!,46;’] 

w 

Chapter 37 

Political Parties and Leaders 

•                                ’I • 

Modern government is a representative government. It a, 1 

therefore, a party-based system of government. The number of parties in i 

State may be one, two or many. We shall now consider what a politicl 

party is, what are the historical origins of political parties, what are theiri 

features, factors, and their functions and the three types of political systems. 

Definition: 

Wherever a group of persons seeks to acquire political power by collective action, there a political party comes into being. But somethint more is also.needed. There should also be a political structure of the State which provides opportunities to various groups to pursue interests and advantage by capturing political power. We may define a political party as a group of persons, more or less organised, who hold the same or nearly the same opinion on issues confronting the State and who seek to obtain controi of government by winning elections in order to realise their aims and interests Briefly, a party is primarily an electoral machine for gaining power with or without a philosophy or ideology of its own. 

Maclver defines a political party as ”an association organised in support of some principle of policy which by constitutional means it endeavours to make the determinant of government.” Lord Bryce defines political parties ”as organised bodies with voluntary membership, their concerted energy being employed in the pursuit of political power.” Max Weber defines the political party as ”a voluntary organisation of propaganda and agitation, seeking to acquire power in order to procure chances for is active militant adherents to realise objective aims, or personal advantage& or both.” 

A political party is made of five elements: members, principles._ programme, leadership and governmental power But in the actual evolutiom 

of a party all these elements may not be present. Historical evolution of parties: 

For ages past, there were no political parties at all, for the monarchies and autocracies of the past did not provide opportunities far 

their growth. Yet there were cliques and factions which tried to influence 

the king or ruler so as to win favours for themselves or for their groups or 

classes. Political parties first came into being in England, when parliamenisj 
POLITICAL PARTIES AND LEADERS 

547 

began to challenge the autocratic powers of their kings. There were then two parties, one in favour of the royal powers, which was called the Tory party: now called Conservative party, and the other which favoured parliamentary powers, called the Whig party, later called the Liberal party. In Great Britain, the party system has always remained two party system. But the evolution of the parties in other countries has been different, for it depends on their historical conditions, culture and political and constitutional structure. The first type of parties was of the brokerage type in the nineteenth century. They aimed at protecting the class interests of the landowning or industrial classes. The  next stage in the evolution of parties was that of the cadre parties. A cadre party consisted of a small number of members who seek to protect national interests by capturing governmental powers. The last stage, which began during the twentieth century, was that of mass parties. A mass party is open to public membership regardless of class differences. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, political parties came into being only in Europe and North America. But since the beginning of the twentieth century, political panics of various types have also come into existence in Asia and Africa, especially in those counties where democratic and electoral systems were introduced, or where struggles for national independence against the imperialist powers began. Although there are mass parties in some Asian and African countries, but they are not truly so, for they are dominated by tribal chiefs, as in Africa, or by caste groups, as for instance in India. In Pakistan, the Muslim League was a mass party lender Quaid-e-Azam and Liaquat Ali Khan’s leadership. Afterwards it degenerated into various factions. Later, the Pakistan People’s Party became 

la mass party. i nere are, nowever, severai parties in ralcistan, DUI none or 

them has become a mass party. The Jammat-e-Islami is a cadre party, with membership restricted to chosen few, while other parties are only factions 

ler coteries of leaders and a handful of their supporters and activists. Many 

them are of local, provincial or regional membership and interests, such 

the POP. ANP, PNP, etc., etc. If general elections are held regularly, 

St of them will cease to exist. In short., the existence of political parties 

of party systems depend upon the political structure, culture and 

istitutional system, which may or may not ensure opportunities to the 

vie to organise political parties and to capture governmental power by 

ans of elections for national or limited interests. 

kracteristics of the political party: 

From the definitions given above, and the conditions under which 

ties grow up, we can derive such essential features which every political 

possesses. They are as under: 

1.          Agreeme it on fundamental views and ideas. A political 

is a voluntary association of like-minded people. Men differ in their 

mons. this is partly due to the differences of personal experience, 

■                                ■ 
548           POLITICAL SCIENCE 

emotions, temperament, character and knowledge and partly due to the love of combat and the desire for victory. Family traditions and social status of an individual very much affect his thoughts and opinions. ”Every boy or girl”, said a political writer, ”that is born into this world alive, is either a little Liberal or a little Conservative or else a little Socialist.” Parties exist because men disagree. Laski says: ”Parties are born of the natural contrast between those who cling to the old and those who embrace the new. Temperamental differences or imitative tendencies of men might give rise to parties” Men are also gregarious by nature, — birds of the same feather flock together. If they are to live in a political society, they adjust their differences with each other and agree on certain opinions. When likeminded persons agree on certain fundamental aims and ideals regarding political, economic and other matters, they associate or come together and thus form a party. Without this agreement on fundamental aims, purposes and principles, no political part is possible. 

2.         Organisation and leadership. Persons holding similar opinions and principles must be organised into a political unit, if they are to achieve their aims and ideals. In politics, no tangible achievement is possible without a proper organisation. Due to this reason, Dr. Leacock said that a political party is like a joint stock company. Organisation gives 

coherence, unity and strength to the party. ’’In union there is strength.” it 

alone makes concerted action and achievement possible. This fact 

distinguishes a political party from a crowd or a mob. A political party 

like a team on a large scale. It has a team spirit of cooperation andi 

organisation. Men learn that they must line up with others in order to bel 

effective in action. But parties differ in their organisation. Some are] 

organised, while others are not so. In present times, however, the gene 

tendency is towards rigid organisation, discipline and control. 

organisation and discipline of a modern party make it a vast and comp 

apparatus. ”Parties possess”, writes Finer, ”buildings and newspap 

printing presses and advertising experts, and slogans, heroes and ma 

money and speakers, officials and prophets, feast days and fast days; like i 

religions, they disrupt families and produce heretics, and among 

agencies of discipline and subordination are the novitiate and penance.’ ; 

short, a political party is like an army, a fighting organisation out to ( 

and capture political power. ”Victory,” says Dr. Finer ”is the first lam politics”. Hence the need for organisation and leadership without wk success in political struggle is not possible. 

3.         Constitutional Methods: Political party is said to iel 

building block of democracy. Although a fighting organisation, a 

party, however, does not fight like an army with bombs and bullets. Or 1 

other hand, it fights in a peaceful manner and with constitutional me 

Ballots have taken the place of bullets in modern politics and heacis c 
POLITICAL PARTIES AND LEADERS 

549 

counted and not broken. Compromise rather than unconditional surrender is the method of political decision. Public speeches, meetings and demonstrations, persuasion and propaganda and other means of influencing public opinion are employed by political parties to win votes in order to come to power. They appeal to the voters to vote one or the other of the parties into power. The principle of majority decides as to which of them will form the government. The ballot-box decides the fate of a political party and its claim to form the government. Revolutionary or violent methods are used by some parties. But such a situation arises only when ,a people are denied opportunities for self-government and the State system allows its party system to be misused or corrupted. 

4.       Promotion of national interests: A political party must aim at the promotion of national, not at sectarian, communal or class interests. This is its essential feature and its basic test. Burke has rightly defined a political party as ”a body of men united for the purpose of promoting by their joint endeavours the national interests upon some particular principle on which they are all agreed.” This is the essential feature distinguishing a political party from a faction, a coterie, a clique or a pressure group. While the party aims at the common good of the whole nation, these groups aim at the special interests or selfish ends of a group or a class or a section of the nation. As Dr. Herman Finer says, ”Hardly a party anywhere exists only for a single narrow purpose Parties are varieties of multi-purpose associations, rising to some that have as their concern the totality of human existence.” This ideal or common good is the real unifying force of a political party. ”The special cohesive element”, adds Dr. Finer, of a political party which differentiates it from other groups and causes political parties to differ among themselves, is their dogma of the Good State, and their struggle for the power to realise its implications concretely in the institutions and behaviour of all.” It is for this or ideal of common good that there exists, in a democracy, the whole paraphernalia of party organisation and apparatus, party discipline and control, and the struggle for political power. Yet some parties fall far below this supreme ideal. Party distinguish from faction. 

A faction is a loose united group of men who unite to achieve private or sectional interests as opposed to national interests. It may be a fraction of a party or a splinter group. A coterie or a clique is a still smaller group of persons, united together for their selfish end or private gain. Political Party and Pressure Group Distinguished: 

Pressure groups stand for the interest or well-being of a special eroup or class, while the panics stand for the general welfare or common 

rood of the whole nation. Secondly, the pressure group concentrates on one or on a small group of issues, while the party advocates in general terms a 
550 

POLITICAL SCIENCE 

large number of policies. Thirdly, the pressure group is interested in policies, the party in candidates. Fourthly, the party organises public opinion; it is a conglomerate of opinion, while the pressure group endeavours to make or manufacture a ’public opinion’. In this respect the pressure groups are serious rivals of political parties. Fifthly, the basic distinction between the two is that the political parties aim at the control of the government in order to achieve their programme and ideals, but the pressure groups do not seek to obtain control of the government. Unlike  the parties, they are not willing to assume the responsibility for solving the problems of government. Pressure groups often operate within the framework of political parties. Sometimes a party may become so small and limited that it may be no more important than a faction or a pressure group. Finally, political parties are public organisations, operating among and before the people, but pressure groups often work behind the scenes and tr? to avoid public scrutiny. Secrecy is essential to pressure groups but not to the political parties. This fact makes the parties responsible to public opinion, but the pressure groups can operate-irresponsibly. Kinds of Political Parties. 

In general, there may be at least four types or kinds of politica. parties, for there can be at most four kinds of opinions, viz., the reactionan. the conservative, the moderate or liberal and the radical or revolutionar? (1) The Reactionary party consists of such people who wish to revert to the old order, whether it actually existed in the past or is only imaginary Jar Sangh and Hindu mahasabha in India, the Nazi Party in Germany, or the Fascist parties in Italy and Japan before the World War II are the examples of reactionary parties. (2) Conservative Party is like the reactionary one, biz with one difference. While the reactionary party seeks to revert to an oid order, the conservative party seeks to preserve the old order unchanged. The reactionary party seeks, to revive old order which is long dead and gone, but the conservative party seeks to preserve the status quo. Reactionary parties 

usually exist in countries whose achievements and glories lie in the 

which they try to revive once again, while conservative parties usually ex 

in countries which are still great and prosperous and do not want 

change in society or politics lest they lose their prosperity and greati 

The examples of conservative parties are innumerable, such as the Brim 

Conservative Party, both the Republican and Democratic parties in U. 

the Congress Party of India, etc. (3) Liberal or Moderate or Progre 

parties are those which advocate social change, progress and freedom 

Radical or Revolutionary parties stand for radical changes and ou 

progress in social and political life and organisation. In present times. 

number of such parties is fairly large, such as the socialist, communist 

other extremist parties. It must, however, be noted that in practice it isi 

often possible to make a clear-cut distinction between some parties. 
POLITICAL PARTIES AND LEADERS 

551 

sometimes shade into each other. A conservative party may not be much different from a reactionary, while a liberal party may be really conservative: and a radical party may be so only in name, as for example. The Radical Socialist Party in France is neither radical nor socialist but is really a moderate party of the Centre. 

Since the great French Revolution (1789-99). It is also customary to describe politica) parties as the parties of the Right, the Centre of the Left. The reason was that the conservative and radical parties were accidentally so seated on the right and the left in the French National Assembly in 1789 during the great French Revolution. Those parties which are reactionary or conservative are now said to be the parties of the Right; while the radical or revolutionary parties are called the parties of the Left; and those which stand between these two extremes are called the parties of the Centre. Parties of the Left are sometimes called the Extremists for they advocate an extreme or revolutionary transformation of society and State, such as the revolutionary, socialist, or the communist party. Usually every political party includes several points of views; for unanimity or homogeneity of opinion never exists in a party.  In such a case it may consist of two wings, the left and the right wing. For instance, the British Labour Party has two wings; its left wing is more socialistic than its right wing. Basis of Political Parties. 

Parties are formed for different purposes in different countries and ages. They may be formed on the basis of religion, economics, form of government, nationality, class interests or other general questions of vital Interest to the State or people. Religious basis creates communal or religious parties which are usually reactionary, conservative and fevivalist or fundamentalist. They are for example, the Hindu Mahasbha, the Akali Dul Party, etc., in India, the Jamaat-e-Islami, the Ahrar, and the JUT or JUP rn Pakistan or the various Catholic and other Christian parties in several European countries. But religious basis is not a sound principle for political parties. It arouses hatred, divides the nation, obscures political issues and prevents a rational solution of political, social and economic problems of a nation. It is opposed to progress and development of human life and society 

Racial and national differences also create various parties, especially where 

racial and national minority groups exist. In the 19th century, parties existed 

to advocate different forms of government, such as the monarchist and the 

Irepublican parties, one favouring a monarchical and the other a republican 

I form of government. Class parties also sometimes exist, such as the party of 

landlords or of the industrialists or of the workers. In present times, 

vever, parties are usually organised on the basis of political and 

nomic programmes and policies. 
552       POLITICAL SCIENCE 

Three Theories of the Origin of Parties. 

Political writers do not agree among themselves regarding the causes and forces which create political parties. Broadly speaking, three theories are offered to explain their_origin. They are the theory of human nature, the theory of ideological tiotivation and the theory of economic or class conflicts. 

(i)       The Theory of Human Nature. According to this theory, parties arise because human nature is fundamentally split into two tendencies, conservatism and progressivism. Some people are instinctively conservative and want to leave things as they are. They dislike change and oppose progress. On the other hand, some persons are instinctively progressive and want to make changes, as they are dissatisfied with the status quo or the existing order of things. ”These two tendencies of human nature produce two kinds of parties, the parties of the Right and those of the Left, the conservative and radical or progressive parties. This is psychological explanation of the rise of different political parties. 

According to Lord Bryce, four factors maintain political parties. ”Whatever its origin.” he writes, ’every party lives and thrives by the concurrent action of four tendencies or forces, which may be described as those of Sympathy. Imitation, Competition and Pugnacity. Even if intellectual conviction had much to do with its creation, emotion has more to do with its vitality and combative power.” These forces of human nature preserve the unity and continuity of a party. 

As regards the changes in political parties, it is said human habits and temperament change with age and circumstance. Young people are always radical, emotional and idealistic. They love change and dislike the old order. But grown-up people with advancing years become conservative and dislike change. They look back to the old order with which they are habituated and are critical of progress and change, innovations and reforms.. Thus most individuals begin as radicals and revolutionaries in their youthful 

days but become conservative as they become old and settled in life with an established social status, wealth and property. Thus age and circumstanoe 

change political views and party affiliations of the individuals. 

(ii)      Theory of Ideological Motivation. This theory briefly 

means that ideas move men that political parties arise and become organism 

because men differ in their beliefs, ideas, convictions and outlook on life ar 

in their philosophy of life. In the past, religious beliefs and dogmas divided 1 

people into different parties, whereas in present days, political philosophaosi 

or ’isms and social ideologies divide them. In backward and und 

developed countries, religion still plays a great part in the growth differences of political parties, while in industrially advanced 

progressive countries, social and political ideologies create different ] 

Thus a political party is an association of those persons who have sir 
POLITICAL PARTIES AND LEADERS       553 

ideals, beliefs and purposes which they seek to achieve by collective action and control of the government. 

Theory of Economic or Class Conflicts. This theory emphasizes the economic factors and motives in the growth and differentiation of political parties. It explains that parties grow up and become divided as a result of the conflict of economic interests of various classes, sections and groups in the nation and society. Differences in wealth and possessions, in economic outlook of the people and economic conditions, are the vital forces behind the formation of political parties. Thp ’haves form one party and the ’have-nots’ another. Men of property and wealth do not like social or economic changes and, therefore, organise conservative political parties. The poorer and propertyless classes are eager for social and economic changes, for they have nothing to lose by change. They form radical parties. Karl Marx was the first great writer to show the determining influence of economic or material conditions on the political life of a people. People think as they live. Politics is, no doubt, not all economics, but it remains a mystery without it. 

Conclusion. 

Each of these theories contains a Clement of truth. Political parties are complex phenomena. One factor alone docs not produce them. Human nature, ideas and economic conditions all determine the growth of parties and their divisions into various forms and kinds. Importance of Political Parties. 

Political parties have always existed in all forms of governments and States. But some forms of government favour their growth and development more than the others. In absolutist and unconstitutional 

monarchies, for instance the parties were no more than cliques and coteries. 

In the direct democracies of antiquity they were really transient and 

unorganised collection of persons around a prominent leader or orator. It is 

only in modern representative democracy that they have fully developed into mass-organisations of leaders and followers, based on definite principles and programmes of public welfare and national interests. They are, indeed, indispensable for the working of a democratic government. It is 

rightly said that they are the building blocks of democracy. Without political parties, writes Macrver. ”there can be no unified Statement of 

principle, no orderly evolution of policy, no regular resort to be constitutional device of parliamentary elections, nor, of course, any of the 1 recognised institutions by means of which a party seeks to gain or maintain 1 power.” The rise of political parties was much criticised by old writers and 

Statesmen as undemocratic,  for they came in between the people and the rulers. But, as Lowell says, The conception of government by the whole 

3ple in any large nation is, of course, a chimera; for whenever the 
554 

POLITICAL SCIENCE 

suffrage is wide, parties are certain to exist and the control must really be in 

the hands of party thaeomprises a majority or a rough approximation to a majority of the people.” Without political parties, there will be factions and cliques. The people will have no means of influencing the government 

except by appeals and petitions to the government to redress their personal 

or sectional grievances, as was the case under the kings and other absolute rulers. In fact, wherever there is government by discussion and public opinion, there must be political parties, for there can be no unanimity in public affairs. In dictatorship, however, political parties cannot exist in the 

same way as in a democracy. Dictatorship does not tolerate difference of opinion. Hence there is only one party in a dictatorship, the government 

party, which has the monopoly of political power and decision making. Functions of Political Parties. 

1.         They organise public opinion and formulate the general 

will. The problems facing the modern State are many and complex. People 

have ordinarily all sorts of opinions and views about one and the same 

issue. The first function of political parties is to organise these myriads of 

opinions by educating the people. Every party selects those issues which are 

of fundamental importance or are likely to appeal to the voters. It then formulates its own views, policy and programme about it and popularises it 

among the voters by means of the press, platform and other means of 

_ propaganda. Thus it explains these problems to the people. At the same time other parties put before them their own views and policies and thus enable 

them to judge these issues by themselves. In this way they act, as Lowell 

puts it, as brokers of ideas. As Bryce says, they bring order out of chaos of 

opinions and views. If there were no political parties in the modern State, politics would be a sheer babble of tongues. A disorganised mass of people can neither formulate principles nor agree on policy. Thus political parties organise public opinion and express the will of the people or the General Will. By serving, as Gettel says, as the motive force in crystallising public opinion, they make democracy workable over large areas of the modern 

nation States. 

2.       They select candidates for public offices. The second function of political parties is to select candidates for election, to platt,, 

organise and run election campaigns and to win them by winning majority I 

of votes for their own candidates. This is their essential and very useful 

function in the modern democratic government. As elections are expensi.e affairs, and some candidates are too poor to bear them, the party defrays the election expenses of such candidates from the party funds, contributed by its members and supporters. Moreover, the voters cannot know the candidates or choose them. The parties select them and acquaint the voters with their qualifications and merits and thus convince the votes of the 

superiority of their own candidates over those of the rival parties. They a 
POLITICAL PARTIES AND LEADERS 

555 

the launching pad or spring-boards for new leaders to capture governmental power. They provide opportunities for leaders to come to power. 

3.         They endeavour to capture government by constitutional methods. The primary aim of a political party is to obtain control of government. Hence political parties endeavour to capture governmental power by peaceful and constitutional methods of winning elections. In modern politics ballot has replaced bullets, and heads are counted, not broken. The party which wins majority in elections becomes the ruling party. For this purpose the parties announce their party programmes on the eve of the general elections, select their candidates and launch election campaigns and undertake nation-wide election campaigns. They spend huge 

sums to win elections. They dramatize politics and keep the nation politically awake. The majority party becomes the party-in-power and puts its party programme and policy into practice. For this purpose, it makes new laws and amends or repeals the old ones which are not in harmony with its 

programme or policy. 

4.       They also criticise the Government. The party or parties 

which are returned in minority to the legislature, form the Opposition. It performs no less important and useful function than that of running the administration. The opposition parties keep the ruling party  in check, point out its weaknesses, and prevent it from becoming despotic or negligent of 

national interests. They expose corruption and favouritism and scandals of the ruling party. The Opposition is, therefore, aptly described as the watchdog of the democracy. 

5.           They control their members in the legislature. Lastly, the political parties perform an important function of holding together their members in the legislature. This is particularly so in the parliamentary system, in which  the majority party in the legislature also forms the cabinet. If it is to remain the ruling party and preserve its power, it must remain a majority                   party                   in                   the legislature. Hence the party organisation is strict and party discipline and 

solidarity rigid. The party is, therefore a unifying agency between the executive and legislative departments of government. In the presidential 

form of government, the parties bring about harmony between the executive and legislative organs of the State and make them a working whole. Defects of the Party System. 

1.         It encourages disunity and disruption in the State. The main allegation against the political parties is that they disrupt national unity by dividing the people into two or more hostile camps. They create an atmosphere of bitterness in the country. ”Even the best political party”, says Lord Halifax, is a conspiracy against the nation.” Politics becomes an 

It endless strife between the party-in-power and the party-in-opposition, a struggle between the ’Ins’ and ’Outs’, the latter misrepresenting and 

556           POLITICAL SCIENCE 

thwarting the action of the former. The party-out-of power views with alarm all the acts of its opponents. The legislature becomes a battle-field of party quarrels. In these quarrels, however, the interests of the nation are disregarded and even forgotten. It is, indeed, remarkable, says Dr. Finer, that a part of the parliamentary government, the opposition, should spend weeks and years to overthrow the government, in order to cater upon the government. It needs lot of self-restraint on the part of the people. In -  backward countries, not accustomed to such a political self-control, the party quarrels usually degenerate into a civil war, as the experience 9f several countries since the end of the World War II has demonstrated. This is the reason why the parliamentary form of government in such countries has been snuffed out and replaced by a sort of dictatorship 

2.        It leads to moral corruption. Party contests are waged not on principles but for capturing political offices. As Belloc said, party divisions are artificial and are only the fights for office. They are ’arranged’ for capturing political power by befooling the people. Victory is the first law of party politics, no matter whether it is  won by fair or by foul means. It engenders bitterness and strife, rancour and hatred, especially at the time of elections, when fighting and head-breaking may also occur. While the party leaders incite bitter feelings by their spiteful and undignified speeches, their followers frequently start brawls and quarrels among themselves. 

Moreover, party system breeds favouritism, nepotism and other evil practices, such as the ill-famed ”spoils system” in the U. S. A., by which posts and offices in the government were distributed among the supporters of the victorious party. Gilchrist says, parties suppress truth and spread falsehood in order to impress upon the electorate that the one is ri ght and the other wrong. Perverted party propaganda chokes reason and 

i 

strangulates thought. It arouses popular emotions and generates maw hysteria on artificially created issues. But the rise of mass hysteria or herd 

psychology is the death of democracy. 

3.        It is opposed to the spirit of democracy. Party system 

based on party loyalty and party discipline which does not permit memt 

of a party to express their opinion freely and independently. They have 1 

toe the party line and abide by party decisions, made not by all but by , 

handful of leaders at the top of the party hierarchy. The unanimity 

opinion in a party is artificial and injurious. It suppresses freedom 

thought and speech without which democracy cannot exist. It encou 

loyalty to the party at the expense of the loyalty to the State. It re 

politics to a tug-of-war between two parties, in which, as Dr. Leacock 

”each side remains in a State of wilful inconvincibility, with indiv 

judgment frozen tight in the shape of the party mould.” An indep 

citizen is regarded as a ’crank and is excluded from politics and a 

the government while party members and voters are reduced to slay 
POLITICAL PARTIES AND LEADERS 

557 

obedience to party behests. Anyone who does not obey is driven out of the party and even out of politics. This is contrary to the spirit of true democracy. On the contrary, it creates such tendencies as flattery, sycophancy, servility and the ’gift of the gab’, while truth, justice and reason are thrown into the background. 

4.          It encourages bossism, factionalism and political adventurism. Party system gives an opportunity to self-seeking adventurers to exploit the masses for their evil designs and personal ends. If they find no political party, they set up one for their own purposes. This leads to the growth of many parties which divide the nation into factions and groups, as it has happened in Pakistan, India, etc. Party system fosters rule by the boss, the caucus or private cliques, ”which arrange matters to suit themselves.” One of the worst features of the party government is that the parties are in the hands of the richer and privileged classes who use them for their selfish ends and class interests. They are financed by the rich and they work for their interests. Hence they are not, as Burke defined them, ”a body of men united for promoting by the joint endeavours the national interests upon some principle on which they are all agreed,” but (are in practice, as Pope defined them, ”the madness of the many for the gain of the few.” That is why Rousseau; believed that where parties existed, there would be no expression of the General Will. Merits of the Party System. 

History is no doubt full of mischief and evil caused by the Party System. Yet there is another side to the matter. Parties have also done much good and averted many evils, as explained here: 

1.       It is essential for democracy. Modern representative democracy, with its large size and great population, is unworkable without parties. They enable people, scattered all over the country, to agree upon some common principles and work together in support of them. Thus they help the people to express their will. The success of the representative government has mainly depended upon the energy, efficiency and enterprise of the party system. ’The party system,” writes Maclver, ”was in particular the mechanism by which the Class-State of the past was transformed into the nation-State of today.” 

2.       It gives political education to the people. Left to themselves, the people are an unorganised mass of conflicting opinions, with no interest in politics Political parties arouse the people’s interest in politics. They define and clarify national issues to the people, especially at the time of elections. Each party offers them its own explanation and solution of national problems. Thus the people are presented with alternative solutions, views and programmes. When the people vote for or against the candidates of the various parties, they really vote for or againsii their views, policies and programmes. In this way the parties keep a nation’s 
558            POLITICAL SCIENCE 

mind alive to national affairs and educate them. As Maclver says, they ’make articulate the inarticulate desires of the masses.” Thus they are as Lowell puts it, ”the brokers of ideas.” ”Without political parties,” as Finer remarks, ”an electorate would be either impotent or destructive by embarking on impossible policies that would only wreck the political machine.” 

3.     It makes    representative government stable    and -responsible. As we said above, before the rise of the party. system, democracy was impossible and unworkable. Political parties not only offer alternative programmes but also alternative governments to the people. Without political parties, the only method of securing a change of government would be by revolution or coup d’etat, as it was in predemocratic States. Under the party system, there is always an alternative or ”shadow” government of the opposition party or parties. If the policy of the party-in-power is not approved by the people, they can change it constitutionally by voting it out of power and replacing it by the opposition 

party. As Maclver says, Party-rule ”implies the alternation of power, as system of succession which gives each its opportunity.” It regards 

”persuasion more desirable than compulsion, and the conflict of ideas more 

creative than the clash of arms.” 

The party government is responsible government. The government of the ruling party is subject to constant criticism by the opposition party 

which acts as a check on any tendency towards despotism and tyranny.” 

Thus the party system checks the growth of executive despotism and makes 

the government responsible to the public opinion. It acts as a check on hasty 

and ill-considered acts and laws of the party in power, which knows that the opposition will expose its weaknesses and mistakes to the people and bring 

about its defeat at the polls. The opposition thus keeps the government on 

the right path. 

4.       Under the party system, government becomes stable: It 

produces harmony between various organs of the State. In the parliamentary 

government, the cabinet consists of the leading members of the majority 

party in the parliament and thus the legislative and the executive organs are linked by the party membership and discipline. In the presidential form of 

government, the party is the only link which brings harmony between the 

president and the legislature, which are otherwise quite separate and 

distinct. If they belong to the same party, the danger of deadlock is 

minimised. 

5.       Party discipline brings   harmony between   the government and the people. Although some critics deplore the fact that 

party discipline and adherence to party policy restricts the independence the members to think and act as they like, yet it has some advantage also . brings harmony between the laws and acts of the government and tr - 
POLITICAL PARTIES AND LEADERS 

559 

I 

wishes of the people. The ministers get the laws passed by the legislature with the support of the majority they command in the legislature, elected by the people. 

THE PARTY SYSTEMS Broadly speaking three types of party system exist in the modern States. They are the two-party, the multiple-party and the one-party systems. The Two-Party or the Bi-party System. 

Normally the two party system consists of two major patties, which are nearly equal in membership, e.g., the Conservative and Labour parties in Britain. A few minor parties may also exist, but they have little or no influence on the politics of the country. Sometimes a third party may arise which may gradually oust one of the two earlier parties from the country’s politics. Thus temporarily there may be three parties, but ultimately the two party system is restored. This happened  in England, where during the nineteenth century, the two parties, the Liberal and Conservative, existed. Then the third party, the Labour, came into being. It gradually supplanted the Liberal party and finally in the general elections of 1945, the Liberal party vanished from Parliamentary scene, which is now dominated by the two parties, nearly Labour and Conservative parties. In the two party system, one of the two parties is in minority in the legislature. It assumes the function of criticism and opposition to the party in power, hence called the Opposition. However, in spite of the opposition, the differences between them are often very minor. Both are reluctant to take up new and untried issues, which are really espoused at first by the unimportant minor parties. Only when an issue or a programme becomes popular, then one of the two major parties adopts it as its own programme or platform. Organisation of both parties is rigid and close-knit. Arguments for the Bi-party System. 

As compared to the multiple party system, the Bi-party system has the following advantages: 

1.       Offers a clear-cut alternative to the voters. First of all, 

:Two-Party System is convenient to the voters. They are asked to choose 

tween two parties with their clear-cut programmes. Therefore, the choice 

efore the electors is very simple and clear. They can vote for one of the 

parties. Thus they decide beforehand that it by giving more votes to one 

should rule over them. In the Multiple Party system, they are 

nfronted with several parties, and are lost in the welter of several parties 

their confusing programmes. Their votes do not decide which of the 

ies would ultimately rule then, because this depends upon the coalition 

the parties in the legislature. So the government formed under the dual ’ 
560       POLITICAL SCIENCE 

party system is really the choice of the people. They directly choose the cabinet. 

2.          Formation of government is easy under this system. The formation of the cabinet or government is easier under the bi-party system than under the multiple party system, for one of the two parties is necessarily returned in majority and forms the cabinet. In the group system no party has majority in the legislature and, therefore, several parties join together to form a cabinet. But the coalition cabinets are notoriously unstable. 

3.       It secures a really representative government. Dual party’ system secures a representative government in the real sense, for: (i) it enables the voters to choose the government directly, as we have said above; (ii) it makes the party-in-power responsive and responsible for its policy to the voters; and (hi) it makes the Opposition responsible and dignified in its criticism of the ruling party. The aim of the Opposition is ”to get in” and form the government. It has, therefore, to criticise the policy and laws of the party-in-power in a sober, sensible, systematic and responsible 

manner so as to win the majority of votes at the next elections. It must not indulge in careless and irresponsible criticism of the good measures of the 

government, for it might have to adopt them itself when it steps into office. Under the multiple party system, the Opposition is irresponsible in its criticism. It indulges in intrigues in order to bring down the existing cabinet. 

Its sole aim is to defeat the government, by fair means or foul. 

4.          It ensures stable and strong government. The dual party system ensures a stable and strong government. As there are only two parties in the legislature, one of them necessarily has the majority and forms 

the cabinet. The government formed by one party is stable, strong 

responsible. It commands majority in the legislature. The cabinet works as team, for all its members hold the same or nearly similar views on di 

problems and policies of their government. They also control the supi 

and enjoy the confidence of the members of the legislature by 

discipline and organisation. As the majority in the assembly belongs to 

party-in-power, they do not try to bring down the cabinet, for it is 

government. The fall of their cabinet will bring their opponents into pa 

which they do not like at all. In the multiple party system, the cabinet 

usually a coalition cabinet which is notoriously unstable. Both the mini 

in the cabinet and the members of the legislature constantly intrigue 

each other to overthrow the existing government and install a new one. England where the two party system exists, the cabinets hold office fix 

least three years on the average, while in France, where the multiple 

system existed, the cabinets had always been short-lived. The average 

of a French cabinet had been six months. For instance, during the thi 

years (1945-58), France had 26 ministries, while England had only 
POLITICAL PARTIES AND LEADERS 

561 

cabinet changes during the same period. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher has ruled the U.K. as Prime Minister for more than ten years. 

5.       It is easy to fix responsibility for failure of government under the dual party system. But it is not so under the multiple party system. The reason is that under the two-party system, the cabinet is formed by one party. If it fails, that particular party is blamed for its wrong policy or programme. Under the multiple party system, the cabinet is a coalition government and no one party can be blamed for the failure of its policy or actions. 

6.        It makes long-term planning and policy possible. As the government under the two-party system is stable and strong, it can undertake long-term planning and policy, because it expects to remain in office for a reasonably long period of time. Under the multiple party system, the executive is weak and unstable. It cannot adopt strong policy and long-term planning. 

In conclusion, as Laski said, the two-party system ”enables the government to drive its policy to the statute book. It makes known and intelligible the results of its failure. It brings an alternative government immediately into being.” The multiple system always means that no government can be formed until after the people have chosen the legislative assembly, and even then it is a coalition government. The Multiple Party System. 

In the multiple party system there are usually several parties of various strength. Each party stands for a definite policy on one or a number of important issues. This party system exists in most of the countries of Europe and Asia. The system usually grows up among the people who are sharply divided by religious, racial and other differences. ”The double party system”, observes A. N. Holcombe, ”is doubtless a convenient system for 

contented peoples, but it is not an efficient system for the expression of public opinion when the variety of opinion and intensity of conviction are great.” 

Its Merits. 

1.           It allows greater freedom of opinion to the electorate, while the bi-party system restricts it. The multiple party system affords ’Igreater freedom of opinion to the voters, for there are several parties and a limey/ party can be easily formed. People can express as many diverse 

eisinions as there are parties to express them. Under the two-party system, people’s opinion is necessarily restricted to two parties. In the words of 

oldwin Smith, the Bi-party system presumes ”a bi-section of human 

acter”, which does not really exist. It presumes that the people have 

Lly two kinds of opinion on major national problems, although they have 

ny; but there is no other alternative. Modern State, however, is pluralistic 
562       POLITICAL SCIENCE 

with great diversity of economic and other interests, which can be represented properly only by a variety of parties. Hence the multiple party system is more natural to modern political life. Ramsay Muir advocated the three-party system for his country, Great Britain, in place of her traditional two-party system. 

2.       The two-party system demands blind devotion both from leaders and the followers, while the multiple party system saves the country from the clutches of the two irreconcilable groups. Under two-party system, the organisational discipline and control of the party over its members is. very strict. Anyone, leader or follower, who does not agree with party policy or programme, has either to submit to party control or quit Dissenters are not tolerated. Party rebels are driven out. The voters have 

also to accept or reject the views of one or the other party. Indeed, the 

country as a whole is divided into two warring and hostile camps. But this is I 

I not the case under the group system, where different parties exist. Voters 

have greater choice of various views and programmes. Two or more parties 

form a coalition cabinet, which works by compromise and toleration. Mel 

multiple party system ”does not divide the nation into irreconcilable groups.1 

People can associate and organise without a serious compromise principles.” 

3.         Two-Party System leads to cabinet dictatorship and to I 

despotism of the majority, while the multiple party system offers cha 

for several alternative governments. Owing to the rigid party organisatic 

and control, the two-party system leads to Cabinet dictatorship. In Engla 

where this system prevails, the Cabinet has acquired dictatorial autocratic control over the majority in the Parliament. Its supporters 

not criticise the cabinet because it is their own and its fall will put 

Opposition into office. But this they bitterly dislike. Hence they blindly 1 

sheepishly support the policies and programmes of their cabinet. This 

has also lowered the prestige of the Parliament as a sovereign legisL 

body. It has become subservient to the cabinet. It has also resulted 

despotism of the majority party, which is closely regimented by the 1 

whips. All this is not possible under the multiple party system. No party I 

majority in the legislature. Party discipline and control cannot be strict, I 

new party can be easily formed. Two or more parties form a cabinet based on various combinations and bargaining. A government cannot act despotically or dictatorially, because it is 1 compromise and consent, and will disintegrate if excessive aut 

exercised. The cabinet also cannot count upon the unchanging loyalty • 

supporters in the legislature, because the members have great fre 

joining or forming other combinations of parties. 
POLITICAL PARTIES AND LEADERS 

563 

Arguments against the Multiple Party or Group System. 

This system has more defects than merits, as follows: The multiple party system has not enhanced the prestige and power of the legislature due to the constant intrigues and manoeuvrings in which the members and ministers constantly indulge. Coalition cabinets are notoriously unstable and short-lived. Government has no continuity in policy or programme. Combinations and compromises on which a coalition government depends, prevents the solution of national problems and destroys unanimity of opinion in the cabinet and the legislature. Coalition governments are weak and inefficient governments. Too many parties in a country, like two much money in the market, are bad: the one for the political health of the country and the other for its economic health. 

Comparison. 

Comparison of the two-party and the multiple party system reveals the fact that the latter is neither a desirable nor a practicable system. It makes administration uncertain, government weak, cabinets unstable, legislators irresponsible, and the policy of the government weak and uncertain. The executive becomes a plaything in the hands of the legislature and is unable to adopt strong policy or great measures. The legislature is ’devoted to manoeuvring’ for positions which are lost almost as soon as they are occupied. ”Two parties”, as Dr. Finer remarks, ”are better for the 

happiness and duty of nations than many parties. When two parties contest 

seats everywhere, lies and errors may be in all places challenged, while destruction of will and disintegration of outlook are reduced.” The recent experience of France, Pakistan and other countries has shown that multiple 

Ipart y system leads to national chaos, corruption and weak and inefficient government, in itself the greatest calamity which can befall a nation. 

rliamentary system failed in these countries due solely to the multiplicity 

irresponsible and intriguing parties. 

-party System. 

rise. 

Since the World War I, in many countries, like Russia, Germany, 

ay, i urKey, parliamentary aemocracy was overtnrown, ono political 

ies were suppressed except the party which set up the dictatorship. Thus 

-party government was established in these countries. Similarly, 

riiamentary form of government and multiple .system have been 

ished in several other countries in recent years, such as Egypt, Iraq, 

ia, Pakistan, Thailand, or are restricted in powers and functions as in 

nce today.                                . 

Under the single-party government, no other parties are allowed to into existence. The only party is the government party. At elections, 

voters cast their votes for the candidates of this party. No opposition 
564           POLITICAL SCIENCE 

parties exist. They are forbidden by law. The people enjoy no civil liberties or rights of speech, press or association to organise any other parties. The single-party system is really an organ of the government and not an association of the votes or people. It is an instrument of government propaganda. It is totalitarian, for it controls all aspects of national life and culture. In the Fascist or Nazi Party, no discussion and criticism of the government policy or acts are allowed. In the Communist Party, the policy • and programme of the government are discussed by the people, but when once decision is taken and the government has adopted a policy of programme, further discussion and criticism are not at all permissible. Party ”line” once adopted is rigidly followed by the members. Even in the present day Communist countries it is proposed to set up opposition parties. They will thus have two-party or multiple party systems, as the fall of communist system in Eastern Europe has shown since 1989 

POLITICAL LEADERS AND LEADERSHIP Meaning of Leadership. 

Leadership is a necessary social phenomenon. Where many , 

live together, with different habits, attitudes, ideas and interests and 

have to be organised for some common purpose or common goal of lii 

there leaders will necessarily arise. Nothing can be achieved withc 

organisation. But organisation creates leaders and followers. Politic 

parties are such organisations of the leaders and the led. Leadership me 

the hierarchical or organisational supremacy of a person or group 

persons. They give unity of purpose to a large number of people organising them into a single whole for the achievement of certain defim 

purposes or ideals, whether of the leaders or of the followers or of both.’ 

nature of purposes and ideals determines the nature of leadership_ 

political leader is one who occupies such a position in a party as to exe 

more influence upon activities, purposes or programmes than any other I 

its members. 

The phenomenon of leadership in politics and State is a con 

one. It is influenced by several factors—psychological, social, political I 

historical. The psychological factors are the personality, the intelle 

qualities, the moral spirit and courage, imagination, clear vision, 

power, perseverance, or ’the gift of discipline. Thus leadership 

upon qualities of head and heart and also of hand, especially in the past 1 

when men had to fight or cut their way with their swords to the 

Among the social factors are the habits and customs, beliefs and attit 

the people, their social relations and organisations. The political fail 

the nature and structure of the State, the laws and the rights and lit 

granted by the laws or aspired by the people, the kind and organis 

political parties and the political ideas, attitudes and philosophies prevail among them. The historical conditions are the conditions of 
POLITICAL PARTIES AND LEADERS 

565 

peace, victory or defeat, social system and social evolution or the progress in culture and civilisation, and the problems and dangers which confront the nation and the country at home and abroad in the past and present. All these factors and forces will determine the kind of political leadership that will arise in a country at a particular period in its history. A people have always the kind of leaders it deserves. 

There are however, various kinds of leaders: party leaders, parliamentary or legislative leaders, executive or administrative leaders and, above all, the builders of State, such as statesmen, prophets, or revolutionaries and visionaries. The party, parliamentary and administrative leaderships are of routine and visionaries type, while the Statesmen, prophets, revolutionaries and visionaries are rare phenomena which may change the destiny of their nations. Party Leaders. 

The increasing rigidity of party organisation, discipline and control is both the cause and effect of the rise of leaders in the modern political parties. Modern parties are mass organisations. They seek to enrol and enlist as many people as its members and supporters as possible. In order to win elections effectively, manage government and solve the problems confronting the State, the party must be led by someone who can achieve these ends. He becomes the party leader. He is its spokesmen before the people. He explains and defends its policies and programmes to them. He shows the party the way to victory. He cannot, however, dominate it. A good party leader is not its boss but its spokesmen. His function is to give voice to the aims and ideals for which the party stands. He is aptly described as ”an uncommon man of common opinions.” Government Leadership. 

Government is basically a leadership phenomenon. It consists of the rulers the leaders. Like every other machinery, governmental machinery needs a man at the steering wheel. Whatever may be said of the State in theory, in practice it means the government, which means a group of persons whose decisions are legally binding on the community. The 

zovernment, as Laski says, are the trustees and governors and it is their business to glean the needs of society and to translate those needs into terms 

i of effective laws. The purpose of the State finds its personification in them.” 

But government is a complex machinery, consisting of three distinct parts, Iriz., the legislature, the executive and the  administrative departments. Each Fart needs different ”types of leaders, for each has its own peculiar nature, 

I purpose and functions. 

The selection of political leaders is effected differently in different 

!States. In parliamentary democracy, it is made through popular election as 

ell as the work in the legislature. The first test of a political leader is the 
566      POLITICAL SCIENCE 

election. But the real test is his skill and superiority as revealed in facing the questions and criticism in the parliament, where he faces a watchful opposition. In popular elections, a mere ”showman” or an ”orator” might succeed. But when he stands to address the parliament, he may soon be deflated, for it tests not only his skill in public speaking but also his ability in handling technical, personal and political issues under the gaze of an opposition which will exploit any sign of weakness or failure. Those. who survive this test become the real political leaders of the government. For this selective reason, the cabinet system with parliamentary responsibility of the ministers and two-party system is found to be the best means of choosing government leaders. The American system is defective. The President and other political leaders in the U.S.A. are selected, not because they had a long training in leadership in the legislature but because they prove to be the best vote-catchers in the general elections, or have been 

first-rate leaders in some walk of life other than political. Administrators. 

Finally we come to the bed-rock of government, the administrators, who run the administrative departments. While the 

governmental leaders need initiative, imagination, vision and a spirit of 

innovation, the administrative officers need qualities of routine, 

specialisation and integration. They are expert in their own fields. They 

must be men of insight and intelligence. Good administrators are men of wide social understanding, and intellectual vigour. They are capable of 

finding the best method to transform legislative policy into administrative 

practice.