SHORTLY after the formation of the Scottish Parliament, I attended a seminar in Edinburgh that was examining the role of the different parties at Holyrood. At one point, a member of the audience asked: “Why do we need partries at all? Why can’t we just have 129 independent MSPs working for their constituents, not their parties?”

Most politicos present sighed at the gentleman’s naivete. Yet it’s an appeal that’s heard all too often, and was heard on this site earlier today. Politicians and others who consider themselves more politically sophisticated than the average member of the general public would do well not to sneer at such suggestions (as I did at the time, I have to confess); the disconnect between electors and elected has never been greater. It is recoverable, but not if we refuse to engage and meet these concerns head on.

Being an “independent” MP is only superficially attractive. Yes, you’re not answerable to party whips, and you can attack, or support, any policy you wish publicly. But if you had 646 independent MPs in the House, and they were suddenly invited to take a position on any given subject, particularly a controversial one, they would line up for or against. And before you knew it – hey, presto! A party system.

And even if that didn’t happen, general elections are not about electing 646 individual MPs to the legislature: they’re about electing a government on a programme laid out in that party’s manifesto. And once elected, those much-maligned whips have the job of making sure enough MPs vote in the right way to enable the executive to govern.

I’ll make another confession: I have not, on every occasion, voted according to my own best judgment. It so happens that on the vast majority of occasions I happen to have agreed with my party and my government on whether a piece of legislation deserves to be supported or not. But there have been a handful of cases when I would rather not have voted a particular way, but did so for the sake of the government and my party (fortunately, so far, I’ve never had to vote for something which I fundamentally opposed in principle, though I don’t rule out that happening one day).

And I did so, not because I would ever put my party above my constituents – if you believe your party’s policies are at odds with your constituents’ best interests then you’re in the wrong party and you’d better do something about it sharpish – but because I believe parties can only govern if their MPs are disciplined. And yes, that often means compromise – but compromise in order to allow other, important things to happen, things that you hope and expect will benefit your and every other MPs’ constituents.

Because politics is a messy business. At its best it can be uplifting and inspiring; at its worst, seedy and self-serving. Most of us find a respectable middle way that allows us to get on with the job and, ultimately, to do good, which is the main motivation for any of us, of all parties and none, to be here at all.

Unfortunately, we can’t all be Mr Smith going to Washington or Westminster. But there is still enough good in the party system to allow any dedicated MP to avoid cynicism and defeatism.

Whatever weaknesses our existing political apparatus has, the party system of itself is not one of them.

UPDATE: Bloody typical! I spend ages rambling on and on and not really getting anywhere, and meanwhile, Hopi Sen writes something on the same general subject but in a much wittier and articulate way. Dammit.