What is wrong with party before country?

Hi All,

One of those silly arguments I get on Brexit is that somehow politicians of left and right are putting "party before country";  a phrase that's existed before but is now wielded around with abandon, especially when the topic of David Cameron's initial decision to hold a referendum is discussed  or indeed May's handling of the withdrawal negotiations which it is said were all about (again)  trying to keep together a divided conservative party . 

In the view of direhard remainers , Cameron should never have decided for a referendum , given the "division"  and "fascist xenophobia" that the vote has "unleashed" (17.2  million voters that is are fascists and xenophobic , until remain person meets leave person) .  

The party before country accusation is specific to the belief that Cameron called the referendum to unite a divided (on the EU) conservative party  , hoping to win and thus make one side FORGET about their passions (cough, cough arch remainers , who've been continuing the campaign for three years now).   Let's also forget that Harold Wilson did the same thing way back in the 1970s, but this time it was a divided Labour party in power.

As for Mrs May if her intent was to keep the conservatives together, rather than steamroller / blackmail for plans , it clearly hasn't worked. The conservative party is split.

#

But anyways , the crux of this essay is asking : is the pejorative "putting party before country" valid or not. Not just in the current direction of Brexit, but generally?

My answer is that people who disdain party politics misunderstand exactly what , in theory and mostly in practice, parties  are there to accomplish. Political parties in a parliamentary democracy are groups within society who share similar ideals, outlook ,aspirations and values. They articulate visions and therefore policies for the nation. They act as vehicles to promote different worldviews , to which  they choose candidates that the voters can decide who represents and also governs them and equally important the direction of the country.  Because of the British electoral system ( the same applies in Canada and the US: Israel is the other extreme )  there are always two broad political blocs and maybe a small third party in between, of Conservative (right)  and liberal left (nowadays Labour).  

The British political system is not as leftist like to imagine one of class cleavage and conflict : a third of the middle-class "champagne socialists"  vote Labour and a third of working-class people vote conservative. During the  nineteenth and twentieth century and ironically as the franchise became wider , the conservatives became the most successful right wing party in Europe and tended to be seen as the natural party of government.

Therefore if you are into politics and belong to or support one of these parties you will consider yourself to be putting the country first , because you have a set of beliefs that you think are good for the country , these chime with your party .. so belonging to and wanting your side to win   to keep or implement these policies , would be actually putting your country first.

This leads to the matter that I've kept to last : if there are competing attitudes /ideas /policies to what is good for the country how can you reasonably call for an "objective"  call for "the national good". Aside from the basic internal and external security and stability of the state, I fail to see how you can do so.  What a die in the wool momentum activist considers the greater good for the nation is something which I would not.  

I think I will expand upon these thoughts on future posts.  But suffice to say that calls to put country before party are really calls - in lofty rhetoric-  to put someone else's idea before your own - it doesn't mean that they are putting country ahead of their own worldview anymore than you are .