It is convenient to distinguish between two different approaches: the 'adversarial model' and the 'bureaucratic model.' Until 1997, the regulation of British elections was based on the 'adversarial model.' Canada, Australia, and the United States are examples of the 'bureaucratic model.' In practice, the distinctions are not absolute, but they are nevertheless real enough.
Britain
In Britain, there has been relatively little legal regulation of the internal workings of political parties. Decisions concerning procedures for the selection of candidates for parliamentary and local government elections have normally been left to the parties themselves. Moreover, it has usually been up to the rival candidates and parties to initiate legal proceedings against each other if they feel that the laws concerning candidates' election expenses have been violated, or if they are convinced that their opponents have been guilty of other matters involving illegal or corrupt practices.
Under this tradition, the Home Office, the government ministry responsible for the conduct of elections, has been relatively inactive. Only a very small staff at its London headquarters is assigned to take care of such issues. Therefore, the day-to-day responsibility for electoral management has been left to local government officials. But neither have they normally taken the initiative in bringing prosecutions for alleged offences of the electoral laws. They have relied on aggrieved rivals to do this. However, candidates and political parties have sometimes been deterred from challenging their opponents because of the heavy costs involved in bringing cases before the courts.
There is normally a special office responsible for administering elections in countries following the 'bureaucratic model.' The office is well staffed. It is far more pro-active. Typically, the electoral office issues 'advisory opinions' and guidelines about unclear matters of electoral law so that candidates and parties will know in advance what is or is not permitted. The electoral office is also likely to be more active in bringing legal charges against candidates and parties who appear to have committed offences. This relieves opposing candidates of the responsibility and cost of doing so.
Under the bureaucratic model, administration may be highly centralized or less centralized. In the less centralized versions, there are independent electoral bureaucracies at the sub-national level (as in Canada). In other versions, the national electoral office has wide-ranging responsibilities for managing a set of regional and local offices.
Advantages of the Alternative Approaches
The advantages of the 'bureaucratic model' are that it offers clarity to candidates and parties, and that it takes away from them the cost and the burden of bringing legal cases against their opponents. Arguably, it also produces more thorough and more effective administration. In addition, the adversarial model is hardly to deal with legislation, concerning, for example, national limits on party expenditures. Legislation of this kind makes it necessary to establish some system of centralized control of parties, and thus makes the bureaucratic model more suitable.
Disadvantages of the Alternative Approaches
The 'bureaucratic model' also has disadvantages:
- A free-standing agency devoted to electoral administration is likely to acquire a bureaucratic momentum of its own and to try to increase its staff beyond an optimal size. This may prove costly for taxpayers.
- The electoral agency is subject to political pressures. It faces the threat that if it initiates prosecutions that are unpopular among leading members of the legislature, the legislature may restrict its funds. Moreover, the appointment of senior officials of the agency may become a bone of contention among politicians. If a compromise is reached about these appointments - with a share going to each main political party - the decision-making process within the agency may be politicized.
- Though guidelines and advisory opinions may be helpful to candidates and to party organizers, they may also be highly detailed and technical. This will make it hard for candidates and parties to comply with the regulations without employing teams of expensive lawyers and accountants. Moreover, bureaucratic complexities will hurt small or new parties.
- Overcentralization of electoral management may also hinder experimentation.
Draft Only
