The Green Book: Part One

Chapter Three

             THE PARTY


  The party is the contemporary dicta-        |The party
torship. It is the modern dictatorial         |system aborts
instrument of governing. The party is         |democracy
the rule of a part over the whole. It is              
the latest dictatorial instrument. As
the party is not individual it exercises
a sham democracy through estab-
lishing parliaments and committees
and  through the  propaganda  of its
members. The party is not a democra-
tic instrument at all because it is
composed of people who have common
interests, a common outlook or a com-
mon culture; or who belong to the
same locality or have the same belief.
They form a party to achieve their            |To make a
ends, impose their outlook or extend          |party you
the hold of their belief on the society as    |split society
a whole. A party's aim is to achieve
power under the pretext of carrying
out its programme. And yet, democra-
tically, none of these parties should
govern the whole people because of the
diversity of interests, ideas, tempera-
ments, localities and beliefs, which

                  [12]


constitute the people's identity. The
party is a dictatorial instrument of
governing that enables those with one
outlook and a common interest to rule
the people as a whole. Compared with
the people, the party is a minority.
  The purpose of forming a party is to
create an instrument to rule the peo-
ple; namely to rule over non-members
of the party. For the party is, fun-
damentally, based on an arbitrary au-
thoritarian theory . . . i.e. the domi-
nation of the members of the party
over the rest of individual members of
the people. The party presupposes that
its accession to power is the way to
attain its ends, assuming that its objec-
tives are the objectives of the people.
That is the theory of the justification of
party dictatorship, which is the basis
for any dictatorship. No matter how
many parties there are, the theory
remains one and the same. But the
existence of many parties escalates
the struggle for power and this results
in the destruction of any achievements
of the people and of any socially benefi-
cial plans. Such destruction is seized
upon by the opposition party as a

                  [13]


justification to undermine the position
of the ruling party so that it may take
over from them. The parties in their
struggle resort, if not to arms, which
rarely happens, then to denouncing
and stultifying the actions of each
other. This is a battle which is inevit-
ably waged at the expense of the high-
er and vital interests of the society.
Some, if not all, of those higher in-
terests will be victims of the power
struggle of instruments of governing.
For the destruction of those interests
supports the opposition party or par-
ties in their argument against the rul-
ing party. The opposition party, as an
instrument of governing, has to oust
the ruling body in order to have access
to authority. To prove the unfitness of
the instrument of governing, the oppo-
sition party has to destroy its achieve-
ments and to cast doubt on its plans,
even if those plans are beneficial to the
society. Consequently the interests and
programmes of the society become
victims of the parties' struggle for
power. Such struggle is, therefore,
politically, socially and economically
destructive to the society, despite the

                  [14]


fact that it creates political activity.
Besides, the struggle results in the
victory of another instrument of gov-
erning, i.e., the fall of one party and
the rise of another. But it is a defeat for
the people, a defeat for democracy.
Furthermore, parties can be bought or
bribed either from inside or outside.
  Originally, the party is formed to  
represent the people. Then the leading  
group of the party represents its mem-
bers and the supreme leader of the
party represents the leading group. It
becomes clear that the party game is a
deceitful farce based on a sham form
of democracy which has a selfish con-
tent based on manoeuvres, tricks and
political games. All these emphasise
that the party-system is a dictatorial,
yet modern, instrument. The  party
system is an overt, not a covert, dicta-
torship. The world has not yet passed
beyond it and it is rightly called 'the
dictatorship of the modern age'.
  The parliament of the winning party
is indeed a parliament of the party, as
the executive power assigned by this
parliament is the power of the party
over the people. Party power, which is

                  [15]


supposed to be for the good of the whole
people, is actually a bitter enemy of a
part of the people, namely the opposi-
tion party or parties and their suppor-
ters. So the opposition is not a popular
check on the ruling party, but is itself
seeking a chance to replace the ruling
party. According to modern democra-
cy, the legal check on the ruling party
is the parliament, the majority of
whose members are from that ruling
party. That is to say, checking is in the
hands of the ruling party and rule is in
the hands of the checking party. Thus
become clear the deceptiveness, falsi-
ty and invalidity of the political
theories dominant in the world today,
from which contemporary traditional
democracy emerges. 
  The party is only a part of the people,
but  the  sovereignty  of the  people  is
indivisible.
  The party governs on behalf of the
people, but the principle is no represen-
tation in lieu of the people.
  The party system is the modern 
tribal and sectarian system. The socie-
ty governed by one party is exactly like
that which is governed by one tribe or

                  [16]


one sect. The party, as stated above,
represents the outlook of a certain
group of people, or the interests of one
group of the society, or one belief or
one locality. Such a party must be a
minority compared to the whole people
just as the tribe and the sect are. The
minority has common interests or a
sectarian belief. From such interests
or belief, the common outlook is
formed.  Only blood-relationship dis-
tinguishes a tribe from a party and
even at the foundation of a party there
may be blood-relationship. There is no
difference  between  party  struggles
and tribal or sectarian struggles for
power. And if tribal and sectarian rule
is politically rejected and disavowed,
then the party system must similarly
be rejected and disavowed. Both of
them tread the same path and lead to
the same end. The negative and des-
tructive effect on the society of the
tribal and sectarian struggles is iden-
tical to the negative and destructive
effect of the party struggle.


                  [17]

Chapter Four   Table of Contents