Parties are expected to be able to fight and win elections, develop policy ideas on a broad range of topics, communicate effectively with the electorate, raise enough money to support themselves, manage the expectations of a population, and implement a legislative agenda either as government or opposition.

To be successful in these areas, political parties must be responsive to opportunities for growth, development and transformation. Otherwise, the changes that are a natural part of their surroundings will easily leave them behind. Structure and processes that promote internal democracy allow political parties to be more responsive to their environment and also to allow the voices of members and marginalised groups to be more reflected in a parties identity and programme.

What Makes Political Parties Democratic?

A multi-party democracy requires parties that are themselves internally democratic. Political parties that are internally democratic are more likely to reflect democratic values in their actions and are better able to execute their functions.

Also, Importantly, parties that are internally democratic are more likely to be successful over time and to be able to adapt to new challenges and changing political situations.

Political parties which are internally democratic:

• Allow members to express their views freely

• Encourage participation of all members

• Promote the membership of women (and other politically marginalised groups)

• Tolerate differing ideas

• Follow democratic rules and procedures for decision-making

• Hold leaders accountable to members and supporters (NDI 2004: 6).

What is Internal Democracy?

In general, a party that is internally democratic is a party that embraces democratic values such as freedom of speech and freedom of choice for members. Each individual party committed to democracy must decide on the appropriate structures and processes to promote their goals and realize their mission

Application of democratic principles and processes applied within a party structure include internal information and consultation processes, internal (formal or informal) rules and bylaws, the internal organisation and decision-making structure, and transparency in the party’s functioning at all levels. Party members may also take on more formal roles in decision-making such as participating in internal elections for leadership positions or in selecting the party’s candidate(s) to stand in upcoming elections. Many parties also work actively to enhance the role of traditionally under-represented groups in their parties. Gender balance in party membership and adequate internal representation by women in the party’s organizational and governing structures is often reflected in the quality and quantity of women who are put on party-based candidate lists.

Aspects of Internal Party Democracy

If a political party would like the democratic principles of electoral politics to be applied within the party, it may consider practices like internal information and consultation processes, internal (formal or informal) rules and structures for the organisation and decision-making within the party, and transparency in its functioning at all levels. Party members may also take on more formal roles in the decision-making like participating in internal elections for leadership positions or in selecting the party’s candidate(s) for the upcoming elections. Many parties also work actively to enhance the role of traditionally under-represented groups in their parties. (ACE 2013: 76)

Party structure is essential to the study of the internal functioning of political parties. It determines who has influence on the decision making process and how much influence they have.

Just as the rule of law is essential to a functioning democracy, so are rules, organization and processes to a party. To strengthen its internal democracy, parties should have written rules (usually in the form of statutes) and known organizational divisions with clear roles and responsibilities.

Statutes establish the rules of a party: the internal regulations that determine how the party operates on a daily basis and how standards for performance and decision-making are defined. Statutes establish a clear set of guidelines and structures based on a party’s fundamental principles and values (Breth and Quibell 2003: 9).

Most political parties have a Party Constitution or similar document adopted by the highest decision-making body in the party. Many also have an internal rule-book or set of regulations (by laws) that are internal to the party and guide decisions and procedures. These voluntary regulations can concern for example:

• The structure of the party, especially the relative independence of local branches and auxiliary groups

• Decision-making procedures

• Membership

• The election or selection of leaders and candidates

• Mechanisms for conflict resolution within the party

• Ethical rules of behaviour of party members and staff

• Inclusion of women and minorities at all levels (ACE 2013: 49)

Leadership/Candidate Selection

Most of the political parties in democratic societies try to involve their members by giving them a role in the process of selecting local and national party leaders as well as candidates for a range of elected offices.

Selecting Leaders

There are three concepts that are central to the issue of party selection of leaders. One is centralisation, which is what level in the party – local, regional, or national –controls the candidate selection. The second is participation, meaning who – ordinary members or top leadership – controls the process at the level where the decision is taken. A third is mediation, the mechanism through which organized interests within the party can gain influence.

Centralisation

In an extremely centralised system, a national party agency would decide on the leadership selection without any involvement by the local branches of the party. At the other end of the scale would be a system where the most local branches of the party would decide on their leaders and possibly also representatives on national leadership bodies without any approval or participation from the national level. The actual practice is usually somewhere between the two extremes.

In most political parties, local selection processes deal mostly with local candidates to general elections, while the national leadership is selected on a national basis. In both cases, the party has to strike a difficult balance between national level strategies and local sensitivities while considering the party’s overall role in the political process at all levels (ACE 2013:45).

Participation

A situation with extremely low participation would be if the party leader alone would decide on his or her leadership body. The other extreme would be if the ordinary members of the party would decide with limited or non-existent participation by current party leaders.

Parties in different countries have chosen varying degrees of member participation in the selection process, from party-run primary elections to indirect elections where party branches send delegates to a national congress.

Mediation

Mediation describes the problem of recognizing, and the process of mediating, the different interests in a political party and its organisations. Most political parties consist of different wings, subunits or special groups, which constantly seek to influence the party’s leadership and therefore also the selection process of party leaders. Effective mediation of different interests can lead to a fair representation and participation of all distinct groups in the leadership selection and as a consequence in the leadership committee also (ACE 2013: 46).

Codes of Conduct

One of the most effective ways to promote internal democracy is through a code of conduct. Codes of conduct are usually short documents that describe values that the party considers paramount to the behavior of its members or leaders. Some parties ask internal leaders to sign codes of conduct, others require all members to do so. Using codes of conduct openly declares the party’s expectation of its members and the members’ expectations of the leaders.

Some parties ask for input from all levels of the party in creating a code of conduct. This tactic can give legitimacy to a code of conduct when it is something created by and agreed upon by a diverse cross-section of party members. (Breth and Quibell 2003: 12)

A code of conduct can also refer to a voluntary agreement on rules of behaviour for political parties and their supporters during an election campaign. Especially in transitional countries where the rule of law is not yet developed and trusted, the goal of establishing a code of conduct can help political parties agree on accepted rules of the game and increase confidence in the electoral process. (ACE 2013: 69)

Organisational Structure

Improving Party Transparency

Corruption, and even the perception of corruption costs parties money and votes. It costs money when funds are directed away from the party and instead, to individuals, or as a result of strict fines for allowing illegal behaviour. It costs votes when voters decide they don’t want representatives who are untrustworthy or who appear to hire only their friends.

Political parties who wish to protect themselves from corruption have internally democratic systems such as clear, written job descriptions and rules that are available to all within the party. They have accountability mechanisms, and also disciplinary bodies that actively investigate and take action against party members who have infringed upon the rules (Breth and Quibell 2003: 3).

Benefits of Transparency

Transparency allows parties to act in reflection of their values, improving the quality of party leaders and members who believe and act in accordance to those values or mission. Transparency helps combat corruption by clarifying rules and providing disciplinary mechanisms sanctioning unethical or corrupt behaviour. Transparency improves public confidence in and perception of parties.

There is no question that opening up any organization to the public will mean a certain amount of criticism. Introducing transparency measures is one of the most challenging things that a party can (Breth and Quibell 2003: 4).

Organizational Incentives & Deterrents to Promote Accountability

Financial Accountability

Reporting income, expenses and assets is standard practice in the private sector, with regulatory bodies helping ensure transparency and accountability to the public. In politics however, this type of financial disclosure is not always required. The lack of established standards for party finance not only allows corruption to increase, but it also contributes to a lack of voter confidence in political parties. Party finance laws are fundamental to effective democracies. Some of the most common measures governments use to regulate party finance include: public financing, public access to party financial documents, campaign spending limits and reporting requirements (Breth and Quibell 2003: 10).

In the absence of party finance laws, political parties should publicly adopt standards for financial disclosure to establish credibility with voters and promote the democratic value of transparency. The first transparency best practice is that the party reports financial contributions, expenses, assets and funding sources to party members and the public. For example, The Communist Party of Nepal United Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML, or UML)’s code of conduct requires financial disclosure of assets from every member in an executive position at all levels of the party. MPs must declare their assets and update their reports as events warrant, including any time they are promoted to or demoted from parliamentary or government positions. If any member is accused of corruption, the discipline committee of the party investigates and reports its findings to the central committee for possible action (Manikas and Thornton 2003: 203).

Here are some accountability mechanisms that parties use:

• Full public disclosure of party financial records, including all income and expenditures and the names of donors (for example Taiwan’s People First Party and Democratic Progressive party voluntarily disclose their accounts to the public. However, the PFP only discloses the names of donors with their permission). (Manikas and Thornton 2003: 364)

• Abiding by government or party fundraising guidelines and regulations.

• Adhering to public financing regulations.

Ensure Accountability to the Public

Written rules can help political parties establish certain values, but the behaviour of the leaders and the members of the party must correspond to the written rules— party leaders and members must be accountable for their actions. Parties can develop and implement pubic monitoring strategies that enable accountability to voters and society.

Some other accountability mechanisms include:

• Job performance criteria and evaluation guidelines. Annual performance reviews of party representatives.

• Conflict of interest agreements for party officials and candidates.

• Fundraising guidelines and regulations.

• Contracts outlining ethical and performance expectations. Public officials from the party agree to resign voluntarily from their government position if they break the contract.

• Trainings and lectures on corruption and vote buying for party candidates, utilizing respected community or religious leaders.

• Holding monthly discussions about corruption and good behaviour (Breth and Quibell 2003: 12).

Vertical Accountability

Candidate and leadership selection often provide the highest opportunities for corruption and manipulation. Problems or opportunities for corruption in the selection process include vote buying, bribery and nepotism. Corruption in the selection process can often occur at the middle or lower levels of the party structures where there is less public and media scrutiny—or less horizontal accountability, which we will explore below.

These are some solutions other parties use:

• Corruption hotlines for members to report corrupt behavior within the party nomination and internal election processes.

• Full public disclosure of party financial records, including all income and expenditures and the names of donors.

• Term limits for party leaders to limit opportunities for corruption.

• Anti-corruption, independent election monitoring bodies within the party to investigate the internal campaign process and expose vote buying.

• Open primary elections allowing all party members to select the party’s candidates for office. Parties report that as they include democratic procedures into the selection process, candidates are of a higher quality and the “purchasing” of party positions and nominations becomes more infrequent. When officials and candidates are determined by the entire membership of the party through a secret and fair voting process, patronage and nepotism no longer determine party leadership and representation. One party uses a combination of primary elections involving all party members and public opinion surveys to select its candidates.

Horizontal Accountability

Parties can also decide to tackle issues of transparency and anti-corruption outside the party, such as by promoting rules and behaviours within the legislature, and also within the laws of the country.

Parties might cooperate with other parties in the legislature in a coalition to promote legal or legislative reforms. Transparency reforms could include freedom of information laws and creating ethics offices or ombudsmen within the legislature.

Some parties recruit civil society organizations to help monitor internal elections. Others cooperate with civil society in publicizing candidates and their funding. This helps political parties publicize their transparency efforts to more voters and also can help the party if the monitoring is perceived to be independent.

Examples of horizontal accountability mechanisms include:

• Organize forums with civic groups, academics, and citizens to discuss legislative reforms. Media, civil society and academia play an indispensable role by checking government institutions, politicians and political parties, but they also can be useful for creating a constituency for reform.

• Establish party think tanks and research institutes to propose solutions to political corruption. Some parties establish party research institutes to analyze and develop anticorruption policy.

• Recruit potential leaders from new sectors such as women and youth to diminish the power traditional leadership networks.

• Internal anti-corruption bodies. Some parties have established internal structures to monitor party operations and finances. “Party Controlling Commissions” operate at all levels of the party hierarchy.

• External audit systems. Some parties require annual independent audits of all financial records (Breth and Quibell 2003: 14).