Do
We Elect a Dictator?
Part
6: The Power of the Executive
The history of the
Executive, that small select group of members of parliament appointed by the
leader to form a Cabinet which sits to consider matters of administration, has
been one of increasing power at the expense of the Commons. In the original Athenian executive the
officials did not determine decisions at all – to give decision-making power to
elected officials was considered to take power from the people, effectively
converting the system into an oligarchy.
An executive is clearly needed for the smooth functioning
of practical administration. But what was once regarded merely as a practical
necessity has gradually become a power in its own right that threatens the very
working of parliament. The democratic
model had been designed as a tripartite system: the all-important legislative
power was to be in the hands of the main body of the Commons, the Executive
attended to practical matters, and the Judiciary ensured that the rule of law
that had been established by the Commons was everywhere fairly applied.
Executive function of the democratic body was originally
meant to be analogous to the autonomic system of control that maintains the
human body. The system that maintains
our vital functions operates outside consciousness. We don’t have to remember
to send a message to the muscles of respiration every few seconds in order to
keep breathing. Our heartbeat, blood
pressure maintenance, our digestion, our hormonal balance, all these essential
systems run without reference to the conscious part of the brain (the Commons),
leaving the thinking brain free for the more complex decisions. Thus the
Executive leaves the Commons free to consider the proper legislative response
of government to changing circumstances.
Tom Paine considered that ‘the
sovereign authority in any country is the power of making laws, and everything
else is an official department’. This
view of how a democracy ought to operate was echoed later by Dicey, who thought
that ‘a parliamentary executive [that is, the
Ministry] must by the law of its nature follow, or tend to follow, the lead of
the Parliament’. A century of gradual
change has inverted that proposition.
Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone, a former Lord
Chancellor, said that the
powers of government within Parliament are ‘now largely in the hands of the
government machine, so that the government controls Parliament and not
Parliament the Government’. He concluded:
‘We live under an elective dictatorship, absolute in theory if hitherto
thought tolerable in practice.’
The problem of executive power overriding the Commons is not modern, but of long standing. In 1886 the fiery Welsh MP Henry Richard moved a resolution stating that ‘in the opinion of this House, it is not just or expedient to embark in war . . . involving grave responsibilities for the nation, without the knowledge and consent of parliament’, backing up his resolution with a speech documenting the then-recent conflicts in Afghanistan, Burma, Syria, China, Persia, and South Africa for which there had been minimal input from the House, though in each case there had been ample time to discuss and consult with Parliament. This direct challenge from the floor of the House to the power of the executive was narrowly defeated by 115 votes to 109!
A similar
attempt to limit executive power was made more recently in the
Technology has
now obviated the need that might have previously justified a quick presidential
decision in an emergency. With the
almost miraculous powers of communication available today, consultation is
greatly facilitated. [1] In the event of a national disaster of any
conceivable kind, a majority decision could be arrived at almost instantly
without the need for the physical presence of congressmen at a particular
place. Then any facilitating
extraordinary power would have the authority of the full Congress. If a hurricane or a flood causes terrible
desolation and damage, is it likely that Senators would deny necessary measures
to deal with the problem? Remember that
after the terrorist strike of
Just how far
executives have gone towards being policy-deciders was
demonstrated in
This concludes
this rather incomplete review of the present weaknesses in our democratic
process, which has been inspired by the way this country was taken unwillingly
to an illegal war by its leader and his appointees. A written constitution, setting legal limits,
agreed by the people, to what our representatives can do, would be an obvious
improvement, a necessary but insufficient aid towards a true democracy, but
perhaps does not warrant a page in
Harry Davis
[1] Conferences can be held these days by video-link. The technology is now available for senators to discuss and vote upon an emergency issue instantaneously if necessary without their physical presence in Congress.