The Party-System of Government is an integral and essential part
of a democracy. Political parties are possible only in a democracy, and a
constitution which does not allow the free formation of political parties by
admitting either no party at all or only one party is not democratic. The
principle that only one party is to be allowed in order to guarantee the
workability of the government is a common element of the anti-democratic
ideologies of Fascism national Socialism, and communism Fascist. Italy
and National Socialist Germany were, and Communist Russia still is a
typical “one-party state”. A democracy cannot be a one-party state.
A political party is a group or association of people, with some
degree of organisation. It is a voluntary group people are, normally, free
to choose whether to join this party or that or any party at all. Like all
voluntary associations it has an object or purpose, and the test or condition of membership is the willingness to further the object or objects of the
association. It is, however, possible for a party to exist and to hold
as one party while its members are deeply divided in opinion on
some of the most fundamental political questions, but there is one point on
which all members of a party must be agreed if they are to stay in the
and work together at all. That is in their desire to attain political
power for the party. Members of a party might differ on any or even all
lines of policy, but any one who definitely does not want a particular party
to attain power, cannot possibly remain a member of the party. Thus a
political party is a voluntary association of people for the purpose of
attaining political power, of course, by constitutional means, because
‘violence is not permitted in a democratic set-up.
When a political party has attained political power, or a share of
it, it has got to decide how to use it. In other words, it must have a policy.
This means that at some point the members of the party will have to reach
an agreement, not necessarily on what they would like, but at least on
what they would be prepared to accept in the way of measures. It is
possible, however, for a party to go on for a considerable time before
arriving at such an agreement, particularly if it has no immediate prospect
of attaining power. As a general rule, though there are, of course, many
exceptions, differences of opinion are more noticeable in opposition than
in government parties. Further, of course, a party is not committed for
ever to any particular line of policy. It may change it in whole or in part
while still remaining the same party. But while it is in power it must agree
in general if it is to remain there.
Regarding the motives which impel a person to attach himself to
this party rather than that, they differ with different persons. Thus at one
extreme we can imagine a man thinking our carefully what he would
regard as most beneficial for the country as a whole and then deciding to
attach himself to the party which seems to him, after full consideration, to
represent most nearly his views in this matter. This would be an ideal case
which would probably never be realised completely in practice.
Nonetheless it would be foolish to deny that this process of rational
thinking might be one among other influence which determine a particular
person’s decisions. We may suspect that it has played a particularly large
part some cases of people who have left one party, perhaps at some
personal sacrifice, and joined another. At the other extreme there is the possibility that a man may think
out clearly which party seems likely to give most scope for his own
personal interests and ambitions and then decide to join it. This also, is a
possibility that is rarely realised in its completeness, few people
clear-sighted or single-minded as that. But here again it,
other influences to affect a person’s choice. It might be reasonable to
suggest that it plays a part in certain other cases of change of
particularly when a man leaves a party which seems to have little future
in order to join one which appears to be on the up-grade. Of
course, such a motive would work mostly on people with political
ambitions, who hope to play an active part in politics.
In between these two extremes, people are influenced by the
interests of the particular group, the trade class, or profession to which the
person making the choice belongs. There are all the inborn temperamental
differences which incline an individual towards one party or another.
There is also the influence of family connections. There is a popular idea
that children always tend to react against the opinions of their parents but
generally the son enters politics on the same side as the father.
There are certain inherent defects in the party system of
Government. The organisation of political parties is certainly not in
conformity with orthodox notions of democracy. Their internal structure
essentially autocratic and oligarchie; their leaders are not really appointed
by the members, in spite of appearances but co-opted or nominated by the
central body, they tend to form a ruling class, isolated from militants, a
caste that is more or less exclusive. In so far as they are elected, the party
oligarchy is widened without ever becoming a democracy, for the election
is carried out by the members, who are a minority in comparison with
those who give their votes to the party in general elections. Parliamentary
representatives are increasingly subject to the authority of the party inner
circle: this means that the mass of electors is dominated by the small
group of members and militants, itself sub-ordinate to the ruling bodies of
the party. Moreover, even supposing that parties were ruled by
parliamentary representatives it would be an illusion to think them
democratic. For elections themselves ill-interpret the true state of opinion.
Parties create opinion as much they represent it: they form it by
propaganda; they impose a prefabricated mould upon it. The party system
is less a photograph of opinion than opinion is a projection of the party
system. The general development of parties tends to emphasise their
deviation from the democratic regime. Growing centralisation is
increasingly diminishing the influence of members over leaders, while on
the other hand strengthening the influence of leaders upon members.
Discipline among members is tightened by propaganda and persuation
which leads them to venerate the Party and its leaders and to believe in
their infallibility, the critical attitude gives way to attitude of adoration.
Parliamentary representatives themselves are compelled to an obedience
which transforms them into voting machines controlled by the leaders of
the party. Thus there arise closed, disciplined, mechanised bodies,
monolithic parties whose organisation outwardly resembles that of an army
but whose methods of regimentation are infinitely more adaptable and
efficient, being based on a training of minds rather than of bodies.
But in spite of these defects, the Party System Government has
certain definite advantages, on account of which it has come to stay in all
the democratic countries of the world. In the first place it obviously
stimulates interest in politics. For party-warfare is necessarily carried on,
to a great extent; by argument, and it is very difficult to get on using
arguments for long without beginning to pay some attention to their value
as arguments. Connected with this is the fact that the party system secures
constant discussion and argument. It always provides some one to put the
opposite point of view, and, moreover, some one who cannot be ignored,
as an individual critic. The government must listen to the opposition and
must consider their argument as least sufficiently to find an answer to
them. To party system is thus a way of stimulating these discussions and
ensuring that they receive attention, and it is difficult to see what better
way could be found. In general it acts as a constant reminder that there are
other points of view, which have to be tolerated and, in the long run,
given serious consideration.
There is another point of view on which the existence of political
parties may have an effect which on the whole is beneficial. That is
through their relation to particular sectional interests. Certain people who
represent some particular interest will often incline to one party rather
than another. But the party itself is a body with an interest of its own,
which is never, or hardly ever, exactly the same as the interest of other
groups or sections. It may be concerned with the interests of his particular
trade and thinks that one party is more likely to favour them than another.
But if he becomes an active member of a party he will never think in precisely the same way when he is thinking as a member of the party as he
will when he is thing as a member of a particular trade or the interest. At
votes, and exclusive concern for the interests of his particular trade is not
the least, as a member of a party he will have to think about winning
likely to be successful in that aim. No doubt in some countries at
sometimes the political party may become little more than a company
formed for the purpose of sharing out the spoils of office, though even
there it may be concerned to prevent exploitation by rival interests. But
where a higher standard rules, the party and its interest always provide
some sort of counter weight to the influence of other special interests,
Another great advantage of the party System from the democratic
point of view is that it always provides a possible alternative government
and gives the electorate a choice between them. Under the one-party
system there is no alternative government and no genuine choice before
the electors, so that the influence of the mass of the people on political
decision is reduced to a minimum.
Discussing the merits and demerits of the party system and its
place in the machinery of democratic government, Prof. M.A. Pink has
rightly observed in his brilliant book, The Challenge to Democracy: “The
working of the party system is apt to generate a certain amount of
impatience, especially among the more intelligent member of the
community who find the trammels of a party programme irksome. With
the growth of the scientific habit of mind and the application of scientific
methods to the study of social problems there has grown up a natural
desire to see the great political questions handled by the best men
according to their expert judgment of the needs of the particular situations
and not according to preconceived party ideas. It is also felt desirable that
the parliamentary debates should exhibit less vain repetition, and the
members should be free to yield to argument and vote according to their
private conviction without constant fear of the party Whips. The party
system has indeed obvious drawbacks. But it has the inestimable merit of
providing for the bloodness revolution by which a government that ceases
to enjoy public confidence can be turned out of office and replaced by a
new one. Thus until some better device is invented it remains
indispensable to the working of democratic government.
“At the same time, however, we must recognise that the old,
limited conception of party politics is out of date. As we move towards a
planned society it is no longer possible to treat the art of government as considering solely in securing the programme and the interests of the party
economic spheres must be made on the assumption that there will be
in power. Any intelligent and comprehensive plan in the social and
continuity of policy
y over a period of time. Such continuity can be secured,
so long as conflict of opinion is tolerated, long-term plans for industry, for
of course, by a revolutionary dictatorship that suppresses all opposition but
transport, for social security, for education must be based on a programme
representing the widest measure of agreement between the parties
obtainable at the moment. It follows that those who represent the parties
and mould national policy must be prepared at some point to sink
partnership in cooperation. The point has been well put by Karl
Mannheim: “Planned democratic society needs a new type of party
system, in which the right to criticise is as strongly developed as the duty
to be responsible to the whole. That means that the liberal education for
intelligent partisanship, which is mainly defending the interests of your
faction and party and leaves the final integration to a large extent to the
natural harmony of interests, must gradually be replaced by a new
education for responsible criticism, wherein consciousness of the whole is
at least as important as awareness of your own interests. In the planned
society it is not the national inter-play of interests which gradually leads to
a total scheme of action, but plan intelligently conceived and accepted by
all parties. It is obvious that such a new morality can only be achieved if
the deepest sources of human regeneration assist the rebirth of society”:
“Democratic government will continue to work through the
conflict of parties: but both politicians and ordinary citizens must reach
out to a conception beyond party. Above all, the party in power must
realise its full responsibilities to the community as a whole”. They will
need to be considered in the light of the existing situation and the best
expert advice. when no real cleavage of opinion is involved, would it not
be possible to take the problem out of the arena of party conflict?”
