Are political parties like religions?

[ReptilianPeon]

With the General Election coming up I was thinking about this:

1. Political parties are always seeking to expand and don't want to die out (like religion)
2. Politicians sometimes come to your door with lies (like religion)
3. You can only be a member of one political party at a time (like how you can only be a member of one religion at a time*)
4. Political parties tend to dislike each other (though not to the extant religions tend to hate each other usually)
5. Political parties want to be in control of the country and have that privileged position (like religions)

Maybe it's a bit of a stretch.


*There are exceptions, I know, like Chrislam, which is a thing in Nigeria and Buddhism seems not to have a problem with mixing its traditions with other religions, and Atheism.

[Minimalist]

6. They sell non-existent products.

[robvalue]

There are certainly similarities!

They differ when they make claims about what they will do in the real world, that can be tested. Their leader can be replaced, and you know the leader exists

[ReptilianPeon]

There are certainly similarities!

They differ when they make claims about what they will do in the real world, that can be tested. Their leader can be replaced, and you know the leader exists

True, but I think we'll have a hard time testing the vague statements, which can be interpreted entirely subjectively, Edward Milliband put on that stone slab. What does an NHS with "time to care" even mean? How are we supposed to measure that? How are we supposed to measure "a stronger economic foundation"? There are loads of measures we can use to test the healthy of the economy. That stone is a gimmick if you ask me.

[I_am_not_mafia]

4. Political parties tend to dislike each other (though not to the extant religions tend to hate each other usually)

I'd say in the UK political parties dislike each other more than religions do. I suspect it's the opposite in America.

Just look at how both Labour and Tories view each other as raving psychopaths intent on destroying the country. Politics is completely tribal.

And then consider how sometimes religious leaders like to hold events to hear about other religions.

I have an extra one for your list though.

Politically driven people have contempt for the apolitical. Whereas they respect others from different parties but just think that they're misguided.

[robvalue]

There are certainly similarities!

They differ when they make claims about what they will do in the real world, that can be tested. Their leader can be replaced, and you know the leader exists

True, but I think we'll have a hard time testing the vague statements, which can be interpreted entirely subjectively, Edward Milliband put on that stone slab. What does an NHS with "time to care" even mean? How are we supposed to measure that? How are we supposed to measure "a stronger economic foundation"? There are loads of measures we can use to test the healthy of the economy. That stone is a gimmick if you ask me.

Indeed, they don't always make specific claims. When they talk all fuzzy like that it is more like religious "prophecies"

[Red Economist]

The more extreme political parties such as Fascism and Communism are not exactly "secular" as they establish an offical state ideology. consequently, they have strong similarities to theocratic systems in the role ideology plays in politics and society. Conservatives, Liberals and Social Democrats generally share a commitment to liberal systems of government and therefore retain more secular views. Overall, political ideologies do rely on many of the same emotional and intellectual drives as religions to comprehend and change the world according to an intellectual system and set of values, but that it because religion was the politics of its day and the seperation between politics and religion is still historically recent from the 18th and 19th centuries. its not that politics is like religion, but that religion was once the basis for understanding politics.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Fundamental difference in realms of impact - one is entirely temporal (political), one is fundamentally spiritual but tries to affect the temporal (religion).

Fwiw OP the interaction and separation of the political and religious sphere is one area that's been debated hotly by academics for centuries. I use the spiritual temporal divide as a parsimonious example because that was one of the first differences introduced to me in this discourse when I was an undergraduate. Of course these differences are not uniform, but if we're going to use 'Otherism' as the main benchmark for discussing whether an entity is 'religious' then we're going to be cast too great a net.

[henryp]

People believe what the party tells them based on faith.

[Hatshepsut]

...but that religion was once the basis for understanding politics.

...as in ancient Egypt, where Hatshepsut had her theogamy of divine birth from Amun-Re carved on the wall at Deir el-Bahri. The religious and secular spheres were still separate even then; priests did not rule. But unlikely a pharaoh could mount the throne or stay there without support from a substantial portion of the temple establishments. Moreover a party need not be so extreme ideologically as fascism to take on quasi-religious overtones. The way Republicans in Utah talk, you'd think all their precepts were handed down from God Almighty along with a mission of reseating the traditional patriotic family in its proper dominant place. Durkheim considered political ideology a functional equivalent of religion despite the distinctions that can be made between them.