Internal democracy in political parties

Internal democracy in political parties 

Courtesy: Institute of democracy and electoral assistance. 

The internal democracy work is aimed at developing more democratic, transparent and effective political parties. The aim is to identify specific challenges for the internal management and functioning of parties and party systems. 

Areas of specific focus include candidate selection, leadership selection, policy making, membership relations, gender, minorities, youth and party funding. These issues are considered within the wider development context: for example the relationship to governance issues, anti-corruption and service delivery. 

The internal democracy work seeks to develop comparative knowledge via policy papers in the key regions of the Asia Pacific, Africa and the Middle East and Latin America, with pilot activities in Nepal in 2007.

Using draft policy papers as an entry point, International IDEA carries out dialogue sessions with political parties and others (party internationals, academics, etc.) on internal party reform. International IDEA’s work on internal democracy will feed into the development of capacity building training initiatives for political parties.

International IDEA engages with other organizations involved in democracy building on the internal functioning and management of political parties. Thus far it has worked with Demo Finland and the Netherlands Institute for Multi Party Democracy in this field.

International IDEA press conference on internal democracy workshop in Sudan, June 2007

Policy paper dialgoue with public intellectuals, Khatmandu, Nepal, May 2007

Regulate political parties

• Articles

Regulate political parties - By Ramesh Ramanathan
Last week's National Anthem fracas saw Narayana Murthy getting roasted by members of the Karnataka State Assembly. While the media hype lasted for two days, what will linger is the subliminal irony of the incident. One of India 's great institution builders got taken to the cleaners by politicians who couldn't spell institution-building if their lives depended on it.

Political parties are the essence of a democracy. They channelise the competing hopes and aspirations of people into a collective, constructive energy for change. Elections are fought and won mainly by political parties – independent candidates are no more than comic relief in these democratic dramas. Most importantly, through these electoral processes, parties have access to the entire human and financial resources of government. Even when they are not in power, political parties influence and set public policy. Samuel Huntington stated that strong parties are “the prerequisite for political stability in modernizing countries”.

India has many outstanding political leaders who have invested their lives in tackling the nation's social and economic challenges. But are political parties only agglomerations of individuals, or should they meet a higher bar of being institutions? Leaders and institutions have a symbiotic relationship: they need each other.
A political party mobilises people, promises them representation, and aspires to to deliver its vision for society by accessing political power. The external work of a political party – complex social processes – needs to be supported by the internal rhythm of an institution – strong business processes. Institutional systems ensure the predictability, fairness and equity that parties need to successfully manage their various stakeholders . Indeed, they cannot practise democracy in the public arena if they don't practise it within their own parties.

How do Indian political parties rate as institutions? In a word, abysmally. No political party in India files audited financial statements. No data on size of membership is publicly available. No transparent rules for candidate selection are defined. No decisions are decentralised. No clear guidelines for the development of policy positions are outlined. In sum, these are institutions only in word, not deed. Each political apparatus twirls on the whims and fancies of individual leaders.

Why don't our political leaders build their parties? After all, this isn't rocket science, it's basic organisational development. Business leaders constantly ponder, “How do we sustain our success, strengthen the institutional fabric, nurture talent and remain relevant to our constituencies?” It can't be that our political leaders don't worry about the same issues.

Part of the answer is that India 's current political culture doesn't incentivise institution-building. It isn't possible to come clean on finances when illegal funds are sloshing through the system. Personality cults are easier to establish than organisational discipline. Fragmentation and identity politics still allow the tail to wag the dog, however small a particular vote base.

If political parties are unwilling to build robust institutions themselves, this discipline must be forced upon them. If a company wanted an exchange listing, it would have to satisfy SEBI's conditions – registration under the Company's Act, quarterly audited financial statements, disclosure about the Board of Directors, etc.

In sharp contrast, the regulatory environment for political parties is laughable. Other than Article 19 of the Constitution which affords the right to form associations, there are no regulations for political parties. Our illiteracy has created some back-door regulation. The Election Symbols Order, 1968 allows the Election Commission to declare a political party as a “state party” and allot a symbol if it fulfils certain conditions of longevity and electoral success. Any party satisfying these conditions in four or more states is recognized as a “national party”. We have 7 national parties and 48 state parties in India today. In this distorted political marketplace, we have handed over the keys of our public institutions to this ossified oligopoly.

We urgently need a muscular regulatory environment for political parties. The Election Commission of India needs to be given more teeth. The National Commission to review the working of the Constitution (NCRWC) strongly recommended regulation of political parties. It stated, “There should be comprehensive legislation [the Political Parties (Registration and Regulation) Act], regulating the registration and functioning of political parties in India .” Among other things, this proposed law would require party accounts to be audited, and open conventions to make leadership selection more “open, democratic and federal”. This 5-year old proposal gathers dust.

Amartya Sen said, “Countries should not become fit for democracy, but become fit through democracy.” Political parties are at the heart of this. All change is path dependent – we cannot change where we are, only where we are headed. One key step in this direction is for us to start thinking of political parties as institutions, and demand organisational accountability from them. Maybe they could take some tips from Murthy.

_______________________________________________________________________
The author is Co-Founder of Janaagraha.

Selection of candidates and internal democracy in political parties in Latin America

Selection of candidates and internal democracy in political parties in Latin America

Because a political party’s electoral success and representativeness depend on its selection of candidates for public office, this is one of the most important decisions that a political group can make. The selection process itself reveals a great deal about parties’ internal dynamics and organizational strategies and has implications for party cohesion and the performance of the political system. The way in which candidates are chosen also signals the degree of participation and internal democracy that exist within parties.

Despite its importance, there has been little study of the candidate selection process in Latin America. This groundbreaking work is an effort to fill that gap, although the author notes that further study is needed to refine the relationships among the variables discussed.

The text is divided into four parts: 

• An analytical framework for classification to facilitate an understanding of the various mechanisms that parties use to select candidates.
•  Analysis of the various factors that can condition candidate selection and the use of these mechanisms. 
• Examination of the methods that 44 parties in 16 Latin American countries use to select their presidential candidates. 
• The degree of inclusion or centralization implied by these processes, which leads to a discussion of the level of internal democracy in the parties.

Research paper- Internal democracy in political parties a must

The dissolution of political parties: The problem of internal democracy

Yigal Mersel^** Researcher, Hauser Global Program, and Emile Noel Fellow at the Jean Monnet Center, New York University. I wish to thank the NYU School of Law and Professor Joseph Weiler, as well as the Fulbright Foundation, for their support of this research project. Email:ym445@nyu.edu


In recent years, various democracies have faced the problem of nondemocratic political parties. In response, some have adopted the practice of the party ban. The main focus in existing jurisprudence has been on the external activities of these parties. In determining whether a political party is nondemocratic, attention has centered on the party's goals and practices. This judicial practice, manifest in different European constitutional courts as well as the European Court of Human Rights, is problematic. It often ignores an essential element in political parties, namely, their internal structures. This paper argues that political parties must be democratic not only externally, in their goals, but also democratic internally, in their organizational practices. The very interdependence between political parties and democracies should promote the parties' adherence not only to democratic goals and activities but also to democratic internal structures. This paper further argues that such internal democracy must be mandatory, and that, in rare cases, there is valid justification for banning political parties that lack internal democracy.