Interpretation of Simone Weil: “On the Abolition of All Political Parties”
Reading Simone Weil’s essay was captivating. Her notion of the abolishment of all political parties is provocative but unfortunately falls short, because I think that criticising an existing structure is always easier than replacing it with anything better (taking into account that no state can function without a form of governance). When there seems to be no better alternative, what can one do?
The first part of Weil’s essay explains the use and origin of the term “party” to prepare for the debate. In her view, “party” is understood differently in Continental Europe than in Anglo-Saxon countries. This is because in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, “political parties have the game, of sport, which is only conceivable in an institution of aristocratic origin whereas institutions that were plebian from the start, everything must always be serious.¹” This distinction sets the stage for how political parties were established in Europe and also clarifies that her argument applies to Continental Europe.
After establishing the Context in which political parties emerged, Weil investigates whether democracy, for instance, is an effective social structure. She proposes the goodness criteria, which includes three aspects: truth, justice, and the public interest, which political parties must fulfill to be legitimate. To know what truth and justice are, Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed the notion of the “general will.² “ The general will states that if many hold an opinion, it is most likely to lead to the truth because reason is the same for every agent, while passions might differ. Thus, for Rousseau, a universal agreement leads to the truth, which Weil also adheres to in her defense of democracy. A democracy can only work if the general will be applied, meaning everyone has to seek the truth together. For Weil to apply the general will, two conditions must be met:
1. There must not be any form of collective passion when individuals know their intentions.
2. Individuals should express their will regarding the problems of public life and not other problems.
For the first condition, she argues that “it is completely obvious that Rousseau’s reasoning ceases to apply once collective passion comes into play.³ “ This is because collective passion is way more damaging than individual passion. Collective passion is more powerful and can lead to crime and untruthfulness way easier than individual passion. Evil cannot cancel another evil, so it multiplies. She illustrates this with a metaphor claiming that a current can no longer reflect images if water is disturbed. It does not matter if it is one current or several. The harm will still be present. This means those collective passions can never become anything good, and they will multiply and disturb the citizens on a larger scale, just like a virus. As a consequence, collective passions undermine Rousseau’s democracy.
For the second condition, Weil claims that people never had the chance to express their opinions on any issue in public life. The political party cared only about their interest, yet they disregarded all other problems that did not appeal to them. Hence, democracy was not legitimate because it did not respect those two conditions.
When it comes to the characteristics of political parties based on the goodness criteria, the author proposes three:
“A political party is a machine to generate collective passions.⁴”
Weil argues that political parties rely on emotional appeals rather than a reason to attract support. They foster a collective identity among their members and generate a shared sense of purpose by using symbols and signs to create excitement. Weil believes that political parties cannot pursue truth since collective passions shape them. According to her, truth should be pursued beyond individual or collective doctrines in the higher realm.
“A political party is an organization designed to exert collective pressure upon the minds of all its members.⁵”
Political parties use various techniques to shape their members’ opinions and attitudes, including propaganda and social pressure.
“Any political party’s first objective and ultimate goal is its growth without limit.⁶”
Political parties predetermine what their people will think, so they focus on attaining as much power as possible. Therefore, power becomes an end; people will lie and act negatively to remain in power. One problem with this approach is that it needs to include the goodness criteria. Instead of pursuing what is good for them and society, political parties aim for what interests them the most. Unfortunately, it does not align with the expectations of people within society, which results in making the parties totalitarian.
Those three characteristics are present in any political party, inevitably making it totalitarian. To address these issues, Weil proposes the abolition of political parties. She suggests that political engagement should be based on a shared commitment to the common good rather than on the pursuit of power. She argues that decisions should be made through deliberation and consensus-building rather than partisan competition. She suggests this will promote a culture of cooperation and mutual respect, allowing individuals to work together towards a shared goal.
Weil argues that political parties should be abolished to advance social fairness. According to the author, political parties frequently prioritize the majority’s interests over those of minority groups. She contends that doing away with political parties would enable a more complex and inclusive method of doing politics that would consider the needs and interests of every person in society.
Commentary
Weil needs to adequately describe how society will work without a political structure. Her approach of replacing political parties with an aristocracy might work for individual communities, but it collapses when it comes to larger cities.
To put into practice the elimination of all political parties requires a fundamental restructuring of all societies, which could be impractical. Political parties are involved in decision-making on a large scale, and with them, it would be easier to consider the interests of individuals towards their preferences for society. To reduce political parties to an aristocracy could also lead to manipulation and tyranny of the majority, just like with political parties. Therefore, the issue does not necessarily limit itself to the social structure of a community but to how reasonable the individuals are. The reason is the underlying factor that Weil overlooks in that it contributes more to how society will function rather than its underlying social organization. A well-educated society could function well as a political party or a democracy.
P.S. Don’t forget to clap, read and subscribe, helps much!
References
[1] Simone Weil and Simon Leys, On the Abolition of All Political Parties (New York: New York Review Books, 2014), 3.
[2] Weil and Leys, On the Abolition of All Political Parties, 5.
[3] Weil and Leys, On the Abolition of All Political Parties, 8.
[4] Weil and Leys, On the Abolition of All Political Parties, 11.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.