Political parties are composed of relatively small groups or minorities. Within this minority exists an even smaller group consisting of the party leader and a number of its most influential members. There is no consensus among proponents of democracy regarding the formation of political parties and their role, since one of the fundamental questions is whether political parties can truly represent the people. Another important question is whether the party system is beneficial or whether it ultimately breeds corruption.
Supporters of political parties argue that:
Organized and well-planned voting contributes positively to the achievement of governmental objectives; therefore, the establishment of political parties is essential.
Political parties organize and educate social groups, increase political awareness, and encourage citizens to participate in elections.
A party system constitutes an indispensable foundation for a representative government, since such a system requires political parties to present their programs to the electorate, enabling citizens to vote on the basis of those programs.
According to one critic of democracy, Hischles, democracy cannot function without organization, and organization is the primary responsibility of political parties.
Criticisms of the Party System
Numerous criticisms have been directed at the party system, including the following:
If it is claimed that political parties are the genuine representatives of public opinion, such a claim is greatly exaggerated, for practical experience has demonstrated otherwise.
Although political parties are regarded as one of the pillars of democracy, they remain subject to serious criticism because:
a) In practice, they often come under the domination and control of a small minority whose primary concern is the pursuit of its own interests.
b) They frequently operate behind the principles and rhetoric of democracy.
c) They are constantly engaged in rivalry and competition with one another.
d) Party members often pursue their personal interests, even when those interests conflict with the public good.
More severe than these criticisms is the statement of Barthelemy, who declared:
“Political parties are the plague of democracy.”
Even stronger is the statement made nearly three centuries ago by Lord Halifax, who said:
“Even the best political party, judged by democratic standards, is to some extent a conspiracy against the nation.”
Supporting political parties while simultaneously criticizing them is not contradictory. On the one hand, political parties constitute the pillars upon which democracy rests; on the other hand, they are also among its greatest weaknesses. This duality arises from the very nature of the democratic system itself.
Democracy requires political parties because, whether elections are conducted through party lists under proportional representation or through a majoritarian system, only political parties are capable of preparing electoral lists. Even when such lists are formed by a group of independent personalities who do not wish to identify themselves formally as a political party, their collective organization and participation through a common list still reflect a form of party affiliation.
Political Parties and Minority Rule
One of the principal reasons political parties constitute minorities is that only a relatively small proportion of the population becomes party members. Party membership, owing to its limitations and political considerations, is not particularly attractive even to politicians themselves. Many politicians prefer to avoid party involvement unless circumstances make it unavoidable. This fact itself illustrates the minority character of political parties.
In the United States, party membership differs from that of many other countries and is comparatively more complex. Citizens wishing to vote for a particular party must first register with that party. Yet even at this stage, the role of the minority is evident, since the core party members maintain a permanent and decisive presence and exercise effective control over party affairs. The number of influential members remains limited, clearly revealing the minority nature of party organizations.
Those who control political parties are commonly referred to as political machines—organizational structures through which a small group of leaders directs and controls the party’s operations.
In the United States, virtually every city, and even many villages, possesses its own political machine. Politicians often devote greater attention to strengthening party organization and maintaining control over these political machines than to addressing the country’s governmental challenges. In other words, the ruling minority within the party frequently places the interests of the party above those of the nation.
In addition to these political machines, every party contains a small but highly influential inner circle that constitutes the party leadership.
In 1919, a group of members of the British Conservative Party published a report stating that determining the party’s policies and political direction was an exclusive authority of the party leader. The leader also possessed the power to approve or reject resolutions adopted by the party’s annual conference. This arrangement continued until the 1950s. Later, Tony Blair, leader of the British Labour Party, was criticized for relying excessively on his close advisers.
Harold Laski, discussing the United States, observed that both major American political parties are organized around personalities rather than ideas. It is evident that the party leader occupies the central position, with most members rallying around him and accepting his views and proposals. Nevertheless, behind the scenes there are often individuals who possess even greater influence than the party leader himself.
The same pattern is evident within parliamentary parties. In every parliamentary party, effective power is concentrated in the hands of a small group. Each party possesses an executive committee administered by a limited but highly influential body. When the party assumes power, this committee forms the government. Likewise, under the British parliamentary system, the principal opposition party establishes the shadow government (shadow cabinet).
In many countries, party power is organized in similar ways. Alongside the party leadership there is often a political bureau (Politburo) composed of a small number of members, and within that body an even smaller inner circle exercises the greatest influence. In short, the organizational structure of every political party ultimately results in the concentration of power in the hands of a minority.
Consequently, a political party itself constitutes a minority in relation to the entire population. Party activists represent an even smaller minority within the party’s membership and supporters. Among these activists there exists an even more restricted circle, and within that circle a still smaller group exercises ultimate authority.
This raises an important question: How can a political party claim to represent the people? Even if it is regarded as a representative of the people, can it truly be said that the people govern through political parties and remain the real holders of political power?
As we have seen, even ordinary party members are not the actual rulers. Thus, one of the greatest challenges confronting democracy is that it inevitably depends upon political parties and minority structures for the conduct of public affairs. Furthermore, if political parties are criticized for corruption, it should be recognized that the formation of parties, like every other structure of power, is always accompanied by the risk of corruption. This constitutes yet another challenge of democracy, for the system requires institutional mechanisms whose very existence may create conditions conducive to corruption.
