antiparliamentary

Antiparliamentary refers to a political position or tendency that opposes parliament as an institution, as a method of governance, or as the primary locus of political decision-making. The term can describe a stance within various ideological currents and is not tied to a single coherent program. It may be used to critique representative-parliamentary systems for reasons such as perceived corruption, elite influence, inefficiency, or disconnection from ordinary citizens.

In practice, antiparlimentary currents have appeared on both the left and the right. Proponents often advocate alternative forms of decision-making that do not rely on parliamentary processes, such as direct democracy mechanisms (referendums, citizen assemblies) or non-parliamentary organizations (workers’ councils, councils or soviets in some historical contexts). Some strands emphasize direct action, grassroots organizing, or centralized leadership as a more effective means of achieving political aims. Others criticize liberal parliamentary systems as inherently flawed or illegitimate and argue for different constitutional or organizational models.

Historical usage of the term varies by context. In some periods, antiparliamentary rhetoric accompanied calls for popular sovereignty outside traditional elected bodies, while in others it accompanied movements seeking to replace or bypass parliament with executive or non-democratic arrangements. Because antiparlimentary positions are often defined in opposition to a specific parliamentary framework, the exact meaning can differ across cultures and eras.

Critics of antiparlimentary views warn that removing or bypassing representative institutions can undermine minority rights, accountability, and stability. They contend that any non-parliamentary system must still incorporate safeguards against abuse of power. The term is frequently used descriptively or polemically, and its precise implications depend on the context in which it is invoked.