The recent political processes – including some which bore semblance to the cloak and dagger type – around the inauguration of the 10th National Assembly (NASS), and the election of its Principal Officers, have accelerated the necessity for this intervention. And to be sure, also the current situation, and the historical context of the conversation is the immediate trigger for this response; a far more fundamental reason is at play here – and this is the ability of a victorious revolution, a victorious workers party to world power and govern effectively.
But first, what constitutes a government? Is it just the executive? Why do we talk of the three arms of the government? What is the role of the legislature in ensuring effective governance? What does separation of powers mean? How do the checks and balances inherent to the notion of separation of powers come into play? We have to agree that the legislature is an integral part of the government, along with the executive and the judiciary. Another way of saying this is the exercise of legislative powers is as integral, and crucial to the exercise of governmental power, as is the exercise of executive, and judicial powers.
Why is this so? Because, essentially, while the executive initiates and implements policies and programs, and plans, including investment plans; the legislature is required to enact the laws that drives and substantiated governmental policies, programs and plans, as well as crucially, the appropriation of resources to fund the implementation of these policies, programs and plans.
And of course the judiciary plays the role of arbitration, and ensuring at the very least the upholding of the rule of law, and this legal justice within the society.
READ ALSO:Â PLAC Urges 9th NASS To Halt Hurried Concurrence, Passage of Bills
This is why political parties compete not only to win executive power, but crucially also to dominate legislative power. No political party would be able to implement its programs, and its election manifesto if it controls only the executive branch, without a majority in the legislative branch, or if it wields a majority only in the legislative branch, but does not control executive powers and can thus not exercise executive Powers.
Across every jurisdiction, authoritarian or democratic, including the various iterations of these forms, in order to effectively govern, a political party, or political formation, has to be in control of both the executive and legislative branches of the government in order for it to be able to govern effectively.
Furthermore, there’s also nowhere in the world where a political party, regardless of whether it is a presidential or parliamentary form of government, where a political party will not be directly and proactively interested in, and play a direct role, in the choice and emergence of who becomes the leader of that party in the legislature, and where the party has a majority in the legislature, then also, a direct interest in who represents the party in leading the legislature.
This is not just a basic necessity for the cohesion and sustenance of the party, it is also a basic necessity for wielding and sustenance of governmental powers by the victorious party.
No political party worth its salt, would leave the emergence of the party leadership, or the emergence of the party’s leadership in the legislative branch to the vagaries of chance.
In the US as well is in the UK and across Europe and in the EU, including in Russia or Turkey, the legislative caucus of the party, is directly responsible for deciding on candidacies, and determining who emerges as the leaders of the party in the legislature, and if the party is in control of the legislature, the emergence of the leadership of the legislative branch as well. In performing this exclusive role, they work with and are guided, to varying degrees, by the leadership, traditions, and policies of their respective parties and of the legislative branch.
Political parties compete and contest for office on the basis of programs, and or some form of aggregated common interests and vision; a competition and contest occurs because there are differences ranging from slight to significant and fundamental, between these programs and or aggregated common interests articulated by the respective parties. It is in this context that we can speak of the presence and or absence of choice.
In order for these competing programs and visions to become the basis for running government and shaping and implementing governmental policies and programs, then a political party would have not only to win executive power, but also be in control of legislative powers, through winning a majority, either alone, or in coalition with other parties.
It is in this sense that the legislature is crucial to the exercise of executive powers. Programs required laws and funds to become reality.
Where different political parties control the two branches of government, then what happens ranges from a debilitating paralysis to chaos, and or alternatively the conclusion of historic compromises between the parties who control the different branches of government. Essentially, such contexts are unstable, and the equilibrium is very easily upset leading to the collapse, or definitive incapacitation of the government.
Where then is the relevance of checks and balances, inherent to the separation of powers? This occurs through the processes of law making, which ensures broader consultation, and broader reach and scrutiny of the process of putting the law together. In this way there’s a check on the ability of the executive to unilaterally design and implement policies and programs.
Furthermore, there’s the oversight function, which ensures that laws are executed in accordance with the letters of the legislation, on the one hand, as well as the oversight of the utilisation of funds appropriated by the legislature to fund executive programs, in order to ensure compliance with the spirit and letters of the appropriation act, on the other hand.
Separation of powers, is about assignment of government roles and functions between the branches of government with respect to who does exactly what. It is not about enthrone mutual antagonism which can ultimately paralyse the governance process itself.
And checks and balances, is about ensuring accountability and transparency. It is not about irresponsibility and paralysis.
Now, we can return to the left, and the working class, and the prospect of taking power.
Would it be possible for us, and our workers party (revolutionary or not), to just allow non party members to come into our party on the eve of party primaries to become the candidates of our party?
Would we after having won executive power and a majority in the legislature, be uninterested in who plays what specific roles in the leadership of our party in the legislative branch? As well as who emerges the candidates of our party for the leadership of the legislative branch itself? Are we saying, we are going to leave these decisions and processes to the vagaries of chance?
Would we expect a legislature that we control and leads to block the agenda of the executive branch of government that we also control?
Even in the unfolding processes and conversations around the 10 NASS, are not only notable signs of the basic lack of understanding of governance, and political and governance processes by citizens, including so-called opinion moulders and activists; but even more importantly, is the fact of the notable signs of lack of understanding of these processes by elements on the left, who claim they are in contention for power, or that they somewhat constitute a political (revolutionary or not) opposition to the status quo and the capitalist ruling class.
Sadly, it is also an indication of the unpreparedness of these segments of the left and of the labour movement for power.
