This article explores the effectiveness of political parties in relation to political finance and intra-party democracy in Pakistan. The aim of the article is to offer an objective understanding of these variables and suggest a model for the effectiveness of political parties. Primary data was collected from a sample of 1000 respondents from eight different but politically relevant parties. The respondents have diverse socio-political backgrounds and positions in parties hailing from all the provinces of Pakistan and Azad Jammu & Kashmir – a semi-autonomous territory under the administration of Pakistan. The instrument was developed and its validity and reliability were ensured. For empirical verification, extensive statistical tests were carried out, including validity and reliability analysis, standard regression and correlation, to test the assumptions of the research. Statistical analysis established that the independent variables are very significant in explaining the relationship with the dependent variable. Overall, most of the political parties are not internally democratic as they do not follow laid-down democratic processes in electing leadership and candidate selection, the findings revealed. Political parties are monopolized by personalities with weak organization and are institutionally fragile and compromise on their ideological foundation by preferring political expediency while decision making. Likewise, parties also rank poor in political finance as they rarely follow legal and administrative requirements laid down by the Election Commission of Pakistan on political finance. This has a direct bearing upon party effectiveness, as poor intraparty and weak political finance hinder party development as effective institutions aiming to aggregate the interests of the masses. The parties must ensure inclusiveness in choice making, build formal democratic decision-making structures and reinforce the key procedures for political financing. Moreover, political parties should be transparent and responsive towards democratic values and institutional practices to increase their effectiveness.
AkhtarI (2016) Research Design. In Research in Social Science: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Kanpur, India: Social Research Foundation.
2.
AlmondGPowellGB (2001) Comparative Politics: A Theoretical Framework. Longman.
3.
AnsteadN (2008) Internal party democracy in Europe and the United States: Different models in a changing environment. Conference Paper, Political Studies Association, 1–3 April 2008, Swansea University, UK.
4.
BartoliniSMairP (1990) Identity, Competition and Electoral Availability: The Stabilisation of European Electorates 1885–1985. Cambridge University Press.
5.
BenoitKMarshM (2003) For a few euros more: Campaign spending effects in the Irish local elections of 1999. Party Politics9(5): 561–582.
6.
BentlerPM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin107(2): 238–246.
7.
BentlerPMBonettDG (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin88: 588–606.
8.
BollenKA (1989) A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research17: 303–316.
BrownACaddickB (1993) Groupwork with Offenders. Whiting & Birch Ltd
11.
BryceV (1921) Modern Democracies, Vol. 1. New York: Macmillan.
12.
CarminesEGMcIverJP (1981) Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. In: BohrnstedtGWBorgattaEF (eds) Social Measurement: Current Issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, pp. 65–115.
13.
CarothersT (2006) A Handbook on Working with Political Parties. Democratic Governance Group. New York: UNDP.
14.
ColemanJSRosbergCG (1964) Political Parties and National Integration in Tropical Africa. University of California Press.
15.
CoxGWThiesMF (2000) How much does money matter? ‘Buying’ votes in Japan, 1967–1990. Comparative Political Studies33(1): 37–57.
16.
CrossWPPiletJB (eds) (2015) The Politics of Party Leadership: A Cross-National Perspective. Oxford University Press.
17.
DahlR (1971) Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
DenhamAO’HaraK (2007) The three ‘mantras’: ‘Modernization’ and the Conservative party. British Politics2(2): 167–190.
19.
DiamondLGuntherR (2001) Political Parties and Democracy.Johns Hopkins University Press.
20.
DiwakarR (2007) Duverger’s law and the size of the Indian party system. Party Politics13(5): 539–561.
21.
DuvergerM (1964) Political Parties Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. 2nd edn.Routledge Kegan & Paul.
22.
FarrellDMWebbP (2000) Political parties as campaign organizations. In: DaltonRWattenbergMP (eds) Parties without Partisans. London/New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 102–125.
23.
GaujaA (2006) Enforcing democracy? Towards a regulatory regime for the implementation of intra-party democracy. Canberra: Democratic Audit of Australia.
24.
HazanRYVoermanG (2006) Electoral systems and candidate selection. Acta Politica41(2): 146–162.
25.
HirschmanAO (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Harvard University Press.
26.
HopkinJ (2004) The problem with party finance: Theoretical perspectives on the funding of party politics. Party Politics10(6): 627–651.
27.
HuntingtonSP (1996) Political Order in Changing Societies. Yale University Press.
28.
JoenniemiP (1978) Political parties and foreign policy in Finland. Cooperation and Conflict13(1): 43–60.
29.
JoreskogKGSorbomD (1984) LISREL VI. Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by Maximum Likelihood, Instrumental Variables, and Least Squares Methods. Mooresville, NC: Scientific Software.
30.
JosephR (1997) Democratization in Africa after 1989: Comparative and theoretical perspectives. Comparative Politics 29(3): 363–382.
31.
KatzRSMairP (1995) Changing models of party organization and party democracy: The emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics1: 5–28.
32.
KooleR (1994) The vulnerability of the modern cadre party in The Netherlands. In: KatzRSMairP (eds) How Parties Organize: Change and Adaptation in Party Organizations in Western Democracies. London: Sage, pp. 278–303.
33.
LadnerABrändleM (1999) Does direct democracy matter for political parties? An empirical test in the Swiss cantons. Party Politics 5(3): 283–302.
34.
LeDucL (2001) Democratizing party leadership selection. Party Politics7(2): 323–341.
35.
MairPvan BiezenI (2001) Party membership in twenty European democracies, 1980–2000. Party Politics7(1): 5–21.
36.
MaiyoJ (2008) Political Parties and Intra-Party Democracy in East Africa. From Representative to Participatory Democracy. Leiden: Leiden University.
37.
ManningC (2005) Assessing African party systems after the third wave. Party Politics 11(6): 707–727.
38.
McPhersonCB (1977) The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
MichelsR (1915) Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. Translated by E Paul and C Paul. New York: Hearst’s International Library Co, p. 6.
40.
PaldaFPaldaK (1998) The impact of campaign expenditures on political competition in the French legislative elections of 1993. Public Choice94(1): 157–174.
41.
PattieCJJohnstonRJFieldhouseEA (1995) Winning the local vote: The effectiveness of constituency campaign spending in Great Britain, 1983–1992. American Political Science Review89(4): 969–983.
42.
Pinto-DuschinskyM (2002) Financing politics: A global view. Journal of Democracy13(4): 69–86.
43.
PoguntkeT (2000) Party Organization in Transition: Social Anchoring and Organizational Adjustment in a European Comparison. West German publisher.
44.
PoguntkeT (2002) Party organizational linkage: Parties without firm social roots? In: Luther K, Luther KR and Müller-Rommel F (eds) Political Parties in the New Europe: Political and Analytical Challenges. Oxford University Press, pp. 43–62.
45.
PoiréA (2006) Elements for a theory of political finance. Working Paper Series rwp06-014. Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
46.
PollockJK (1932) Money and Politics Abroad.New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
47.
PunnettRM (1992) Selecting the Party Leader: Britain in Comparative Perspective. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
48.
SalehMM (2006) The Challenges of Internal Party Democracy in Africa. New York: UNDP.
49.
SamuelsA (2001) Politics on the Couch: Citizenship and the Internal Life.Routledge.
50.
ScarrowS (2005) Political Participation and Democracy in Theoretical and Practical Perspectives. Washington, DC: National Democratic Institute.
51.
ScarrowSE (2007) Political finance in comparative perspective. Annual Review of Political Science10: 193–210.
52.
SchlesingerJA (1965) Political party organization. In: MarchJG (ed) Handbook of Organizations. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
53.
ShahSAKhanHUAhmedM (2017) Factors responsible for weak democratic culture among the political parties of the Pakistan. NICE Research Journal: 252–273.
54.
TanakaJSHubaGJ (1985) A fit index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology38(2): 197–201.
55.
TannerDThanePTiratsooN (2000) Labour’s First Century. Cambridge University Press.
56.
TeorellJ (1999) A deliberative defence of intra-party democracy. Party Politics5(3): 363–382.
57.
TreismanD (1998) Dollars and democratization: The role and power of money in Russia’s transitional elections. Comparative Politics31(1): 1–21.
58.
TylerTR (2021) Why People Obey the Law. Princeton University Press.
59.
van BiezenI (2004a) How Political Parties Shape Democracy: Perspectives from Democratic Theory. European Consortium for Political Research, University of Birmingham.
60.
van Biezen I (2004b) Political parties as public utilities. Party Politics 10(6): 701–722.
61.
WanjohiNG (2005) State of political parties in Kenya and the transition to democracy. In: REDET Democratic Transition in East Africa. Dar es Salaam: E & D Limited, p. 13.
62.
WautersB (2009) Explaining participation in intra-party elections. Party Politics16(2): 237–259.
63.
WeingrodA (1968) Patrons, patronage, and political parties. Comparative Studies in Society and History10(4): 377–400.
64.
WheatonBMuthenBAlwinDF, et al. (1977) Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology8: 84–136.
65.
WilsonJQ (1973) Political Organizations.Princeton University Press.
66.
ZamoraKC (2005) Paying for Democracy: Political Finance and State Funding for Parties. Edited by A Ware. European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) Press.
