candid and distinct opinion, rots equity, and ethical health (the latter, pc cancer being, in some ways, worse than the physical types which, though they can attack and kill the body, cannot touch the spirit, and indeed oft enrich it, through giving it strength and perspective, unlike the said sad malady that, in seeking to fix thinking, simply sickens it, and makes it weak and jaundiced).’
   
   ‘Moreover, however they reflect a philosophy, it must not be forgotten that policies are experiments, whose success is determined by way of experience, and as such they must be tolerant, open to change, and embrace failure, as a necessary component of their process; consequently, combative, point-scoring party politics, serves to deny social progress, by forbidding leaders from spending the money, and from taking the risks, which make society safe and rich.’
   
10. (Demagogic agitation): ‘When people are badly educated, irreligious and indigent, with respect to things political, it is difficult to appeal to their higher nature, by dint of its non-existence (or leastwise scarcity, which is not a criticism – generosity, kindness and tolerance to strangers, being luxuries denied to those whose business is subsistence, while why should they have faith in a society, which seems to despise them); conversely, it is simple to pander to their baser nature, whose brutal instinct is ever-certain, unlike ethical sense, which errs to be pensive, and e’er beset with dilemma, in an unmeritocratic state; to this end, political parties, desperate for mass endorsement, flirt with, and sometimes wed popular prejudice, and so sow discord, so as to reap votes.’
    
    ‘Historically, in societies riven with disparity – in terms academic, and economic – unqualified, mass participation in politics, serves only to lower the tone of the debate, and encourage ugly conduct, on the part of zealous activists, whose hatred for the opposition and – actual or imagined –  collaborators in their own ranks, is essentially tribalistic, and has little to do with political hue (any cause sufficing for the spiteful, to scratch at the insecurity, which continually itches them).’
    
    ‘Moreover, those socially impotent – wrongly because of prejudice, and disadvantage, rightly because of indolence, and fecklessness – are often used as cats paws, or stooges, by political organisations, who exploit their resentment to further ideologies, which will not, ultimately, help or benefit them (much like a wail, or cry in reply to pain – which does not heal, but can relieve – protest forms an end in itself, for those who know no remedy).’
    
11. (National debt): ‘Through control of the public purse, politicians look to obtain, and retain their positions, by buying popularity, through the purchase of pork, and the distribution of benefits, but such vain, reckless largesse backfires, if it results in higher taxes, which in turn nurture popular resentment; consequently, needing to spend but not tax, factional politicians look instead to borrow, and thus place the state in hoc, to bankroll their ambition (an ill only possible, by dint of political parties, for independent reps couldn’t make promises which, as individuals, they obviously couldn’t honour).’
    
12. (Minority empowerment): ‘Party-political systems, quietly, permit vocal minorities, lobbying groups, and primarily the wealthy, a disproportionate influence upon the operation of government – usually via implicit, reciprocal assistance, more than explicit, clientelistic repayment – whilst pandering to the, many, inadequacies of the multitude (or leastwise pretending to); the resulting, disingenuous dumbocracy, is reliant on the silent, resigned, ovine acceptance of the majority, who are either occupied with meeting needs – perceived, real or actual – are busy addressing workaday concerns, or are insufficiently driven, to change the system, which slyly denies them (such apathy happening, due to poor education, risk aversion, or preoccupation with private affairs – especially when one is successful, or, unfortunately, burdened through failure).’ 
    
    ‘So as to ensure the latter conditions, Machiavellian regimes support consumerism – in lieu of religion – welcome cynical resignation, and encourage personal ambition, so that citizens grow blind to right, and learn to shun their public life, by becoming, short-sightedly, focussed on their private lives (the hollow choice sold by buying, serving to distract men, in respect of political deprivation); similarly, such states engineer social complexity, so as to keep people distracted, by dint of material commitments, domestic concerns, and quotidian detail, as they serve a world, that does not work for them (daily white-noise silencing, appeals to right and reason).’
    
13. (Minority denial): ‘Conversely, particularly in a party-political system, minorities, in an indiscriminately enfranchised society, are forever at risk from majority tyranny, the moment the rump populous, rudely, pursues an interest to their detriment, or otherwise takes a dislike to them, for their votes prove impotent in the face of mass support, for any party whose message is commonly popular (party agendas and manifestos, ever-dodging unpopular policies – regardless of their merit, or ethical necessity).’
    
    ‘Whilst pogroms present the best – if ugliest – example of the worst democracy, the effects of jumbled suffrage are, commonly, more insidious, and take the form of the benefits and concessions, fawning politicians make to majorities – regardless of their ethicality – at the cost of minorities, and the commonwealth, as the tab for today’s indulgence is left to be settled manana (it being the votes of the next election which, always, need to be bought, not future ones, when the present political protagonists are, duly, superannuated, with their careers safely behind them, and wealth and honours pocketed).’ 
    
    ‘Beyond the neglect of unpopular policies though, and the good administration of bad medicine, such government tends to, unnaturally, result in the infantilisation of society, as busy and simple people are, increasingly, nannied to sweetly please them, and taught doe-eyed dependency, as opposed to the self-reliance, sans which men can’t be free (the institutionalisation of a nation, babysat from cradle to grave, being more soul-destroying, than any form of open, robust oppression – which invites fight, sacrifice and kindness, as people, rightly, win their liberty).’
    
14. (Shabby balance): ‘From a pragmatic perspective though, the selfish, conflicting interests, of politically savvy minorities, and politically torpid majorities, can serve to, broadly, counteract each other, to which end – if one forgets all the individual wrongs, which permit this grey outcome – such a system can be deemed a practical success (leastwise in in a cynical society – its amoral tack, keeping government on track, in a zigzag fashion); but such a capitulation to vice – or, rather, capitalisation upon it – though forgivable in a nascent state, is unacceptable in an advanced one, which should function by virtue of virtue, and not by dint of the base instincts, jealous interests, and political laziness of – oxymoronic – asocial citizens.’
    
15. (Reckless enfranchisement): ‘Ever eager to win votes, and seeing callow people as easy ones to gull, whilst likewise being desperate to swell electoral turnout – so as, in lieu of quality, to quantitively validate their mandate – political parties err, and vie to widen the electoral roll, each being terrified, that if they deny anyone the vote, then their opponents will win their support, the moment it is bestowed upon them; consequently, creating a market for what they hawk, party-political systems end up giving votes to children, convicts, illiterate or backward people, or anybody it seems  who breathes (this being, in their blatantly-biased opinion, qualification enough for anyone to sway social direction).’ 
    
16. (Political reduction): ‘In way of being made, to bend to, cater for, and adopt party policies and stances, those elected are forced to suppress, dilute and alter their views, to suit the position of the group they are beholden to, and in this way party politics stymies compromise within assemblies (flexibility and tolerance, being best achieved aggregately, by virtue of free, independent thinking, on the part of unfettered representatives).’
    
    ‘Notwithstanding issues of integrity, such a restrictive situation, means that matters become tested and dealt with, in terms of two, or three conceptual perspectives, as opposed to being addressed, and checked, by the wisdom of impartial individuals (who, free of the whip, can follow their conscience); thus politics degenerates into blocs, whose two or three tones denies the spectral hue of views that compose a people (their collective body being best represented, by a mosaic of separate minds); moreover, in an unaffiliated system, even if a voter didn’t see their candidate elected, they could gain comfort from the fact that – unless it were unique to them –  their outlook would be championed by other reps in the assembly in question.’
    
    ‘In terms of election, it is better that a person’s selected on their merit, than they’re mindlessly chosen, on the basis they espouse the scripted, corporate rhetoric of a body, which only finds favour through social convention, or by running in a two horse race (where, worst case, one always wins second place); in practice however, the implicit unfairness of party politics, becomes explicit by dint of the fact that, despite having their options reduced to a few group-views, the wishes of the majority can still be ignored, in a three-party-plus society, due to their favoured body coming second in each respective constituency, and thereby failing to gain a single, solitary voice in government, despite owning the most votes.’
    
17. (Political anonymity): ‘Party politicians can use their group as an excuse for specific action, or inaction on their part, by claiming they were whipped into doing it, by apparatchiks, colleagues or cabinet; conversely, they can use their parties as proxies, to realise private wishes and ambitions, which contradict those of their electorate; independent representatives though, never have any such excuses, their stance being their own, not chosen by committees they disagree with, dictated by political obligations, or subject to debts of membership.’
    
18. (Political conspicuousness): ‘In blindly enfranchised societies, politicians will often focus their energy – so waste it – on cultivating vacuous character, so as to tap the thoughtless support that comes by way of celebrity (morons voting for those they know, or those they like the look of, regardless of their ability, or the policies – if any – which they spout and sanction); political parties serve to worsen this condition, via the way they nominate their candidates, their promotion of poster boys, and their internal intrigues, all of which err to, sadly, encourage hammy actors to play to the gallery (requiring the limelight, to stand out from the troupe – however wooden they may be).’
    
19. (Historical obligation): ‘As identity is crucial to political parties, they end up beholden to their own image, viz. by dint of being thus branded, they become in thrall to the past, and have to advance traditional stances – or leastwise accommodate them – regardless of their current, and future suitability (forgetting their bent to trade on brand-loyalty though, classical parties have no choice but to act in character, or accept their obsolescence).’ 
    
20. (Funding and special interests): ‘As the piper’s payer calls the tune, the funding of political parties, by minorities, businesses, unions and individuals is, per se, improper and anti-democratic, for it makes government place particular interests over those of the polity (any politician, or party, who denies that funding buys influence is lying, plain and simple – and anyone who believes them must be a gull); yet though party politics, by its very nature, both invites and facilitates this, and other malpractices, it would be hard for independents to act thus, as any private bias on their part would be countered by the collective integrity of their assembly, the members of which would act as watchmen, each upon the other (to which it should be added, that independent representatives don’t need to fund party machinery).’ 
    
21. (Political myopia [will never see utopia]): ‘Courting popularity, through pandering and flattery, parties are institutions that can’t dispense the, curative, social bad-medicine that a collective of unaligned reps can, for any attempt on the part of the former to do so, merely gives their rivals the opportunity to promise an opposite, sweet, but ineffectual tonic, and thus steal the office they seek to thieve.’
    
    ‘The principal concern of political parties is power, not for a purpose, but as an end in itself – particularly when politics is a career – which is an impediment to good governance; moreover, the ephemerality of fame – and craving for gain today – prevents sound planning for the future – so vetoes vision – as, dictated by electoral cycles, party politics can only function on a short term basis, and cannot undertake the longterm, and very longterm schemes needed for the proper development of a commonwealth.’
    
    ‘Furthermore, painfully conscious of their often-small majorities in some constituencies, parties duck or shelve nationally-beneficial initiatives to placate vocal groups in given localities; thus good for the many is left undone, for fear of offending the few.’
    
    ‘The lazy, easy adoption, of soft-option, convenient, kneejerk policies, prevents healthy social development, creates longterm problems, solicits moral hazards, and is particularly toxic to an economy, which needs stability and predictability, above all else, to evolve and be in kilter (these conditions encouraging entrepreneurship, speculation, experiment and spending – men exploring more, and better, when they have a safe base, and can meaningfully scheme); provided a polity learns from its past, and prudently plans for its future, its present will run ever-better (society being both pushed, and pulled, in the same progressive direction).’
    
22. (Political distraction): ‘Obsessed by opposition, and internal, private rivalry, political parties expend terrible effort, on infighting, and in fighting their adversaries (indeed, this becomes, by way of natural selection, their greatest preoccupation – above and beyond running government); under this silly, point-scoring system, good ideas are denied, suppressed, or otherwise killed in the cradle, simply because of their authorship, whilst skill is wasted, collaboration is taboo, and grand designs are forsaken (good ministers being excluded from positions, if their political hue doesn’t suit rulers, however their absence harms the commonwealth).’
    
    ‘Thus the talent of representatives is sapped, as party-political concerns eclipse diligent, progressive thinking, in the minds of blinkered politicians (such partisan conflict presenting, at best, a distraction for them, at worst, wilfully anti-social action, with the public suffering in either case).’
    
23. (Political detraction): ‘Unable to praise the success of rival parties, or their members, party politicians are forced to ignore, criticise and disparage, swathes of social accomplishment, and thereby effect public distress; moreover, this negative attitude finds present expression, both in ceaseless, internecine, party-political bickering, and in the fact that those out of office – and ergo work, in most cases – seek to jealously paint a bleak picture of every topical issue, exaggerate ills, and aggressively scaremonger, if nothing too wrong is going on; spreading pessimism, and gladly causing sadness, this political jockeying is rotten for the people, whose wellbeing should be promoted by those supposed to serve them (both the spirit, and the economy of a commonwealth, being damaged via idle decrial).’
    
24. (Political horse-trading [public rustling]): ‘In conjunction with the said jockeying, political parties are usually content amongst themselves, to sacrifice issues and drop causes in exchange for gains that better suit their respective agendas, which smacks of pragmatic dealing, and thus seems sage, save for the fact that their specific political interests may not correspond with the public good, or reflect ethical sentiment (any such correspondence being coincidental, in a cynical, cosmetic democracy).’
    
25. (Media control): ‘Furthermore, narrow-minded, party-political conflict, intrigue and connivance, enables private media firms to manipulate and direct public policy to ends that suit their bent, as they twist the will of the electorate by dint of giving them loaded info (media-run government, being as wrong as government-run media – both a bad case of hyphenation that, maybe, should be concatenated); moreover, in their desperation to please viewers, and not be cast negatively, upon TV or other mediums, politicians, by dint of their portrayal as pantomime characters, err to be reduced to mere entertainers.’
    
26. (Electoral restriction): ‘Party-political, tawdry democracy, excludes the lip-served majority, from meaningful involvement in its process, by way of restricting, and polarising their pegboard choices, so that they tally with the interests of politically committed minorities, and electoral professionals, who in turn pander to the backers they need to bankroll their shabby business (donors being shareholders of the body they sponsor, in every respect, save nomination).’
    
    ‘Needless to say, this leaves the said demos despondent, and apathetic at their powerlessness, as they find themselves outwitted, and outbid in a system, which favours full-time players, wealthy investors, and them connected; moreover, party-politics, per se, exacerbates voting paradoxes, particularly in constituency-based systems, e.g.:
    
    In ten constituencies of 100 voters, six can be won by one party via 51 votes in each of them (total 306 votes), while four are won by another party by 99 votes in each of them (total 396 votes), and the former party still gain power (the wrong here being party-politics which, in transcending boundaries, makes a mockery of local elections); yet if constituencies are dispensed with, so that proportional representation is grossly effected then, whilst other sins of party-politics go unchecked, regional issues run the risk of neglect, as people lose the right to select their own reps.’
    
    ‘Similarly, when small parties are able to tip the scales in hung assemblies, they get to punch above their weight, and so act unfairly; to this end, though the latter are democratically-moribund, oddly numbered assemblies would, at least, prevent them being drawn, while when the result of an issue they voted on was close, the winning option should be moderated to accommodate, where possible, the opposition view.’
    
    ‘Naturally, independent candidacy stops these problems, while National Governments have, historically, illustrated that adversarial politics is an unethical, tribal legacy, which is not fair, or necessary, in a rational, modern society.’
    
27. (Gerrymandering, tactical voting, and distortion of the electoral-roll): ‘The three political ills, of gerrymandering, tactical voting, and distorting the electoral-roll, are symptoms of the principal electoral sickness, which is a party-political system; the latter wrong though, whereby parties that appeal to immigrants, those on benefits or, conversely, wealthy or successful people, actively set out to increase the number of these types of voters in constituencies they control, or are close to winning – or, in the case of immigrants, the entire state – is arguably the nastiest, due to the socio-cultural upset it causes, and the lives it blights.’
    
28. (Specific issue parties): ‘Capitalising on party-political interests, in states where there are hung legislatures, or where the margins of power are tight, groups will pursue their own exclusive interest or benefits, regardless of the public cost of their partisanship; this abuse only serves to destabilise, and fragment such bodies further, thereby de-energising them, so as to validate the social cynicism that qualifies, in a sad cycle, the thinking of self-serving, specific issue groups; this democratic failure illustrates the deficits inherent in a party-political system, where two-party states err to offer either-or policies, whilst multiple-party ones in turn, err to be ransomed by cunning minorities.’
    
29. (Collateral success): ‘Party-politics has only been socially successful, in as much as it has presented an extension of – naturally pragmatic – Darwinianly-underwritten tribalistic instincts, which result in a degree of organic functionality, that tends to convey the crude outlook of the day (in the main, albeit that such a state is one qualified by animal passion, as opposed to humane reason or, better yet, Maganimous nature).’
    
    ‘Until the citizen is edified, so that their morality is autonomous, society can never be sincerely free; rightly or wrongly, law can be enforced, but such coercion will always flag, or be overthrown (oft to be supplanted by rebranded autocracy); in truth, the quality of a society is, ultimately, decided by the quality of its citizenry, whose mettle is ever tempered by responsibility and consequence; party-politics however prevents such betterment, through all of the ills previously detailed, and all of the those that follow.’
    
30. (Dynastic and career politics): ‘While charismatic politics can be pernicious – by encouraging mindless conviction – career politics denies the life-experience needed for wisdom, and turns the business of government into an end in itself, as opposed to a means to an end (office being a meal ticket, and possibly a path to riches, for professional representatives); moreover, the idea of politics as a career must, necessarily, attract psychopathic, Machiavellian types, who see people as a resource to exploit, along with wan inadequates, who look to fill the vacuum of their personal insufficiency, through civic recognition, and column space (please, look at me, being their principal policy).’
    
    ‘Thus, while all politicians, to a degree, really mean “me”, when using the term “we,” when speaking for the people, professional politicians are the worst in this respect, due to their lack of conviction re the tailored-to-suit views they use in their quest for empty success.’
    
    ‘Moving on, born from the ill of career politics, dynastic politics suffers from, and compounds the vices of its parent (worsened by way of groomed views, stagecraft and platitudes); consequently, if not barred from candidature, the offspring of politicians, ought to be deterred from standing in elections, or leastwise face greater scrutiny, in respect of their independence (hereditary credentials presenting a handicap, in any meritocratic state).’
    
    ‘Denied by living in the world of politics, wisdom comes with experience, and is a process of slow, or hard learning, that cannot be abbreviated (cut short or short cut – a truth that mocks political precocity); yet even wisdom itself, is a quid pro quo of depth and breadth (indigenous wisdom, born from familiarity, of community and habitat, being deep but narrow – cosmopolitan wisdom, born from novation, of travel and universality, being broad but shallow); thus minimum age requirements should be set for elected representatives, all of whom too should have lived a different kind of life prior to entering politics.’
    
31. (Machine politicians): ‘Seeing their job as a profession, career politicians act, and indeed school themselves, to think on a politically correct, risk averse, insincere basis, and thus tailor their craft accordingly, in a process where justice is incidental; in this shabby business, career politicians, dynastic politicians and demagogues, through seeking to master power, become to power a slave – a la Wagner – as endless envy, rings of intrigue, hollow promises – marriages of convenience – and the gnawing fear of deposition, leave them in thrall to all forces, save their spent integrity; expert in polls, psephology and demography, yet ethically illiterate, and flinching at leadership, such players game society.’
    
32. (Equitable campaigning): ‘A fair state should see that shortlisted candidates are, broadly, given the same quantity and quality of airtime, and ensure impartial media coverage in respect of every election, such that their views, manifestos and persona is known, thereby obviating the need for political fundraising (thus shutting the lobby door); this is of course impossible in a party-political system, where there is seldom parity, notional or actual, between the corporate bodies concerned (to wit, a party which commands 30% of the vote, numerically warrants more coverage than a party that commands 10%, albeit that the latter cannot grow without the oxygen of publicity – conversely, independent candidates have relative relevance).’
    
    ‘Beyond this, if volunteers wish to offer their support, by way of marches, distribution of flyers etcetera, then this should be permitted, but monitored, with the state restricting such practices, or offering financial support to rival candidates, to ensure a level playing field is kept, so that poor candidates can match rich opponents (it’s now true to note though, that cyber platforms are cheap, and universally accessible, and thus lessen the need for expensive publicity – albeit such media must be policed in respect of veracity).’
    
33. (Perpetual crisis): ‘A – naturally parasitical – party political system, results in the polity it blights suffering an endless state of crisis. This is due to:
    Firstly, the short-termist (so myopic), factional (so divisive), narcissistic mismanagement, which is consistently visited on those ruled by conniving tribes – be they red, blue, yellow, or any other hue.
    Secondly, because crises empower governments, governments like crises, to which end political parties naturally welcome them (let it not be forgotten, such parties are part of the state’s apparatus – to the extent that they’re subsidized by chump-taxpayers).’

– # – 

The above text is an excerpt from the ‘The Prospect of Babel’, wherein it is titled:
Common politics (Party, dynastic and career mutations, soundly denounced)