Student Essay on Accountability of Political Parties

Accountability of Political Parties

Summary:   Competition among political parties is essential in forming a government. However, such competition should be based on the fairness and true accountability of the elected party's platform, and political parties should be held to high standards of accountability.

"I'm the one who will not raise taxes. My opponent says he'll raise them as a last resort, or a third resort. But when a politician talks like that, you know that's one resort he'll be checking into. My opponent won't rule out raising taxes. But I will. And The Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and all I can say to them is "Read my lips: No new taxes."

-Former U.S. President George H.W. Bush

Throughout the contemporary world, ideologies shape the type of political systems used. Political systems, however, are fueled by power - the power to decide who will govern and how a society will be governed. This quest for power has raised the issue of how much competition should exist among political parties in forming the government. Communists argue that competition should not even exist because they believe in the concept of social Darwinism. In short, they believe that the cream will naturally rise to the top; the successful will attain power simply because they are superior to the unsuccessful. Liberalists, however, argue that people should have the freedom to choose who forms the government. They argue that competition among political parties not only provide alternatives for government but also identify interests and concerns with strong voter appeal. Basically, they believe that consensus holds society together. Personally, I do believe competition among political parties is essential when forming the government but on the basis of accountability. There have been many instances in history where competition among political parties led to promises made with the sole intent of winning the majority votes. However, these promises were not kept once the political parties came to power. Therefore, competition among political parties should be based on the fairness and true accountability of the elected party's platform.

In the 1988 Republic convention, Republican Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush made a pledge to the U.S. people that he would not raise taxes. After he won the election, however, taxes were raised. He always knew he was going to have to do it -- it was inevitable. In fact, Bush signed the largest tax increase in history. Nevertheless, millions of Republican voters felt they had been double-crossed. But he had only told them what he knew they wanted to hear. This incident proves that political parties must be held accountable for any promises they make to the people. People base their votes on a party's platform. The main reason being that platforms provide voters with a basis of comparison between parties and between candidates. They also provide voters with an outline of what a candidate plans to do in office. Therefore, when a candidate like Bush makes such an incredible promise to the people he must be held accountable if he does not keep his word. It is not right for political power to be abused once attained.

In the quest for political power, the platform of many political parties is based on what they believe the public wants. Former U.S. president Bush, for instance, made his pledge to the people that there would be no new taxes because he knew how beneficial that would be for his campaign. However, political parties must be held accountable for anything that plays an important role in the voting process. Former president Bush should have suffered the consequences of breaking his promise to the people that voted for him immediately. They should have been able to vote as to whether or not they should even keep him in office. The reason for this being that if political leaders are allowed to get away with broken promises and new plans that the voters knew nothing about during elections, there is almost no point in political parties much less competition among them. Basically, the political leaders that say the right thing at the right time will win which is not fair nor justified for the people of the country. The formation of a country's government should be based on the honesty and integrity of individuals rather than how well they can win the majority with smooth words and big promises.

Adolph Hitler's rise to power in Germany is a great example of why fair competition among political parties should exist in regards to forming the government. In a period of political and economic instability, the German people were looking for answers. Hitler responded with what they wanted to hear. He suggested that there were simple answers to complex problems. The doctrine of National Socialism was repeated over and over again until it came to be believed. The feelings of the German people were manipulated with great skill. Nazism was a populist movement claiming to represent the German people, their traditions, and their culture. It promised jobs to the workers, security for the middleclass, and purpose - a sense of belonging and direction for the German nation. For the landowners and wealthy industrialists, Hitler promised to rid the nation of the threat of a communist takeover. In return, they helped finance his political campaign. As a result, Hitler was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenburg which thereby led Hitler to order another election. Following the election, Hitler formed a coalition government with a smaller right wing party and then passed the Enabling Act which granted the Chancellor the right to make laws without the consent of Parliament. In the following years, a number of elections were held, but there were no alternatives to Nazi candidates. The Nazi executive had outlawed all other parties. The results of the elections, therefore, were really no surprise. Germany was a dictatorship.

Hitler's rise to power signifies how unfair competition among political parties can lead to disaster. By lying to the people, Hitler attained widespread support from the German people. He also attained the means for financing his political campaign through the landowners and wealthy industrialists. Hitler was a powerful personality, able to inspire loyalty in close associates and to command vast gatherings with the passion of his speeches. How could the other political parties compete with a man like Hitler? In short, they couldn't because they didn't have the financial means nor Hitler's uncanny intuition. As a result, Hitler and his Nazi movement completely eliminated other political parties. Therefore, it is safe to say that competition among political parties needs to be fair. The means that each political party has to win the public should be equal. The lack of equality among political parties leads to one party getting elected not because they're the best leaders but because they had more chances to make themselves appear like the best leaders. If the competition among political parties in Germany had been completely fair, I do believe that the Holocaust could have been prevented.

In conclusion, competition among political parties is detrimental when forming the government when there is true accountability. Political competition has proven to be effective in promoting accountability when it is channeled through organizations that provide broad constituencies with vehicles - such as mass-based political parties and interest groups - to express their collective demands to political leaders. Political parties that lack widespread support are more likely to be dependent on powerful firms and financial interests for sources of financing and on electoral tactics such as vote-rigging, intimidation, and acquiring a monopoly over election coverage by the media. It is thus imperative that political parties be held to high standards of accountability.