It is looking increasingly likely that Zack Polanski will secure the leadership of the Green Party of England and Wales at the end of this month. Polanski, a self-professed 'eco-populist', is pulling away at a rapid pace from his opponents, Adrian Ramsay and Ellie Chowns, who are running as a more establishment joint ticket of co-leaders. Despite the Green Party only holding 4 MPs, and having relatively little say over national affairs, I believe this is one of the most important elections (in the UK) to watch this year - along with the wait-and-see game of Jeremy Corbyn and whatever he's up to, it is a litmus test of whether the British public have enough appetite for left-wing populism.
Many establishment Greens, like former leader Caroline Lucas and Green member of the House of Lords Jenny Jones, have endorsed Polanski's opponents, Ramsay and Chowns, saying they have a "proven record" of wins, and point to the fact they are both MPs, forgetting the fact that Lucas herself was not an MP in the first years of her leadership. Insiders of the Green Party establishment have even gone so far as to call Polanski's bid a "hostile takeover". I, like, Polanski, three-year deputy leader of the party and four-year member of the London Assembly, think this is a ridiculous label. This is called 'running for election within a democratic political party of which you are a member', and then 'being popular enough to win'. Many could learn a lesson from this.
I have a better ability to discuss politics in my home country of the UK, but I can't help but draw a comparison to the simultaneous election happening in the United States, the New York Mayoral election. There, Zohran Mamdani, a similarly self-professed left-winger and socialist, has just won the Democratic primary election for New York Mayor. What that means: registered Democratic voters in New York, have chosen, of their own free will, to pick Mamdani to represent the Democratic Party in the upcoming New York Mayoral election, where it looks likely he will win. But what happened? The disgraced former governor of New York Andrew Cuomo, who he beat decisively in the primary, has decided to run as an independent against the Democratic assemblyman. Andrew Cuomo, a once-titan in the Democratic Party, is running against the Democratic Party line this November, just because he disagrees with him on policies. That is precisely what the primary is for - present your policy visions to the voters, and they can choose who they prefer!
Of course, Cuomo is well within his rights to run as an independent, as every person should be in a liberal democracy - but it is disingenuous, especially from a political cabal who demanded that voters 'Vote Blue No Matter Who' when left-wing Democratic voters resign themselves to supporting middling centrist Democrats, to prevent even worse Republicans from winning elections. So why, I ask you, does that same political favour not extend the other way? Why has Hakeem Jeffries, the functional leader of the Democratic Party in the US House, not endorsed Zohran Mamdani, the chosen nominee for the Democratic Party in the election?
Who else is Mamdani running against? A Republican, granted, Curtis Sliwa, but Sliwa is far from his most influential opponent, and Sliwa has even slammed personal criticism of Mamdani, preferring to stick to spreading his own political vision. Good, that's what a politican should do. Eric Adams, a former Democrat, is yet another opponent, and the incumbent Mayor of New York, running as an independent against the Democratic Party this November. So, Zohran Mamdani, as the Democratic Party nominee, faces his two biggest threats... from the Democratic Party?
Both of these situations raise a certain question about the nature of a political party. Is it up to the elected politicians, like Adrian Ramsay, Ellie Chowns, Caroline Lucas, and Andrew Cuomo, Eric Adams, Hakeem Jeffries, and Chuck Schumer, to decide the direction a political party goes? Or is it the people who own the political parties, and who can freely move its policies by moving their votes to people who agree with them?
A term that is commonly thrown around is entryism. In short, 'entryism' is when people join a political party or organisation with the express intent of shifting it in a particular political direction. It's often used in with a strong negative connotation, but I don't think this needs to be the case at all. Zack Polanski is not a malicious, evil, villain, plotting to destroy the Green Party from within with his eco-socialism, he is simply a Green Party politician who believes in his vision, and from the still-growing membership flooding into the Green Party every time he holds a rally, it looks like the voters believe in it too. Zohran Mamdani, equally, is not a bad actor, someone who wishes death on the United States, in contrast, he is a hard-working politician who sees the Democratic Party as a vehicle to forward his political vision, and is making the most of it, to the voters' delight.
Political parties shift over time. Look at the UK Labour Party under Michael Foot, then Tony Blair, then Jeremy Corbyn, and now Keir Starmer. Look at the Democratic Party in 1870, and look at Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani, Ilhan Omar. Political parties shifting is not a bad thing, and it often represents the will of the electorate - I imagine you'd be hard-pressed to find a majority of Democratic voters today who support the Confederacy. Obvious hyperbole aside, political parties are in fact nothing more than a side effect of democracy, and the difficult methods in which voters can express their democratic will. It's almost impossible to have a perfect democracy without political organisation, which inevitably morphs into political parties over time as factions develop and policy platforms fall into place. Parties can be excellent for democracy - they platform great people who otherwise would have failed to reach voters who support them, they provide funding, campaign resources, and a political behemoth for people who want to help contribute to their country's democracy.
But political parties are not always beneficial to democracy. It is said sometimes that the UK is a two-party state, and this has mostly been true throughout history (switching parties occasionally, but statistically speaking, compared to our friends in Europe, coalition governments are remarkably uncommon and we expect a single government to lead the country). This, however, is mostly a cause of a our terrible first-past-the-post system, and is absolutely nothing compared to the situation in the United States. Almost nowhere in the world has political parites like the United States. Independent politicians in the US are almost always former or sometime members of either the Democrats or the Republicans (congratulations to Jesse Ventura, wrestler and former governor of Minnesota for being one of the only prominent exceptions).
So could a future without political parties exist? Could we run society by the whims of the masses, running referenda for every major decision and hoping the people inform themselves of everything the government is up to? Probably not, is the answer. Political parties form a crucial purpose in every liberal democracy, but it is vital to consider what they are truly meant to stand for. If you need to stand there, moan, try to change the rules, and gripe some more, just because someone is joining your political party and spouting politics you don't like, perhaps you need to reconsider what it means to be in your political party. If you truly believe you are the true face of the party, fight them within the system, and see if your fellow party members agree with you. If not, and I'm afraid to tell you, the voters have moved the party on without you, and that is sometimes the nature of politics.