Non-partisan democracy (also no-party democracy) is a system of representative government or organization such that universal and periodic elections take place without reference to political parties. Sometimes electioneering and even speaking about candidates may be discouraged, so as not to prejudice others' decisions or create a contentious atmosphere.
In many nations, the head of state is nonpartisan, even if the prime minister and parliament are chosen in partisan elections. Such heads of state are expected to remain neutral with regard to partisan politics. In a number of parliamentary or semi-presidential countries, some presidents are non-partisan, or receive cross-party support.
Nonpartisan systems may be de jure, meaning political parties are either outlawed entirely or legally prevented from participating in elections at certain levels of government, or de facto if no such laws exist and yet there are no political parties.
De facto nonpartisan systems are mostly situated in states and regions with small populations, such as in Micronesia, Tuvalu, and Palau, where organizing political parties is seen as unnecessary or impractical.
De jure nonpartisan systems exist in several Persian Gulf states, including Oman and Kuwait; the legislatures in these governments typically have advisory capacity only, as they may comment on laws proposed by the executive branch but are unable to create laws themselves. De jure nonpartisan national governments sometimes resemble one-party states, but governments of the latter type explicitly recognize a single political party of which all officials are required to be a member.
Unless there are legal restrictions on political parties, factions within nonpartisan governments may evolve into political parties. The United States initially did not have enfranchised political parties, but these evolved soon after independence.
Comparison with other political systems A nonpartisan system differs from a one-party system in that the governing faction in a one-party system identifies itself as a party, where membership might provide benefits not available to non-members. A single-party government often requires government officials to be members of the party, features a complex party hierarchy as a key institution of government, forces citizens to agree to a partisan ideology, and may enforce its control over the government by making all other parties illegal. Members of a nonpartisan government may represent many different ideologies. Various communist nations such as China or Cuba are single-party nations although the Members of Parliament are not elected as party candidates.
A direct democracy can be considered nonpartisan since citizens vote on laws themselves rather than electing representatives. Direct democracy can be partisan, however, if factions are given rights or prerogatives that non-members do not have.
Structures
Elections In nonpartisan elections, each candidate for office is eligible based on his or her own merits rather than as a member of a political party. No political affiliation (if one exists) is shown on the ballot next to a candidate. Generally, the winner is chosen from a runoff election where the candidates are the top two vote-getters from a primary election. In some elections the candidates might be members of a national party but do not run as party members for local office.
Nonpartisan elections are generally held for municipal and county offices, especially school boards, and are also common in the election of judges. In some nonpartisan elections it is common knowledge which candidates are members of and backed by which parties; in others, parties are almost wholly uninvolved and voters make choices with little or no regard to partisan considerations.
While nonpartisan democracies can allow for a wide selection of candidates (especially within a no-nomination system whereby voters can choose any non-restricted person in their area), such systems are compatible with indirect elections (such as for large geographical areas), whereby delegates may be chosen who in turn elect the representatives.
Appointments Even if a government's executive officer or legislature is partisan, appointments of cabinet members, judges, or directors of government agencies, may be nonpartisan. The intent of appointing government officials in a nonpartisan manner is to insure the officers can perform their duties free from partisan politics, and are chosen in a fair manner that does not adversely affect a political party. Twelve US states use the Missouri Plan, and two use a variation of it, to choose judges in a nonpartisan manner. Several countries with partisan parliaments use nonpartisan appointments to choose presidents.
Legislatures In nonpartisan legislatures, there are no typically formal party alignments within the legislature; even if there are caucuses for specific issues. Alliances and caucuses with a nonpartisan body are often temporary and fluid since legislators who oppose each other on some issues may agree on other issues. Despite being nonpartisan, legislators typically have consistent and identifiable voting patterns. Decisions to investigate and enforce ethics violations by government officials are generally done on the basis of evidence instead of party affiliation. Committee chairs and other leaders within the legislature are often chosen for seniority and expertise, unlike the leaders in a partisan legislature who are often chosen because of loyalty to a party.
Historical examples Democracy in ancient Athens was nonpartisan, as eligible citizens voted on laws themselves rather than electing representatives.
Elections to offices in the Roman Republic were all nonpartisan, though the informal factions of the Populares and Optimates did emerge within the Roman Senate.
United States Historians have frequently interpreted Federalist No. 10 to imply that the Founding Fathers of the United States intended the government to be nonpartisan. James Madison defined a faction as "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." As political parties had interests which were adverse to the rights of citizens and to the general welfare of the nation, several Founding Fathers preferred a nonpartisan form of government.
The administration of George Washington and the first few sessions of the US Congress were nonpartisan. Factions within the early US government coalesced into the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties. The Era of Good Feelings, when the Federalist party collapsed (leaving the Democratic-Republican party as the sole political faction) was the United States' only experience with a one-party system.
The Confederate States of America had no political parties during its entire existence from 1861 to 1865. Despite political differences within the Confederacy, no national political parties were formed because they were seen as illegitimate. "Anti-partyism became an article of political faith."Cooper (2000) p. 462. Rable (1994) pp. 2–3. Rable wrote, "But despite heated arguments and no little friction between the competing political cultures of unity and liberty, antiparty and broader fears about politics in general shaped civic life. These beliefs could obviously not eliminate partisanship or prevent Confederates from holding on to and exploiting old political prejudices. Indeed, some states, notably Georgia and North Carolina, remained political tinderboxes throughout the war. Even the most bitter foes of the Confederate government, however, refused to form an opposition party, and the Georgia dissidents, to cite the most prominent example, avoided many traditional political activities. Only in North Carolina did there develop anything resembling a party system, and there the central values of the Confederacy's two political cultures had a far more powerful influence on political debate than did organizational maneuvering." Without a two-party system building alternative sets of national leaders, electoral protests tended to be narrowly state-based, "negative, carping and petty". The 1863 mid-term elections became mere expressions of futile and frustrated dissatisfaction. According to historian David M. Potter, this lack of a functioning two-party system caused "real and direct damage" to the Confederate war effort, since it prevented the formulation of any effective alternatives to the conduct of the war by the Davis administration.David Herbert Donald, ed. Why the North Won the Civil War. (1996) p.112–113. Potter wrote in his contribution to this book, "Where parties do not exist, criticism of the administration is likely to remain purely an individual matter; therefore the tone of the criticism is likely to be negative, carping, and petty, as it certainly was in the Confederacy. But where there are parties, the opposition group is strongly impelled to formulate real alternative policies and to press for the adoption of these policies on a constructive basis. ... But the absence of a two-party system meant the absence of any available alternative leadership, and the protest votes which were cast in the 1863 Confederate mid-term election became more expressions of futile and frustrated dissatisfaction rather than implements of a decision to adopt new and different policies for the Confederacy."
Legislative elections in the Confederacy were decided without political parties. Key candidate identification related to adopting secession before or after Lincoln's call for volunteers to retake Federal property. Previous party affiliation played a part in voter selection, predominantly secessionist Democrat or unionist Whig.Martis, Historical Atlas, pp.72–73 There were no organized political parties, but elective offices were exempted from military duty. Virtually every position was contested with as many as twenty candidates for each office.Coulter, "The Confederate States of America" p. 317-318. Some scholars such as Martis interpret this as robust democratic society in wartime. Coulter attributes the widely newfound enthusiasm for political careers as a means to "get out of the army or keep from getting into it". The absence of political parties made individual roll call voting all the more important, as the Confederate "freedom of roll-call voting [was] unprecedented in American legislative history.Martis, Historical Atlas, pp.3
The Republic of Texas was a nonpartisan democracy before it was annexed by the United States; all four presidents of the Republic of Texas, and the members of the Texian Congress, were officially non-partisan.
New Zealand From 1853 to 1890, within the Self-governing colony of New Zealand, Members of Parliament were not organised into any formal political parties. Prime Ministers made individual agreements with Members of Parliament in order to form and maintain government, lest MP's 'cross the floor' and joined the opposition.
Canada The Non-Partisan League was an influential socialist political movement during the 1910s and 1920s in the United States, especially in the Upper Midwest, which also eventually bled over into the prairie provinces of Canada.
The League contributed much to the ideology of the former Progressive Party of Canada. It went into decline and merged with the Democratic Party of North Dakota in 1956. The Progressive Party of Canada and the United Farmers movement (which formed governments in the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario) also acted on a similar philosophy. In the case of the United Farmers of Ontario, while in power (1919–1923), the administration of Ernest Drury suffered much infighting as the result of conflicting views.