External Regulations of Parties and Candidates

Constitutions, electoral laws, political party laws, and various regulations have an impact on political parties and candidates. This section deals with laws and regulations that concern parties and candidates such as the registration requirements for political parties as organisations and roles and functions that are attributed to political parties in the political system by constitution or party law. In particular, this section discusses the funding of political parties and the financial regulations that stipulate income, expenditure, and reporting rules for political parties and candidates. Another topic that is dealt with is legislated quotas, i.e., constitutional quotas or quotas defined by the electoral law.

The internal functioning of political parties, and the regulations that concern parties and candidate in the electoral process and in the legislature, are covered in subsequent sections.

Laws and Regulation that concern Political Parties

This section deals with laws and regulations that concern parties and candidates as key stakeholders in a political system, such as registration requirements for political parties as organisations, and roles and functions that are attributed to political parties in the political system by constitution or party law.

The financial laws and regulations concerning political parties, as well as legislated quotas, will be discussed in separate sections.

Roles and Definition of Political Parties

A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office.

Parties tend to be deeply and durably entrenched in specific substructures of the specific society in a sustainable and well functioning democracy. They can link the governmental institutions to the elements of the civil society in a free and fair society and are regarded as necessary for any modern democratic system.

Political parties perform key tasks in a democratic society, such as

1. aggregating and articulating needs and problems as identified by members and supporters
2. socialising and educating voters and citizens in the functioning of the political and electoral system and the generation of general political values
3. balancing opposing demands and converting them into general policies
4. Activating and mobilising citizens into participating in political decisions and transforming their opinions into viable policy options
5. Channelling public opinion from citizens to government
6. Recruiting and training candidates for public office

Political parties are often described as institutionalized mediators between civil society and those who decide and implement decisions. By this, they enable their members’ and supporters’ demands to be represented in parliament and in government. Even though parties fulfil many vital roles and perform several functions in a democratic society, the nomination and presentation of candidates in the electoral campaign is the most visible function to the electorate.

To perform the above mentioned tasks and functions, political parties and citizens need some rights and obligations guaranteed or ruled by constitution or law. These include

• Freedom of organisation
• Freedom to stand for election
• Freedom of speech and assembly
• Provision of a fair and peaceful competition
• Mechanisms of plurality
• Inclusion in the electoral process and contacts with the EMB
• A level playing field and freedom from discrimination
• Media access and fair reporting
• Transparent and accountable political finance

The internal functioning of individual political parties is to some extent determined by forces that are external to political parties, such as the electoral system, political culture, legal regulations, etc. However, internal processes of political parties, such as the personality of leaders and staff, the ideological foundations, party history, and internal political culture are considered to be even more influential on the internal functioning. If a political party would like the democratic principles of electoral politics to be applied within the party, they 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 the party’s functioning at all levels. Party members may also take on more formal roles in decision-making like participating in internal elections for leadership positions or in selecting the party’s candidate(s) in the upcoming elections. Many parties also work actively to enhance the role of traditionally under-represented groups in their parties.

Registration of Political Parties as Organisations

Registration of political parties generally refers to the registration as organisations, though it can also be used to denote a separate process of registering to present candidates for election, which is usually a part of the process of candidate nomination. Even if the procedural requirements for gaining access to the ballot are the same as for the initial registration of parties, the legal framework has the possibility of clearly differentiating between the two.

While the registration of political parties as associations gives them a legal status, protects their name and logos, and conveys their intention to function as a voluntary organisation, the registration to gain ballot access confirms their intention to contest a specific election. The legal framework could be structured in a way as to make it easier, or sometimes even automatic, for registered parties to gain access to the ballot.

The guiding principle for the registration of political parties is the “freedom of organisation”, which concerns the freedom to form and join political parties and other political organisations. The principle deals with the legal rights of such political parties or organisations, such as the protection of their name and logo, and protection from discrimination based on political conviction or the ethnicity, language, and religion of its members.

It is good practise to ensure that the legal framework clearly specifies when, how, and where registration procedures must be undertaken, what the requirements for registration are, and how the verification of registration will take place. The legal framework should provide for uniformity in the registration process so that the same registration process applies to all political parties at all levels. To ensure fairness, the grounds for rejection of a registration application have to be based on objective criteria and have to be clearly stated in the legal framework for elections, along with the mechanism for appealing against such rejection. Correctly applied, this protects political parties against arbitrary discrimination.

In systems where registered political parties have access to public funds, broadcasting time on radio and television, free or discounted postal services, or other forms of public support, requirements are often stricter and demanding enough to discourage the registration of groups with little or no intention of trying to influence politics or contest elections. In countries without those kinds of benefits for registered political parties, registration can be a relatively simple process so as not to undermine the freedom of organisation.

Common requirements to register a political party

Countries can choose to have a minimalist approach with few requirements in order to encourage the registration of a large number of parties, or a maximalist approach with more demanding requirements to discourage parties that are not serious. The possible requirements can be grouped into five different categories:

• Party Identity

Indication of a party name which does not resemble the names of already registered political parties, is not provocative or offensive against public decency, and does not incite violence or hatred. Further limitations on party names may be formulated, such as prohibitions on the use on individuals’ names as part of party names, etc.

Indication of a party symbol or logo which does not resemble the symbol of any already registered party or private company. In some countries, the use of religious or national symbols is also prohibited. Colours with a symbolic value such as the colour of the national flag are sometimes proscribed.

List of office-bearers or otherwise of party leadership, often with full addresses or other form of identification.

• Programmatic Documents

Provision of party statutes or constitution and often a protocol that states that the statutes have been approved by an executive board of the party. In many countries, the party statutes have to clearly state that the party adheres to the rules of the democratic process.

• Popular Support or Adherence

List of a certain number of registered members or/and supporters of the party, usually with signatures and addresses or other identifying information such as voter registration number. The more maximalist the approach, the higher the number of registered members required.

• Geographic Coverage

Proof of geographical presence, often in the form of membership or supporting signatures from a certain number of regions or districts.

• Economic Viability

Payment of registration fees ranging from smaller administrative frees to more substantial sums.

Payment of monetary deposits that may or may not be returned to the political party on the basis of election results. This exists especially in cases where political parties need to register separately for each election they wish to contest.

Clear procedure and timetable

Deciding that a political party or candidate cannot contest an election will arouse anger and resentment – both from the affected party or candidate and from their followers and potential voters. In order to avoid such problems as much as possible, the conditions and timing for registration and nomination can be communicated in detail well before the election, and the EMB can maintain close contact with the parties and candidates seeking acceptance.

A well communicated and thought through timetable is of great help. The EMB or other responsible agencies need time to scrutinize the registration, verify signatures of party supporters and members, perhaps exhibit the registration papers for review by other interested individuals or parties, and give parties the chance to appeal if they feel that their registration has been unduly denied. Therefore, political parties are often required to register and to nominate candidates well in time before an election, since after the scrutinizing procedure, the EMB still needs time to print the ballot papers and distribute them to the polling stations.

In some countries, a formal application from a number of party members starts the process. Once that application has been approved, party representatives have a set number of weeks or months to present their signatures, statutes, and other proofs that they meet the requirements. A formal decision by the responsible authority finally determines the legal status of the party.

Financial Regulations

Motives for regulating political finance may vary considerably and with them also the focus of the regulations. At least four different motivations can be identified: preventing abuse; enhancing fair political competition; empowering voters; and strengthening parties as effective democratic actors.

Preventing abuse is the driving force behind legal regulations such as limits on donations and prohibitions on sources of funds. The risk of political corruption and the distorting effects money can have on politics can be limited with this kind of regulation.

Enhancing fair political competition and levelling the playing field can be done by providing political parties with public funds, using positive action to enhance representation of under-represented groups, or by putting a ceiling on election expenditure.

Empowering voters can also be done through legislation. Requiring public disclosure of party income and expenditure gives voters a chance to know who is supporting which parties or candidates and to decide for themselves which sources of funding they find acceptable, and vote accordingly.

Strengthening political parties is often the most difficult goal to meet. Countries can help foster strong and democratic political parties with strong links to their members by providing matching grants for donations, giving extra funds for training and development, and in general providing legislation that is coherent and functioning.

The financial regulation of political parties and candidates is an area in which enforceability is critical to the credibility of the effort to control political corruption. In general, legislation that cannot be enforced should not be enacted. It is good practice to draft laws with their implementation in mind, also looking at the resources available to the body that will monitor and enforce the laws.

Direct and Indirect Public Funding

Public funding refers to funds or resources provided by the State/Government to political parties and/or candidates.

Political parties and candidates should have equitable access to public funds, and the rules regarding public funding should be clearly stated in law. It is particularly important that there be no misuse of public resources by the incumbent party or candidate. The legal framework should encourage the founding and sustainability of a multi-party system.

Public funding is divided into direct public funding or indirect public funding, depending on the form in which public resources are made available.

Direct public funding is given to political parties in the form of money – usually as bank transfers.

Indirect public funding refers to resources with a monetary value that the Government provides to political parties. For additional detail, see the file about indirect public funding of parties and candidates.

Use of Direct Public Funding

If public funds are given to political parties and/or candidates, the state may have an opinion on what the money should be used for. Sometimes, this can be expressed as recommendations to the political parties or candidates, while in other cases funds are earmarked for specific purposes, or certain uses are prohibited.

One main difference is whether or not it is expected that the funds will be used for election campaign purposes (more common where public funds are given to candidates) or for routine, non-election related operations (more common where funds are given to political parties). Specific funds may either be earmarked for specific purposes, or accepted purposes can be listed and it can be allowed that the party or candidate allocate the funds between them.

Apart from general election campaign purposes and routine operations of the party, funds are commonly earmarked for:

• The work of the parliamentary group/caucus, which may include administrative staff, legislative research, and publications or other information needed.
• Training of party members or candidates in everything from party ideology to membership recruitment and citizen outreach.
• Research, including research staff, information material, and opinion polls.
• Party solidarity work in other countries, often in the form of funds provided to a political party foundation to support sister parties in developing democracies.
• Activities aimed to support the participation of under-represented groups such as information campaigns aimed at increasing the participation of national minorities, immigrant communities, young voters, or voters in areas where voter turnout is lower than in the rest of the country.
• Electoral deposits in countries where political parties or candidates have to present a deposit to register for the elections.
• Support for collecting signatures in countries where signatures are a requirement for registration.
• Voter education, which is at times a responsibility of the political parties and/or candidates. If it is, they can often receive funds to cover their costs. In societies where there have been major changes to electoral systems, processes, and procedures and in the case of the newly enfranchised and first time voters, voter education may play an extra important role.
• Civic education, which may also be a responsibility of the political parties and/or candidates. Civic education deals with broader concepts underpinning a democratic society such as the respective roles and responsibilities of citizens, government, political and special interests, the mass media, and the business and non-profit sectors as well as the significance of periodic and competitive elections.
• Publishing of election manifesto, ideological publications, or party press.

Timing of Direct Public Funding

The timing of when political parties and/or candidates get public funds varies between countries. The timing is closely linked to two things: what parties and/or candidates are supposed or allowed to use the public funds for and how the public funds are allocated between parties and candidates.

Public funds can be distributed on the basis of election cycles, calendar or fiscal year, or both.

Distribution per election cycle

This is common in, but not restricted to, countries where the public funds are meant to be used for election campaign purposes. The public funds can be given before or after the election, depending on the allocation formula.

If the allocation is based on how many candidates a party is putting forward in an election, on the number of seats each party holds in the national legislature, or on the number of registered members it has, or if the country wants to support new parties that might not be able to fund their first campaign, there is the option of distributing funds before the election.

If political parties or candidates receive reimbursements for election expenses, or if they receive funds depending on how many votes or seats they gained, the funds are naturally distributed after the elections.

It is also possible to advance some funds to a party in advance of an election and some afterwards, with the final accounts adjusted after the election on the basis of votes received or seats won.

Distribution per year (calendar year or fiscal year)

In countries where funds are earmarked for the routine operations of the party rather than for election campaigns, funds are often distributed per year. This is sometimes expressed as the distribution taking place between elections rather than before or after.

Given that the public funds within the same country can both be earmarked for specific purposes and allocated according to a combined formula, parties and candidates often receive parts of the funds at different intervals and different stages of the election process.

Allocation of Direct Public Funds

The allocation of direct public funds is based on a formula on which a decision is taken on how much each party or candidate should receive. There are three main principles that can guide the allocation: equality, proportionality and need. The most common option is to use a formula combining elements of the three principles. All parties or candidates represented in parliament may for example receive a small, equal sum, or they may receive a larger part in proportion to the votes they gained in the last election, and a third part may be given only to parties that contest the election for the first time. One way of dividing the sums is to use different formulas depending on what the funds are supposed to (or allowed to) be used for.

Allocation based on equality can be of the following types:

• An equal amount is given to all parties and/or candidates that contest an election This allocation can prove very costly and risks encouraging political parties who are not in the game to win or try to influence politics, but rather to get a share of the public funds
• An equal amount is given to all political parties that received a certain number of seats/mandates in the last election

Restricting the equal funds to political parties with a certain representation in the body concerned by the election limits the risk of funds being allocated to parties that are not a serious election alternative, but also risks discouraging political parties and candidates who are new to the political arena. This risk is aggravated by the fact that all electoral systems reduce the number of parties that obtain seats and thereby discriminate against small parties. This discrimination fills a function in providing a body able to take decisions, but may unintentionally have a more far-reaching effect if the number of seats are used as allocation formula for public funding. Given that this allocation is based on political parties, it is common in countries with electoral systems based on political parties rather than candidates.

• An equal amount is given to all political parties and candidates represented in the national legislature

If funds are given to all political parties and candidates represented in the body concerned by the election, small and new parties are still discouraged but a wider range of actors are included.

• An equal amount is given to all parties and candidates that received a certain number of votes in the last election

Widening the target group even more would mean that parties and candidates that received a certain amount of public support in the last election would receive public funds, even if they did not reach the vote threshold for representation. The threshold is usually set between 1 and 2 percent of the national vote. It is less common that the threshold is set in real number of votes.

Proportional allocation refers to systems where parties or candidates receive more funds depending on the amounts of candidates presented, votes received etc. Common criteria for proportional allocation are:

• Funds are given in proportion to the number of candidates put forward

The allocation of funds depending on the number of candidates put forward for election by a political party is mostly used in countries with electoral systems based on political parties rather than candidates.

• Funds are given in proportion to the "representativity" of the candidate list put forward

Public funds are sometimes used to increase the participation of under-represented groups by encouraging political parties to field both men and women, and to field candidates of diverse backgrounds.

• Funds are given in proportion to funds raised (matching grants)

One often mentioned criticism against direct public funding of parties and candidates is that they would become increasingly independent from their members and supporters. With this independence there is a risk that they will tend to not listen to their members and supporters on issues of leadership selection and policy decisions. To counteract this, systems of “matching grants” where political parties and candidates receive public funds in proportion to what they have been able to raise from members and supporters have been introduced. This may work to the disadvantage of new or small parties unable to mount successful fund-raising campaigns.

• Funds are given in proportion to seats/mandates held

As mentioned above, all electoral systems tend to discriminate against small parties in order to create a legislature apt to take decisions. This discrimination may have more far-reaching implication and prove even more disadvantageous if funds are allocated depending on the number of seats held. The advantage is that parties that already have representation have thereby proven the level of their public support.

• Funds are given in proportion to votes received

Funds given in proportion to votes cast in favour of the party or candidate in the last election is a system which is still disadvantageous for new and small parties, but to a lesser extent than allocation based on seats.

• Funds are given in proportion to party membership or other signs of support

Allocation based on seats or votes stems from the idea that the political party should have to prove its public support before obtaining public funds. Other ways of ensuring that a party has support may be to base the allocation formula on membership registers. This would give new parties with a significant level of public support better chances to gain access to public funds. Membership levels are however not automatically a clear indication of how much support the party would get in general elections, and membership registers may be difficult and time consuming for the election authorities to verify.

Lastly, political parties with special needs may get access to funds aimed at levelling the playing field. The following are some allocation types based on special needs:

• Funds given to new political parties Party systems need to be open to new political parties, and public funding is often perceived as preserving a status quo where the established political parties remain in power much because of the allocation of public funds. This can be counteracted by providing special grants for new political parties.
• Funds given to small political parties Allocation criteria based on number of seats held or votes received in the last election work to the disadvantage of small political parties. At times special funds are set aside for small political parties if it is perceived as a common good to have small parties in addition to the bigger ones. In other cases, proportional allocation can be used to work to the advantage of small parties by for example letting the first percentage of votes translate into more funds than the following percentages.
• Funds given to minority parties or candidates Public funds can be used to encourage the participation of under-represented groups. Parties or party lists fielding national minority candidates can either receive special funds or be exempt from fulfilling threshold criteria mentioned above.

Indirect Public Funding of Parties and Candidates

Depending on the form in which public resources are made available, public funding is divided into direct public funding or indirect public funding.

Direct public funding is given to political parties and/or candidates in the form of money – usually as bank transfers but at times in cash or cheque.

Indirect public funding is when resources with a monetary value are provided by the Government to political parties and/or candidates. It is generally less controversial than direct public funding but also has less impact even though it can at times amount to quite a large monetary value.

Indirect public funding can take a number of different forms, the most common of which are the following:

• Media access, which in practical terms usually means free advertising slots in publicly owned media. Publicly owned media broadcasting multi-party election debates does not constitute indirect public funding.
• Interest-free loans for paying registration fees or mounting a basic election campaign.
• Free printing and distribution of ballot papers in multiple ballot systems where parties are responsible for providing their own ballots and in some cases basic campaign information.
• Free or subsidized office space for political party headquarters or local branches.
• Free or subsidized public transportation for candidates, key party activists, or in some cases even for supporters going to political rallies.
• Use of Government buildings like schools, administrative buildings, and sports arenas for meetings and rallies.
• Special taxation status for political parties, meaning that parties do not pay normal taxes on receipts and expenditures, that they are exempt from paying Value Added Tax (VAT), or that they are exempt from paying any taxes at all.
• Tax-free donations is a form of indirect public funding that provides the donor with tax incentives for contributing to a political party.
• Free or subsidized postage for disseminating informational material to voters or, in some cases, for any purpose.
• Free or subsidized telephone lines and telephone calls.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Public Funds to Political Parties and Candidates

Public funding are funds or resources provided by the State/Government for political parties and/or candidates. Provisions often state that political parties and candidates should have an equitable access to public funds. Oftentimes, the rules regarding public funding are not clearly stated in law, and even if they are, there is often a (real or perceived) misuse of public resources by the incumbent party or candidate. The legal framework can be drafted in a way as to encourage the founding and sustainability of a multi-party system.

Depending on the form in which public resources are made available, public funding is divided into direct public funding or indirect public funding.

Direct public funding is given to political parties and/or candidates in the form of money – usually as bank transfers but at times in cash or cheque.

Indirect public funding is when resources with a monetary value is provided by the Government to political parties and/or candidates.

Arguments against public funding

Those who oppose public funds to political parties or candidates often use one or several of the following arguments:

• Public funding increases the distance between political elites (party leadership, candidates) and ordinary citizens (party members, supporters, voters) When political parties and candidates do not depend on their supporters or members neither for monetary contributions (membership, donations) nor for voluntary labour, they might be less likely to involve them in party decisions or consult their opinions on policy issues.
• Public funding preserves a status quo that keeps the established parties and candidates in power Public funds are often allocated among political parties and candidates in the national legislature. This may make it more difficult for new political forces to gain representation. The legal framework can limit this negative influence by providing special funds for new political parties or candidates.
• Through public funds, taxpayers are forced to support political parties and candidates whose views they do not share

Many believe that ordinary taxpayers should not be forced to – through the public purse – support political parties or candidates that they would never choose to vote for. Instead they should have the possibility to decide if and when they want to donate money to a political party or candidate.

• Public funds to political parties and candidates takes money away from schools and hospitals to give to rich politicians

When introduced, public funding is often unpopular among the public. Public resources are scarce and needed for everything from schools and hospitals to roads and salaries for staff. To many people, using public funds to give to political parties and candidates would be far down their list of priorities.

• Political parties and candidates both take the decision and collect the money

The decision to allocate public funds to parties and candidates is most often taken in the national legislature (or in some cases in the Government). This means that the political parties and candidates who will collect the money, also take the decision.

• Political parties risk becoming organs of the State rather than parts of civil society

If all or a substantial amount of the party income comes directly from the State rather than from voluntary sources, political parties risk losing their independence and become organs of the State, thereby losing their ties to the civil society.

Arguments for public funding

A majority of the countries in the world give some form of public funds to political parties and/or candidates. Convincing enough as the arguments above might seem, there are also several good arguments for public funding.

• Public funding is a natural and necessary cost of democracy

Political parties and candidates need money for their electoral campaigns, to keep contacts with their constituencies, to prepare policy decisions and to pay professional staff. If a country wants to have stable political parties and/or independent candidates, some argue that they also need to be prepared to help pay for them.

• Public funding can limit the influence of interested money and thereby help curb corruption

If political parties and candidates get at least a basic amount of money from the public purse this has the potential to limit the likelihood of them feeling the need to accept “interested money” from donors who want to influence their policies, rhetoric or voting behaviour in the legislature.

• With public funding the State can encourage or demand changes in for example how many women candidates a party fields

In the same way as private donations can come with demands on party or candidate behaviour, the State can use public funds to level the playing field and encourage (or force) political parties to undertake reforms, hold internal elections or field a certain number of women candidates, youth or persons from an ethnic minority on their ballots.

• Public funding can increase transparency in party and candidate finance and thereby help curb corruption

If political parties and candidates receive a substantial amount of their income from the State, they can more easily be required to disclose their income and expenditure. If their financial statements are made publicly available, voters can decide which sources of funds are acceptable to them, and they will also have better opportunities to hold politicians accountable.

• If parties and candidates are financed with only private funds, economical inequalities in the society might translate into political inequalities in government

In many countries, the support base of political parties and candidates are divided along socioeconomic lines. The support base of labour or dalit parties for example, are traditionally less wealthy than the support base of other parties. If political parties receive all their income from private donations, there is a risk that (mostly accepted) socioeconomic differences in the society will translate into (mostly not accepted) differences in representation and access to political power.

• Political parties and candidates need support in meeting growing costs of campaigning

Politics and political campaigning is an increasingly costly business. While parties and candidates used to rely heavily on voluntary labour for door-to-door canvassing, they now need to pay for expensive advertising in newspapers or on posters, or buy time on radio or television to get their message through to the voters. Staff costs have risen in many political parties over the last decades.

• In societies with high levels of poverty, ordinary citizens cannot be expected to contribute much to political parties

In societies where many citizens are under or just above the poverty line, they cannot be expected to donate large amounts of money to political parties or candidates. If parties and candidates receive at least a basic amount of money from the State the country could have a functioning multi-party system without people having to give up their scarce resources.

Reporting and Public Disclosure of Party Finance

Very often, political parties and/or candidates are required to report their income and/or expenditure to the Electoral Management Body or other authority, or to have their accounts audited by the electoral authorities. If this is the case, the accounts are then often disclosed to the public after auditing. In reporting and disclosure regulations, there is a need to strike a balance between the wish by outsiders to know (transparency) and the wish by donors and recipients to maintain their private sphere (privacy). There is a bigger need to respect privacy in countries where the risk of harassment against donors to specific parties is greater. In societies with a low level of public trust in political parties, there is usually a higher demand for transparency and consequently more public disclosure of finances.

Reporting and public disclosure can serve many purposes ranging from assisting the election authorities to ensure that money is not accepted from illegal sources; to being an empowerment of voters in deciding which party or candidate they want to vote for. The main dividing line in reporting and disclosure regulations is whether or not the information gathered is made available to the public.

In cases where the information is made public, it is often argued that voters have the right to know where the political parties and candidates got their money from, to be able to make an informed choice on Election Day. If the reporting information is made available to the public it can:

• Help expose corruption

If a political party or candidate has received large amounts of money from an individual or a company, and is later seen to initiate or vote for decisions that would directly benefit the donor, public disclosure gives media and private citizens a better chance to question the grounds for the decision.

• Give taxpayers information about what public funds have been used for

In cases where political parties and candidate campaigns are wholly or partly financed by public means, disclosure gives taxpayers information about what the money has been used for.

• Serve as an alternative or complement to prohibitions and ceilings

Laws and regulations prohibiting certain sources of funds or expenditure items – and laws on ceilings and limits on how much a party or candidate can raise and/or spend – can be difficult and costly, or even impossible, to enforce. Public disclosure can either be an alternative to these laws or serve as a complement. By making the sources and expenditure known to the general public, voters can clearly indicate what they think is acceptable by not voting for parties and candidates who have received their funds from dubious sources.

There are four principles underpinning successful regulation on public disclosure. The information provided to the public needs to be [1]

• Accurate, which means that the enforcement agencies need to have the means to audit the reports and ensure that they give a correct picture of the finances of the party or candidate’s campaign.
• Timely, in the sense that information on election expenditure published long after the elections can neither affect the voters’ choice on election day, nor serve as a good basis for reasonable sanctions.
• Include the right amount of detail, and not overburden the reader with a level of detail that is not useful. If the reports are to be read by an informed public, they need to be presented in a way and with a level of detail to make them understandable to a non-professional.
• Publicly available, not only on public display in a government office in the capital during office hours, but rather published in a way that gives the maximum number of citizens the chance to read the reports. Depending on the country, this may mean publication in main newspapers or on the website of the enforcement agency (EMB or other) or even posting summaries on public notice boards.

[1] Karl-Heinz Nassmacher (2003): "Monitoring, Control and Enforcement of Political Finance Regulation", in Austin, Reginald and Maja Tjernström (2003): Handbook on Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns, International IDEA, Stockholm, p. 144.

Prohibited Sources of Funds

Apart from receiving money from public funding schemes, political parties can receive their funds from membership dues, private (or sometimes corporate) donations, or income from properties or businesses. Too much reliance upon public funds is claimed to reduce the linkage between political parties and their members, and turn them into organs of the state rather than voluntary organisations. Most countries in the world therefore accept, and sometimes even encourage, political parties to seek funds from other sources. All sources of funds are, however, associated with specific risks that may endanger the successful operation of a democracy. Therefore, donations from dubious sources are often prohibited or limited altogether. Grass-roots funding and membership dues are probably the only two sources of funds that are always allowed.

The sources that are most likely to be prohibited are:

• Funds coming from foreign governments, individuals, corporations, or (in some cases) exiled communities. If a political party relies heavily on funding from foreign sources – especially if it is in government – there is a risk that the national sovereignty could be threatened and that political decisions will be taken with foreign rather than domestic needs in mind. Many object to anyone who does not have voting rights in the country still being able to influence politics.
• Donations from government contractors are prohibited in many cases. The risk is that elected representatives would feel compelled to reward government contracts to those who have contributed to his or her campaign, or demand donations in exchange for contracts.
• Corporate donations from national, multi-national, and foreign companies are often prohibited on the grounds that they may corrupt politics by leading the donors to expect favours from elected politicians. It is mainly the fact that corporations can donate very large sums of money that has proven problematic.
• Donations from State entities (that are not part of public funding schemes involving all political parties) are prohibited on the grounds that donations from State entities would compromise the neutrality and impartiality of the State administration.
• Trade union donations are prohibited where there is a feeling that the trade union organisations should be kept separate from the political parties.
• Funds from illegal sources like organized crime, gambling, and the drug trade are banned in many countries and unacceptable in all, regardless of legal provisions, again on the grounds that the donors might expect favours from elected politicians.
• Religious groups are sometimes prohibited from donating funds to political parties following an argument that organized religion is a domain that should be kept separate from politics.

Prohibitions may be difficult to enforce since they demand that authorities keep a close eye on all funds – including cash, which is notoriously difficult to trace – that come into political party accounts and pockets. The administration of prohibition laws is difficult and consumes both time and resources. Many argue, however, that the importance of the protection it gives democratic politics is important enough to invest resources, while others seek other ways of regulating or monitoring party income. If prohibitions seem like a line that is hard to draw, introductions of limits on donations can help curb the potentially distorting effect of donations but still give political parties a wider range of acceptable sources of funds.

Ceilings on Elections Expenditure

Most political parties around the world have experienced an increase in the costs of running electoral campaigns. This leads to situations where unequal access to funds limits some political parties’ ability to campaign. Limits on election expenditure aim to put a lid on these increasing costs, thereby also levelling the playing field between different political parties.

Ceilings on election expenditure are often set by the legislature, the electoral management body (EMB), or other authority tasked with implementing political finance regulations. In the cases where the ceilings are set in law, they are often set not in absolute figures but in multiples of the minimum wage or with a provision for adjustment according to prevailing levels of inflation.

Limits on Donations

Apart from receiving money from public funding schemes, political parties can receive their funds from membership dues, private or (in some countries) corporate donations, or income from properties or businesses. All sources of funds are, however, associated with specific risks that may endanger the successful operation of a democracy. Many countries therefore choose to either limit donations from dubious sources or prohibit them altogether. For information on legal prohibitions, read the file about "Prohibited Sources of Funds".

Limits on donations attempt to draw the line between “participating financially” and “buying access or influence” by setting a limit on how much a donor can contribute or how much a political party or candidate can accept from one single donor. Limits can discourage big donations but also encourage a more balanced and diverse funding base for political parties. This can be especially effective when combined with a sufficiently robust public disclosure requirement.

Legislated Quotas

A quota is an allocation rule through which offices, goods, or political functions are distributed in accordance with a certain formula. A quota system is mostly deployed if an unregulated distribution causes unintentional imbalances and inequalities.

In the political realm, quotas introduced to guarantee a fair representation of all members of a society by facilitating their access to elected positions. The core idea of a quota system is to produce a more accurate microcosm of society in the legislature that does not leave any otherwise disadvantaged social group unrepresented. Therefore, quotas are often established for women or for minorities based on regional, ethnic, linguistic, or religious cleavages. Almost all political systems apply some kind of quotas to ensure a minimum representation for minorities, and quotas are increasing in popularity worldwide.

Comparing quotas with other measures to enhance the representation of otherwise under-represented groups (financial incentives, information campaigns, positive action, etc.), quotas are by far the most effective.

Quotas can be of three types: constitutional quota (mandated in the Constitution), electoral law quotas (determined by electoral law), and voluntary party quotas adopted and implemented by individual political parties. The first and the second quota type are legislated quotas, whereas the third type is a non-legislated quota.

Types of Legislated Quotas

Quota requirements can be on three levels:

• Quotas for the pool of potential candidates This quota type is designed to open up the possibilities for party selection committees or voters in primary elections to select candidates from a more diverse pool of potential candidates than is normally presented to them. “Women only shortlists” is one way of broadening the pool of potential candidates. It is not very common to have legislated quotas at this stage of the process.
• Quotas for candidates/candidate lists Most legislated quotas fall into this category, where a fixed number or percentage of the places on the candidate lists or total number of candidates is set aside for persons belonging to the group targeted by the quota. For this type of legislated quota to be really effective, it is often combined with placement criteria whereby the disadvantaged groups are promised not only nomination but nomination to “winnable” seats. This is sometimes called a “double quota”. Quotas for candidate lists are mostly in place in proportional representation systems and are often part of the electoral or political party laws. One example is the so called “zipper” system, where every second or third candidate on the list is a woman.
• Quotas for the elected representatives Quotas for the elected representatives targets the outcome of the elections. This type of quota is often called “reserved seats” because a certain number or percentage of the seats in the national or sub-national legislature are set aside for persons from the under-represented group. Quotas for elected representatives are more common in majoritarian electoral systems and are often enshrined in the constitution, underlining the strong effort of the state to enhance minorities' representation.

Effectiveness and enforcement of quota systems Whether a quota system achieves its goal of fair representation largely depends upon the correct implementation of the legislated quota system, its enforcement mechanism, and sanctions for non-compliance. Whether or not it is supported by the major political parties, and amongst the general public, also has a bearing on their compliance with that particular quota.

Implementation of a quota system is said to be easier in a new political system than in an older one, where seats are occupied by incumbents. Incumbents in general have better chances to be elected than newcomers and are often reluctant to endorse the introduction of quota systems because they fear losing their seats.

Sanction systems are vital for compliance with legislated quotas. In order to be effective, sanctions must be relevant (related to the election or the functioning of the political party), effective (constitute a serious set-back for non-compliers), and reasonable (administrative rather than criminal). It is also important that a specific body (the Electoral Management Body or other) be tasked with enforcing the law and that they have enough human and financial resources to do so.

In general, one can state that where legislated quotas are properly enforced, they can be extremely effective in fostering a more balanced participation in politics.[2]

Notes:

[1] Dahlerup, Drude (1998): “The World of Quotas”, in: Karam, Azza (Ed.): Women In Parliament: Beyond Numbers, downloadable on http://archive.idea.int/women/parl/toc.htm, 05-09-21.

[2] Ballington, Julie (2004): Strengthening Internal Party Democracy: Candidate Recruitment from a Gender Perspective”, Paper presented at EISA/NIMD workshop on ‘How to Strengthen Internal Party Democracy?’ at the World Meeting for Democracy: Third Assembly, Durban, South Africa, 2 February 2004.

Legislated Quotas for Women's Representation

A quota is an allocation rule through which offices, goods, or political functions are distributed in accordance with a certain formula. A quota system for women’s representation is generally employed in situations where an unregulated distribution would cause unintentional imbalances and inequalities. It is aimed to give women equal or more balanced access to political power by applying positive measures. Why women?

Three main arguments lie behind the call for quotas to enhance women’s representation [1]

• Women represent (more than) half the population and hence have the right to half of the seats (the justice argument)
• Women have different experiences (biological or socially constructed) that ought to be represented (the experience argument)
• Women and men have partly conflicting interests, and thus men cannot represent women (the interest group argument)

 

 

The types of legislated quotas are set out in the section about Legislated Quotas.

Notes:

[1] Dahlerup, Drude (2003) “Comparative Studies of Electoral Gender Quotas” in International IDEA (2003) The Implementation of Quotas: Latin American Experiences, International IDEA, Stockholm.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Legislated Quotas for Women's Representation

Some of the main arguments for legislated quotas for women are the following:

• Quotas are empirically the most effective way of achieving a better gender balance

The biggest leaps towards equal representation of men and women have happened in elections where quotas (legislated or voluntary) have been introduced.

• Legislated quotas can circumvent conservative party leadership

In some cases, a conservative and male-dominated party leadership is seen as the main obstacle to women’s nomination and election. Legislated quotas circumvent these entrenched elites and force them to look for suitable women candidates.

• Once some women are elected, they serve as role models for other women

One of the reasons why few women put themselves forward for election is said to be a lack of female role models in politics. If legislated quotas can get a first number of women elected, more women will follow.

• Legislated quotas engage political parties in finding suitable women candidates

By tradition, habit, and networks, male-dominated selection committees in political parties tend to nominate fewer women than men. Legislated quotas force political parties to seek, find, and train women candidates – efforts that they may not have made otherwise.

• If women are represented in the legislature, they can help remove some of the structural barriers that prevent women from being elected

Female legislators are more likely than male legislators to press for legislation that will remove barriers to more women being elected.

• Legislated quotas are not discriminatory but rather compensate for an already existing discrimination

If one believes that there are as many competent potential female candidates in a country as there are competent potential male candidates, the main reason behind the low representation of women must be structural discrimination. Quotas are therefore not discriminatory in themselves, but merely compensate for an already existing discrimination.

• Rather than limit the freedom of choice, quotas give voters a chance to elect both women and men

Some argue that quotas do not limit the freedom of choice of voters, but rather enhance it, giving voters the chance to vote for both women and men – something they may not have had the possibility to do otherwise.

Arguments against legislated quotas for women’s representation

Legal quotas to enhance women’s representation, while increasingly common, are still highly controversial and heavily debated. Regardless of whether a person thinks that an equal representation of men and women is desirable, there are a number of arguments that speak against the introduction of legislated quotas for women’s representation. Those who oppose legal quotas often use one or several of the following arguments:

• Legislated quotas are discriminatory against men

Some say that quotas are discriminatory against the men who would have won the seat if the quota had not been introduced. The counter-argument is that quotas merely compensate for a structural discrimination (see above).

• Legislated quotas result in a less competent legislature

Some opponents to legislated quotas claim that the women elected through quotas are less competent than their male counterparts, and that the main reason for the low level of women candidates is that there are fewer competent potential women candidates. Women are in this case perceived to have been nominated only because of their gender.

• Women elected through legal quotas are less respected and have no real power

Women elected through quotas may find it more difficult as they are not perceived as being equally competent as their male counterparts. Women may therefore prefer to be elected without a quota.

• Legislated quotas take the freedom of choice away from the voters

Some argue that the basic freedom of choice of voters is taken away from voters if a certain number of seats in the legislature is reserved for women.

• Quotas distort the idea of representation and work against women

Some argue that quotas give the erroneous idea that only women can represent women – while men can represent both men and women. This would work against women in gaining representation based on the political ideas they represent rather than on their gender.

• Legislated quotas benefit the wrong women

Legislated quotas tend to benefit the wives, daughters, sisters, cousins, etc. of traditional male politicians, rather than women who have developed constituencies of their own.

• Legislated quotas (especially constitutional quotas) are very difficult to pass

Some argue that legal quotas are too difficult to pass and require a very strong majority in the legislature. From this point of view, legislated quotas would not work as a ground-breaking rule since a majority of both elected members and political party leadership must be committed to achieving gender equality already. Some argue that it is easier and just as effective to lobby for voluntary party quotas instead.

• Legislated quotas can act as an upper ceiling to women's participation rather than a lower floor

Some argue that legislated quotas place a ceiling on women’s participation rather than a lower floor, and that this hinders women from achieving real parity.

• Legislated quotas (especially reserved seats) make women compete against women rather than struggle together for more influence

Some argue that reserved seats foster an environment where women compete against each other rather than working together to achieve more influence in politics.

Legislated Quotas for National Minorities

A quota is an allocation rule through which offices, goods or political functions are distributed in accordance with a certain formula. A quota system for minority representation is generally employed in situations where an unregulated distribution would cause unintentional imbalances and inequalities.

In the case of national minorities, such imbalances and inequalities could be particularly destabilizing if the minority contested the legitimacy of the political system. The institution of a quota in such a situation is aimed at achieving an equal or more balanced access to political power by applying positive measures.

Regional quotas are among the most commonly applied quotas. The quota distributes parliamentary seats to representatives of all regions of a country, not just according to their share of the population, but giving non-proportional seats to certain regions over others. Over-representation for certain regions works to the advantage of minority groups that are concentrated in those parts of the country.

The advantages and disadvantages of legislated quotas for minority representation are covered in the file "Advantages and disadvantages of legislated quotas for minority representation".

Fair minority representation is very often referred to in the constitution and can be achieved through any of the types of quotas. The reserved seats system is a widely used quota system to ensure the representation of minority groups in the legislature by setting aside a certain share of parliamentary seats for candidates representing the minority group. Representatives from these reserved seats have in most cases been elected in the same manner as other representatives, but at times only members of these minority groups are entitled to vote for their candidates. Please read the file about "Legislated Quotas" for the different types of legislated quota.

Some countries with clearly defined ethnic or religious groups have taken minority representation and reserved seats to their logical extreme: all or almost all seats in the legislature are reserved for specific groups, and only members of a group can vote for the representatives of their group. Each ethnic or religious group has a separate voter’s roll. This system has in some cases been used to try to deal with post-conflict situations. However, in the long run, systems of communal representation tend to undermine the path of accommodation between the different groups, given that there are no incentives for political intermixing between communities. The system also runs the risk of cementing a constituency situation resulting from ethnic cleansing.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Legislated Quotas for Minority Representation

Legal quotas to enhance minority representation are highly controversial and heavily debated.

Arguments against legislated quotas for minority representation

Those who oppose legal quotas often use one or several of the following arguments:

• Legislated quotas are discriminatory to the majority group and breed resentment

Some say that quotas are discriminatory to the members of the majority group who would have won the seats if the quota had not been introduced. The counter-argument is that quotas merely compensate for a structural discrimination (see below).

• Legislated quotas give a less competent legislature

Some opponents of legislated quotas claim that the persons from the minority group elected through quotas are less competent than their majority counterparts. It is sometimes argued that persons holding reserved seats are perceived as less competent than their colleagues elected to the non-reserved seats – given that they are perceived to have gained their seats because of their ethnic or religious background rather than their personal aptitude. Reserved seats might breed resentment on behalf of the majority group and thereby undermine trust between ethnic groups.

• Persons elected through legal quotas are less respected and have no real power

Persons elected through quotas may find their legislative work more difficult as they are not perceived as being equally competent as their majority counterparts.

• Legislated quotas takes the freedom of choice away from the voters

Some argue that the basic freedom of choice of voters is taken away from them if a certain number of seats in the legislature is reserved for minorities.

• Legislated quotas (especially constitutional quotas) are very difficult to pass

Some argue that legal quotas are too difficult to pass and require a very strong majority in the legislature. From this point of view, legislated quotas would not work as a ground-breaking rule since a majority of both elected members and political party leadership must be committed to achieving an ethnic and religious balance already. Some argue that it is easier and just as effective to lobby for voluntary party quotas instead.

• Legislated quotas can act as an upper ceiling to minority participation rather than a lower floor

Some argue that legislated quotas place a ceiling on minority participation rather than a lower floor, and that this hinders persons of minority background from achieving a more balanced representation.

Arguments for legislated quotas for minority representation

Some of the main arguments in favor of legislated quotas are the following:

• Quotas are the most effective ways of achieving a more balanced representation

The biggest leaps towards a more balanced representation have happened in elections where quotas (legislated or voluntary) have been introduced.

• More balanced representation can increase minority support for the political system in general and increase political stability
• Legislated quotas can circumvent conservative party leadership

In some cases, a conservative party leadership dominated by a social elite is seen as the main obstacle to nomination of minority candidates. Legislated quotas circumvent these entrenched elites and force them to look for suitable candidates from different ethnic and religious groups.

• Elected representatives serve as role models

If persons from minority backgrounds are elected to the legislature, they will serve as role models for younger persons who might be more inclined to put themselves forward for election in the future.

• Legislated quotas engage political parties in finding suitable candidates

By tradition, habit, and networks, selection committees in political parties tend to be conservative and nominate fewer persons from disadvantaged groups. Legislated quotas force political parties to seek, find, and train a more diverse pool of candidates – efforts that they may not have made otherwise.

• Legislated quotas are not discriminatory but rather compensate for an already existing discrimination

The main reason behind the low representation of minorities in some countries is a structural discrimination against them in the society. Quotas are therefore not discriminatory in themselves, they merely compensate for an already existing discrimination.

• Rather than limit the freedom of choice, quotas give voters a chance to elect candidates for a more diverse pool

Some argue that quotas do not limit the freedom of choice of voters, but rather enhance it, giving voters the chance to vote for candidates from a more diverse pool – something they may not have had the possibility to do otherwise.