For or against political parties?

Antagonism over political parties

Weil is opposed to Kelsen in this debate about philomag. The first vilifies the parties, “leprosy that prevents men from converging towards the just and the true.” For the second, “the ideal of a general interest superior to the interests of groups, is a metaphysical illusion”. Both are partially right. The best interest does exist but is not a prerequisite for debate. It is built by conflict, by the confrontation of the parties. From this emerges the higher interest, an independent level of information, which has only one character fixed: that of being a metastable representation of the underlying trends.

What is a ‘metastable representation’?

The best interest has relative independence. It has a stable autonomy. Otherwise it could not form a project. As a simple assembly of the parts, its intention would remain chaotic. Stability implies that its level of decision is insensitive to fluctuations in opinions, within certain limits. Because if a change wins a majority of the parts, the balance of the upper level changes. Metastability means that the equilibrium zone moves to another when the context requires it. The higher level of information erases the small hazards of the lower level, thus improving the general organization of the parties. In terms of social entropy, this is called minimizing free energy that can trigger violence between the parties.

Application to political parties

What real problem do they pose? They represent an ideal that is a prerequisite for debate. A party ideologically filters the data. It necessarily draws from it a biased synthesis, intended to satisfy the initial intention. Therefore, if a party has direct access to governance through its candidate, the conflict does not operate. The other parties are rejected in an opposition devoid of real power. No conflict, no synthesis. Government is not a real level of higher interest. Just a blank check given to a party.

A political party is an inconvenient entity to host the debate because it already aggregates too many parameters: economic, social, supranational, ethical/health, etc. These areas are intended to draw up their own syntheses separately. Political color blocks this process. Organization is a bottom-up process, from data to synthesis. The role of the political ideal is not to manipulate data for its own benefit. It back-controls the process and thus verifies that it is always positioned in the right place. The right ideal is also metastable.

Final ride

So yes, Mrs Weil, the parties are hindering convergence towards the ideal of truth, but this one is not fixed. Yes, Mr. Kelsen, parties are necessary to reposition the ideal, but should be more elastic in their own internal structure.

Politics is not polarizing. This is not polaritics. It is to make difficulties overlap with one’s ideal. But it is no longer the same. It now has a mount…

*

Leave a Comment

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.