Human freedom remains one of the most valuable matters in our existence, and through personal freedom, we seek equal rights between all members of society. However, in achieving our collective freedoms, individual freedoms will often be restricted through our laws that govern over our societies. For instance, (in egalitarian societies) taxation laws often deduct money from the rich, which contribute to building and maintaining the state, and alleviating the suffering of the poor and the less fortunate in the society. Similarly, there are numerous examples of interrelated matters in which individuals relinquish some of their freedoms to society and pay more concessions for the sake of the state. An example of the latter, can be deduced from citizens’ duty in defending the homeland, where soldiers would sacrifice their lives and everything they own and hold dear for the sake of their homeland’s freedom and survival. Since, in case the homeland is colonized and occupied by another state, those freedoms of the occupied are lost, and are enslaved by the occupying state, losing freedoms, rights to equality, and all human rights, whether it is from a military, economic or social colonisation.
Hence, the freedom of the state remains at the pinnacle of all freedoms, and is closely tied to those of the individual freedoms, which explains the reason why in war, citizens sacrifice their souls and lives for the sake of the homeland.
Additionally, as (Harry R. Yarger) the professor of National Security policy explained in his book, Strategy and National Security Professionals, 2011, p.23, that states prioritise achieving their national security in terms of maintaining their stability and survival. Also, theories of foreign policy and international relations came to acknowledge this concept. Thus, in their book Foreign Policy Theory, scholars (Glenn Palmer and Clifton Morgan) 2011, p. 39, accepted the hypotheses of the new realist theory in both its defensive and offensive aspects. Where the scholars emphasized that the national states act on the basis of protecting their security and stability and ensuring their survival, through a comprehensive strategy that achieves power, through which states can obtain security and protect their sovereignty.
*The first result: – The priority of national security missions in nation states is to survive and achieve stability, which is are achieved by security through obtaining power.
Scholars of International Relations Theories assert that the international sphere is one of the most crucial determinants that shape the political systems of nation states, their performance and internal orientations and management.
As the scholar, and the spiritual father of the classical realist theory (Hans Joachim Morgenthau) clarifies in his 1948 book Politics Among Nations, in Part Three, Chapter of World Government, p. 95, which defines the six principles governing international relations that impact the nature of the political system and that way it is governed. It also states that politics is like society in general, governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature, and that the concept of interest is the determining factor in obtaining power, which is the main engine of states in an environment that lacks morals and values, which creates limitations on the management of states towards this conflict between states in the international sphere, which is reflected in a challenge to the governance and management of peoples.
The scholar (Francis Fukuyama), in his 1993 book, The End of History, Part Three, clarifies the discussion and critiques the work of (Thomas Hobbes) and (John Locke), and their concept of states’ national security, which is the one that maintains survival and stability in a random environment without a ruler, and for this goal states are engaged in conflict for survival and protection, which affects and increases the challenges for the political system, society and the individual, and in which (Fukuyama) criticizes liberalism, in its democracy and its weak and penetrating system.
The founder of the offensive realism theoretical school, (John Mearsheimer), in his 2012 book, The Tragedy of Great Powers Politics, clarified the assumptions of the realist theory, and asserted that conflict is at the heart of international relation, and what controls conflict is the amount of power each state possesses. That is why states pursue powers, becoming both means and an end, which adds to the increasing challenges to governance within the political system; since the international system controls and determines the political systems which governs the states.
(Samuel Huntington), in his 1999 book, The Clash of Civilizations, and the Remaking of World Order, indicated a clear prediction of what the international system will be like in the aftermath of American hegemony. In a chapter titled, ‘The Emerging System of Civilizations’, p. 203, the book asserts that it is easy to change the political systems, but it is difficult to change the social identity and social systems, adding that future conflicts will be based on thoughts and identities between nations, and those with a national identity will be able to withstand international challenges under the hegemony of a single state.
Also, in a chapter titled, Human Rights and Democracy, p. 309, (Huntington) claims that the United States was able to impose its type of American Democracy on 30 countries, changing their political systems without achieving progress, development or stability, in a hidden agenda from the United States to control their political will and easily serve American interests, without the use of force, saving monetary and human costs. Here, the author acknowledges that dominant states impose an internal policy on the political system that achieves their interests, which is another challenge imposed on the nation states by the dominant state.
The scholar, Dr. (Nasr Muhammad Aref), in his 2002 book, Epistemology policy comparison, demonstrated in the first section, titled ‘the nature of the approach: concept – justifications – purposes’, p. 103, and the second section, ‘the cross-state or national approach’, p. 125, that It is difficult to export political systems from one environment to another. This is due to the different components of the social environment between countries, and from one region to another, and that is also due to the different customs and traditions, and the concept of interest and the different concepts of ethnic identity; which proves that the export of Western democracy to Eastern societies is only for the sake of controlling and imposing Western political will, and is not concerned for the interest of the people. These concepts are a burden on the peoples in their understanding and awareness of a democracy, which was established in a land other than their land. This causes social confusion for the state, which also represents a challenge to the nation states from the international system, not being able to assimilate Western concepts in the management of states.
*The second result: – The international system is the main determinant of national policies, in a unilateral system dominated by the United States.
In the Charter of the United Nations, Chapter One, Article Three, The United Nations shall work “to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”
With this clause, the United Nations gained the participation of governments in the administration of peoples in the event anything happens that threaten human rights in any country from the point of view of the Security Council states or the dominant states. Also, the most power states may set fluid interpretations of human rights and set it as law which then is imposed on the weaker states.
This clause has imposed additional restrictions on the freedom of governments in the face of peoples, and allowed the stronger countries to interfere in the internal affairs of the weaker countries under the pretext of human rights.
*The third result: – The United Nations gives legitimacy through the Security Council to interfere in the internal affairs of states, through the protection of human rights, and the five members of the UN Security Council determine those protections and legitimises the intervention in the internal affairs of weak states, especially by those who dominate the decisions of the Security Council, the United States and its allies the United Kingdom and France.
Among the political facts: – It is easy to change the political systems of nation states, but it is difficult to change the social systems of those states, where the strength of states lies in their social systems and national identity.
(Alexander Wendt), in his 2006 book, The Social Theory of International Politics, the first chapter, The Superiority of Ideas, p. 139, he explains that, The society’s culture and national identity, represented in class unity, societal homogeneity, and society’s cohesion with its political system, is able to stand up to international challenges that have imposed a policy and system that compels countries to follow. In this system, the world determines that there are internal requirements at the heart of society that put pressure on the political system, limit freedom of action and sometimes strip the political will from it.
Additionally, as (Kenneth N. Waltz), the pioneer of the structural theory of political analysis, acknowledged in his book Man, the State and War, in the first scenario, p. 52, that the motives of states come from their social structure, which results in the bureaucratic nature of state administration, and in which the state relies on its internal strength. Through that internal strength of the state, the decision maker can determine priorities based on the state’s management bureaucracy, and that the structural theory explains; The power of the state comes through its social structural system in management, and it stems from the social structure in its social structure.
It was also said by the scholar, (Friedrich Ratzel), in his 1897 book, Political Geography, in which he acknowledged that one of the factors of the state’s strength is the homogeneity of its social system that is compatible with its geographical surroundings. As the state’s strength comes from its social system, since the state is like a living organism that pushes governments to the expansion through the culture, civilization and societal interdependence of the social system.
The scholar Ian Crepe, gathered in his 1999 book, a collection of the work created by pioneer sociologists of The Structural Functionalist Theory, under the title; Social theory from Parsons to Habermas. This theory recognizes that the nature of the function in the political system is the main driver of the power of the state. Where the strength of the state lies in its ability to exploit its social potential.
*The fourth result: – The political analysis theories of structuralism and functional structuralism acknowledge that the state comes from its social strength.
The social order is of paramount importance to the nation state; Where the sociologist (Evans-Pritchard) defines the social system from the set of relationships that enjoy a high degree of viability and continuity in existence to be codified by states, in addition to intellectuals and societal public leaders.
Also, where those social systems consist of political parties, trade unions and civil associations; and political parties lead the social systems, according to the liberal democratic system; Therefore, we have to research, study and evaluate the performance of the main engine of the social system, which is the political parties in their diversity; In order for those parties to be able to face those challenges, and to reach the performance evaluation of partisan pluralism, it is necessary to lay the foundations for a systematic evaluation; to measure partisan performance for each time stage separately, whether in the system of government or a time stage related to the governing of the international system.
In order for the evaluation to be impartial, it is necessary to know the function, the party execution mechanism and the goal to be achieved and evaluate it independently. Study the performance of the parties in what has been implemented and what is decreed for them, and after that; Study this performance and know its negatives and positives, and its impact on the political system, the social system and the international system.
Additionally, in order to root the concept of the partisan environment in its diversity and in terms of its performance and function and the mechanism for implementing the goals and its purpose, it is necessary to know the principles and pillars upon which these parties are based in their methodology, and that is through knowledge of the intellectual concepts of both the liberal ideology and the social environment in which the democratic system is based. It has partisan pluralism, and knowledge of the extent of the influence of the international environment on the parties, and the extent of the dependence of the political system on parties.
The concept of liberal ideology – where the philosopher (John Locke), in his book Civil Government and its Relationship to the Social Contract“, presented the foundations and principles of liberal ideological which were supported by the philosopher (Jean-Jacques Rousseau) and the philosopher (Descartes), and others who founded the ideology of liberalism, from which we deduct the basis of this – Thought in the totality of its ideas about freedom – in terms of the ability and freedom to express opinion, participation, governance, economy and equality with how the people govern and manage the state and with the development of classical liberal thought into modern and postmodern liberalism; Where liberalism depends at every stage on the idea of the separation of powers, and on the whole meaning of freedom with its codifications at every stage of development, which was presented by the French scientist (Montesquieu) in his 1748 book The Spirit of Law.
As the separation between the judicial authority, the legislative authority, and the executive authority through the idea of freedom, and the separation of powers, democracy and systems of government between presidential, parliamentary and semi-presidential change the nature and function of the president and parliament and the party system under the umbrella of liberal ideological ideas.
These ideas were confirmed by the German scholar, (Maximilian Carl Emil Weber), famous as (Max Weber) in his book Science and Politics as a Craft, p. 261-370; It explains over a hundred pages, the relationship between freedom and the state and benefit and interest, and between the executive authority and the legislative authority is how the ruler is administered; Where the judiciary is represented by the law defined between the authorities, through a constitution approved by society, which emanates from liberal democratic ideological ideas, based on the freedom of the individual within the limits of benefit, and how the state give that benefit to the individual by participating in the government Through political parties defending the interest of personal benefit and the benefit of the state through awareness of liberal ideas, and how to defend the state in justifying its decisions that achieve his personal benefit and the benefit of the state, and at the same time how to be critical of those ideas; For the best of the individual, society and state, by way of full understanding and awareness of the state’s environmental surroundings.
*The Fifth Result: – Democracy is based on the awareness of the individual, which constitutes the consciousness of society, from which he can rule and manage the state, and thus the individual relinquishes part of his freedom; for the sake of society, and give up more of its freedom; For the sake of the state, that state that seeks to achieve the interests and aspirations of its members, and protects them through laws; to achieve the goals of the state, those goals achieve the aspirations of the individual.
*Political liberal ideology in the system of government focuses on a basic, flat idea of ideological thought, which is the ability to “justify the decision” through a number of ideas around which liberal democracy revolves, in the plurality of parties, but I would like to focus on this idea, which was supported by The world (Karl Marx, and Engels) of socialist thought, that ideological thought is based on “justification of reality”, and justification comes through a number of overlapping concepts in the aspects of the ideological thought of liberalism, through the idea: – “Truth has six faces, like a box has Six aspects, no one can see all aspects of the truth except the decision-maker” philosopher (Aristotle) The ideologies come in their entirety by trying to justify the decision through a number of ideas in which he believes, and through the ideas on which he is raised, or through intellectual guidance in social upbringing within the social system.
The scholar (Maurice Deverge) in his 2011 book “Political Parties“, explains, the history of the work of different parties in most countries of the world, and how they differ from one country to another, the nature of their establishment and what is intended and the ways of building and composition, whether one party or With partisan pluralism, and how to deal with it and how to form it, according to the appropriate social environment for the factional community, and appropriate for the ideas of the group affiliated with it, those parties may be factors that divide society, and from the definition of political parties, a party is a political organization consisting of a group of individuals’ visions and ideas that bring them together. They seek to achieve it, by obtaining the authority to implement it.
*The sixth result: – Democratic political systems are based on party pluralism, with an explanation of how the government is administered, and different systems, as well as parties of different thought, may have different ideology; What may sometimes lead to a divisive situation in society; Which leads to the heterogeneity of society and the loss of the power of the state.
(Karl Popper) presented in his book One Hundred Years of Enlightenment, 2017, pp. 127-180 chapters, entitled “The Open Society and Its Enemies”, that there are those who are waiting for the political system, and that democracy with its style and ideas gives determinants of state freedom, and therefore, places restrictions on the freedom of the individual, and restrictions on the administration of the state.
As Dr. (Ismail Sabri) explains in his 1991 book, International Political Relations, the second topic, The Impact of Nationalism in International Relations, pp. 94 – 124, on the extent to which the international environment affects the political system within nation states, in determining the method of governance, how to face international challenges, and the extent of peoples’ ability to meet those challenges in the changing world in its requirements.
The philosopher (Jean-Jacques Rousseau) in his 1762 book, The Social Contract, in Part Three, pp. 81-134, lays out the philosophy of state administration between its legislative, executive and judicial powers on the one hand, and society on the other hand, and on the basis that all political systems From (democracy, dictatorship and totalitarianism), following the philosophy of community management, according to its customs, traditions, and personal, material and moral interactions; To produce through this interaction a method of governance that suits his social nature within the state, even if the nationalities are multiplied within the same state.
The author, (Greg Palast), reveals in his 2004 book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy“, Chapter Two, pp. 91-114, he says: What is done from buying votes, and from collecting money and donations in the presidential election campaign, and how they are distributed roles; In order to control the votes of the elections, and how the owners of money, companies of oil and weapons and multinational companies share roles in support of the candidate; In order to control the votes, in order to obtain commercial and financial privileges. Palast narrates what happened in the elections of George Bush Jr. and Al Gore’s competition in the first elections. The author acknowledges in his book, that democracy is bought and sold to those who can pay; until he controls the keys of the elections; Since the electoral process is nothing but a commercial process between businessmen and money; Where it is far from societal interests, but these societal interests take to beautify the electoral stage; Where elections do not come out the best most of the time and in most cases.
*The seventh result: – Western democracy, and in particular American democracy, is not the best for governance, and systems of governance differ according to the social nature of societies, just as the international environment of democratic states places restrictions and limitations on the state and the freedom of the individual.
The 2015 book Fukoyama and Huntington’s Theses and the New World Order, in the second chapter, the second topic, p. 70, explains that the system of American hegemony and American control in managing the world; As a result, ideologies of all kinds, whether socialism or liberalism, collapsed, and the world became run with the ideology of economic capitalism, and with a cost-benefit system. What increases the burdens and challenges on the political systems between the pursuit of economic development or the pursuit of power and armament, and this also increases the individual burdens and challenges on the societies and the political system that is required to provide those requirements, and the failure to achieve those requirements deprives their legitimacy and the right to manage the political system of the state.
*The eighth result: – The nation states suffer from many breakthroughs, whether in terms of social aspects and their economic burdens or economic penetration by the international environment from the globalization system and the capitalist system, and by the multinational companies, which are now leading the world; What may lead some national states to rob their political will, or to be among failed states or states without sovereignty.
The scholar (Nicholas Goyat) proves in his book “Another Century of American Domination“, 2004, in Part One, p. 29, under the title, “Global Economy”, in which he explains; How was America able to dominate the world economically, and impose its system and method of control over it, on countries and on multinational companies, as he explains; In Chapter Three, p. 171, the American military power is several stages ahead of its closest competitors in strategic and technological superiority.
Dr. (Muhammad Youssef) presented in his book “American Hegemony over the United Nations and the Future of International Conflict“, 2014, in which he explains the position of the United Nations in the American strategy, as one of the tools of American hegemony over the world and the uniqueness of the international decision, and presents the manifestations of this hegemony; To achieve its strategic interests, the book finally presents; A forward-looking vision for the future of international conflict, and the subsequent change in international relations, and America’s singling out in managing the world.
As the writer (Samar Taher) presented in her book “The Media in the Era of Globalization and American Domination”, 2011, and in Chapter Three, p. 45, under the title “How has America become the media master in the world today? And she says: America has been able to control the media.” The international community, and to translate its sovereignty over the world economically and militarily, and to clarify this in a scope that is easy to control, through the global village, which it was able to create in the world today, through media globalization, through the Internet and the ease of transmission of information, so that it can influence the global community.
*The ninth result: – The one who dominates the world now is the United States of America, and for decades to come; This is due to the economic superiority that America manages, the tremendous military superiority, the good use of its allies, and the strategic superiority over all potential competitors. That is, we are now living through an American system of the world that achieves its interests; to maintain global dominance.
*Conclusion from the above results: –
First: – In light of the American domination of the world with its military power, economic superiority, political system, democracy, globalization imposed on the world by it, and its control of transnational corporations, the United States of America represents one of the most important reasons for determining the policy of the political system of countries; Where no country can impose the policy of its regime on America.
Second: – America seeks to impose American democracy; For the ease of penetration and political management of states, without the use of military costs, through American globalization and its economic system, backed by its military power, and its control over global trade, advanced technology and international investment; for domination and economic imperialism.
Third: Through America’s global economic domination, America can negatively influence countries economically, and by imposing its democracy, it can overturn the social system on the political system, through human rights and the internal division of society, exploiting its poverty and ignorance, and planting intellectual, military, and religious terrorism, Geographical stability at the borders of states, and the creation of intellectual fluctuations within societies in countries.
*The tenth result: – The nation-state lives in a state of many challenges. In order to control it, and rob it of its freedom and political will.
– The first challenge: – The economic need of countries; What makes countries in financial need of the owner of the economic abundance of countries with a global trend; This allows the imposition of political guardianship on those poor countries.
–The second challenge: – The societal need for its life requirements for states creates a society resentful of its political system; What increases the associative gap between the political system and the social system; What weakens its legitimacy, facilitates its change and controls states.
–The third challenge: – The American hegemony has created a strong challenge to the nation states in terms of the system of economic globalization, the American democratic policy and the power of multinational companies working to infiltrate the nation states; to take away her political freedom, and to bring her under control; in order to achieve American interests.
–The fourth challenge: – Lack of societal awareness and awareness of those challenges, creates a society that facilitates its leadership and robbery of its will, and the creation of a fragmented factional society, and states fall and vanish.
As a result: – the inability of states to use their comprehensive strategic power, with which they are able to gather all their capabilities in the utilization of their natural, non-natural, human and geographical resources; to stand up to these challenges.
What is needed to be done and act upon is:
First: – Who can stand up to these international and internal challenges, including military, economic and social, is that the society in the majority be homogeneous and united intellectually; Therefore, all elements of civil society, including parties, unions and civil associations, must have knowledge, awareness, and awareness of the challenges facing the state. In order to socially confront these challenges, and work to create an intellectually united and socially homogeneous society.
Second: – That the political system works to approximate its social system in order to achieve its reconciliation and ambitions; For the cohesion of the political system with the social system; Because it is the way to address those challenges; The strength of the state comes from the cohesion of the political system with the social system.
Third: The social system works to support the political system and to be cohesive with it. In order to be able to stand in front of those international and internal challenges, and work to remove and correct its negativity for the benefit of society and the state.
The society, with all its pillars, must be fully aware of three main challenges:
1 – International challenges.
2 – Unification of societal thought.
3- Cohesion of society with its political system.
Provided that all this be under the umbrella of a system that seeks to achieve security and stability for the national state, and seeks to achieve the interests of society; For the cohesion of the political system at the heart of the social system that realizes its ambitions.
This is done through: –
1 – A national project for political upbringing, explained in a simplified way, according to its idea and its Sunni stage, and through specialized thinkers; To spread that strategy with the beginning of the formation of the new republic, this upbringing will be the protector and defender of belonging and loyalty to the survival of the state first, and working on the formation of the features of the national identity.
2 – One of the tributaries of that political and social upbringing is the political parties whose main functions are to educate political cadres on those principles that support the national state, based on these challenges, and how to address them; To create a homogeneous society capable of overcoming these challenges, and having awareness and strength; To support and support the national state, in addition to the other tasks of the parties being a tool that connects the demands of society to the executive authority, and that the parties are the ones that lead to the performance of the executive authority of the society with complete transparency.
3- Forming and managing parties in a democratic and liberal manner compatible with the nature of the national state socially, provided that it has partisan pluralism in which it emulates the democracy of the West, provided that the opposition is rotating in which it serves the ultimate goal, which is to support and support the national state, and to consolidate social harmony with the system, and cohesion the political.
4 – One of the most important functions of the parties is to present the different aspects of the decisions taken by the national state; To reach the farthest extent of the truth; For the interest of the majority in society, with the exchange of these roles between the parties, and the exchange of the opposition’s role in matters that would strengthen and increase the achievement of the state’s goals first, then all civil society.
5- Through the previous presentation, the basic functions, implementation mechanism and goals of political parties and civil society in all its pillars create, provided that the parties in their plural form are a national project, these principles are the basis of their existence. With the political system, and has the ability to address international and internal challenges with the methodology of action and thought.
*Dr. (Esmat Seif El-Dawla) presented in his 2013 book “Parties and the Problem of Democracy in Egypt”, under the title “Advance to the Back”, p. 135, that the constitutional philosophy of the 1971 constitution defines the goals of post-socialist Egyptian parties and presents liberal democracy with the plurality of parties that established On the formation of parties in a plurality, it represents a picture of Western democracy, and does not achieve real democracy for the Egyptian state.
Also (Abdul Hamid Zayed) presented in his 2020 book “Political Money in Parties after the January Revolution”, that period after the January Revolution showed the fragility of political organizations, and the high value of people over organizations, without regard to the state, and the political process with its traditional reality is at stake, The writer asserts that the safety of political life will not be possible, as long as the use of money is not restricted, and a political system that does not represent the people will be reproduced, even if it is chosen through free ballot boxes.
In the 2013 book “The Struggle over Salafism – A Reading of Ideology, Controversies and the Map of Diffusion” by Dr. (Muhammad Abu Rumman), in the third chapter, under the title; Salafist Transformations in the Arab Spring, p. 143-172, explains how Salafism infiltrated the Egyptian street, exploiting the ignorant Egyptian environment and climbing the Egyptian parliamentary scene. Chapter Four, pp. 173-188, explains how Salafism exploits democracy at the forefront of the political scene, exploiting ideology Religious and not political thought, and based only on the religious aspect; What explains the flaws of democracy, its penetration and the Egyptian society’s lack of awareness of its challenges; What led to a societal division within Egyptian society.
The researcher concluded the following: –
In an approach to the Egyptian parties from the date of independence in 1952 until now, neither the constitution nor the decision maker has been able to paint a picture of the parties in which they serve the Egyptian state, in terms of functions and goals, and have not achieved the unity of popular harmony. Most of it is negative, in terms of the period, whether it is one-party or in its formal multi-party form.
That religious parties in Egypt create heterogeneity and societal schism, dividing it into (Salafi, Christian, Muslim and Brotherhood), and this is a danger to the national state.
That the beginning of defining the function, tasks and objectives of the parties and the pillars of civil society that were laid down in the constitution in a way that is not commensurate with the situation of the national state, in terms of international challenges, challenges of geographical location and social challenges, and did not consider the internal challenges, by working to unite the societal class, and did not realize the importance of identity Egyptian nationalism, but the legislator was concerned with the constitution in drawing a picture of democracy for parties that only corresponds to Western democracy, and not to the Egyptian nature; Therefore, the parties, in all their functions, tasks and objectives, did not achieve the results that support the Egyptian national state, or the hopes of the Egyptian society to achieve its ambitions and satisfy its desires, or at least achieve the satisfaction of the societal majority, and this is evident in the decrease in the electoral participation index from time to time, from the percentage of participation Ranging from 47% in the presidential elections of 2014 to the rate of participation of about 8% in the Senate elections in 2020. On the other hand, the parties were unable to be able to lead civil society and the state; So that it can stand up to international, regional and internal challenges.
*That civil society in most of its sects – after the revolution of 30 June – did not offer anything to the state or to society itself, but rather it is a heavy burden on political history in the era after the revolution of 30 June.
The beginning with the legal philosophy of the constitution in defining the goal and intent of the parties and the nature of the work of the pillars of civil society, which was presented as a form of democracy only, but without content, goal and function, and its function was summed up to serve personal interests without the state, and the utilitarian leaderships topped it; What gave society a negative mental image of the parties in its multiple system, so the parties became an image of opportunistic personal interests; What negatively affected all pillars of civil society.