Single Issue Parties
Green parties, National Front, Ethnic Parties

Contents:

1. Special Interest Groups and Democracy
2. Can Single Issue Parties Govern?
3. Religious and Ethnic Parties
4. Fascism, National Front, BNP
5. Conclusion

Special Interest Groups and Democracy

Pressure groups and elite groups of activists are known in politics as special interest groups. They are renowned for their energy, enthusiasm and dedication to a cause and often promote and fight for the cause with extreme organisation and specificity. Most the time they do not reflect the electorate at large, and as such they can risk democracy itself if the government continually "gives in" to pressures from special interest groups [Beetham, 2005]. But with moderate influence, they do of course form part of the 'civil society' that is an important feature of democracy; they can make an issue popular that deserves to be so. Developed groups have potential to become political parties and to test their popularity with the general people in the poll booths. They generally do not do very well, and only the biggest and most well-established groups show up at all on the charts and graphs of election results produced by the Statistics Office.

Single Issue Parties can exert pressure and influence on mainstream parties. This is perhaps their most democratic and useful role. For example, the 1990s saw nearly all the parties in the UK adopt green issues. The political theorist and sociologist Peter Heywood points out that "one of the problems confronting green parties is that their mainstream and much larger rivals have taken up 'eco-friendly' positions that were once exclusively theirs' [Heywood, 2003]. The Green Parties, by representing the beliefs of a portion of the populace, have demonstrated to the other parties how to be green. Duly, the other parties have picked up on the potential votes, and adopted some of the milder green policies. This is actually democracy in action, albeit indirectly. The people now find that they can vote for green issues, yet still choose between economic policies of Labour or Conservative.

Can Single Issue Parties Govern?

Does John Smith, a serious animal rights activist, know how to manage the economy? He has dedicated his life to fighting corporate abuse of animals, and governments blind-eye to it. He knows government policies and laws on animal welfare inside and out. But, can John Smith do Gordon Brown's job and balance the nations' considerable assets across the spectrum? Can any of his fellow activists, if voted, devote their time to keeping roads in good order, managing the modernisation of the police forces and military? As an example, in 2006 Hamas won power in the Palestine area; they campaigned as freedom fighters but the USA and Israel consider them terrorists. In either case, they are an anti-Israel, anti-USA single-issue party. Late in 2006, civil servants and security forces went unpaid₂ due to foreign policy and fiscal blunders by the incapable single-issue-party. The job of government is highly complex, highly technical and requires a party with a deep reserve of political know-how, mathematicians, sociologists, etc. Can single issue parties fulfil all the roles required of them in government? Looking at religious parties and parties divided along ethnic lines, and then at far-right parties such as the extremist BNP, we highlight how many such parties appeal to basic, short-term instincts of ignorant people, and have no genuinely well thought-out policies.

Religious and Ethnic Parties

Some religious movements can become powerful, rich and influential. When a religious body rules a country it is call "theocracy". In the dark ages, Europe was largely ran by Christian theocracy. Religious rules became common law. In the UK this is why we still have blasphemy laws. Islam is the religion of Muslims. Muslim activists who want an Islamic state are known as "Islamists". Across the world, Islamists have gained power in many countries. Often starting out as a simple religious movement or special interest group, they evolve into a powerful and military force that encourages others to support their extremism out of fear.

In 1991 in Algeria, the Algerian Army intervened to prevent the second round of elections which would have brought in the Islamist party the Islamic Salvation Front. The following conflict between the military-backed regime and the Islamists cost 100 000 lives. In 1997 in Turkey the people also voted to end democracy with an Iran-style Islamist cast of religious rulers. They appealed to international law in order to resolve the problem (can you democratically remove democracy?), and it was ruled illegal to do so by an International Court. Parties that represent a single religion are inherently undemocratic; their existence has nothing to do with governance, economy or politics. They gain votes like a religion gains converts, and voting for them has nothing to do with their policies as a government, but with their religious beliefs.

A number of developing democracies have deep social divisions. What happens is that the short-sighted, confused and simple-minded populace simply vote for the party which is the same as their own ethnicity. So, Shia Muslims vote for a Shia party, whilst Shi'ite Muslims vote for a Shi'ite one. Their choices have nothing to do with which party they think has the best policies for the country. Parties that merely pander to a specific ethnic group are like religious parties that pander to a specific religion: They do not really have a place in politics, and are not sensible parties to vote for. It's like a referee in a football match deciding that Christians United deserve all the penalties, because they're Christians. It would enrage and outrage that his decision wasn't based on understanding or upholding football. People should vote for parties that have good policies on the (often pluralist) economy and society, not for parties that merely represent their own ethnicity or religion.

As such Islamic parties, Christian parties, religious parties in general, ethnic parties all form the same caste of a-political danger that can undermine democracy, government and stability, yet can still appeal to certain portions of a population who merely want to be heard, no matter the cost to everyone else.

Fascism, National Front, BNP

The British National Party is the most popular far right single issue party. Such parties are dangerously shallow and single-minded. They appeal to nationalism of the most hateful kind. Diatribes against "foreigners" in general result in promises of laws against immigration (including a complete ban on all immigration), laws to expel immigrants (illegal, and legal) who live here, and laws against benefits for immigrants. The UK requires an immigrant workforce; our population would otherwise decline and our pensions system would break down as a decreasing work-age population has to pay for the services and pensions of an increasingly old population. Only immigration stops this happening. Simple economics seems to escape the attention of extremist nationalist parties. But these parties are not aimed at the intelligent members of the population, they are squarely aimed at underlying bigotry and emotional xenophobia.

“All European countries accept and tolerate other cultures and lifestyles. The UK is the notable exception in Europe. Despite being a very mixed country, London is the most diverse city on Earth, the central trash culture is very intolerant of foreign things. The saving grace is that the masses are so stupid they frequently accept things without knowing they're foreign. "Different" styles of dress, different customs, religions, looks and people are misunderstood, cruelly stereotyped and largely rejected. The UK does not suffer too badly from homophobia, especially since the demise of the Christian Churches, but there is still a relatively widespread dislike of gays within much of Britain. Not just within trash culture, although it is of course the worst example. Racism is strife, much more so than the government would like to admit. Focal points of expressions of xenophobia are pubs and football matches, the two greatest social meeting points for the trash cultures masses.

“Opinion polls consistently show that Britons are concerned about immigration, which they think is running out of control. [...] Television images of Afghans pouring into the Channel Tunnel particularly offended the island mentality. For the last three years, fewer would-be refugees have made it to Britain, thanks to better border security [...]. The number of asylum-seekers is now the lowest it has been for more than a decade. Oddly, though, public disquiet is as strong as ever”

The Economist, 2006, Ref. 1

Countries such as Denmark, Finland and Sweden all accept a higher rate of asylum seekers than the UK [Vexen on Asylum Seeker Acceptance Rates, 2004] and yet these countries do not have the problems that many in the UK complain about.”

"UK Trash Culture" by Vexen Crabtree 2004 Nov

Of the 15 headings on their "What We Stand For" page on the BNP website, 6 directly refer to putting "British People First" and "time to say enough" to immigration. They want to end immigration - which is required for the economy of the country as we do not have a big enough workforce of our own - and yet simultaneously state that they will spend more on pensions for old people. With a population that is ageing, they will soon find that they have rather a lot of pensioners and not many workers. This is what is happening in Japan and some other Western countries, and the pensions in the UK would be much worse if we did not have an immigrant workforce. We could not, for example, even come close to providing a National Health Service without the sponsored training & employing of ethnic doctors. Two more of their policies aim at increasing our military and cracking down on crime. Yet their stated opinions on the military are impossibly naive - moving British forces out of Germany and leaving NATO, not doing any more peacekeeping, etc) - would be the same steps towards worldwide chaos and sectarianism that led to previous world wars. Military co-operation and worldwide peacekeeping are essential roles of developed countries. The BNP's other 7 items include a few politically central ideas such as "a cleaner greener future". The party also campaigned for making homosexuality illegal up until 2005, after which it was dropped from the manifesto but continued in practice. They represent trash culture in being racist, homophobic, hateful and un-educated on real political issues.

The British National Party has been more subtle in recent years. The outlawing of hate literature has made many of their previous campaigns now fall into the black, not just the grey, of legality. They present themselves as "rational", with literature that is calm and decent-sounding, but which still is squarely concentrated on only one issue: foreigners. Many European far-right nationalist parties have already been presenting themselves as more mainstream. Such extreme nationalism, especially of the more secretive kind as we are now seeing, represents one of the most feared threats to modern democracy.

Finally, to return to the serious economic point that we need immigrants:

“The UK is ageing, and we need more working-age people to fill the emptying hole in our demographic make-up. Otherwise, multiple industries and all pensions are at severe risk. Already, some industries and local economies depend on immigrants, especially as cheap labour to do work that not many others want to do but also we have serious shortages in some skilled trades, for example, nearly half the new doctors and nurses employed in the National Health Service have qualified abroad. We already have shortages of medical staff. Imagine the world without half the staff of the NHS, cheap labourers working in industries that our ageing population avoids, no pensions for increasing numbers of the elderly, and you imagine a UK without immigration. Despite this, some extremist, simpleton and short-sighted parties (such as the BNP and NF) campaign for a complete stop to immigration, and even promise to send home nationalized foreigners. With a population that is ageing, they will soon find that they have rather a lot of pensioners and not many workers.”

"Immigration: Economics and Bigotry" by Vexen Crabtree (2007)

Conclusion

Single issue parties are a risk to the stability of our (or any) country. Most of them lack any sound economic knowledge or realistic theories on the demographics of the UK. Special interest groups are a benefit to democracy as long as they don't actually have any power. It is better to convince mainstream parties to take up green issues than it is to vote for (green) single issue parties. Parties that merely represent a single idea, a specific religion or a specific ethnic group are all undemocratic in nature. They are short-sighted and appeal only to the most basic instincts of their supporters. Educated and sensible people should vote for parties by judging the range of their economic and political policies, not by a single issue such as their ethnicity. Single issue parties are too narrow and too specific to be able to cope with governance at large, and are frequently intolerant towards those who don't subscribe to their particular ideology.