Author: Muhammad Dawood Yusufi Eshaqzahi
Islam and Democracy (Part 9)
A Very Powerful Minority: The Executive Branch
Whenever the issue of minorities is discussed, two different types of minorities usually come to mind. One is the minority that is often oppressed and deprived of its rights, while the other is the minority that occupies the highest positions of power and governs the majority of society. In reality, the state exists between the dominance of a ruling minority and the suffering of a marginalized minority, while the majority of society continues its ordinary daily life. Although dissatisfaction with the ruling minority eventually spreads through society and is reflected back upon the government, the majority generally remains the relatively passive segment of society.
In previous discussions, reference was made to several ruling minorities, such as parliament. Here, however, the focus is on one of the most powerful minorities: the executive branch.
Parliament is not the only institution that plays a dominant role in political competition and national decision-making. Above it, in many respects, stands the executive branch, which is responsible for implementing laws, enforcing government policies, and exercising state authority throughout society.
The executive branch is one of the principal instruments through which minority rule is exercised. In presidential systems, executive authority is concentrated in the hands of the president, while in parliamentary systems it is vested primarily in the prime minister. In either case, real executive power rests with a relatively small group of individuals.
This small group possesses extensive authority.
In some countries, efforts have been made to limit executive power. Nevertheless, history has shown that excessive concentration of authority in a single ruler—such as a monarch or dictator—often produces harmful consequences. At the same time, the complexities of domestic governance and international relations require an effective and capable executive, though not one that violates the rights of the people.
The strengthening of executive authority has, in some political systems, been viewed as evidence of the weakness or failure of parliamentary government. As executive power expands, tensions frequently arise between the legislative and executive branches, each seeking to preserve or increase its own authority. In many cases, the executive ultimately gains the upper hand over parliament.
The executive branch exercises influence not only within its own sphere but also over matters that traditionally belong to the legislature, including budgeting, lawmaking, and other governmental affairs.
It may issue administrative regulations whose number often far exceeds the laws enacted by parliament. While a parliament may pass approximately eighty laws each year, executive orders and administrative regulations may be issued at nearly thirty times that number.
Although parliament may review, amend, or reject some executive measures, the executive continues to play a decisive role. A president or prime minister can direct parliament’s attention to particular issues and encourage the passage of specific legislation. Likewise, institutions such as the United States Congress exercise influence through the presidential veto process. Once executive decisions are incorporated into legislation, executive authority is further strengthened, and in some cases the center of lawmaking shifts from parliament to the executive branch.
Thus, the executive gradually assumes a substantial share of legislative influence. Although democratic systems differ in their institutional arrangements, the practical outcome is often quite similar.
After a new president or prime minister takes office, extensive changes are commonly made in senior administrative positions so that trusted officials of the new government replace previous officeholders. This process is itself regarded as another manifestation of minority rule.
Political Parties
Continuing the discussion of “minority rule over the majority,” we now turn to political parties and examine their structure and characteristics.
Political parties are themselves formed by relatively small groups. Within these groups exists an even smaller minority consisting of the party leader and a limited number of influential members. Among advocates of democracy there is no unanimous agreement concerning political parties. One of the enduring questions is whether parties genuinely represent the people and whether the party system ultimately benefits or harms democratic government.
Supporters of political parties argue that:
-
Organized and systematic voting contributes positively to the objectives of government; therefore, political parties are essential.
-
Parties organize social groups, educate citizens, promote political awareness, and encourage public participation in elections.
-
A representative form of government requires political parties because they present programs and policies upon which voters can base their electoral choices.
-
As one commentator observed, democracy cannot function without organization, and political parties provide that organization.
Nevertheless, many criticisms have been directed against party politics:
-
It is an exaggeration to claim that political parties truly represent public opinion, since practical experience often suggests otherwise.
-
Although parties are regarded as pillars of democracy, they remain open to serious criticism because:
-
They are controlled by a small minority that often pursues its own interests.
-
They frequently conceal their objectives behind democratic principles.
-
They compete primarily with one another for political advantage.
-
Party members may pursue personal or partisan interests even when these conflict with the public good.
-
More severe criticism was expressed by one critic of democracy, who described political parties as “the disease of democracy.”
-
Even stronger was the statement attributed to Lord Halifax three centuries ago: “The best political party, judged by democratic standards, is to some extent a conspiracy against the nation.”
Supporting political parties while criticizing them is not necessarily contradictory. On the one hand, they are considered indispensable pillars of democracy; on the other, they are often viewed as one of its greatest weaknesses. This dual character is itself regarded as a consequence of the democratic system.
Democracy depends upon political parties because, whether elections are conducted through party lists, majority voting, or proportional representation, parties provide the organizational structure through which candidates compete. Even independent candidates frequently become associated with party organizations, and participation in party meetings and electoral lists demonstrates this reality.
An important observation further illustrates the minority nature of political parties.
Only a relatively small proportion of the population formally joins political parties. Because party membership often involves political obligations and risks, many people—including politicians—prefer not to commit themselves. This limited membership is one indication that political parties themselves constitute minorities.
In the United States, party membership follows a somewhat different and more complex pattern. Citizens generally register with the party for which they wish to vote. Even within this system, however, signs of minority control are evident. A relatively small number of permanent and influential members exercise decisive control over party affairs. Consequently, American political parties may also be viewed as organizations governed by minorities.
Those who manage party affairs are often described as the party’s political machinery, operating through a structured system in which relatively small groups exercise authority over the organization.
Every American city has its own political machine, and even smaller communities possess similar organizational structures. Political leaders generally place great emphasis on maintaining these organizations, sometimes giving greater priority to preserving party control than to resolving broader public concerns. In other words, the ruling minority within the party may place party interests above national interests.
Beyond these political machines lies an even smaller and more influential circle known as the party leadership.
In 1919, a committee within the British Conservative Party issued a report stating that determining party policy was one of the special prerogatives of the party leader, who also possessed the authority to accept or reject resolutions adopted at the party’s annual conference. During the latter half of the twentieth century, British Labour leader Tony Blair likewise faced criticism for relying heavily upon a small circle of advisers.
Harold Laski observed that in the United States both major parties are built around personalities rather than ideas. The party leader occupies the central position, attracting supporters who generally accept his views. Yet, behind the scenes, there are often individuals who wield even greater influence than the leader himself.
Within parliament, political parties also contain smaller circles of authority. Members of parliament exercise significant influence over party affairs, as illustrated by the major political parties in the United Kingdom.
Each parliamentary party possesses an executive committee administered by a relatively small but highly influential group. When the party forms the government, this committee effectively directs governmental affairs. Under the British parliamentary system, the principal opposition party similarly forms what is known as the “shadow government.”
In many countries, minority circles exist in additional forms. A governing party may have both party leadership and a political bureau composed of only a few members. Even within that bureau, an even smaller inner circle often exercises the greatest authority. Thus, regardless of the particular organizational structure, political parties are generally governed through successive layers of minority leadership.
Compared with the total population, every political party represents a minority. Active party members constitute only a small fraction of the party’s supporters, and within this active membership, further minority circles exercise effective control.
This raises an important question: How can political parties claim to represent the people when authority is concentrated within such limited circles? If parties truly represent the people, can it genuinely be said that the people govern through them?
As we have seen, even ordinary party members do not exercise real authority. One of the central difficulties identified in democratic systems is that they depend upon minority organizations to conduct political activity and administer public affairs. If corruption within political parties is acknowledged, it may be argued that party organization in any political system carries an inherent potential for abuse, since democracy itself relies upon institutions that are, by their nature, imperfect.
To be continued…
