With the 2008 US elections, there was a lot of talk of “post-partisanship” by the media and by both major candidates. Conferences were held on the theme. Articles have been written on the theme. The term even appears in wikipedia now — a sign that it has clearly entered the popular lexicon.

Yet the term is generally used in a very superficial manner, to signify a vague “spirit” or “intention” of post-partisanship, without any real reform of the structures and processes of democratic governance. If we have learned any lesson since the most recent US election, however, it is that post-partisan intentions have little meaning as long as the party system itself remains intact.

Parties exist to fight for and maintain political power within competitive political systems. Competitive political systems thus inevitably turn into never-ending campaigns, as parties always need to keep one eye on the next election, and formulate their actions accordingly. Opposition becomes an essential stance within such a system. According to the system’s internal logic, it is better to sabotage the operation of governance than collaborate across party lines in meaningful and lasting ways. The evidence for this is abundant, and has been for decades.

But there are alternatives. Democracy does not need to be organized as a contest of power. The contest model has become anachronisitic. And the social and ecological consequences of this model are becoming too high to bear. Humanity is groaning under its increasingly oppressive weight.

Agency and change require more than a vague spirit of post-partisanship. They require the active construction of a post-partisan order, from the ground up.