Understanding party constitutions as responses to specific challenges

Abstract

Comparative studies of party organization often use party rules and constitutions as a source of data indicating the ideological position of parties, how they are structured and how they function. Although the use of party constitutions in empirical investigations is commonplace, there is almost no systematic analysis of constitutions as discrete documents. There is little enquiry as to why party constitutions exist and little thought about their relationship to political practice. Rather than assuming that constitutions paint an accurate picture of party organization, we argue that party constitutions need to be understood as a response to a series of internal and external challenges: satisfying legal requirements; pronouncing ideological principles; gaining legitimacy for party decisions; managing internal conflict; and responding to external competition. The comparative analysis of constitutions indicates which of these challenges is more or less important to specific parties. Examining the constitutions of 16 parties registered in New South Wales, Australia in 2005—06, we catalogue the range of ways in which parties respond to these various challenges and develop a comparative framework for analysing the responses. What are the key elements of constitutional diversity among parties? Does this diversity reflect differing party types (for example, major versus minor parties), the interests of party founders, the age of parties, their size and whether or not they have achieved representation in Parliament? In assessing these questions, the article explores the ways in which constitutions can be read as products of institutional and environmental imperatives.