Elective dictatorship

The phrase elective dictatorship (also called executive dominance in political science) was coined by the former Lord Chancellor, Quintin Hogg, Baron Hailsham of St Marylebone, in a academic paper of the same name written in 1976. It describes the state in a Parliamentary system of government (primarily in Westminster systems) when there is a fusion of powers between the legislature and the executive, i.e. the executive is drawn from the legislature, which allows the legislature to be dominated by the executive.

Hailsham was refering to the British Parliament specifically, but the idea can apply to government in the Westminster system, and most Parliamentary systems of governments in general. In such systems, only the national legislure, Parliament has sovereignty, (parliamentary sovereignty), which means only it can make law on a national level. If it wishes to, it can use Acts of Parliament to overrule, remove power, or abolish any local or devolved authority. Due to the lacks of effective checks and balances on the power of Parliament in constitutions common to Westminster systems, there are no theoretical restraints on Parliament's power. Elective dictatorship occurs in conjunction with this situation and that of the governing party, the executive. The party in power will by definition have more seats, i.e. more voting power than all the opposition parties. This means that any legislation or motion proposed by the governing party can be passed unless government MPs dissent, because only a simple majority is required. Due to the strength of the whip system to prevent MPs of the governing party voting against it, in practice government bills are extremely rarely defeated in the House of Commons. The last to do so was the Shop Hours Act, 1986. Even in this example, the provisions of the bill have been enacted in subsequent legislation, so the 'defeat', although lasting for a Parliamentary term was not a major setback. The House of Lords does not have the power to vote down legislation, it merely has a suspensive veto, which can be overruled by the use of the Parliament Act.

Therefore, by the fact that the elected executive, the governing party has by definition a majority in Parliament (unless it is a minority government), it can act like a dictatorship, passing any legislation it wishes without the possibility of opposition blocking it, unless govenment MPs 'rebel' against the whip system and vote against their own party. Of course, the term elective dictatorship is a controversial one, and the extent to which executives in Parliamentary systems are as unresponsive to minority opposition behave dictatorships is debatable, but it is certainly true that highly controversial legislation can be voted through despite the voice of the opposition. For example, legislation on top up university fees passed on a majority of just five votes in January 2004, with all opposition parties and a large number of government MPs voting against it, but to no avail. More controversially in this example, public opinion was strongly against the bill, and it was passed despite being ruled out in the governing party's last manifesto (Labour, 2001).

Despite the fact that governments have seemingly unlimited legislative power, they must of course act within reason, so although they could theoretically abolish all civil rights, in practical term this would not occur. But it is certainly true that in the UK system, and many Westminster systems the executive does dominate Parliament, to an extent that debates over legislation are rarely more than merely a sideshow, with no possibility of affecting the vote on the bill, and the governing party passes any bill (within reason) it wishes.

Solutions

In order to counter the state of executive dominance, the following measures could be taken:

• Constitutional reform
  • Electoral reform. In the British Parliament, and most using the Westminster system, a First Past the Post electoral system is used, which tends to produce results which are disproportionate to the number of votes cast. For example, in the UK General Election, 2005, the Labour Party received 35.2% of votes cast, but a highly disproportionate 55.2% of seats in Parliament. If a proportional systems, or possibly hybrid PR FPTP system were used, then Labour would have had not had a majority, and therefore would not be able to pass legislation at will.
  • The establishment of a Supreme Court in the US model, with the power to strike down laws. This would require a codified constitution, and protect against abuses of power by the executive, by ruling unconstitutional laws unenforceable.
  • A codified constitution, with enforced checks and balances and more separation of powers. This is a solution that is advocated by groups such as Charter 88 in the UK, but not by any major political party.
• A relaxation of the whip system. This have never being suggested, but if it is a theoretical solution. A system in which individual MPs were not pressured into following the party line, such as the unenforced whip system used in the US Congress would reduce the executive's grip on Parliament.

External links

• Extract from "Elective Dictatorship" (1976) (http://law.uts.edu.au/~chriscl/hailsham.html)