WORKSHOP REPORTS: Political Parties and Finance

• What strategies help liberation movements turned political parties to adopt democratic and pluralist governance models and intra-party organization?
• How can ideological anomalies within parties and their leaderships be addressed?

• The workshop addressed problems that liberation movements face in transitioning to conventionally-defined political parties, which are perceived as the true purveyors of democracy. Participants discussed how to unlock and interpret the shifts from liberation movements in opposition to those in government. There was a strong sense that within societies with liberation movements much of the dominant premise of governance can be externally engineered.
• Every political party, whether a liberation movement or not, goes through the following three stages: factionalism, polarization, and institutionalization. In their early stages, political parties are factions with no significant representation of social forces; it is only when they develop clear programs and policies that they are able to integrate and represent such broader forces. Regardless of what they are called, liberation movements and political parties face three main challenges: legitimacy, integration, and the institutionalization of democracy. The means for meeting such challenges apply equally to political parties and liberation movements.
• The workshop also confronted the fact there should not be confusion between a political party’s dominance and a general understanding of democracy, which must be seen clearly within the context of a given country.
• The workshop participants were also challenged to distinguish between empirical evidence and dogmas that have taken root in some democracies, such as, among others, that to be legitimate liberation movements must make the transition to political parties and that rules and criteria for democratic consolidation must be standardized.

• The donor community, civil society, and research institutions should continue their support for liberation movements regardless of whether they are in power.
• Political parties should be secularized.
• Opposition parties should have clear programs, not just a capacity to irritate the official party in government.
• The capacity and institutions of a liberation movement should be developed to counterbalance government.

• In many of the countries that were discussed at the workshop the democratic process is evolving at the national level, but internal party democratic practices are still lacking.
• In many African, Latin American, and East European countries there has been a shift from leader-driven politics to political parties-based politics, while in Western Europe the tendency has been in the opposite direction.
• Many African, Latin American, and Eastern European political parties discriminate against women in elections, and in many cases external monitoring systems concerning women’s involvement in parties and candidate selection mechanisms is not enforceable.
• The historical background to the creation of political parties often influence the way they work, and in many cases the process of renewing parties in post-totalitarian countries is constrained by this historical burden.
• Primary elections are good for establishing the democratic credentials of a party and often allow for accountability and inclusiveness; however, they can also create tensions and conflict within the party structures themselves.
• Political parties increasingly suffer from a crisis of representation, often losing links with the public.

• There should be a checks-and-balances system within the leadership of a party.
• Parties should learn to manage frictions by creating a healthy environment for internal debates and creating mechanisms for solving internal conflicts.
• Participation in primary elections should be limited to party members.
• The creation of groups within parties representing different categories (women, youth, etc.) does not contribute to strengthening the representation of people in those categories in decision-making processes.
• Legislated quotas and sanctions are not recommended, but in some cases could be the solution for strengthening internal party democracy and enhancing representation.
• Parties should improve their internal means of communication and members should take part in decision-making and policy-making processes; when possible, the Internet should be used as an important tool for achieving this.

• Make existing and proposed regulations as clear and practical as possible.
• Give adequate resources and sufficient authority to independent bodies that monitor and enforce legal regulations.
• Introduce limited public funding, forcing greater financial transparency and accountability, and leveling the playing field.
• Create deterrence through more stringent penalties for engaging in corrupt practices.
• Ensure an independent media free of political interference.
• Ban parties from engaging in commercial activities.

• Develop more transparent decision-making processes within parties—particularly with respect to leadership and candidate selection—to prevent undue influence by vested interests or wealthy benefactors.
• Require party members to pay fees, thereby broadening party ownership and diminishing the undue influence of party leadership.
• Adopt a common approach to the challenges of political patronage and vote buying within the system by agreeing and adhering to a code of conduct.
• Political parties should become more engaged in efforts by civil society organizations to tackle issues of corruption; conversely, civil society actors should be more open to working with political parties.
• Political parties should work jointly with civil society to raise public awareness of corruption and the role that various actors play.

• The legal framework of political funding
• Monitoring political money
• Direct and indirect funding of political activity
• Role of civil society organizations in monitoring campaigns and ongoing political finance.