Kwasi Wiredu’s proposal of a non-party system of democracy argues that we should have political associations rather than political parties. It advocates cooperation and consensus between these associations and encourages the removal or reduction of some constraints of the multi-party system, such as periodic elections. A critic has argued that this proposal is a recipe for despotism, whilst a supporter has stated that the critic misreads Wiredu’s statements. I attempt to resolve the disagreement by subjecting Wiredu’s non-party infrastructure to a test, a thought experiment that examines the consequences of having this system run by persons with the worst possible intentions. The outcome is that Wiredu’s non-party polity is too poorly equipped to protect us from the damages accruable from the unrestricted rule of such persons. Parties and elections could only be eliminated if supplanted by a political infrastructure that secures a more productive and moral leadership.