Introduction

Internal democracy in political parties, also known as intra-party democracy, refers to the level and methods of including party members in the decision making and deliberation within the party structure. Intra-party democracy is usually known to nurture citizens’ political competencies and/or producing more capable representatives which in turn ensures that the party produces better policies and political programmes.

Although the view that “parties should practice what they preach” is commonly shared, there are also skeptics who might argue that too much democratization may hinder parties to keep their electoral promises and also dilute the power of a party’s inner leadership (Scarrow 2005).

Internal functioning of parties is legally regulated in many countries. As described more thoroughly in the ACE Encyclopaedia article on Internal functioning of political parties, legal regulations may include candidate selection rules; internal elections for leadership positions; or women’s and minorities’ representation in the party leadership for example. Despite this legal acknowledgment of need for democratic culture inside political parties, Norris (2004) notes that intra-party democracy has indeed not been in the centre of the international community’s attention:

“One reason for the relative neglect of the internal life of political parties is that these organizations have long been commonly regarded in liberal theory as private associations, which should be entitled to compete freely in the electoral marketplace and govern their own internal structures and processes. Any legal regulation by the state, or any outside intervention by international agencies, was regarded in this view as potentially harmful by either distorting or even suppressing pluralist party competition with a country.” (Norris 2004)

According to Norris (2004), one of the key issues in intra-party democracy is parties' nomination processes, in other words who decides and how which citizens are entitled to run for parliament as a candidate of that specific  party. Whether such nomination processes are deemed democratic or not, depends according to Norris on the degree of centralization, that is to say, how much power is given to regional, district or local bodies in the process of selection. Secondly, the scale of participation in the nomination is also considered: The more people that are involved in the selection, the more democratic the procedure is. Finally, also the scope of decision-making - number of candidates vying for nomination - is important. The nomination process is governed by law only in a few countries. In most legal systems parties are entitled to decide themselves upon the most appropriate processes and internal regulations. (Norris 2004.)

The above discussion of nomination of representatives holds also when trying to analyze a party's appointment of its political leader. In a similar way as the principle of fair representation is considered crucial in the relation between voters and the parliament, the representation of and mediation between a party’s different wings and subsections in the leadership positions can be seen as a prerequisite to intra-party democracy.

Finally, in order to enhance parties’ internal democracy, a number of countries have adopted positive action strategies in their legislation in the form of statutory quotas. This means that a certain percentage of nominated candidates and/or elected representatives in each party have to come from a certain gender, ethnic minority or other group. The most common quotas are legal gender quotas which define the minimum percentage of women candidates or representatives a party need to put forth for leadership and/or candidature.

Even though political parties may in some instances have internal democratic behaviour regulated or enforced upon them - by constitutional or electoral laws for example – more often than not it is the parties' own guidelines and rules that set the tone of how important internal democracy should be. In the next section we try to give some concrete examples of countries which have legal regulations for intra-party democracy with the contributions from our electoral experts, and we also present some of these examples more in detail. Finally, relevant information sources and other useful materials are provided.

Summary of replies - Countries having legal provision for intra-party democracy

According to the comparative analysis of intra-party democracy regulations by Anika Gauja (2006), countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia have been reluctant to impose external regulations on political associations due to strong liberal traditions. In New Zealand the legislation provides for democratic preselections of candidates, but there have never been any recorded attempts to enforce this regulation.

Alan Wall highlights Germany as a good example of intra-party democracy regulations. In Germany, the regulations on intra-democracy were originally enacted to respond to international political pressure to convince the world of the country's objection to fascism and totalitarianism of all sorts. This resulted in regulations on intra-party democracy regarding party registration, candidate selection and leadership elections which is present still today. (Sundberg 1997, 98-99). Similarily, in Finland, due to fear of Soviet communism all political organizations were regulated by law and communist organizations were banned through the 1917 constitution.  Even though the current Finnish political context is very different, both political elites as well as the public have continously acknowledged the regulations on candidate selection, leadership elections and democratic internal rules which has led to their legal extension over time (regulated currently by the Political Parties Act).  In India, the emphasis is put instead on the registration of new parties, as expert Debashis Sen describes. Every party which seeks official registration has to agree to uphold the principles of democracy, and it is the duty of the Election Commission to control that party rules do indeed have adequate provisions for intra-party democracy. As for the enforcement of regulations, Sen mentions that one party had to change its constitution after trying to make a founding member its president-for-life. Parties have also been deregistered after failing to hold correct and democratic elections for leadership positions.

Existing regulations for intra-party democracy may in some circumstances be ineffective if they cannot be enforced. Expert Magnus Ohman has come across this in Ghana and Sierra Leone where the implementing agency (Electoral Commission of Ghana and Political Parties Registration Commission in Sierra Leone) has not attempted to enforce the provisions. One problem is the lack of capacities in the agencies and a second problem is the deviance from democratic culture by political parties. Another example can be found in Nigeria, where intra-party democracy is regulated in the constitution which provides, inter alia, for making leadership elections compulsory for all parties. These procedures are however often disregarded as political “godfathers” remain as central figures in internal party politics. Also when the rules are adhered to, the godfathers have means of circumscribing them, or influence them in order to determine the outcomes in their favour. (IDEA 2005)

Some intra-party democracy regulations related to nominations, leadership or internal decision-making can also be found in Spain, Venezuela, Portugal and Nepal (Gauja 2006). In Australia, so far only the state of Queensland has adopted intra-party democracy regulations. The need for greater transparency and accountability through party laws in Australia has been however discussed for example in interesting analyses from Anika Gauja (can be found here) and Laurie McGrath (here).

As for statutory gender quotas, in addition to Venezuela and Nepal mentioned above, they have also been applied to elections in Belgium and France and a number of Latin American countries. Ethnic minority quotas are even more exceptional, and they usually apply only to indigenous communities and long-standing national minorities instead of immigrations. (Norris 2004.)

Sources:

Gauja, Anika, Enforcing democracy? Towards a regulatory regime for the implementation of intra-party democracy, Democratic Audit of Australia 2006, Discussion Paper 14/06. Available here.

International IDEA, Nigeria: Country Report Based on Research and Dialogue with Political Parties (Stockholm: IDEA, 2005). Available here.

Norris, Pippa, Building political parties: Reforming legal regulations and internal rules (Stockholm: IDEA, 2004). Available here.

Scarrow, Susan, Implementing Intra-Party Democracy, Political Parties and Democracy in Theoretical Perspectives Series (Washington: NDI, 2005). Available here.

Sundberg, Jan, Compulsory Party Democracy: Finland as a Deviant Case in Scandinavia, Party Politics, 1997:1, pp. 97-117

The Spanish Constitution. Available here.

Related material:

Further reading

EISA, Promoting Intra-Party Democracy in Lesotho: Training Manual (Johannesburg: EISA, 2008) Available here.

EISA, Political Parties Programme Handbook (Johannesburg: EISA, 2008), Chapter 3. Party organization. Available here.

Janda, Kenneth, Adopting Party Law, Political Parties and Democracy in Theoretical Perspectives Series (Washington: NDI, 2005) Available here.

McGrath, Laurie, Law Reform: Political Party Registration, Australian Electoral Commission (Queensland), Research Paper. Available here.

National Democracy Institute NDI, Minimum Standards for the Democratic Functioning of Political Parties (Washington: NDI, 2008). Available here.

Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy NIMD, A Framework for Democratic Party-Building (Hague: NIMD, 2004), page 11. Available here.

Reilly, Benjamin & Nordlund, Per (Eds.), Political Parties in Conflict-Prone Societies: Regulation, Engineering and Democratic Development (New York: United Nations University Press, 2008). Available here.

Saif, Ahmed Abdulkrim, Yemeni party law: A comparative perspective. Available here.

Suri, K.C. (Ed.), Political Parties in South Asia: The Challenge of Change (Stockholm: IDEA, 2007), Chapter 5. Internal Functioning. Available here.

Intra-party democracy regulations

The state of Queensland, Australia: Electoral Regulation, available here.

Belgium: Electoral Law, available here. More information about statutory gender quotas in Belgium available here.

Finland: Political Parties Act, available here.

France: More information about statutory gender quotas in France available here.

Germany: Political Parties Act, available here.

Nepal: Interim Constitution 2007, Art. 141 & 142, available here. More information about statutory gender quotas in Nepal available here.

Nigeria: The Constitution of Nigeria, sections 221-229, available here.

Portugal: Law Governing Political Parties, Art. 5, available here.

Spain: The Spanish Constitution, available here.

Venezuela: Law on Political Parties (in Spanish), available here.

The consolidated reply was written together with Maija Karjalainen  

Input received, with thanks from:

Marija Babic

Laurie McGrath

Tim Meisburger

Magnus Ohman

Debashis Sen

Alan Wall

Sam van der Staak