a handbook on working with political parties · other development partners in this area. undp now...

A HANDBOOK ON WORKING WITHPOLITICAL PARTIES

United Nations Development Programme

A HANDBOOK ON WORKING WITHPOLITICAL PARTIES

This Handbook is a collective endeavor of the Democratic Governancecommunity of practice within UNDP and its practitioners who haveprovided, debated and/or learned from political party assistance. In thatsense, these colleagues are all the Handbook’s authors. At the same time,the rich contributions that emerged from the Democratic PracticeGovernance Network Discussion in the fall of 2004 required a certainfinesse and skill to bring coherence to them in a narrative that wouldresonate with the main users—UNDP practitioners—but also with UNDPpartners in democratic governance. This Handbook would not havebeen possible without the excellent drafting and editing of GretchenLuchsinger Sidhu, and the comprehensive inputs and management byLinda Maguire of UNDP’s Democratic Governance Group. The Handbookalso owes a debt of gratitude to Gita Welch, Principal Advisor andDirector, and Magdy Martinez-Soliman, Practice Manager, both of UNDP’sDemocratic Governance Group, Bureau for Development Policy, whoprovided the backing, leadership and guidance required in bringing thepublication to fruition.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent those ofthe United Nations, including UNDP, or its Member States.

Democratic Governance GroupBureau for Development PolicyUnited Nations Development Programme304 East 45th Street, 10th FloorNew York, NY 10017www.undp.org

Acknowledgements

Foreword ................................................................................................................................................................................v

Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................................1

Section I: Why Work with Political Parties? ........................................................................................9

Box: Political Parties and Civil Society Organizations................................................................................10

THE EVOLUTION OF PARTY ASSISTANCE ........................................................................................................11

WHY UNDP SHOULD GET (MORE) INVOLVED ..............................................................................................12

UNDP ON THE GROUND Guatemala: Creating a Shared National Agenda ............................12

UNDP’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES................................................................................................................13

PERSPECTIVES Magdy Martinez-Soliman, UNDP New York, Democratic Governance Group: Parties Are Our Business ................................................................................................14

PERSPECTIVES Lenni Montiel, UNDP Vietnam: We Need New Rules and a Sense of Reality ..15

A VIEW FROM OUTSIDE UNDPThomas Carothers: A Mythic Model ..................................................................................................................16

Section II: Assessing the Big Picture: What Factors Affect Support? ......................19

A COUNTRY’S POLITICAL SYSTEM........................................................................................................................19

1. Is the system a presidential, parliamentary or hybrid one? ........................................................19

2. What kind of system is used for translating votes into seats/offices?..................................20

3. How are political parties configured? ......................................................................................................21

A COUNTRY’S POLITICAL SITUATION..................................................................................................................21

Elections............................................................................................................................................................................21

Legislature ......................................................................................................................................................................21

Capacity to govern ....................................................................................................................................................21

Experience as a democracy..................................................................................................................................21

Party constellations....................................................................................................................................................21

UNDP ON THE GROUND Algeria: Linking MPs and Their Constituencies After Crisis ............22

Internal party diagnostics ....................................................................................................................................23

National/local support ............................................................................................................................................23

Regional/global issues ............................................................................................................................................23

A COUNTRY’S POLITICAL CHALLENGES ..........................................................................................................23

UNDP ON THE GROUND Bangladesh: Multiple Challenges Hold Back Democracy ............24

POST-CONFLICT SCENARIOS ..................................................................................................................................25

PERSPECTIVES Gita Welch, UNDP New York, Democratic Governance Practice Director:Demilitarizing Politics in Mozambique ............................................................................................................26

LOCAL GOVERNANCE ..................................................................................................................................................27

PERSPECTIVES Former UNDP Administrator Mark Malloch Brown: How Can UNDP Help Fix Party Weaknesses?..................................................................................................28

i

Section III: Does Working with Political Parties Compromise UNDP’s Impartiality? ............................................................................................................................................31

IS THE UN REALLY NEUTRAL? ..................................................................................................................................31

MAKING CHOICES ..........................................................................................................................................................32

PERSPECTIVES Sennye Obuseng, UNDP Botswana: No Political Parties ......................................33

PERSPECTIVES David W. Yang, UNDP Washington, DC: Some Political Parties ........................34

PERSPECTIVES Benjamin Allen, UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre: All Political Parties ........35

DIRECT AND INDIRECT SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................35

UNDP ON THE GROUND Zimbabwe: Indirect Support Builds Institutions, Not Individual Actors ............................................................................................................................................36

UNDP ON THE GROUND Ethiopia: In Direct Party Work, Proceed with Care ............................37

A VIEW FROM OUTSIDE UNDPThe Institute for Multiparty Democracy: Some Lessons Learned ..................................................38

Section IV: Considerations to Shape a Programme ................................................................41

ADOPTING A SET OF PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................................41

QUESTIONING ASSUMPTIONS................................................................................................................................42

ASSESSING OPPORTUNITIES ....................................................................................................................................43

UNDP ON THE GROUND Saudi Arabia: Debating How to Proceed................................................44

ASSESSING AND MANAGING RISKS ....................................................................................................................46

ENTRY POINTS FOR PROGRAMMING ................................................................................................................46

The culture and practice of democracy ......................................................................................................47

PERSPECTIVES Håvard Aagesen, UNDP Oslo Governance Centre: Three Capacity Challenges ......................................................................................................................................47

PERSPECTIVES Steve Glovinsky, UNDP New York, Bureau for Development Policy: Reaching the People in the Parties ......................................................................................................................48

Governance institutions and processes........................................................................................................49

Policy issues ....................................................................................................................................................................49

UNDP ON THE GROUND Benin: Changing a Political Culture ..........................................................50

Political parties..............................................................................................................................................................51

FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................................................................52

PERSPECTIVES Abdul Hannan, UNDP New York: Are We Missing the Mark? ............................53

A VIEW FROM OUTSIDE UNDPM. A. Mohamed Salih: The Challenges of Internal Party Democracy in Africa ........................54

Section V: How Is UNDP Already Offering Assistance? ........................................................57

COUNTRY EXAMPLES ..................................................................................................................................................57

Capacity development: TanzaniaAcquiring new skills for campaigning ..................................................................................................................57

Policy-making: HondurasA commission debates electoral reform ..............................................................................................................58

ii

Elections: CambodiaParties make the news ..................................................................................................................................................59

Multiparty dialogues: LesothoInclusive conversations foster political stability................................................................................................60

A focus on the issues: Kosovo, Cambodia and TanzaniaRaising awareness of human development ......................................................................................................61

Conflict management: GuyanaSteps towards social cohesion ..................................................................................................................................62

Working in one-party states: VietnamWith the party but not for the party ......................................................................................................................64

Women’s political participation: Kyrgyzstan and SudanMoving towards gender equity in parties............................................................................................................64

Working with youth: NicaraguaThe next generation articulates its needs ............................................................................................................67

Sharing knowledge: Mongolia‘Soft’ assistance to help a coalition form ............................................................................................................68

Section VI: Who Else Is Involved? ..............................................................................................................69

WHEN TO PARTNER........................................................................................................................................................70

Box: Donors Discuss Their Different Contributions—and How They Can Work Together ....71

A VIEW FROM OUTSIDE UNDPWestminster Foundation for Democracy: The Way Forward..............................................................72

Section VII: Monitoring and Evaluating Political Party Assistance ..........................75

MONITORING ....................................................................................................................................................................77

EVALUATING ......................................................................................................................................................................77

HOW TO APPROACH POLITICAL PARTY ASSISTANCE WITHIN AN EVALUATION ....................79

CAVEATS ..............................................................................................................................................................................80

Section VIII: Tools and Resources ..............................................................................................................81

ORGANIZATIONS WORKING WITH POLITICAL PARTIES ..........................................................................81

Multilateral support ..................................................................................................................................................81

Intergovernmental organizations ....................................................................................................................81

Regional political organizations ........................................................................................................................82

Bilateral support ..........................................................................................................................................................83

Groups associated with individual governments ..................................................................................83

Groups associated with one or more political parties ........................................................................84

Party internationals ....................................................................................................................................................85

Non-governmental organizations....................................................................................................................85

Local organizations ....................................................................................................................................................87

UNDP RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................................................87

OTHER KEY REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................88

FURTHER READINGS ....................................................................................................................................................89

iii

Acronyms

CIS: Commonwealth of Independent States

DPA: Department of Political Affairs

EAD: Electoral Assistance Division

IDEA: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance

IMD: Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy

IPU: Inter-Parliamentary Union

IRI: International Republican Institute

MDGs: Millennium Development Goals

M&E: Monitoring and evaluation

MP: Member of parliament

MYFF: Multi-Year Funding Framework

NDI: National Democratic Institute for International Affairs

NGO: Non-governmental organization

OAS: Organization of American States

OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

UNDP: United Nations Development Programme

USAID: US Agency for International Development

iv

The strengthening of democratic governance requires more than well-functioning elections, parliaments, an independent judiciary and otherinstitutions and processes — important though these are. It also calls fora strong culture of democracy, in particular, robust, transparent, internallydemocratic and accountable political parties. Political parties represent akeystone of democratic governance. They provide a structure for politicalparticipation; serve as a training ground for future political leaders andseek to win elections in order to enter government. Whether inside oroutside of government, political parties exist to transform aggregatedsocial interests into public policy. In the legislature, political parties playan important role in shaping the relationship between the executive andthe legislature and in prioritizing the legislative agenda.

If one accepts the proposition that multi-party systems are an essentialpart of a well-functioning democracy, the question for us as develop-ment practitioners is how best to work with them in addressing the

challenges they face, in areas such as internal party democracy, trans-parency in mobilization and use of resources, and message developmentthat adheres to basic norms and standards of human rights and genderequality. In the past, assistance to political parties was considered astaboo by development partners and as interference in domestic affairsby programme countries. More recently, there has been a growingacceptance of and request for impartial assistance and the adoption ofnorms for engaging with parties on a transparent, inclusive andequitable basis that does not favor one party or philosophy over another.Yet political parties remain a missing element in much internationalassistance to democratic processes and institutions. Such assistance hastended to concentrate on electoral processes/events and then on assist-ing the elected bodies, whether local or national, but it has shied awayfrom strengthening party structures that link the two. Reasons for thisinclude fear of becoming involved in a country’s internal political affairsand a tendency towards non-party, civil-society support in the belief thatthis support presents a lower risk of real or perceived bias.

Yet we have seen that the absence of strong, accountable and compe-tent political parties that can represent positions and negotiate changeweakens the democratic process. UNDP’s principled approach todemocratic governance for human development gives it the leverage toplay an important role in supporting party organizations with real linksto the community, democratic internal structures and broad, inclusive

v

Foreword

platforms. The current challenge is to support political parties in amanner that strengthens their role in a democracy but does not compro-mise UNDP impartiality and other national partnerships. This entails,among other things, understanding the nature of multi-partisanship andadopting it as an approach to political party development.

Demand has been steadily increasing for the involvement of UNDP andother development partners in this area. UNDP now supports politicalparties in myriad places and ways. This UNDP Handbook on Working withPolitical Parties is designed to help us collectively meet this increasingdemand with experience-based products and human rights-basedapproaches. It is intended to be a tool for anyone who encounters theseissues, providing information on questions such as: Who in UNDP hassignificant knowledge on this topic? Who has the best experience?Which professional organizations could be consulted? What have countryoffices in similar situations done? What literature is out there to learnmore about the problems that may be encountered, and are there anycase studies written up? What other actors provide support to projects inthis field?

The Democratic Governance Practice Network discussion on which thisHandbook is based is a classic example of how best to discover and thenrespond to a latent demand for in-house knowledge. And it demon-strates how much knowledge and expertise we in UNDP have on a topicthat, until the question came up, might not have been on our collectiveradar screen. Equally important, however, the Handbook is meant to be apublic document for use by our partners in programme countries anddonor capitals alike to give them a clearer sense of what UNDP does anddoes not do in terms of political party support, and why it considers suchsupport critical to the advancement of human development.

Kemal Dervi ,sAdministrator of the United Nations Development Programme

vi

Seventy-nine contributors wrote from45 UNDP offices in countries asdiverse as Bangladesh, Costa Rica,

Haiti, Saudi Arabia, Serbia andMontenegro, Vietnam and Zimbabwe.There were 30 contributions from Africa,three from the Arab States, 11 from Asiaand the Pacific, six from Europe and theCommonwealth of Independent States, 13from Latin America and the Caribbean,and 16 from headquarters offices. Part oneof the dialogue considered whether UNDPshould support political parties, and askedfor ideas on what elements should beincluded in UNDP’s approach. Part twoquestioned what strategic role UNDPcould play in political party support givenits comparative advantages, and called forpartnership recommendations.

During the discussion, some of the mosthotly debated issues touched on thesensitivities in working closely with politi-cal parties. UNDP is, after all, a multilateralorganization guided by the umbrellavalues of the UN Charter and the UNDeclaration of Human Rights. Partiesfunction within national political process-es, and basic to their agenda is seekingand maintaining themselves in power.Sometimes this entails behaviour that

cannot be condoned by UNDP. Workingwith parties can therefore involve choicesthat UNDP may not always be prepared tomake, given the very real risk of beingperceived as taking sides or interfering innational internal affairs.

But with very few exceptions, contributorsto the discussion recognized that partiesplay a fundamental role in democracies,and in many places, the underdevelop-ment or poor functioning of parties is asignificant fault line threatening progresson both democratic governance andpoverty reduction. Given the prominenceof these two issues in UNDP’s currentcorporate programme priorities, manycontributors articulated a clear and urgentinterest in moving towards greatersupport for parties. They seemed to feelthat the question relates not so much towhether or not to work with politicalparties, as to finding the right waysforward. In what can be a high-stakesundertaking, the right forms of analysis,risk assessment, partnership and expertiseneed to be in place to ensure that UNDPpolitical party programmes don’t endan-ger the organization’s impartiality. Today,with interest growing in political partywork in many quarters, including among

1

IntroductionIn late 2004, UNDP embarked on a two-part electronic discussion on its democraticgovernance practice network. The subject, engagement with political parties, hademerged from a global meeting of UNDP Resident Representatives, who identified theissue as one deserving greater corporate attention. What followed was one of the mostvibrant and participatory debates ever to take place on UNDP’s global knowledgenetworks. This handbook summarizes the highlights of the discussion, synthesizingUNDP experiences and perspectives on the challenges and opportunities in providingpolitical party support.

bilateral donors and regional organiza-tions, many new opportunities may be onthe horizon.

As a recent mapping exercise carriedout by the UNDP Oslo GovernanceCentre revealed, UNDP is already

working with political parties to varyingdegrees in 43 countries across all five ofthe geographical regions covered byUNDP programmes. These initiatives,which have arisen in response to nationalneeds, have outstripped the introductionof a global corporate policy to guidethem—there is not yet a set of officialUNDP parameters on working withparties. In 2002, the “UNDP PolicyGuidance Note on ParliamentaryDevelopment” did briefly touch uponparties, stressing that UNDP can work withthem, but must do so in a balanced, non-partisan manner. It suggested how partyrepresentatives could be included inparliamentary development programmes,and proposed formulas for determiningrepresentation. Similarly, the 2004 “UNDPPractice Note on Electoral Systems andProcesses” mentioned political parties asan emerging area of UNDP support,particularly in involving parties in voterregistration and education efforts; improv-ing party campaign and media strategies;strengthening party caucuses within legis-latures; and encouraging party accounta-bility to commitments to address genderimbalances in leadership.1

Over the past five years, party support hasgrown in many new directions, involvingnot just parliamentary assistance andelections, but also capacity development,policy dialogues, conflict management,media outreach, and specific initiatives forwomen and youth. Contributors to thenetwork discussion urged that moredetailed guidelines be put in place toreflect this evolution. This handbook is a

step in that direction, but with politicalparty programming still a relatively newconcept, it stops short of being a prescrip-tive how-to manual. In the future, moreofficial guidelines may emerge from theaccumulation of additional experiencesand insight into how UNDP can bestposition itself to offer assistance in thisarea.

In compiling an array of perspectives andexperiences that UNDP offices havealready drawn from their work on theground, the handbook sheds some lighton how individual country programmeshave dealt with different challenges intheir work with parties. This is not acomprehensive presentation—while thenetwork discussion was a rich one, it reliedon voluntary participation. Input fromsome regions was greater than fromothers, reflecting the fact that someregions already have a higher demand forand interest in political party program-ming. And while lessons may be drawnfrom some existing examples of UNDPparty assistance that can be applied todiverse situations around the world, thequestion of more precise monitoring andevaluation remains an open one. Notmuch has yet been done to measure orotherwise quantify these experiences.

Even so, some general principles thatcould guide political party programmingare already apparent from the discussion.These start with the fact that politicalparty support in many instances is fullyconsistent with UNDP’s corporate priori-ties, but national contexts vary widely,from countries that have no parties tothose where parties have themselvesrequested UNDP’s partnership.Understanding the political environmentis the very first consideration in determin-ing the extent of UNDP’s involvement, andidentifying the issues related to safeguard-

1 See the “UNDP Policy Guidance Note on Parliamentary Development” at www.undp.org/policy/docs/policynotes/parliamentarydevelop-ment.pdf and the “UNDP Practice Note on Electoral Systems and Processes” at www.undp.org/policy/docs/practicenotes/electoralpn.pdf.

2

ing UNDP’s impartiality. This is also essen-tial to designing an effective and respon-sive programme—in the past, politicalparty support has been prone to export-ing models that may or may not benationally relevant.

An honest assessment of UNDP’sown internal capacity to handle thesensitivity of this kind of program-

ming should take place early on. Anotherbasic is to keep in mind that successfulparty support adheres closely to thebroader objective of fostering effectivedemocratic governance. Programmesshould be harmonized with other gover-nance initiatives, and should be examinedthrough the lenses of human rights,human development and participation.One general rule is to avoid all activitiesthat would clearly be read as directendorsement, such as allowing UNDP’sname to be used in a political campaign,or singling out some parties for supportwithout a transparent and well-reasonedrationale that may require the consensusof the parties themselves.

The cases studies of UNDP party supportprojects included in this handbook revealother important ingredients as beingclose partnerships, a focus on an issue orevent such as an election, a receptivenessto the ability of parties to identify theirneeds or voice their concerns, and awillingness to engage in a sometimestime-consuming and painstaking processof consultation and building consensus—in other words, taking a long-term pointof view. Once party support programmesare in place, they should be continuallyand closely reviewed, including for poten-tial political sensitivities and other riskfactors.

What’s in this handbook?The structure of this handbook follows ageneral continuum for launching politicalparty work. It starts in Section I by assess-ing the rationale for working with parties,and looking at the evolution of partyassistance, inside and outside UNDP.Section II offers basic information forunderstanding political systems, from theirmechanics to the challenges faced byparties, with passages as well on post-conflict scenarios and local governance.Section III considers questions related toUN neutrality, and looks at what isinvolved in making choices about how towork and with whom. Section IV outlinesthe process of shaping a programme, witha focus on exploring opportunities andentry points, and assessing risks. Itconcludes with information on fundingoptions under the current UNDP program-ming framework.

Section V explores, through a series ofcase studies, how UNDP is already offeringassistance, with the examples highlightingcommon activities. Section VI examinespartnerships in political party program-ming, including a discussion of when topartner. Section VII describes the processof monitoring and evaluating partyprogrammes, and elaborates how toassess appropriate results indicators. InSection VIII, a comprehensive list ofresources for further information roundsoff the handbook.

The handbook is designed to offer bothpractical advice and intellectual insight.Readers may want to dip into it for eitherone of these—or both. Each section startswith a concise summary of basicbackground information that can bereadily applied to programming, includingin some cases lists of questions that canhelp country offices decide how to moveforward. These portions can be read and

3

used by themselves.

For those who wish to delve a littledeeper, contributions from sourcesoutside UNDP—including prominentthinkers and other organizations that workwith parties—are interspersed betweenthe sections. Carnegie Endowment schol-ar Thomas Carothers warns about poten-tial pitfalls in party support by detailinghow party aid in the past has followed tooclosely a set of traditional, and mostlymythological, ideals, mainly based inWestern notions. An essay from theNetherlands Institute for MultipartyDemocracy (IMD), a relative newcomer tothe field of party assistance but already aninfluential participant, chronicles thelessons it has learned in establishingmultiparty dialogues and making choicesabout which parties to work with. M. A.Mohamed Salih, a professor and memberof the World Panel on Political Parties atthe International Institute for Democracyand Electoral Assistance (IDEA), profiles sixchallenges to internal party democracy inAfrica, such as the dominance of elitesand a lack of financial accountability.Finally, an excerpt from a report by theUK’s Westminster Foundation forDemocracy, which supports cross-partyprojects, argues the case for mainstream-ing party support in democracy assis-tance.

To lend a human face and unique UNDPidentity, passages that have been excerpt-ed from the network discussions or solicit-ed from UNDP country offices run withinthe sections. Some of these appear as‘UNDP on the Ground’ snapshots to elabo-rate a point in the text through additionalexamples of UNDP party programmes (seepage 6-7 for a detailed index). Others arein the form of ‘Perspectives’ that flesh outanalysis and offer alternative points ofview. Colleagues are cited with correspon-

ding names and duty stations as of thedate of the network discussion.

Both kinds of contributions reveal theextent to which UNDP staff aregrappling with the problems and the

possibilities of political party program-ming. They delineate the many challengesparties face, including poor leadership,limited resources and capacities, a lack ofoutreach to constituencies, the hugenumbers of parties in some countries, andthe imbalances that result when non-governmental groups are significantlystronger or weaker than parties. They alsodebate the different entry points for UNDPsupport, which fall into four broadcategories: the culture and practice ofdemocracy, governance institutions andprocesses, policy issues and politicalparties themselves.

Much of the network discussion revolvedaround how UNDP can strike the rightbalance vis-à-vis parties. Overall, there isconsensus that in politically volatile situa-tions, more indirect forms of support arethe most appropriate, involving activitiessuch as dialogue on human developmentissues or parliamentary development. Oneargument supports a more hands-off-parties approach that focuses on the rulesand systems that support a sound democ-racy overall, allowing parties an environ-ment in which they can independentlyflourish. From another perspective, there isalso the option of reaching out to individ-uals within parties who may be interestedin supporting progressive change.

It is obvious, however, that in manycountries there is a need for direct assis-tance to parties, especially in terms ofcapacity development. Party capacitydevelopment needs run the gamut fromcampaign activities, to conflict manage-ment, to the ability to negotiate issueswith regional or international dimensions.

4

Support for bolstering capacities like thesemust be carefully negotiated because it ispredicated on more active interactionwith parties, and may involve workingwith some and not others. Besides thegreater risk to UNDP’s impartiality, otherpotential problems include partiesforming just to qualify for assistance, orbecoming dependent on it, or using itillicitly. Yet several UNDP country officescan now claim that they have successfullynegotiated these kinds of programmes,contributing, at least anecdotally, to agreater measure of political skill and stabil-ity. Moving forward, UNDP can draw onthese examples, as well as lessons learnedfrom its more extensive history of experi-ences in other sensitive areas, such asconflict resolution.

In the network discussion, there was agreat deal of back and forth over thequestion of whether UNDP should workwith some, all or no parties, and represen-tative perspectives are included here.Some people contended that UNDPneeds to be realistic about supportingthose elements of a political system thatcan make the greatest contributions toprogress and stability. As is the case withother democratic governanceprogrammes, there are always going to be‘winners’ and ‘losers’. Others argued that itis UNDP’s role to work inclusively becausethat is in the spirit of democracy, andbecause those who lag furthest behind,even on subjects such as the protection ofhuman rights, may be able to benefitmost from UNDP programmes in thesense of exposure to new techniques andpoints of view. Only a handful of contribu-tors maintained that UNDP should notwork with parties at all, a standpoint thatmay be completely appropriate in somecountries.

Afew contributors took a very broadperspective in raising questionsabout the validity of party systems,

which for various reasons are in crisis in anumber of both developing countries anddeveloped countries with long histories asdemocracies. It can be easy to assumethat party weaknesses are symptomatic ofproblems in specific countries and can bereadily fixed, according to this point ofview. But it is also possible that the worlditself is moving in a post-party direction,one sign of which is the rapid growth ofcivil society groups and alternativechannels of political engagement. Onecontributor challenged the current notionthat elections and parliamentary develop-ment, much less party support, can everpave over the very deep economic, politi-cal and other rifts between peoples,within countries and around the globe.These may not be the very first issues toarise when country offices considerdesigning a programme, but they areimportant root causes of political dynam-ics and deserve reflection.

UNDP country offices are the primaryintended audience for this handbook, butit may also be useful within other parts ofthe UN system and to other organizationswith an interest in political party support.UNDP is cognizant of the particular valueof collaboration in this area, which will beessential in creating create new and betterstrategies that are grounded in pastexperiences, and make the best use ofcurrent capacities. Aligned with nationalinstitutions, these partnerships can helpcountries advance towards a future oftruly representative democracies, in whichpeople can fully participate in the choicesthat determine their lives.

5

An Index to Issues: UNDP Country Experiences

Issue Country Page

Assessing political context Saudi Arabia 44-45

Capacity development Ethiopia 37

Tanzania 57-58, 62

Cambodia 59-60

Campaign support Ethiopia 37

Cambodia 59-60

Tanzania 57-58

Codes of conduct Bangladesh 24

Conflict management Bangladesh 24

Guyana 62-64

Lesotho 60-61

Constituency relations Algeria 22

Zimbabwe 36

Elections Guatemala 12

Mozambique 26-27

Ethiopia 37

Benin 50-51

Tanzania 57-58

Honduras 58-59

Cambodia 59-60

Lesotho 60-61

Gender Zimbabwe 36

Kyrgyzstan 64-67

Sudan 64-67

Media Cambodia 59-60

One-party states Vietnam 64

Parliaments Zimbabwe 36

Benin 50-51

6

Issue Country Page

Party challenges Bangladesh 24

Benin 50-51

Ethiopia 37

Party dialogues Guatemala 12

Benin 50-51

Honduras 58-59

Lesotho 60-61

Guyana 62-64

Policy or issue-based programmes Guatemala 12

Honduras 58-59

Cambodia 59-60, 62

Kosovo 61-62

Tanzania 57-58, 62

Post-conflict Algeria 22

Mozambique 26-27

Sharing knowledge Mongolia 68

Youth Nicaragua 67-68

7

SECTION 1: WHY WORK WITH POLITICAL PARTIES?

WH

Y WO

RK WITH

POLITICA

L PARTIES?

9

For a multilateral organization such asUNDP, the potentially volatile arena ofpolitical parties has traditionally beenconsidered too risky, too open to thecharge of meddling in national politics.But a growing number of UNDP countryoffices are forging ahead with work relat-ed to political parties because diversenational situations demand that they doso. In the 2004 electronic discussion onpolitical party assistance held on theorganization’s democratic governanceknowledge network, even many contribu-tors who are not already working on polit-ical party projects expressed their supportfor the idea, while recognizing that flexibil-ity and care must guide all forms ofinvolvement.

Jean Kabahizi from UNDP Burundi argued,“The problem of governance cannot beaddressed if governance at the level ofpolitical parties is left out of the discus-sion. After all, it is the leaders of politicalparties who after the elections becomethe leaders of key institutions… How canone deplore deficits in governance at thenational level while tolerating them at thelevel of political parties?” A. H. MonjurulKabir from UNDP Bangladesh questionedwhether or not any democratic system inthe world has been able to dispense withpolitical party participation.

Parties in a democratic system serveseveral purposes. They aggregateinterests by persuading voters to

support various issues, and they lendcoherence to voter choices. They maymobilize the masses outside of elections.In conflict situations, they can be crucial indetermining whether there is a moveforward into recovery or a relapse backinto hostilities. Once elected, parties play amajor role in shaping public policy, secur-ing resources and orienting the govern-ment around certain platforms. Partiesalso foster future political leaders andmonitor elected representatives. An insti-tutionalized party system can hold electedpoliticians accountable.

Despite the promise of democratic partysystems, however, they often fall short inthe face of complex national realities, asmany UNDP country offices can attest.While a record number of countries arenow considered democratic, transitionprocesses have frequently been rocky.Citizens around the world have registeredsometimes deep disappointment andcynicism about what democracy has beenable to produce—the UNDP reportDemocracy in Latin America: Towards aCitizens’ Democracy found that people insome countries in the region had morefaith in television stations than their

1Why Work with Political Parties?In many countries today, political parties are an essential part of the apparatus of governance. Ideally, they play a fundamental role in the exercise of democracy. The 2002Human Development Report, Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World, empha-sizes, “A well-functioning democracy depends on well-functioning political partiesresponsive to people.”

government. The IMD tracked 100countries that had embarked on a transi-tion to democratic forms of governmentafter the end of the Cold War, and

concluded that only 20 had been fullysuccessful, with the rest remaining in agrey area where the future is not entirelyclear. 2

2 See the IMD publication A Framework for Democratic Party Building: A Handbook, published in 2004, at www.nimd.org/upload/publica-tions/2004/imd_institutional_development_handbook-a4.pdf.

10

Political Parties and Civil Society Organizations

Avibrant civil society and effectivepolitical parties are both essential fora healthy democracy. Both groups

perform similar functions in terms ofmobilizing people around issues, but theyalso play distinct roles. Civil society may bebest equipped to stir up popular momentumaround a transition process or ensure a levelof public accountability. Political partieshave to carry out tasks such as policy-making and the aggregation of public inter-ests within the institutional politicalframework.

The relationship between civil society andparties differs depending on the nationalcontext—and this is something democraticgovernance programming needs to takeinto account. Some of the common varia-tions include a weak civil society and adominant political party, a weak civil societyand weak political parties (common in post-conflict situations), a strong civil society andweak parties, and a strong civil society andstrong parties. In some countries, the distinc-tion between NGOs and political partiesmay be hard to decipher. UNDP countryexperiences confirm, for example, that NGOswork on political issues, can play politicalroles and cannot always be consideredoutside the mainstream political system.

When the balance between civil society andparties is right, there may be a certainamount of friction between them thatconstructively enhances democracy. Butproblems arise when the balance goes outof whack. In the last several years, commen-tators like Ivan Doherty, the director of politi-

cal party programmes at the US-basedNational Democratic Institute (NDI), havestarted highlighting in particular how adecade of heavy emphasis on civil societyassistance has made these groups strongand active in some countries, but politicalparties are not, and as a result the politicalsystem fails to function effectively. As thedemand side of the political equation, civilsociety overwhelms the capacity of thesupply side—the formal political system—to deliver.

“The neglect of political parties, and parlia-ments, can undermine the very democraticprocess that development seeks to enhance.Without strong political parties and politicalinstitutions that are accountable and effec-tive, that can negotiate and articulatecompromises to respond to conflictingdemands, the door is effectively open tothose populist leaders who will seek tobypass the institutions of government,especially any system of checks andbalances, and the rule of law,” Dohertywrote in his paper “Democracy Out ofBalance”. *

He added, “(I)t is not a matter of having tochoose between building a strong civil socie-ty or strengthening political parties andpolitical institutions such as parliaments.The real challenge is to balance support fordemocratic institutions and organizationsthat are more accountable and inclusive,while at the same time continuing to fosterand nurture the development of a broadlybased and active civil society.”

* See Ivan Doherty, 2001, “Democracy Out of Balance: Civil Society Can’t Replace Political Parties,” Policy Review, April/May, www.access-democracy.org/NDI/library/1099_polpart_balance.pdf.

THE EVOLUTION OF PARTY ASSISTANCE

Traditionally, external support to strength-en party development has remainedmostly confined to organizations set upby political parties in Western countries.Some success stories have resulted, butthese organizations at times have alsoattracted charges of bias and politicalagenda-making. The perception that theirprogrammes are often run by Westerntechnical experts based on politicalconcepts in Western countries hasdampened interest among parties andpolitical leaders in nations receiving thesupport, according to CarnegieEndowment for International Peace schol-ar Thomas Carothers. He estimates that 75per cent of party aid has funded trainingseminars and other forms of technicalassistance. Approximately half goes toCentral and Eastern Europe; significantamounts end up in the former SovietUnion, Latin America and Africa. A verysmall proportion finds its way to Asia andthe Arab States.3

With the growth in democratic states overthe past 15 years, overall multilateral andbilateral support has grown for initiativesfalling loosely under the rubric ofdemocratic governance, but a great dealof this attention has gone towardssupporting parliaments, elections andnon-governmental organizations (NGOs),with various rationales. Some organiza-tions have calculated that this approachsupports democracy while avoiding theappearance of involvement in nationalpolitical schemes; others have maintainedthat societies need to reach a certain levelof development before political partysupport can be justified.

But a growing number of external assis-tance providers, including UNDP, are nowreconsidering some of these issues.

Questions have arisen over whether it ispossible to work on democratic gover-nance without including parties—the IMDcalls the lack of viable parties ‘the missinglink’ in transition processes. An intercon-nected issue is whether progress can bemade on human development, includingpoverty reduction and the rest of theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs),without effective governance. As the 2002Human Development Report points out:“Politics matter for human developmentbecause people everywhere want to befree to determine their destinies, expresstheir views and participate in thedecisions that shape their lives. Thesecapabilities are just as important forhuman development—for expandingpeople’s choices—as being able to read orenjoy good health.”The UN Secretary-General’s 2005 report In Larger Freedom,which stresses the interdependence ofdevelopment, security and human rights,notes that “the right to choose how theyare ruled, and who rules them, must bethe birthright of all people.”

Within UNDP, there is no explicitreference to political parties inthe corporate Multi-Year Funding

Framework (MYFF). Democratic gover-nance, however, now makes up thelargest portion of UNDP’s programmeportfolio—covering over 45 percent ofannual programming resources. Nearlyevery UNDP country office runs democrat-ic governance projects. One in threeparliaments in the developing world issupported in some way by UNDP, whichalso assists an election somewhere in theworld on average every two weeks.

Three service lines under UNDP’sdemocratic governance practice that havereceived a great deal of attention—policysupport, parliamentary development, andelectoral systems and processes—current-

3 See Thomas Carothers, 2004, “Political Party Aid,” a paper prepared for the Swedish International Development Agency, atwww.idea.int/parties/upload/Political_Party_Aid_by_Carothers_Oct04.pdf.

11

ly cover most of UNDP’s work with politi-cal parties. Forty-three UNDP countryoffices have party-related projects inplace.

WHY UNDP SHOULD GET (MORE)INVOLVEDParticipants in the network discussionmentioned a number of reasons forextending UNDP’s work related to parties.These included: to promote democracy,enhance human development and the

12

Here, in Guatemala, we are convincedthat UNDP must be engaged with andsupport political parties. Why? Becausethe political party system in Guatemala isweak, and parties almost don’t play therole of intermediation between state andsociety. We are working to strengthenboth the political party system, and thecapacities of political parties to analysenational issues and take a systematicapproach to their own responses.

By facilitating a multiparty dialogueprocess, we supported the politicalparties of the country in elaborating aShared National Agenda, with the aim ofidentifying the main socioeconomicproblems and adopting actions to facethem, taking as a basis the Peace Accordsand a series of National HumanDevelopment Reports. However, thepurpose of this work was also to bringthe politicians of different parties togeth-er, so they could see each other asmembers of a common political ‘class’,and understand they have to work jointlyin the strengthening of the politicalsystem. They accepted this challenge. Agroup of around 40 politicians from 20parties was established to initiate adialogue. More than 40 workshopsincluded the participation of over 100national and international experts fromthe political, private and academic

sectors, as well as leaders of social sectormovements.

The Shared National Agenda theyproduced was intended to become areference for the formulation of govern-mental plans and political agendasbefore and after the 2003 generalelections. A number of new laws havesince drawn from its provisions, andpolitical parties represented in Congressstill use it to define legislative agendas.This process includes dialogues withineach party and continued multipartydialogues.

UNDP has partnered with the IMD onthe multiparty dialogue process, incoordination with an initiative by theOrganization of American States (OAS) tostrengthen the political party system.

According to our experience inGuatemala, it is possible to be neutral indoing this kind of work. The formula isto engage with all parties and createprogrammes that generate interest in allof them. We do not offer support relat-ed to party operations or functions—other organizations take care of that.The challenge is to remember that allthis is done in order to promotedemocratic governance, and that thisrequires working with political parties:There is no choice.

Guatemala: Creating a Shared National AgendaFernando Masaya and Jochen Mattern from UNDP Guatemala reported:

UNDP ON THE GROUND

MDGs, improve governance, address crisisprevention issues, increase consensus onnational development agendas, and assistthe development of a political culture thatrespects the division and routine transferof power.

Raquel Herrera, at UNDP Costa Rica,called working with parties in LatinAmerica an urgent need. “Political

parties are not doing their job sincepeople do not feel represented by them.They are in a vacuum of ideas or lackideology and have transformed intoelectoral machines responsive to interestgroups. If our mandate is to supportgovernance as conducive to humandevelopment, we should work onstrengthening political parties as keyactors of representative democracies.”

Jalal Elmuntaser weighed in from UNDPLibya: “The risk of not supporting politicalparties exceeds the risk of providingsupport to them, especially in developingcountries with a limited democraticcultural background. Weak political partiescould contribute to the premature failureof a new ‘democratic’ system, which inturn could be attributed by many anti-democracy forces to the system itselfrather than the actual reasons.”

While a number of contributors expressedconcerns about how UNDP can work withpolitical parties without compromising itsimpartiality, only a few expressed strongobjections, mainly to direct support topolitical parties. “I cannot agree less withthe idea of UNDP supporting parties,because being engaged and at the sametime remaining neutral simply does notwork,” said Tomislav Novovic from UNDPSerbia and Montenegro, referring toexperiences under the “crypto-democrat-ic” regime of Slobodan Milosevic. NaglaaArafa from UNDP Egypt questioned theneed to work with political parties to

promote democracy and good gover-nance, given that the government repre-sents the people. Towards this end, shesaid, UNDP can work with parliaments,universities, youth organizations andNGOs, and can support the modernizationof election processes.

Chris Spies from UNDP Guyana respond-ed: “Governments legally represent thepeople, but they are often not representa-tive of all the people. In fact, they are inconflict with the opposition! While it isimportant and effective to work withparliamentarians, it is not enough.Decisions by governments do notsuddenly happen in cabinet. They areproposed, shaped, debated, calculatedand positioned in the politburo or execu-tive committee of the political parties inpower. That is where the attack anddefence mechanisms are shaping theparadigms and where the blindfolds arehanded out. That is where UNDP needs towork proactively.”

Jasmina Bell from UNDP Serbia andMontenegro reminded her colleagues, “Itis very challenging to try to depart fromour traditional approach. UNDP cannotremain static in an ever-changing interna-tional environment and should explorehow to position itself to achieve thebiggest impact. I am very much in favourof considering moving into new areas,even the most sensitive ones.”

UNDP’S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES

Within and outside UNDP, there is agrowing recognition that theorganization could bring some

unique and fresh perspectives to the fieldof political party work—and in some casesis already doing so. UNDP’s comparativeadvantages include its status as a multilat-eral organization that is impartial and insome sense globally owned. Its long histo-

13

ry as a trusted partner in many countriesalready includes considerable work onother highly sensitive issues, such asconflict resolution. To capture and build onthese and other experiences, the knowl-edge networks are allowing an increasinglyrich global exchange of developmentexpertise.

UNDP also plays a leadership role withinthe UN system, and is widely acknowl-edged as one of the primary advocates forthe MDGs and sustainable human devel-opment. The corporate framework is intune with priorities in both developing

and developed countries, namely throughthe MYFF development drivers: develop-ing national capacities, enhancing nation-al ownership, advocating and fostering anenabling policy environment, seekingSouth-South solutions and promotinggender equality. All of these drivers caninform political party work.

“UNDP—through its new and pertinentconcepts, its capacity to advocate infavour of poor populations, its politicalneutrality, and its support for the improve-ment of democratic governance and thestruggle against poverty—can rapidly

14

Magdy Martinez-Soliman, UNDP New York,Democratic Governance Group:

Parties Are Our Business

Parties are major governance actors.The discussion about whether we

should or should not work with them ismoot in my view: We do work with themalready, through their leaders (nationaland local government), their representa-tives (parliaments, electoral commissions)and their policies. The issue is perhapsmore how we can work with the formalpolitical party structures, and when weneed to work with all major parties(together or one by one), and when wecan afford to work with some of themonly. Looking at this through the lens ofthe different development drivers wehave adopted corporately:

Anything that contributes to nationalcapacity development in the governancearea is our job. Political parties included.What capacities do the political partiesneed to strengthen? All those that haveto do with their constitutional functions,clean campaigning and financing,management of social organizations,

communication and access to informa-tion, advocacy and problem-solvingtechniques, analysis and response,constituent relationships and leadershiptraining.

Any further contribution to gender equal-ity is our job. Political parties included.Sensitization inside political parties,support to women in parties’ caucusesand discussion groups, capacity develop-ment of women as leaders, gender analy-sis of political problems includingpolitical representation are areas that canbe addressed.

Anything that contributes to forgingpartnerships around the UN’s values is ourjob. Political parties can be UN partners inadvocacy and awareness initiatives whenthey favour objectives defined by theinternational community. If we launch acampaign for girls’ enrolment at school, aswe did in Islamic countries before theMDGs were born, and we don’t get thesupport of a given religious party, in casuin power, it doesn’t mean that we cannotwork with the other groups because theyare in opposition. The balance is, however,delicate.

PER

SPEC

TIV

ES

establish itself as an essential partner forpolitical parties,” wrote Bissari Magbengafrom UNDP Togo.

Audax Rutta from UNDP Tanzaniamade the case that “clearly, theentry points are sensitive and

potentially tricky, but this recognitionshould only serve to underline the factthat the question of who provides theleadership should not be left to chance.An experienced and trusted organizationlike UNDP should take the lead.”

15

Lenni Montiel, UNDP Vietnam:

We Need New Rules and aSense of RealityUNDP has already accumulated a gooddeal of institutional experience workingwith and assisting political parties. This hashappened via several years of parliamen-tary development initiatives, electoralassistance and extensive interaction withpolitical leaders, government officials andelected representatives (both at nationaland sub-national levels). We just need toformalize rules and develop institutionalapproaches to more systematic inter-ventions.

UNDP’s comparative advantage alsoincludes years of experience in the resolu-tion of significant conflicts, where we havemanaged to maintain non-partisanshipwhile supporting political parties andgroups to better interact amongthemselves and achieve peacefulsolutions to their differences. UNDPplayed a fundamental role in peacenegotiations in Central America and SriLanka, and has made incredible efforts inCambodia and Timor Leste, just tomention a few cases.

We should not fear situations in which ourcounterpart governments will not feelcomfortable if we provide assistance toother political actors. We just need to facethis positively and with a good sense ofthe political realities in each case. This hashappened to us when promoting decen-tralization and local governance—in fact,very often we work with local authoritieswho do not represent the same interestsas the central government.

In all these difficult situations (and inmany others), UNDP interventions have

experienced success and failure. At timeswe have even been questioned for one oranother decision not only on governanceissues, but even in such ‘neutral areas’ asthe environment and information technol-ogy. This will happen again if we startworking with political parties, but thatshould not prevent us from makingadditional efforts to positively influence(according to our mandates, policies andvalues) the improvement of governancein any country where we are providinggovernance assistance. In today’s world,this also includes working directly withpolitical parties.

PER

SPEC

TIVES

16

Party aid organizations tend not tomake their goals very explicitbeyond general statements that

they are seeking to strengthen theparties they are working with. Theyproceed from a conception of ‘strongparties’ or ‘good parties’ that is implicit intheir activities but rarely spelled out inmuch detail. Observation of the actualefforts of party aid programmes in manycountries leads to the conclusion thatmost political party aid providers gener-ally are trying to help foster a commonset of characteristics in the parties theywork with (see Figure 1).

Interestingly, although the political partiesin the various countries that sponsorpolitical party aid vary greatly (Swedish

and American political parties, forexample, are obviously quite different),the party aid programmes developed bythese different countries all seem toadhere to the same template for partybuilding. Generally speaking, this appearsto correspond most closely to a northernEuropean political party model that isquite traditional in its basic features andreflects the idea of parties in a pre-televi-sion age when they depended almostexclusively on grass-roots organizations tobuild support. It is also striking that partyaid programmes look basically the sameon the ground all over the world, nomatter how different the politicalcontexts and traditions of the placewhere the programmes are carried out.

It is hard to escape the impression thatparty aid is based on a highly idealized oreven mythologized conception of what

political parties are like in establisheddemocracies. Although some parties in asmall number of Organisation forEconomic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) countries may havemost of the characteristics set out inFigure 1, most do not. Many parties in theestablished democracies are not, forexample, very internally democratic, arehighly personalistic in their external imageand internal functioning, do not maintainregular contacts with voters beyondelections, do not have clear ideologicaldefinition, do not give women a strongrole in the party, and do not do a goodjob of incorporating youth in the party.

A party aid advocate might reply to thisby saying that of course few partiesconform fully to the ideal but it is impor-tant to have a coherent aspiration.Moreover, many areas of democracy aidsuffer, to at least some degree, from the

problem of pursuing idealized models—such as programmes that expect aid-receiving countries to develop efficient,effective judiciaries and parliaments, tohave strong, independent NGO sectors,and to have consistently high voterturnouts—that established democraciesthemselves often do not live up to. Yetthere is still a troubling sense with partyaid that the assistance efforts seek tocreate something in new and strugglingdemocracies that exists at best only verypartially, or rarely in much older, moreestablished democracies.

Western party aid seems to be based onan old-fashioned idea of how politicalparties were in some earlier, more virtu-ous era, before the rise of television-driven, image-centric, personality-drivenpolitics, the diminution of direct linksbetween parties and voters, the blurring

A VIEW FROM OUTSIDE UNDP

A Mythic ModelThomas Carothers

(TO RUN BETWEEN SECTIONS I AND II)

17

and fading of traditional ideological lines,and the growing cynicism about partisanpolitics that characterizes political life inmany established democracies. Someparty aid practitioners might believe thatparties in new and struggling democra-cies can first be helped to develop theway parties used to be in many estab-lished democracies and then worry atsome later time about the corrosiveeffects of technology and postmodernculture on party politics. But this wouldbe a mechanistic, stage-based idea ofdevelopment that does not correspondto reality. The reality is that although newand struggling democracies are trying toconsolidate the basic institutions ofdemocracy that many OECD countriesconsolidated many decades (or longer)ago, at the same time they are confront-ing the effects of television-driven,image-centric politics. In some sense

therefore they are forced to grapplesimultaneously with the challenges ofboth modernism and postmodernism inpolitical party development.

The fact that party aid follows an implicitinstitutional template—a relativelystandardized, detailed and fixed idea ofwhat a good political party is—raises thesame two important questions thatconfront other areas of democracy aid inwhich template methods are common(such as parliamentary assistance andjudicial aid). First, does the use of such atemplate lead party aid providers to havelow tolerance for local differences and tounconsciously (or consciously) insist ontrying to reproduce parties that lookbasically the same no matter how differ-ent or varied the local political contextsare? And second, in focusing on thecharacteristics they would like to seeparties in new or struggling democracies

have, are party aid providers ignoring theunderlying economic, socio-cultural, andother structural determinants of partydevelopment? That is to say, are theyassuming that merely by working withthe parties themselves (as opposed totrying to address some of these underly-ing structures and conditions) they canproduce parties that conform to theWestern ideal?

Figure 1: Party Aid Objectives Based onTraditional Ideals

• A democratic leadership structure with compe-tent, rational and transparent methods of inter-nal management

• Processes of internal democracy for choosingcandidates and party leaders

• A substantial presence around the country withlocal branches enjoying significant responsibilityfor party work in their area

• A well-defined grass-roots base and regularcontacts with the persons making up the base,both for constituency relations and broader political education

• Cooperative, productive relations with civil society organizations

• A substantive party platform and the capacity toengage in serious policy analysis

• A clear ideological self-definition that also avoidsany ideological extremes

• Transparent, legal funding that draws from awide base of funders

• A strong role for women in the party as candi-dates, party leaders and managers, andmembers

• A good youth programme that brings youth into the party, trains them, and makes good useof their energy and talents

—Thomas Carothers is a Senior Associateand Director of the Democracy and Rule ofLaw Project at the Carnegie Endowmentfor International Peace. This contributionwas excerpted from a paper prepared forthis handbook.

SECTION 2: ASSESSING THE BIG PICTURE: WHAT FACTORS AFFECT SUPPORT?

ASSESSIN

G TH

E BIG

PICTU

RE

19

During elections, an assessment mayalso include contact with the UNDepartment of Political Affairs

(DPA), the head of which serves as the UNfocal point for electoral assistance. Thedepartment’s Electoral Assistance Division(EAD) assesses pre-electoral conditions,maintains UN electoral standards andassists other UN organizations in design-ing electoral assistance activities.Contacting DPA with respect to potentialpolitical party support is at the discretionof the UN Resident Coordinator undernormal development situations, althougha general rule is to check when in doubt.Crisis situations, where there is a SecurityCouncil mandated UN mission overseenby a Special Representative of theSecretary-General, require all such activi-ties to be cleared by the SpecialRepresentative.

A COUNTRY’S POLITICAL SYSTEMThree basic structures define the mechan-ics of political systems and the flow ofpolitical power, and determine the viabili-ty of parties.

1. Is the system a presidential, parliamentary or hybrid one?In a presidential system, a party may

capture the executive branch but not thelegislature, while in parliamentary systemsthe dominant party (or coalition ofparties) in the legislature controls theexecutive post and its related appoint-ments. Hybrid systems feature both apresident and a prime minister; one usual-ly appoints the other, and they may repre-sent different parties.

Party discipline, the practice of legislatorsvoting with their parties, may be strongerin parliamentary systems because partymembers must stick together to maintaintheir hold on the executive branch. Theinternal hierarchy of parties in presidentialsystems may be less structured becausethe electoral stakes are not as high. Directlyelected candidates may benefit fromstronger ties to their constituencies. Inhybrid systems, dominant parties tend tosupport the prime minister, which can leadto a logjam if there is a dispute with thepresident. But the president may be able tobreak this paralysis by dissolving the legisla-ture or dismissing the prime minister.

In parliamentary systems, highly organizedparties can act as an effective linkbetween party leaders and localconstituents, but some political theoristshave also argued that parliamentary

2Assessing the Big Picture: What Factors Affect Support?Deciding whether or not to work with political parties begins with a judicious assess-ment of the context in which they work, which varies widely not only by country, butalso among and within different types of political systems. This includes developingbaseline knowledge of the system in place; probing into the different aspects of acountry’s current political situation overall, including issues related to key political actorssuch as civil society and the media; and understanding the challenges faced by politicalparties. Additional considerations apply to post-conflict scenarios and local governance.

systems can encourage one-partydominance of the state, at times lockingout ethnic or regional groups.

2. What kind of system is used totranslate votes cast intoseats/offices?The electoral system heavily influencesthe number and size of political parties inthe legislature and their representationwithin other governing institutions, suchas local government bodies.4

Three broad categories in use todayinclude (see also the chart below):

Majoritarian/plurality: These systemsusually are built around single-memberdistricts. Under the first-past-the-postsystem, the winner is the candidate—running under a party banner or as anindependent, depending on the law—who garners the most votes, but notnecessarily an absolute majority.Variations include the block vote, whichinvolves multi-member districts wherethe highest-polling candidates fill theseats, and the party block vote, whereparty lists replace individual candidates.Majoritarian systems include the alterna-tive vote and the two-round system,where candidates need to secure anabsolute majority.

Proportional representation:Proportional systems strive to balance aparty’s share of the national vote with itsshare of parliamentary seats. Votinggenerally involves parties presenting listsof candidates. The single transferablevote approach allows voters to rankcandidates in multi-member districts.

Mixed systems: Some countries have aparallel system that comprises elementsof both majoritarian/plurality andproportional representation systems. Theproportional representation element canbe used to offset disproportionalityarising from the majoritarian/pluralitycomponent.

Some basic generalizations can be madeabout electoral systems and parties.Proportional list systems, for example,cannot function without parties or politi-cal groupings. First-past-the-post systemstend to encourage the emergence of afew powerful parties. As a group that hasextensively studied the issue, IDEAcautions against making assumptions,however. Systems that may seem tofavour multiple parties in some countriesare consolidating the power of singleparties; there are examples of theopposite as well.

4 For much more detailed information, see the IDEA publication Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook, published in2005, at www.idea.int/publications/esd/new_en.cfm.

20

Electoral Systems in Use by RegionAfrica Americas Asia Eastern Western Oceania Middle Total

Europe Europe East

Plurality/majority 27 23 14 1 5 13 8 91

Proportionalrepresentation 16 19 3 13 17 0 4 72

Mixed 5 3 8 9 3 2 0 30

Total 48 45 25 23 25 15 12 193

Source: IDEA, 2005, Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook. [www.idea.int/publications/esd/new_en.cfm].

3. How are political parties configured?The number and configuration of politicalparties in the legislature shapes therelationship between the executive andthe legislature, and influences the scopeof party discipline. Most countries in theworld today have two or more parties.

Multiple parties: In these systems,majority parties may dominate the legis-lature, or several parties may form acoalition to gain control. Coalitions mayface problems with stability, especially ifcompeting interests make it difficult forparties to work together.

Two parties: Power tends to shift backand forth between two dominantparties, even if other parties exist.Problems with this system includegridlock between the executive andlegislative branches if they are controlledby different parties, and an ideologicalorientation around the centre that maydiscourage alternative points of view.

Single parties: One party nominatesand promotes candidates. While thelegislature is not organized on a partisanbasis, internal caucuses or factions mayevolve around shared interests. One-party systems tend to foster executivedominance at the expense of the legisla-ture.

No parties: Some countries that holdelections ban political parties; candidatesrun as individuals.

A COUNTRY’S POLITICAL SITUATIONA number of factors affect the functioningof a political system overall and will fluctu-ate over time, determining party behav-iour. Issues to consider and questions toask include:

Elections: Where is the country in termsof recent or upcoming polls—sub-national and national? Different points inelection cycles are a major determinantof party behaviour and priorities.

Legislature: Which parties are repre-sented? Which have caucuses? Are therepolitical factions within parties that playa prominent role? How are legislativecommittees divvied up between theparties, especially leadership positions?

Capacity to govern: What are some ofthe overall governance capacity issues?How are these reflected in terms ofcapacities within parties themselves,including both technical issues such ascampaign management, and substantivetopics related to party platforms andpositions?

Experience as a democracy: How longhas a country embraced a democraticsystem? What was its previous system?What tendencies, in thought or practice,have been carried over? Is the systembased on institutions, or prominentpersonalities, either modern or tradition-al (such as African chief-led systems)?

Party constellations: What is the legalframework governing the political andelectoral system? What does it say interms of political parties? Does the reali-ty of how political parties function meshwith the law? If there is no legal frame-work, what are the historical reasons forthis?

21

22

Algeria went through a severeeconomic and security crisis inthe 1990s, which took a high toll

in human lives. As the crisis came to aclose, UNDP launched a project withpolitical parties to help strengthen andexpand participatory democracy bysetting up parliamentary constituenciesoffices across the country.

In 2002, UNDP started informal discus-sions with one major political party toconvince it of the need to engage in aninnovative process of dialogue betweenmembers of Parliament (MPs) and theirconstituencies. We felt that dialogue wasthe only way to avoid misunderstandings,protestations, conflicts, etc. We decided towork only with the party’s MPs, so as toavoid having a big population to dealwith. Following these discussions, we laterexpanded negotiations with the five otherparties represented in Parliament.

One of the first things we did was toestablish a special unit to handle theproject. We wanted the project far frompolitical pressures. We also used a propor-tional system to establish the MPs’offices,and signed a memorandum of under-standing on the liabilities and obligationsof the MPs, and on the use of equipmentpurchased through the project.

Our main purpose was to bring MPs backto their own constituencies and to givethem the means to interact at the local

level. In addition to putting in place theoffices, we trained MPs and their assistantson information and communicationstechnology, dialogue, human rights, goodgovernance, etc. We set up more than 40offices used by more than 100 MPs, andwere able to put aside the politicalagendas of the parties by considering theMPs as constituency representatives, notpolitical party representatives.

The project revealed the many crucialroles that MPs can play in developingtheir regions and the country. MPslearned what they could do as localdevelopment agents and ombudspeo-ple, and how they could lead dialoguesbetween local authorities, communitiesand civil society. The voice of civil societywas subsequently brought into thenational Parliament through MPs whohad met locally with these groups. It alsobecame apparent that MPs from differentparties needed to join forces for thedevelopment of their districts.

In our experience, we noticed that bilater-al donors were afraid of engaging withUNDP on this sensitive project. Theyattended our seminars, but they wereunable to work with us, due to their politi-cal agendas. We did, however, partnerwith NDI, and this proved to be a goodcollaboration. NDI was able to orientmany US researchers towards our project.This in turn gave UNDP more credibilityamong other development agencies.

Algeria: Linking MPs and Their Constituencies After Crisis Moncef Ghrib, now at UNDP Haiti, described experiences in working with political partieswithin a highly sensitive political context:

UNDP ON THE GROUND

Internal party diagnostics: How areindividual parties organized? How bigare they? Who are their primaryconstituencies? Do they cater to specialinterests—regional groups, ethnicgroups, industries, and so on? What aretheir sources of funding? Do they haveestablished rules and procedures? Isdecision-making democratic and basedon established rules? Is there a strongsense of political unity? Do parties havestrategic plans and platforms, evenoutside election campaigns? How effec-tive are parties in managing conflict?

National/local support: Are the param-eters for parties different on thelocal/regional and national levels? Areparties competing on both levels? If not,what are the relationships—cooperativeor otherwise—between parties active indifferent arenas?

Other political actors: What politicalroles do different civil society groupsplay? Which groups are most influential,and how do they intersect with parties?How well organized are they in theircapacity to exert political influence,including in terms of links across differ-ent regions of the country? How free isthe press? What is the level, outreachand quality of political coverage? Towhat extent are parties able to engagewith the media? What laws govern thefunctioning of civil society organizationsand the media?

Regional/global issues: What externalissues influence party behaviour? Doindividual parties have strong externalties, for example, to a diaspora, or toparties in other countries with the sameideological approach? Are they organ-ized around issues with regional orglobal implications?

A COUNTRY’S POLITICALCHALLENGESUnderstanding political challenges isessential to calculating the most relevantpoints of intervention. These challengesmay be intertwined with the mechanics ofpolitical systems or current political trends,or deeply embedded in national history orcultural practices. Some politicalchallenges are common to most politicalsystems; others relate more specifically totransition processes or to a country’s stageof political development. Participants inthe UNDP network discussion identified anumber of concerns.

Personality-based politics has croppedup in every region of the world, ashas uninspired party leadership.

Parties that are young, underdeveloped orcorrupt may manage themselves badly.Poor performance translates into lowconfidence among the members of theelectorate, and limited turnout duringelections. Some parties openly defycommon standards of tolerance andintegrity, or are ruled by parochial interestswith a low level of commitment to nation-al issues. Economic and other incentivescan be misaligned and fuel fragmentation.State institutions may be weak and/orcorruption prevalent.

Many countries face scenarios wherepower is over-concentrated in nationalparties or the capital. Parties may reflectthis by remaining anchored in elite voterbases and having no constituenciesamong the poor. In single party states,there may be little or no interest in reformsof any kind. Other countries are emergingfrom a legacy of authoritarian regimes thatmay have sown widespread suspicion ofparty intentions among the general public.In states where weak or highly controlledparties are the norm, informal politicalmovements may spring up to fill the voidin democratic expression.

23

Globally, parties have a tendency to lapseinto the anti-democratic impulsescommon to many institutions: genderbias, a lack of transparency and inclusion,and the practice of patronage. AyayiAdodo d’Almeida from UNDP Togo wrote:“Certain political parties do not even havea political programme for their countries,

and once at the head of their countriesthey seek to fill their pockets. Public fundsare wasted to the detriment of the benefi-ciary populations.” Parties in manycountries struggle with issues related tothe management of even routine politicaldisputes.

24

As is the case in many countries,Bangladesh’s political systemstruggles with a complex tangle

of party challenges. These start with thefamily dynastic legacy that has persistedfor the nearly 35 years since independ-ence, according to A. H. Monjurul Kabir,who contributed to the network discus-sion from UNDP Bangladesh. Partiestend to contribute little to a moredemocratic climate because theythemselves are internally authoritarianand reluctant to practise transparency,accountability and participation indecision-making.

At present, there is no law to guide partybehaviour on even basic issues such asparty registration, membership, funding,preparing and auditing of accounts, orfunding disclosure. There is no regulationrequiring political parties to submit orproduce political publications, promo-tional literature or election manifestos toany authority, or to conform to anystandards. There is no credible estimateof the funding of major political parties.Kabir listed other issues as “the personal-ization of leadership, over-centralizationof power, pro forma manifestos, depend-ence on money and muscle, limitedsocial bases and a party system based onconfrontation rather than consensus.”

UNDP Bangladesh has a democraticgovernance programme in place that

includes capacity development of theBangladesh Electoral Commission andParliament. The parliamentaryprogramme, for example, covers bothenhancing the capacity of MPs andmodifying rules of procedure to strength-en accountability and promote participa-tion.

Recently, however, the country office hasembarked on a new direction by startingto target some work more specifically topolitical parties. As Kabir maintained inthe network discussion, “A regenerationof political parties is essential todemocratic consolidation and goodgovernance in Bangladesh.”

The office started by publishing a policypaper presenting alternatives to hartals, acommon mechanism to vent politicalopposition or social demands by callingfor a general strike that shuts down theformal economy for a stretch of time.Often, violence among political groupsalso takes place. As a follow-up to thepaper, UNDP Bangladesh now plans towork with parties on drafting a code ofconduct that would encourage moreconstructive forms of dialogue. Thesuccess of such an initiative, Kabir point-ed out, largely depends on positivefeedback from and close cooperationwith the relevant stakeholders, includingpolitical parties.

Bangladesh: Multiple Challenges Hold Back DemocracyUNDP ON THE GROUND

Anumber of challenges relate tolimited capacities. These can hinderparties’ ability to compete effective-

ly in elections, analyse and manage infor-mation, and respond to constituents.Candidates from new parties whosuccessfully contest an election can bedrawn quickly into the business of gover-nance, and neglect the developmentneeds of their organizations. Poverty canmake it difficult for parties to raise funds,even as some countries are beginning toadopt the expensive and media-intensivecampaign methods used in some Westerndemocracies.

An issue raised by several participants isthe proliferation of political parties—insome African countries, they now numberin the hundreds. Many lack a platform anda party infrastructure, but still have aparalysing effect on the government.Oumar Sako from UNDP Rwanda remem-bered a prime minister from a countrywith over 100 parties saying that “somepolitical parties are limited to their leaderand their silhouette.” In other countries,the consolidation of power has reducedthe number of parties, sometimes with acorresponding reduction in democraticdebate.

Mikiko Sasaki and Moustapha Soumarereported from UNDP Benin on how differ-ent factors intersect: “In Benin, politicalparties have proliferated from one in 1990to nearly 150, and weigh heavily on thegovernance of the country. Managementof government personnel based on meritand programmatic results is compromisedby the politicization by parties. While it isdifficult to pinpoint the percentage, asignificant number of NGOs are backed bypolitical parties and are in reality fundrais-ing channels for them. The media on theone hand flourishes from the liberty ofexpression, but on the other hand suffers

from the lack of quality in analysis partlydue to its alignment to political parties.Trade unions also have become a tool forinfluence by party politics. Thiswidespread politicization is an obstacle forthe country’s development because likemany other African countries, politicalparties are in general founded not onpolicies and national interests, but ratheron individual, ethnic or regional interests.Consensus making towards a commonnational objective is extremely difficult inthis environment. The question underthese circumstances would be whether itis sufficient working to fix a politicizedinstitutional apparatus, or whether weneed to go within the dynamics of politi-cal parties themselves to change theculture at its roots—chicken or egg.”

POST-CONFLICT SCENARIOSIn countries that have been through a waror some other form of extreme hostilities,the post-conflict period has been increas-ingly recognized as a time to bridge thegap between conflict and developmentby laying a foundation for developmentprogrammes. Work with political partiescould in some cases be key to thisprocess; ideally, political parties couldbecome a tool for nation-building.

Realistically, many of the challenges foundin peace-time political scenarios deepenand become much more complex incountries emerging from conflict. Theymay not have a political system in place,much less political parties to operatewithin it. Issues related to nonpartisanshipcan become vastly more sensitive, and thesituation may require negotiating aminefield of ethnic, religious, ideological,regional and other national divisions thatmay have fueled the conflict in the firstplace. Other issues may arise early in thetenure of new governments, such asdominant parties using the excuse of

25

26

Demilitarizing Politics inMozambique

Gita Welch, the Democratic GovernancePrincipal Advisor and Director within theBureau for Development Policy at UNDPin New York, and a High Court Judge inMozambique until 1994, recalled howpeace in the country was finally achieved:

The peace process in Mozambique,and the 1992 General Peace

Agreement that resulted from it, are oftenquoted as examples of an effective strate-gy to demilitarize politics in a post-conflict situation. This strategy succeededin its two main objectives: ensuring asustainable end to a 16-year civil war andestablishing a solid platform for democra-tization.

By 1992, due to an intersection ofeconomic, social, and geo- and nationalpolitical factors, including the end of theCold War, the struggle in Mozambiquehad reached an impasse. NeitherRENAMO, the Mozambican NationalResistance, nor the FRELIMO Governmentcould see any prospect of an immediatemilitary victory. A combination of disas-trous economic policies had left theeconomy in tatters. RENAMO’s externalsupport had fallen away, and there wereno resources to tap in Mozambique tocontinue fighting. For both sides, the onlyway out was to seek peace.

Of course, besides the will of the warringparties, a peace process needs otheringredients to be successful, such as suffi-cient funding and able mediation. TheUN’s Special Representative of theSecretary-General, Aldo Ajello, attributedhis great success in helping to implementMozambique’s peace accord to econom-ics, namely, the $17.5 million trust fund

provided by the international community.He used this primarily to help transformRENAMO from a guerrilla army into apolitical party.

Ajello’s extraordinary skills in steering avery complex process, in partnership withthe Government, built upon the deeplevel of compromise and understandingestablished through the peace agree-ment. This was fundamental to thesuccessful dismantling of the two previ-ously warring armies and the creation ofa new national army integrating combat-ants from both sides. Arguably, thisaspect of the agreement was the key topeace overall in Mozambique, guarantee-ing that neither the Government norRENAMO would be tempted to return towar.

However, an almost equally critical factorwas the deliberate inclusion of a‘roadmap’ in the peace agreement totransform RENAMO into a political partyand ensure its participation in the firstgeneral election. Under Protocol I of theagreement, RENAMO agreed to refrainfrom armed combat and committed to“conduct its political struggle in conformi-ty with the laws in force, within theframework of the existing State institu-tions.” Protocol II provided criteria andarrangements for the formation andrecognition of political parties inMozambique. It established theirindependence and voluntary basis, andrequired them to accept democraticmethods (to the exclusion of othermethods) to pursue national and patrioticinterests. The second protocol alsoexpressly committed both theGovernment and RENAMO to creatingthe conditions for the latter tocommence its activities as a politicalparty immediately following the signa-

PER

SPEC

TIV

ES

27

national stability as a political strategy toeliminate opposition groups. The politicalarena, which even under the best ofcircumstances involves a measure ofconflict and opposition, can inflame previous grievances. In some countries—Mozambique being a prominentexample—members of former armedmovements have regrouped into politicalparties, with the challenge of transformingearlier habits of force and violence into apeaceful political discourse (see page 26-27).

During the network discussion,Mathieu Ciowela Katumba fromUNDP Democratic Republic of the

Congo proposed a holistic approach topost-conflict scenarios: “Especially in crisiscountries, alignment with a political partyrelates much more to certain subjectivecriteria (access to power, ethnic/tribalconcerns) than to the firm conviction of aparty to a given vision. It shows that,unfortunately, the principles of goodgovernance are not at all in place, andthat leaders and party members demon-strate a lack of capacity. This is why thepolitical party, one of the key actors forgood governance, must be strengthened.However, UNDP should also extend itssupport for traditional partners such asgovernmental institutions (parliamentaryand judiciary) and civil society, since politi-cal parties function within a frameworkand according to rules defined and estab-lished by these institutions.”

LOCAL GOVERNANCEAn understanding of local governance canprovide insights into the full spectrum ofpolitical dynamics, regardless of whethersupport is being considered at the nation-al or the sub-national level. In regions andindividual communities, the configurationof parties may be much more diffuse andfragmented, with local groups adhering

ture of the General Peace Agreement.Protocol III outlined the principles of theelectoral act and the first NationalElections Commission, and stipulated thatalthough the Government would set upthis commission, RENAMO wouldnominate a third of its members.

The first general election in the post-conflict period in Mozambique subse-quently became a platform forintroducing RENAMO to its new role as apolitical movement instead of a militaryorganization. This election also served tostart shifting Mozambican politics from aculture of human insecurity and fear, toone that adopted the ballot as a valid andpowerful instrument of collective choice.The process did not eliminate frequentmutual recriminations and the strongpolitical disagreements that characterize ademocratic process. It did, however, fostera long-term political process as thevehicle for resolving disputes and a legiti-mate way for exercising power.

While post-conflict recovery dependsgreatly on the historical, political,

economic and cultural context, and thereare some aspects of the situation inMozambique that may be unique, theexample strongly suggests that apartfrom demobilizing combatants, anefficient strategy to demilitarize politicsinvolves the creation of institutions suchas political parties and electoral commis-sions that are linked with the new political reality. Post-settlement electionscan then be instrumental in advancingthe goals of conflict resolution anddemocratization.

closely to local concerns. Or parties assuch may or may not be part of the scene.In some cases, they are best equipped toaggregate local interests and help inexercising power on the people’s behalf.But where local governance is quitedynamic and direct democracy mecha-nisms such as town hall meetings arealready in place, parties may not addvalue. In transition countries, given theurgency of national consolidation, localelections often occur only many yearsafter the first national elections. In otherstates, a history of poor performance byparties has led to the embrace of alterna-tive ‘direct democracy’ measures such asreferendums, citizen initiatives and recalloptions.

Even where local parties do exist, theirrelationship to national and regionalparties varies. In some countries,

national parties are barred from contest-ing local elections. In more developeddemocracies, regional and local partiestend to be strong within their constituen-cies, but less so at the national level,leading to some degree of disconnectbetween local and national policies. Theflip side is when influential national partieshave strong local cells that replicatenational policies and ideologies in minia-ture. As is the case with national parties,electoral systems will determine to a greatextent the configuration of local partysystems as well as practices within parties.

28

Former UNDP Administrator Mark Malloch Brown:

How Can UNDP Help Fix PartyWeaknesses?

E ssentially, it is clear that for most of usa democratic process without vibrant,

independent political parties is an incom-plete democracy, and that right now,political parties of that nature are, at best,the exception rather than the rule acrossthe developing world. But as we thinkabout how best to tackle this problem, weneed to think hard about two issues: First,what is the root cause of the weaknessesin the current system, and second, what isappropriate for UNDP to do in helpingaddress the problem given our neutral,multilateral character?

When thinking about the first question, itis important not to assume inadvertentlythat weak political parties are somehowsymptomatic of specific weaknesses in aparticular country and therefore subject toeasy fixes. Indeed, the problems faced bypolitical parties today are certainly notunique to the developing world orrelatively recent democracies: Nearlyeverywhere they are in crisis and havebeen for some time. In some long-estab-lished Western democracies, big, single-issue NGOs now have vastly moremembers than long-established politicalparties. In developing countries, this isoften due to the fact that some traditionalconstituencies for big parties, such as

29

organized labour, or a semi-feudal ruralvote, have been eroding through broadersocial and demographic changes. Butthere is a real question as to whetherthey will be replaced by newer, dynamicalternatives or whether, in a more funda-mental sense, the world is moving slowlyinto a ‘post-party’ era, driven by a numberof factors such as the changing nature ofhow political information is conveyed tocitizens via the media, and otherchannels such as the rise of civil societyand how people respond and act onissues that concern them. Indeed, there isa plausible scenario where parties neverregain the level of mass membership,popular trust and engagement they onceenjoyed in older democracies, and nevergain that level in newer ones.

Even if that is the case, however, clearlyparties will continue to play a critical rolein democracy, and the question remainshow and whether UNDP should helpensure they play that role as effectively aspossible. But there is also the tricky issueof partisanship. How do we avoid helpingselected parties, often governmentparties, and thus appear to be givingsupport to one or the other side of apolitical divide? There is no neat answerto this question, and so where I comedown is believing that with regard todirect support to parties per se, we asUNDP should limit our support to capaci-ty development in a non-partisanmanner and dialogue around develop-

ment issues, as well as not seek to dodirect work ourselves but should proba-bly bring to the table our partnershipnetworks and rely more on a strong refer-ral system—helping bring in groups likeNDI and the International RepublicanInstitute (IRI) from the US and their equiv-alents in Europe and elsewhere tocomplement our strengths. In that way,we leverage our trusted role as a facilita-tor and catalyst in democratic gover-nance, and, to ensure that we do notmake ourselves vulnerable to that chargeof partisanship, where we do somethingof this nature, it should be open to allparties that share values of tolerance anduse peaceful means in their political strat-egy.

An area where we can and should getdirectly involved is helping govern-

ments adjust and adopt legal codes andregulations—the enabling environmentfor multiparty democracy if you like—that can protect and nurture democraticsystems. Our advice should include bestpractices on issues such as regulatingpolitical fund-raising and state funding ofelections. I am aware that this non-parti-san rule-setting and capacity-buildingrole is easier said than done in a contextwhere so many countries have de factoor de jure one-party or even no partysystems, but my feeling is it is probablywhere we can maximize our impact whileremaining true to our UN mandate andresponsibilities.

PER

SPEC

TIVES

SECTION 3: DOES WORKING WITHPOLITICAL PARTIESCOMPROMISE UNDP’SIMPARTIALITY?

IS UN

DP’S

IMPA

RTIALITY

COM

PROM

ISED?

31IS THE UN REALLY NEUTRAL?A number of contributors considered UNneutrality in terms of what it means inpractice. While there was no debate aboutwhether UNDP should ever deliberatelyadopt an overtly partisan stance, therewas also a general concern that the word‘neutrality’ can in some cases serve as ascreen for doing nothing.

Several contributors noted that in reality,UNDP could be considered a partisanorganization because it works directlywith governments made up of politicalparties already in power. “In countries withonly one dominant party, such as China,this is who we work with. Is this beingneutral? I’m not sure,” wondered MalinSamuelsson from UNDP China. HåvardAagesen from the UNDP Oslo GovernanceCentre cautioned, “All forms of engage-ment and capacity development have aninherent potential for supporting and/orstrengthening established power struc-tures in any given country. This is

obviously something to be aware of whencooperating with political parties, as itshould be in all aspects of our work.”

The fact that the UN system iscommitted to the highest humanaspirations implies some degree of

choice and selection. The MillenniumDeclaration, for example, agreed to by allUN Member States, has strong languagecovering a spectrum of political, economicand social rights. Section V, on humanrights, democracy and good governance,commits governments to “spare no effortto promote democracy and strengthenthe rule of law, as well as respect for allinternationally recognized human rightsand fundamental freedoms, including theright to development.”The eighthMillennium Development Goal, on aglobal partnership for development,includes a reference to “a commitment togood governance and poverty reduc-tion—both nationally and internationally.”

3Does Working with Political Parties Compromise UNDP’s Impartiality? Many participants in the network discussion registered some degree of concern abouthow UNDP can work with political parties without itself becoming a political actor andcompromising the principles of trust and impartiality that lie at the heart of the organi-zation’s mandate. One critical issue is the process of choosing which parties to workwith: generally speaking, all, some or none. A selection process that winnows down thenumber of parties receiving support risks being perceived as interference in a country’sdomestic political affairs, or as UNDP overreaching its role. At the other extreme,working with all parties could include those whose practices run contrary to the funda-mental ideals spelled out in the UN Charter, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, and,most recently, the Millennium Declaration. In countries with dozens of parties, trying toreach everyone could exceed UNDP’s capacity and dilute the strength of an assistanceprogramme.

Dan Dionisie, from UNDP Romania,proposed, “Neutrality as a concept is verylimiting, and after all, UNDP has amandate. Maybe ‘non-partisanship’ is amore workable principle when dealingwith political parties, meaning that UNDPworks within its mandate without any biastowards any political party, although it canbe conceived that some of its interven-tions can incidentally—and indirectly—help certain parties more than others. Forexample, increasing the political participa-tion of the poor and marginalized issomething definitely consistent with whatUNDP stands for, but in all likelihood isbound to benefit some political partiesmore than others.”

MAKING CHOICESThe bottom line may be that choicesabout working with political parties needto be made with great care, because inmany countries too much choice caneasily push UNDP into a compromisingposition. The most obvious cases ofparties that UNDP might not work withbecause their ideology strays too far frombasic UN principles are those that areracist or xenophobic, or promote a violentagenda—but these are not the norm.Gray areas quickly emerge in looking atparties that may be based on ethnicity,regional affiliations or religion, or have ahistory of participation in armed struggles.While in some countries there are hugelynegative experiences with groups likethese, they remain essential for thefunctioning of political systems in manyparts of the world. And they may be areality in countries emerging from conflictor with less than democratic histories andtraditions. Another issue arises whenparties that may contradict internationalprinciples are still legally recognizedentities within their country.

Magdy Martinez-Soliman, from theDemocratic Governance Group at UNDP

in New York, does not support workingwith parties that stray too far from UNprinciples even if they are legally recog-nized, but recounted a “slippery and diffi-cult” situation in Bangladesh: “Would weprovide support to the leadership ofJamaat Islami, when this party (in favourof women voting but against theirbecoming candidates) was insideParliament? The Government did not seeany problem, and UNDP decided thatJamaat was a party one could work with,although it obviously doesn’t share theintegrity of the international instrumentson human rights. My guiding principlewould be in dubio pro partitum (if indoubt support the party). But where weare absolutely sure that the core valuesare not shared, that a minimal commonground does not exist, I suppose I am infavour of not providing support to suchpolitical platforms.”

Making this decision requires in-depth understanding and alonger-term perspective. Chris

Spies from UNDP Guyana underscoredlessons learned in Burundi and theDemocratic Republic of Congo that“taught us that decisions to excludeanyone who claims to be a role-playercome back to haunt the process in yearsto come.” He cautioned that too strict adefinition of acceptability would haveruled out working with F. W. de Klerk’sNational Party in South Africa to dismantleapartheid, or, more recently, with many ofthe Somali clan-based parties to elect anew president.

Perhaps as fundamental as impartiality toUNDP’s identity as a development organi-zation is its commitment to remainingengaged even when circumstances areless than ideal. “We do not only work withthe good guys,” Spies maintained. “Thosewho don’t understand or violate funda-mental values and human rights probably

32

need our assistance more than others. Wemay not agree with what parties say or do,but we can still provide spaces fordialogue. We still need to defend theirright to seek satisfaction of their needs forfreedom, identity, understanding andprotection. If you leave them to fightalone for the satisfaction of these needs,there is no control over their actions. Adialogue process can help them moderatetheir positions, discover common groundwith their opponents and increase thechances of collaboration to find mutualsolutions. The key, it seems, lies in ourability to develop relationships that arebased on respect, openness and trust,even when we grind our teeth anddisagree with their views….”

Making choices about working withparties can stem from issuesbesides behaviour or ideological

orientation. There may be obvious reasonsto work only with parties represented inParliament, or having a well-definedconstituency in a given region. Someparties may have capacity developmentneeds that others have already fulfilled.From the perspective of strengtheningdemocratic governance, there could be arationale for leveling the political playingfield to the benefit of weaker oppositionparties. However, on the last point,Fortunata Temu from UNDP Tanzaniahighlighted the tendency to think thatbecause ruling parties have enjoyedaccess to most development assistance

33

Sennye Obuseng, UNDP Botswana:

No Political Parties

There is no compelling reason forUNDP to engage political parties

directly and plenty of risks that not everycountry office will be able to properlydeal with. We do not need to engagepolitical parties as individual organiza-tions to promote democracy and goodgovernance, or to market the humandevelopment paradigm. To go this highrisk route is to suggest that available andconsiderably more neutral platforms forengaging politicians are somehow not aswell suited as working directly with politi-cal parties for promoting our perspectiveson development. It is a hard sell for me.

Here in Botswana, UNDP has had plentyof opportunities to involve politicalparties in our work and our events byrecognizing that they are importantcomponents of civil society. For instance,they were invited to participate in thedevelopment of the governance

programme; they have unfettered accessto knowledge resources availablethrough UNDP, including HumanDevelopment Reports, MDG Reports, etc.As an institution, we have access to thelegislature, councils, the electoralcommission, etc., all of them non-partypolitical platforms where political partiescan be constructively engaged.

UNDP is not at all suited for directengagement with political parties as ameans to somehow counterbalance theinfluence of ruling parties on governmentpolicy. If our aim is to support democracyand good governance, and to promotethe human development paradigm, thenour concern should be facilitating thecreation of space for fair political contestand availing information through neutralavenues. We can work with electoralcommissions and parliament to advancethe necessary reforms and promotehuman development through the samestructures and many other neutralplatforms at our disposal.

PER

SPEC

TIVES

for so long, donors now need to playcatch up and help opposition partiesbecome self-sustaining. “This could resultin a diplomatic row between the govern-ment of the day and the developmentpartner, and UNDP cannot afford to becaught up in such a situation,” shecontended. “Most governments in powerhave the assumption that developmentpartners are required to work with them.Even though this response may beuncalled for, it shouldn’t be ignored.”

Whatever the reasons for workingwith some parties and notothers, some of the watchwords

to guide these choices may be trans-parency, accountability and a clear ration-ale that is publicly explained. This processrequires a certain level of capacity withinUNDP country offices, including highlyskilled staff who have a detailed knowl-edge of the political context, and who arecomfortable working with a range ofpolitical platforms regardless of what theirpersonal perspectives might be. In

34

David W. Yang, UNDP Washington, DC:

Some Political Parties

I find myself adhering most closely tothe notion that UNDP should support

only those political parties whose princi-ples are in harmony with the UN Charterand the Universal Declaration of HumanRights. Otherwise, the UN’s core princi-ples are at risk.

It’s easy to mythologize the ideal of UNneutrality. And ironically, in mythologizingthis ideal, we denature it. In its mostfundamental sense, the UN is not neutral:indeed, it stands for the highest principlesof humanity, as illustrated in the UniversalDeclaration and other seminaldocuments.

Our daily work as UN(DP) officials mustbe fully informed by these principles. Weare in the business of promoting keypolitical, economic and social reforms.There is nothing neutral about thismission. How else are we to think ofadvancing the MDGs or of empoweringthe poor and women? While we mustpursue our goals with both strategic andtactical sophistication and sensitivity, wemust disabuse ourselves of the notionthat we are above the fray of the local

political economy of the societies inwhich we are working.

This, of course, does not mean that webrazenly and clumsily show partisanshipin backing certain political parties or civilsociety organizations. But it does meanthat we do not kid ourselves aboutreform inevitably resulting in winners andlosers in politics and economics. It is ourjob to identify and support as best as weare able the most effective anddemocratic agents of change within asociety. To do this well requires that wehave an integrated and comprehensivestrategy of political and economic reform.And to implement such a strategyrequires that we not shrink from support-ing key reformers—whether they aregovernment officials, political partyleaders, or non-governmental activists.

As UNDP progresses in developing itsdemocratic governance practice, wemust continue to grapple with themeaning of UN(DP) neutrality as it appliesto our work. And I believe that if we areto truly progress, we must break throughtraditional concepts of ‘neutrality’ in orderto fashion a new, bolder concept more inharmony with a more activist, pro-democracy and pro-MDG organization.

PER

SPEC

TIV

ES

countries with particularly sensitive situa-tions, there may be concerns related tothe safety of UNDP staff should publicperception begin to view the programmeas supporting a political agenda.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT SUPPORTMuch of the debate on maintainingimpartiality broke around two basicapproaches to programming: direct andindirect. ‘Direct’ support refers to UNDPengaging with or supporting politicalparties as primary partners and or benefi-ciaries in their own right. Examples mightinclude assisting in the development ofparty manifestos, promoting women inpolitical parties, leadership training andthe strengthening of organizational struc-tures. ‘Indirect’ support covers cases whereUNDP engages with or assists politicalparties as secondary partners and/orbeneficiaries. These kinds of programmesoften touch the institutions within whichparties function, and include activities

such as parliamentary development,electoral support, constitutional reformand anti-corruption programmes.

Network discussion participants workingin more sensitive countries where thefears about compromising UNDP’s impar-tiality are greatest tended to favourindirect support, which is viewed as lesspolitically intrusive. Some participantssuggested that in cases where partiesblatantly disregard international standards,UNDP should clearly not provide directforms of organizational capacity develop-ment, and should modulate its support tooffer basic knowledge and informationabout those standards.

35

Benjamin Allen, UNDP Bratislava RegionalCentre:

All Political Parties

Political parties are a key part of thepicture of democratic governance,

yet one that is largely overlooked, exceptby partisan donors such as those associ-ated with political parties. UNDP can helpto fill that gap. However, it is essentialthat we do so in a completely non-parti-san way—offering assistance to parties atany point on the political spectrum. Thiswill mean some difficult decisions—should we include parties that promoteracism, ethnic hatred, particular religions,gender bias or violence? For example,support from the United States, whilebroadly neutral, has long excluded some

kinds of parties. This is understandable,but open to the possibility of abuse, andto charges of political favouritism or inter-ference.

Personally, I think we should avoid thewhole potential morass and supporteveryone. We should say, “Yes, amongothers, we support the party advocatingreplacement of the government with aplutocracy led by white, Hindu,Communist women.”Why? Becausedemocracy requires that everyone have achance to participate, and we help allparties to make their voices heardthrough the democratic process. I don'tfeel that this exhibits indifference tohuman rights. Instead, it demonstratescommitment to democratic principles.

PER

SPEC

TIVES

36

In Zimbabwe, we are providingindirect support that benefits politicalparties through the promotion of

institutions or mechanisms of gover-nance. We are supporting theParliament first and foremost because itis a forum for dialogue between politi-cal parties. Even though the currentinter-party dialogue on the politicalsettlement is being steered by SouthAfrica, our support to Parliament hasnevertheless enabled the two mainpolitical parties to hold constructivediscussions on some key domesticissues. This is very consistent withUNDP’s role as a broker and facilitator ofdialogue, and in helping ourprogramme countries build consensuson national issues.

We are also supporting Parliament toperform its oversight, legislative andrepresentational functions. For example,we have recently helped Parliament setup constituency information centres forthe 120 elected MPs from both parties.These centres belong to the Parliament,but political parties are the main benefi-ciaries. MPs and their constituents can

discuss matters related to theirconstituency and access information.Many UN agencies have agreed toprovide advocacy material for thecentres.

Within Parliament, we are supporting aWomen’s Parliamentarian Caucus, whichis composed of women politicians fromall parties. And when the currentParliament was elected in 2000, UNDPorganized a study tour of the country forall MPs. Because of the apartheid systemof the past, many had never been inother parts of the country and had verylittle knowledge about their resourcesand potential. The tour was an eye-opener. Subsequently, we organizedbudget and pre-budget seminars tohelp MPs from both parties understandthe key challenges of the country andhow the budget could help respond tothem. We have strengthened the capaci-ties of portfolio committees where MPsfrom both parties are represented, andprovided negotiation skills training to allMPs to improve their constructive partic-ipation in parliamentary debates.

Zimbabwe: Indirect Support Builds Institutions, Not Individual ActorsBernard Mokam reported:

UNDP ON THE GROUND

37

In the lead-up to the 2005 Ethiopianparliamentary elections, UNDP soughtto help cultivate a level playing field

for multiple parties. Previously, opposi-tion groups had only managed tocapture a meager 12 out of 547 seats,which dampened the quality of parlia-mentary debate. Since electoral lawprohibits direct financing from bilateraldonors for electoral activities, and politi-cal parties are prohibited from fundrais-ing in the diaspora, UNDP was one ofthe only legal avenues of support forparties. It was also widely viewed ashaving the level of impartiality requiredto fulfill such a sensitive role. A pooleddonor fund to back the programme wasset up under UNDP’s management.

A primary area of support was technicaltraining, which included developing adraft political party code of conduct anda non-violence pact, and providing train-ing on voter registration, polling andcomplaints procedures. With assistancefrom the pooled fund, the NationalElections Board of Ethiopia establishedthe Joint Political Party Forum. It provid-ed an institutionalized arena for the 31contending political parties to meet withthe board and have regular updates onthe elections process. The donor poolalso assisted with the drafting of a mediacode of conduct and the allocation ofequal airtime on public media to allpolitical parties. Both NDI and IRI were

partners in some of these activities.

Campaign finance became a much-debated topic during the course of theprogramme. Donor support began latein the election process, and somedonors maintained that cash support topolitical parties would be the only wayto even out campaign opportunities.UNDP and the majority of donors insist-ed on providing in-kind support in theform of access to printing facilities toproduce campaign flyers and to trans-portation companies so candidatescould campaign in their districts. Theconsulting company ERIS helped devisea formula for support based on thenumber of registered candidates foreach party, the number of regions theparty was contesting and the number ofits female candidates.

After the election was over, there wereindications that many opposition partieshad illegally sought support from thediaspora. Many parties did not takeadvantage of the goods and servicesmade available and only wanted cash.Some donors have since concluded thatsupport might be better channeledtowards advocacy for changing electioncampaign finance laws or should belimited to technical assistance. A casehas also been made to avoid support tofuture campaigning in order to preventdependency on foreign donors.

Ethiopia: In Direct Party Work, Proceed with CareUNDP ON THE GROUND

38

The IMD was established in 2001 by Dutchpolitical parties with seats in theNetherlands House of Representatives. Itsmandate is to support the developmentand/or consolidation of political partiesand multiparty systems in young democra-cies. In its partner countries, the IMD offers amix of direct party assistance and supportfor cross-party initiatives—the exact formu-lation depends on circumstances andextensive consultations in each country.

The missing link of political partiesneeds to be included if democracyis to be consolidated. There is no

way around them. Moreover, the politi-cians in young democracies are open toand interested in engaging in the IMD’scooperation programmes and in a

number of cases in joint ventures withUNDP and others.

Political parties are generally not well-functioning institutions. Opinion pollsalmost everywhere indicate that theybelong to the institutions that are leasttrusted by the general public. The basisof many political parties is often narrowin the case of opposition parties, and inthe case of many governing parties thestate has taken over the functions of theparty. Most parties hibernate untilelections are looming. They usually lackresources to build up institutional capaci-ty to engage constituencies betweenelections. Internal democracy is rarelypracticed. Financial resources depend ona few rich individuals who bankroll asystem of money politics. Oppositionparties are sometimes formed by govern-ing parties as decoys in the political

arena to divide and complicate opposi-tion politics. It takes leadership on thepart of the political elites, constituted byboth governing and opposition parties,to acknowledge that, in the interests ofthe country, the political practice has tochange. By engaging in a dialogueprocess through which the levels of trustincrease, reform proposals can be intro-duced that over time can generate themomentum for a genuine consolidationprocess. Guatemala and Ghana are bothmaking interesting progress with thisapproach.

An important lesson learned is that onecannot engage political parties at facevalue and start by investing money intheir development. In fact, this approachmay add to the problems that fragile and

polarized systems of governance alreadyhave. In young democracies, divisions areoften deep and mistrust rife while statesare weak. International intervention—specifically in the political arena—shouldtake the greatest care not to compoundthe divisions. In the IMD’s experience,political parties should be invited toengage in inter-party and intra-partydialogues that produce a genuine will toreform and agendas for strategic inter-vention to which the internationalcommunity can respond. Failure to meetthese objectives should result in disquali-fication for assistance. Cross-party cooper-ation works in this respect as a usefulinstrument for peer review and socialcontrol to stimulate the performance ofparticipating parties while neutralizingthe inevitable spoilers in political reformprocesses. Generally, direct financial assis-


The Institute for Multiparty Democracy: Some Lessons Learned

39

tance should not be provided unless theagendas have been developed and atransparent and jointly agreed frameworkand modalities are in place.

Because of the many sensitivitiesinvolved, the IMD has encouragedthe political parties in its

programme countries to select eminentpersonalities in their societies tofunction as Advisory Boards to theprogrammes and the IMD. TheseAdvisory Boards have been helpful inavoiding conflicts and in providingguidance with respect to the strategicissues in the partnership relationsbetween the IMD and its counterparts.

Furthermore, a choice had to be madeby the IMD on whether the cooperationshould be limited to the political partiesrepresented in parliament only or should

be extended to all registered politicalparties, including those not elected to berepresented in parliament. In countrieswith free and fair elections, the parties inparliament obtain legitimacy from theelectorate. Again on the basis of consul-tations with all stakeholders, the solutionusually found is that the parties in parlia-ment qualify for direct assistance whilethe cross-party programme is open forparticipation by all registered politicalparties to ensure the inclusive nature ofthe process. In countries with an unrealis-tically large number of registered politicalparties, initial consultations should leadto a preliminary selection of parties to beincluded. In Mali, for example, only 34 ofthe more than 90 registered parties arecurrently participating in the programme.This is still a high number, but theperformance criteria applied are expect-ed to result in the eventual emergence of

a smaller number of serious parties.

The multiparty approach through whichcross-party and direct party assistance ischanneled has earned the IMD substantialpolitical capital among the key politicalstakeholders in the partner countries.However, this approach also poses newchallenges in assuring that agreed reformagendas are implemented. Practical contri-butions are needed to help multipartysystems work better and political partiesperform better. The IMD is in the processof developing more specific indicators forimpact in this field. The strategicprogrammes of cross-party cooperationand of the political parties are an essentialstarting point for monitoring progress.Hopefully, in due course, their impact canbe measured in opinion polls that showwhether perceptions about the perform-ance of political parties have improved.

Political parties sometimes expressthe fear of losing their identities byentering into inter-party dialogue

and cross-party cooperation. In addition,parties may be afraid that the media willexpose them as weak or as selling outwhen entering into dialogue with theirperceived antagonists. The level ofacceptance of parties entering intodialogue is related to the prevailingpolitical cultures of a country. Where amultiparty system exists, people aremore used to dialogue, negotiationsand agreements between parties thanfor example in a two-party system or amultiparty system with a dominantgoverning party. Nevertheless, experi-ence shows that political parties doovercome such fears, once they acceptthat political parties collectively shareresponsibility for sound foundations forthe political system in a country even

40

though their interests differ when itcomes to competing for the support ofthe electorate. In practice, the tworesponsibilities can be well reconciled.

The fact that political parties and politicalsociety have been missing in internationalassistance, while much aid in the contextof democracy support has been investedin civil society, has not contributed toimproved relations between the twosectors in many countries. The animositybetween these two should receive specialattention, so that political parties canbecome less defensive about the advoca-cy roles of civil society organizations andcivil society organizations can becomemore aware that undermining political

parties is not in their interest since suchan approach does not contribute to astable democratic political system.

What counts is developing trustamong the key stakeholders, asthe basis upon which institu-

tionalization of democratic processescan be nourished. Successful povertyreduction and increased human securitypresuppose a deepening of thedemocratic reform processes in whichthe politicians and their political partiesare the key vehicles.

—Excerpted from the 2005 IMD publication“Support for Political Parties and PartySystems: The IMD Approach,” available atwww.nimd.org/default.aspx?menuid=17&type=publicationlist&contentid=&archive=1.


The Institute for MultipartyDemocracy: Some LessonsLearned cont.

SECTION 4: CONSIDERATIONS TOSHAPE A PROGRAMME

CON

SIDERATIO

NS

TO SH

APE A

PROG

RAM

ME

41

ADOPTING A SET OF PRINCIPLESThroughout the network dialogue, partici-pants expressed a desire to have a set ofcorporate principles to help guide UNDP’swork with political parties, while alsoacknowledging that given the diversity ofnational situations, it is probably not possi-ble to devise a one-size-fits-all prescrip-tion. However, very generally, the basicprinciples articulated in the UN Charterand other fundamental UN agreementsremain touchstones for all aspects ofUNDP’s work. The human rights-basedapproach to programming has increasing-ly been embraced within UN agenciesand by the UN Secretary-General. UNDPhas additional corporate standardsdefined by the MYFF developmentdrivers—again, developing nationalcapacities, enhancing national ownership,advocating and fostering an enablingpolicy environment, seeking South-Southsolutions and promoting gender equali-ty—and the service lines, particularlyunder the democratic governance andpoverty reduction practices.

Some participants did attempt topropose principles specifically forpolitical party programming. A clear

‘don’t’ was applied to ever allowingUNDP’s name to be used for electoralpurposes. An obvious ‘do’ is impartiality,but the full implications of this draw onceagain from the country context. Otherbasic principles included:

• Emphasizing indirect and/or issue-basedsupport in situations that are sensitive orotherwise difficult to call

• Respecting the democratic process andalways bearing it in mind as the ultimateobjective of support

• Working with parties that behave respon-sibly and have a ‘project for society’

• Clearly demarcating the line betweencapacity development and endorsement

• Practising transparency and accountability

• Refraining from supporting one party ina way that blocks out whole groups ofother parties

4Considerations to Shape a ProgrammeIn most countries, the first two steps towards considering whether or not to pursue aprogramme for political party support will be a political assessment along the linesdescribed in section II and an investigation of the impartiality issues discussed in sectionIII. The next step involves considering how to shape a programme, described in thefollowing section. This could start with mapping basic guidelines or principles.Questioning assumptions can then help uncover hidden biases that could otherwisemake a programme ineffective or inappropriate. Assessing opportunities should gener-ally be paired with an assessment of risks and, given the sensitivities involved, a plan tomanage them. If a decision is made that a political party programme is feasible, it cangenerally be designed around one or more of four entry points in the political system:the culture and practice of democracy, governance institutions and systems, policyissues and political parties themselves.

• Being practical and realistic aboutUNDP’s internal capacity to interact skill-fully with parties.

Lenni Montiel from UNDP Vietnam andothers suggested the preparation of acode of conduct for UNDP staff andconsultants working with parties. It couldbe based on existing UN and UNDP rules,with specific additional principles to guiderelationships with parties.

Several participants cautioned thatfinancing of parties should automati-cally be excluded from UNDP’s

approach, mainly because this form ofsupport could be most easily misusedand/or perceived as a direct endorsement.But this does not necessarily mean thatthe issue of political party financing per seneed be off limits. This is a pressingconcern in many countries, and UNDP isoften well placed to advise on practicesand legal frameworks governing thepublic and private financing of parties. EricOvervest from UNDP’s Sub-regionalResource Facility in Panama noted: “Thefinancing of political parties is high on theagenda in Latin America, not only becauseof the danger of narco-politics andcorruption but also because it is essentialto a sustainable democratic system.”

Given the complexity and fluidity of manypolitical dynamics, something that may beneeded in all cases is the capacity to beaware, informed, sensitive and tactful. Thiscan start with examining some of theassumptions that, spoken or otherwise,may influence how a country officeconstructs party support.

QUESTIONING ASSUMPTIONSSome of these may make clear sense insome countries; in others they may notapply. Some may seem overly obvious—but as Thomas Carothers has pointed out(see page 16-17), the history of politicalparty assistance has unfortunately beenprone to bypassing an examination ofassumptions, and ended up exportingmodels that may be closer to ideals thanreality. The following list features some keyassumptions to consider that weregathered from the UNDP network discus-sion.

• A multiparty system should always bethe goal.

• Democracy can only exist where thereare political parties.

• Traditional political systems should besubsumed by modern ones.

• Only the big parties are important.

• Only formal governance structures areimportant.

• Working with a parliament is analogousto working with the political partysystem.

• Religious, ethnic and/or regionalalliances automatically threaten politicalstability.

• Programming can’t start until the politi-cal system reaches a certain configura-tion or level of ‘maturity’.

• It is more politically neutral to workthrough NGOs.

• Political parties and civil society areinterchangeable.

• UNDP must take an all-or-nothingapproach to working with politicalparties.

• Partnership can automatically shield

42

UNDP from political fallout (partnersthemselves carry political liabilities; forexample, those associated with formercolonial powers).

• Donors know best.

As a recent, internationally agreed refer-ence point, the outcome document fromthe 2005 High-Level Summit of theGeneral Assembly underscored that whiledemocracies may have common philo-sophical underpinnings, there can bevariations in systems and practices. Itstated: “We reaffirm that democracy is auniversal value based on the freelyexpressed will of people to determinetheir own political, economic, social andcultural systems and their full participationin all aspects of their lives. We also reaffirmthat while democracies share commonfeatures, there is no single model ofdemocracy, that it does not belong to anycountry or region, and reaffirm the neces-sity of due respect for sovereignty and theright for self-determination.”

ASSESSING OPPORTUNITIESIn determining entry points for work withpolitical parties, it may help to start withquestions that will frame the countrycontext, and provide an understanding ofUNDP’s existing capacity, strengths andweaknesses. Many network dialogueparticipants emphasized that the point ofdeparture must be careful strategicplanning that includes a needs assessmentas well as analysis of goals and objectives,target audiences, personnel, modalities,timing and so on. The following questionsemerged from the discussion:

• Is the country office equipped to workwith political parties in terms ofresources and staff skills? There may be aneed for high-level political analysis,negotiation and training skills.

• What forms of support for political partyprogramming are available within UNDPat large? To whom in the UN systemshould UNDP turn for advice and expert-ise? When should UNDP contact DPA(see also section II)? In crisis situations,the Special Representative for theSecretary-General must be consulted.

• What forms of support are availableoutside UNDP, including throughpartnerships with other donors, politicalparty organizations, NGOs, etc.? (Seesection VI for ideas.)

• Does UNDP have something different orbetter to offer?

• Should support be invited or negotiatedas part of an overall UNDP CountryProgramme?

• If UNDP has been asked to work withparties, why? What is the motivation ofthe government and/or partiesthemselves?

• Realistically, how much ‘neutrality capital’does UNDP have to work with in a givencountry, especially given that opinionsof UN impartiality vary within nationsand regions?

• Is there an existing history of work withparties?

• How would working with parties fit intoUNDP’s Country Programme, particularlyin terms of democratic governance andpoverty reduction?

• Should parties be engaged in theCommon Country Assessment/UNDevelopment Assistance (UNDAF) andCountry Programme processes?

• Are there synergies with civil society andmedia development work, even if thecountry office decides not to workdirectly with parties?

43

• Is there a need for complementarycapacity development within othersectors for political party support to beeffective?

• How would working with partiessupport national priorities, as articulatedby the government as well as by civilsociety, the media, community groups,etc.?

• Has a thorough assessment of thecountry’s political system and situationbeen carried out? Is a stakeholder analy-sis important? What are the primarypublic perceptions of the country’squality of governance?

• What are the benefits and liabilities ofworking with some/no/all parties?

• If the decision is made to work with onlyselected political parties, can UNDPprovide a clear, transparent rationale fordoing so? What would be the anticipat-ed public response?

• Are both formal and informal gover-nance processes understood?

• Where is the country in the election cycle?

• Which parties conform to a country’slaws governing party formation andfinancing?

• How do support needs differ betweenparties in government and thoseoutside?

• In the case of party strengtheningprogrammes, what degree of resistancecan be anticipated from those who thinkthey won’t benefit or may lose ground,namely, parties in power?

• Is there a need for a formal consultationwith the government? Does it makesense to obtain a non-objection agree-ment from the government or rulingparties?

44

The UNDP Saudi Arabia CountryOffice conducted a brainstorm-ing session in October 2004 to

explore why or why not and how toengage with political parties.

The first aspect for thorough discussionwas the political context. Viewed fromthe global angle, the 1990s witnessed awave of overwhelming democratizationand for good reason. In reality, there is asolid world consensus, as demonstratedby the Millennium Summit in 2000, thatdemocratic governance must underpinnational efforts to reduce poverty,sustain the environment and promotehuman development.

From the national perspective, SaudiArabia has recently embarked on areform agenda whereby genuine publicparticipation is being seriously consid-ered. This is expected to be subjectedto scrutiny in two counts: first by thevoters in the municipal elections thattook place in November 2004, in whichUNDP provided policy assistance inclose coordination with the EAD;second, scrutiny has been undertakenin terms of extensive reporting tocapture the lessons learned and toexpose the experience to specialistanalysis utilizing the rosters of interna-tional experts at the UN System.Moreover, the National Forum forDialogue has been established with theobjective of fostering debate amongscholars and intellectuals from all walksof life.

The discussions at the Country Officecovered political parties, their theoreti-

Saudi Arabia: Debating How to ProceedUNDP CO reports:

UNDP ON THE GROUND

45

cal definitions and empirical implica-tions, and their role as a vehicle of goodgovernance, with a focus on the peculi-arity of the political context of eachcountry. In the Arab region, which maybe the geopolitical litmus test ofrelevance, societies are seen as not yetwell developed enough to allow the freeformulation of political parties that canexpress the vested interests of theirrespective societies or constituencies. Asfor Saudi Arabia, where there are nopolitical parties, it is premature to speakabout lending support to somethingthat is nonexistent.

The Country Office went through thepros and cons of UNDP’s engagementwith political parties. The issue at stakewas seen as context-specific and, there-fore, each Country Office should careful-ly weigh the benefits of suchinterventions against the possibility oftampering with the corporate coreassets of neutrality and impartiality.Particular emphasis was put on UNReform and the reiteration of UNDP’sstance, as expressed by theAdministrator in addressing theExecutive Board, that our focus shouldremain on assisting developingcountries in their own efforts to improvethe lives of their people. We are thesupporters and partners of programmecountries, not political parties, currentsor movements.

The discussions also affirmed the viabili-ty of nurturing sustainable human devel-opment by creating an enablingenvironment that builds on the successof UNDP in supporting good gover-

nance. True, we should avoid dictatingagendas. It is equally true that UNDP haslong been pursuing the interests of itsconstituencies—namely, those who livein poverty—and that supporting politi-cal parties might not be one of thethorniest issues for the poor at thisparticular time. But to maintain ourstatus as a partner of relevance, wecould still support the gradual evolutionof things rather than posing as a revolu-tionary advocate for change, includingthe creation of political parties wherethey have never existed.

In conclusion, the Country Officereached a consensus to avoid jeopard-izing UNDP’s image as a trusted

partner for the Government, a partnerthat has long been known as veryneutral and sincerely impartial. Onlythrough these strategic advantages canUNDP meet its mandate to advocate forpolicy issues and build national consen-sus around concerns meant to fostersustainable human development.

ASSESSING AND MANAGING RISKSBecause political dynamics can fluctuatewidely and rapidly, and because the stakescan be higher in working with partiesthan in other aspects of developmentgovernance programming, it is crucial toassess the risks in advance and if possibleput in place a plan with the mechanismsto manage them. Lenni Montiel fromUNDP Vietnam raised the issue of whatwould happen if UNDP is accused ofserious wrong-doings, whether they aresubstantive or the result of media manipu-lation or contesting political factions. “IsUNDP ready to deal with these situationscorporately? What do we do in caseallegations are serious? How do we ensurethat appropriate provisions are taken tominimize such risks?”

As pointed out in Section III, the mostfundamental risk is that UNDP’s reputationfor trust and neutrality could be damaged,with a worst-case scenario involving acharge of illegal interference in nationalaffairs.

Another pitfall could be that UNDP isperceived as a source of resources, andpolitical parties form just to tap them. Ifthere is a large number of parties andUNDP decides it has to support them all,there would be a risk that a programme oflimited duration and resources would bediluted.

Some concerns relate to the ways partyneeds change during election cycles. Alack of understanding of different phasescould result in crafting programmes witha limited impact. This also applies moregenerally to political dynamics at large.

In cases where the culture of democracy isvery weak, targeted assistance to partiescould prove ineffective, as parties won’thave a supportive environment in whichto function. Special issues arise in situa-

tions where political systems are heavilydriven by personalities, at the expense ofsystems to moderate individual ambitions.Amadou Mamadou from UNDP Cameroongoes so far as to say that “an institutionallyled system (rather than a chief-led systemas we know is operating in many Africancountries) should be one of the maincriteria for support.”

Many network discussion participantshighlighted that one of the primary toolsfor managing risks is maintaining a highlevel of transparency and accountability inimplementing the programme. Otherstrategies could include regular consulta-tions, developing a network of personalrelationships, routine monitoring of partyactivities, and a media or communicationsplan in the event something does gowrong.

Francesca Cooke from the UNDP OsloGovernance Centre advocated regularconflict analysis and mechanisms to dealpeacefully with potential conflicts. Sheunderscored, “Support to political partieshas high potential for creating tensionsand conflicts, as well as an increase inattempts to wrestle or maintain power byother means (corruption, cronyism,control of business and money, etc.),especially in countries with little history ofdemocratic systems.”

The flip side of the risk of working withparties is the risk of not working withthem. As described in Section I, it isincreasingly clear in a number of countriesthat democratic governance, humandevelopment and poverty reductionstrategies may not move forward withouta functioning party system.

ENTRY POINTS FOR PROGRAMMINGThere was broad agreement in thenetwork discussion that political partiesare integral parts of most governance

46

systems, and that the different parts ofthese systems interact in ways that affectthe functioning of the whole. Four basicentry points for working on the role ofpolitical parties in democratic governanceseemed to present themselves: the overallpolitical environment, including theculture and practice of democracy; gover-nance institutions and processes, such aselections, legislative frameworks andparliaments; an array of development

policy issues, from poverty reduction togender; and the parties themselves, interms of operational and other capacities.In actual practice, these entry points oftenoverlap, as is evident in the country casestudies presented in Section V.

The culture and practice of democracy:This entry point generally involves initia-tives to nurture practices such as toler-ance, good citizenship, respect for others,

47

Håvard Aagesen, UNDP Oslo GovernanceCentre:

Three Capacity Challenges

In fostering strong and vibrant democ-racies there are, in my view, three main

challenges that relate directly to the roleand capacity of political parties:

First, there is the ‘democratic capacity’ ofthe political parties themselves. I believethat developing this capacity is probablythe main entry point for UNDP’s engage-ment. Given the very special attributes ofpolitical parties—their key role indecision-making processes—it is vitalthat they also have the resources andcapacity needed to represent andrespond to broad interests in society, andhave an outreach beyond the social andeconomic elites of their country.

The second challenge involves thecapacity of political parties to functionwithin a framework where both donor-driven demands and strong civil societyorganizations might overpower politicalparties as actors in the political decision-making process. When rebuilding Norwayafter World War II, there was a processwhere American donor funds (theMarshall Plan) included one financialtransfer, and (at least in principle) aprocess where decisions in the parlia-

ment prioritized the use of the money.Developing countries and their politicalinstitutions are confronted with a funda-mentally different reality. Funds aredistributed through thousands ofchannels, mostly with some conditionsattached to them. UNDP should assume aspecific responsibility to ensure that thepolitical institutions of our partnercountries can exercise their mandate inprioritizing and implementing thepolicies of the country.

Finally, political issues are increasinglyregional issues, and are met withsolutions at a regional level. Some issues,such as the HIV/AIDS pandemic, are ofsuch fundamental importance that theefforts to address them are extraordinary,and therefore sometimes take placeoutside traditional decision-makingprocedures. For political parties, insideand outside parliaments, to relate to andengage in these processes, capacity andresources are needed. UNDP should helpfacilitate the ability of national politicalbodies and their parties to take a strongerrole in these.

Solutions addressing all of these threepoints will lead to activities where politi-cal parties are operating in a space ofcommon interests across what normallydivides them.

PER

SPEC

TIVES

respect for the balance of power, account-ability and transparency. Activities mayinclude public awareness campaigns,voter education and multiparty dialogueprocesses, and may extend to work tostrengthen the media and NGOs, and toincrease the participation of excludedgroups, such as through training womenon leadership and political skills. Work onthis level may be most important whendemocracy is nascent or troubled, includ-ing in post-conflict situations. Severalcontributors noted that a fundamentalproblem in their countries was the inabili-ty to recognize that political conflict canbe managed, rather than suppressed.

The Executive Director of the IMD, Roelvon Meijenfeldt, points out, “In practisingdemocracy, perhaps too much emphasishas been put on the competitive functionof democracy as highlighted in elections.In developing trust in the democraticsystem of governance, other functions ofdemocracy should not be neglected, suchas accommodative and reconciliatoryfunctions. Hence the process throughwhich democracy is constructed, with afocus on participation, inclusiveness, toler-ance and consensus building, needsgreater emphasis over the often dominat-ing focus on competition and rivalry. For astable democracy, the different functionsneed to be carefully balanced.”5

5 See the IMD publication A Framework for Democratic Party Building: A Handbook, published in 2004, at www.nimd.org/upload/publica-tions/2004/imd_institutional_development_handbook-a4.pdf.

48

Steve Glovinsky, UNDP New York, Bureau for Development Policy:

Reaching the People in theParties

B ack in my career as a ‘policy special-ist’, many assignments I tackled dealt

with political change—decentralizationof power, transition to democracy, admin-istrative reform, etc. Invariably, whateverthe political situation, my approach wasto seek out the one person who, againstwhatever odds and often at great person-al risk, was attempting to change thesystem to bring about a more responsiveand responsible government. Sometimesthis person was high up in the systemand sometimes not. But in every singlecountry I worked in, I always managed tofind one—most of the time they werewell known by the UNDP programmeofficer I worked with.

My message was basically, “We’re fromthe UN. How can we support you toachieve your goals?” It was empoweringto my colleague, but it meant a lot ofresponsibility on my part to follow

through. I could always get on a plane;the change agent could not.

The bottom line here is that UNDP doesnot deal with political parties or withregimes; fundamentally, we deal with thepeople in them. We can work with politi-cal parties if we hook up with the seriousand committed change agents withinthem, and strengthen their hand for whatthey aspire to do: help their governmentwork better—to be more effective,efficient and responsive to the needs andaspirations of all its people.

Sometimes it is holding a forum todiscuss topical issues; sometimes it ispromoting Human Development Reportsor MDG Reports that tell the leaders moreabout the people they serve. Yes, weneed to be perceived as neutral and notopenly supportive of one politicalviewpoint or another, but a lot can bedone with political parties from both anadvocacy and a capacity-strengtheningperspective. It’s just a matter of findingone serious politician (or person able toinfluence the political platform) who isinterested in our help.

PER

SPEC

TIV

ES

One approach often raised in the networkdiscussion as a relatively low-risk way ofeasing into political party programming isto convene party dialogues. These bringdifferent players together to discuss theirissues and concerns, and perhaps learnnew methods of conflict resolution andconsensus building. Costa Rica is one ofseveral Latin American countries usingthis approach. A recent topic has been‘Representation and Participation’, whichdelved into subjects including the crisis ofrepresentation in both political partiesand electoral models, and political partiesand political exclusion. “Through socialdialogue with relevant actors belongingto different political and social groups weexpect to reach a minimum consensus orform ‘coalitions’ for future work that willnecessarily involve political parties,” saidRaquel Herrera. She added that in theCosta Rica experience, “Social dialogueinitiatives can be useful for identifyingsensitive issues as well as for identifyingpromising areas for UNDP’s support in agiven political context.”

Governance institutions and processes:Programmes in this area are some of themost common and traditional acrossUNDP. They include parliamentary devel-opment, electoral support, constitutionaland/or legislative reform, decentralizationsupport, anti-corruption initiatives, andinformation and communications technol-ogy for e-governance. Specific initiativesinvolving parties have comprisedstrengthening or establishing regulatoryframeworks for parties; training membersof parliament on awareness of the consti-tution and parliamentary procedures, aswell as tasks such as budgetary oversight;assisting the creation of Web sites andelectronic networks; helping to reviewground rules to maximize fair play amongparties; taking steps to increase women’srole in parliament; and supporting the

establishment of independent electoralbodies.

Policy issues: Another approach is tofocus on sensitizing political players onwhatever are the most relevant develop-ment issues—the MDGs, poverty reduc-tion, HIV/AIDS and so on. This can happenthrough dialogues, by distributing infor-mation directly to parties or through themedia, or by holding workshops andround table discussions. Mounir Tabetfrom UNDP’s Regional Bureau for ArabStates suggested preparing one uniformpackage of information on policies, issues,and policy stances related to the UNagenda and human development. “Thiscould be delivered to all political partieswith a clear written indication that thispackage is sent to all equally and does notmean endorsement of one party or anoth-er.” He also proposed asking nationalelections commissions to sponsormeetings for all electoral stakeholdersduring which UNDP could “advocate thehuman development message.” He added,“This also can be done through parlia-ments, but we need to ensure that thoseparties that are not represented are alsoincluded.”

Several contributors favoured an issue-based rather than a party-based approachto programming as a surer way ofmaintaining UNDP’s impartiality. “Theformula is to promote those programmesthat are focused on general developmentand that are common to all of the parties,”wrote Wendy Cuellar from UNDPGuatemala. In some countries, the pointsof commonality may be easier to find thanin others. Dan Dionise warned that whilesome issues may be generally applicable,like increasing the political participation ofwomen and the poor, others may dependheavily on local context.

Steve Glovinsky from the Bureau for

49

50

In 2005, UNDP Benin began providingdirect support to political partiesthrough the Democratic Governance

Thematic Trust Fund. The objective is tostrengthen the capacity of politicalparties in dialogue and consensusbuilding, and to establish a code ofprofessional ethics. Benin has oftenbeen cited as a reference for Africandemocracy, since its extraordinarytransition in the 1990s from a one-partysocialist regime to a multipartydemocratic system. We see today aremarkable freedom of the press andexpression, and the emergence ofnearly 150 political parties, althoughthe latter also presents new challenges.

Over the years, UNDP Benin has directly orindirectly involved political parties as astakeholder group through capacitydevelopment projects with the NationalAssembly and electoral support. In aparliamentary programme on bolsteringbudget analysis capacities, for example,the opposition party appreciates thetechnical analysis provided by the projectexperts, which helps them interrogateministers with more rigour and substance,even if they are still politically driven tooppose the budget proposal. It would befurther progress if this could help actuallyachieve consensus around commonobjectives based on technical grounds.Inspired by the experience of Niger, theBeninese National Assembly membershave now started multipartisan publicconsultations to review legislation, withUNDP assistance. Both the assemblymembers and citizens have said theyappreciate the joint presence of politiciansfrom majority and opposition partieslistening to issues that concern the public.

Another UNDP initiative has involved theevaluation of past elections. A forumorganized in 2003 led to a consensusamong majority and opposition partieson the methodology and the institution-al framework of a permanent voter regis-ter slated to be in place for thepresidential elections in March 2006.However, when the government startedto deviate from the original consensus,confidence was lost, and the process wascaught amidst the vicissitudes of politicalforces. It was only in July 2005 thatParliament finally adopted the revision ofthe electoral laws, and the process wasable to regain its momentum.

While these interventions to reinforceformal democratic institutions andmechanisms are critical, they are notsufficient in the quest for better gover-nance. What is more entrenched anddifficult is to deal with informal, ‘under-hand’ political interventions in theexecutive and judiciary arms, whichundermine trust in formal processes.Political parties and their leaders haveconsiderable influence over thefunctioning of government institutionsand virtually all other aspects of publiclife, including the press, civil society andthe private sector. Without strengthen-ing the awareness and capacity of politi-cal parties on how they can play a moreeffective role in the governance of thecountry, it will be difficult to achievedevelopment goals, including the MDGs.

After key political parties themselvesexpressed interest in developing theircapacities, UNDP embarked on theDemocratic Governance Thematic TrustFund project, with the first step being the

Benin: Changing a Political CultureMikiko Sasaki and Moustapha Soumare from UNDP Benin reported:

UNDP ON THE GROUND

Development Policy at UNDP in New Yorkreferred to a project in Latin America thatsponsored a national conference oncorruption six months before an election.Key political candidates participated, andvarious campaign promises to combatcorruption resulted. When one of thecandidates won the Presidency, UNDP wasin a position to offer to help them followup.

Political parties: This entry point involvesworking with political parties themselves,generally through direct forms of support.Many of these relate to capacity develop-ment. On the operational end, partiesneed capacities to exercise effective politi-cal leadership, communicate, negotiate,build consensus, manage conflict, plancampaigns, strengthen organizationalstructures, raise funds, work with themedia, develop party platforms andmessages, and cultivate other technicalskills. Some capacities relate to internaldemocracy, such as improving the partici-pation and leadership of women withinthe parties, or to strengthening links withconstituencies, such as by establishingdistrict outreach centres. Parties have tobe able to carry out civic educationcampaigns, and to diagnose and under-stand people’s needs and problems.

Other capacities may relate to theethics of governance and settingup codes of conduct. Audax Rutta

from UNDP Tanzania noted, “A quick tourof political parties in Tanzania suggeststhese have many common needs, includ-ing a clear understanding of their respon-sibilities and obligations with regard tonation building, fair and mature politics,political integrity and political tolerance.”Specific issues comprise the rights andresponsibilities of public office, fundingand funding disclosure, campaigning,parliamentary roles and functions, and

51

establishment of a consultation forum todraft the code of ethics and validate thefinal document. The forum comprisespolitical parties, civil society organiza-tions, religious establishments, andgovernment and donor representatives.Training in leadership and communica-tion skills is being offered to the parties.

An initial challenge was to agree onwhich parties should be included in theforum. It would have been operational-ly difficult for all 150 parties to partici-pate, and this might offer anunnecessary incentive to create morepolitical parties. While criteria weredeveloped in close consultation with anarray of national counterparts beforethe first meeting as the basis for the listof invitees, participants reopened theissue. After some debate, they finallyagreed that participating parties wouldbe those in conformity with the Charterof Political Parties, and represented inthe National Assembly and/or at themunicipal and district levels. Eighteenparties met these criteria. Work on thecode of ethics is now moving forward.

In the words of Robert Dossou, an ex-minister who spoke at the forum, Beninis still in a democratic transition. Benin’spolitical parties need to learn to engagein actions based on conviction, and noton gains and interests; they need to beable to consider the society as a wholeas well as other political parties whoseviewpoints naturally differ; they need todifferentiate political engagement fromadministrative obligations and notinterfere with the administration andthe running of the economy; and theyneed to invest not only in elections butin strengthening their capacity toconceive and deliver programmes.

poll monitoring. Rutta also referred to thecapacity of political parties to fully graspand participate in regional and interna-tional issues such as the MDGs, globaliza-tion and the New Partnership for AfricanDevelopment.

Other forms of support mentioned in thenetwork discussion included the provisionof materials, for example, to carry outcampaigns. There were suggestions tobuild stronger links between parties anddevelopment actors, including UNDP,possibly through party participation in theUNDP programming process.

FUNDING CONSIDERATIONSGiven that political party assistance is arelatively new area for UNDP, countryoffices may need to consider fundingoptions. Few Country Programmes havebeen written with a significant compo-nent devoted to political parties; most stillemphasize governing institutions. CountryProgrammes are more flexible than theyused to be, however, and with the UNsystem’s move towards harmonizing andsimplifying programmes and other proce-dures, additional flexibility will comethrough the Country Programme ActionPlan and the corresponding Annual WorkPlans, which can be amended more easily.

One current alternative is the DemocraticGovernance Thematic Trust Fund, whichoffers funding up to a pre-determinedceiling per year to projects that are experi-mental, catalytic and innovative. The ideais that these projects can benefit thecountries where they are implemented,but can also benefit UNDP at large bydemonstrating what works and what doesnot, charting new territory and in generalfurthering UNDP’s work in the democraticgovernance practice. The fund allowscountry offices to develop projects thatrespond to more immediate needs

compared to the Country Programmes.Trust fund grants may also be the place tostart exploring what the prospects andpossibilities for party programming arewithin a given country.

52

53

Abdul Hannan, UNDP New York, Operations Support Group:

Are We Missing the Mark?

Our approaches to democratization,and indeed those of the democracy

community at large, may be hitting therocks because we are reaching the limits ofa simplistic ‘transition paradigm’. In agrowing number of instances, it’s becom-ing hard to sustain arguments thatcountries are ‘progressing steadily’ towardsestablishing ‘viable democratic polities’.Such arguments stick persistently to the‘stages of development’ logic touted bygenerations of developmentalists, despitedevelopment being anything but logical.These assumptions are powerful andentrenched, yet how many of our countryexperiences subscribe to these rationalsequences? The lived experience in a greatmany polities is not sequential, but simulta-neous, with modernity meeting traditionhead on in different combinations andproducing different outcomes. The transi-tion paradigm downplays or obscuresthese complexities when what we need isto understand them more.

What are we missing in our calculations?For a start, the chasm between politicaland economic elites on the one hand,and citizens on the other, are rooted indeeper factors such as societal composi-tion, colonial infrastructure and ecologicalendowments, which typically such thingsas elections, parliamentary developmentand public sector reform do not confrontand probably cannot overcome. Also, let’sremember that many countries havebeen forced to roll back the state overthe past 20 years, which has denied themthe apparatus needed for minimal politi-cal integration (this ideological attack onall things ‘public’ has taken place even incountries where the state wasn’t rolled

forward in the first place). Add to this theremoval of economic decision-making tosupra-national levels, which is changingthe meaning of sovereignty and makingthe exercise of national affairs less repre-sentational and more symbolic. In fact,one can observe that the pomp of ritual-ized spectacles used by political elites tojustify their authority is sometimesinversely related to the ability of thesesame elites to act effectively in thenational interest. These and other funda-mentals are, in my view, feeding disaffec-tion with the democracy encounter.

So, where will our faith in the transitionparadigm of democratization leave us inthe short term? At risk of missing themark? The reassertion of non-democraticpractices through the very process ofdemocratic reform; the mutation ofreactionary forces into legitimate politicalplayers; the overwhelming of the politicalby the economic and the replacement ofthe public by the private; the growingdisaffection with, and dysfunction of,political discourse: these are the sort ofissues we need to grapple with as part ofhybrid and differentiated political realities,rather than as awkward bumps on theroad to liberal democracy. This can onlyhappen when we accept the following:The transition paradigm has had a goodrun for its money. It has produced headyoptimism and long queues at pollingbooths around the world. Subsequentexperiences, however, are taking us indirections that require a new way ofapproaching the democracy experience.

In sum, we need a new paradigm, orparadigms, or non-paradigms, for the nextgeneration of governance work. The individ-ual experiences of polities should be ourstarting point, not the linear assumptions oftransition. Unless we do this, we may strug-gle to remain relevant to the needs of thepolitical cultures in which we work.

PER

SPEC

TIVES

54

It is easy for political parties to claimthat they have democraticallycontested elections, acquired power,

and now control the resources andpersonnel of government. The moredifficult question is whether politicalparties are organized in a manner thatensures internal party democracy.

Internal party democracy impliessupport for the general interest of theparty membership, the public and thestate. It means that party structures andorganization are participatory and inclu-sive, essentially vehicles for the exerciseof nascent democratic leadership andvalues. Internally democratic parties areagents of collective action and not the

monopoly of the few to the exclusion ofthe majority. No political party qualifiesfor being called democratic if itsmembership criteria or committee structure excludes certain social groupsfor class, race, gender or religiousconsiderations.

Political parties assign certain powersand duties to some of their leaders andcommittees to manage the party as anorganization, guided by party regulationsthat sanction the decisions they take. Butin some cases, the range of responsibili-ties and resources with which partyleaders are entrusted is so broad itencourages the abuse of power. Internalpolitical party governance therefore isone of the most delicate, vulnerable anddifficult functions to manage indemocratic societies.

In Africa, at least six challenges confrontinternal party democracy:

The dominance of elites: Although politi-cal parties are on the whole elitedominated, African political parties areparticularly so. High levels of political illit-eracy mean the relatively easy manipula-tion of political processes based onethnicity, community allegiances,religion, party pledges, etc.

Non-competitive leadership selection/election and succession: Although mostpolitical party internal regulations are clearabout holding regular and periodicleadership elections, the ‘founding-fathers’are, in most cases, confirmed, whichmakes a mockery of competitive politics.

Discriminatory selection of candidates:Although some African political partiesfare well on the representation ofwomen and socially disadvantageminorities in the legislature and as candi-dates to contest elections, most deliber-ately marginalize these groups.

Client-patron relationships: Politicalparty tycoons and the oligarchies’kickbacks make party leaders behave likeparty bosses who use governmentresources to boost political privileges.Client-patron relationships often developwhen the client offers his/her vote in theparty leadership election in expectationof the patron’s favours once confirmedin office.


The Challenges of Internal Party Democracy in AfricaM. A. Mohamed Salih

55

Lack of regular and periodic consulta-tion with the grass-roots: This is a world-wide trend, along with lost confidencein politicians and political parties.Although the situation differs from oneAfrican country to another, ‘absentee’party representatives and committeemembers who emerge only to mobilizevoters during election time arecommon.

Lack of accountability and transparencyin party finance: Despite legislationintended to regulate party financing(donations, election campaign expendi-tures and audit of political partyaccounts), financial exchanges are oftendifficult to verify and involve murkyinteractions between those whosupport an ideology, expect paybacks orwant to fulfill political ambitions. In

most African countries, political partiesdepend on a small core group ofindividuals, businessmen and women,foreign donors, party-to-party networksand fraternal organizations for fundingtheir activities.

Some of these challenges could beaddressed by better legislation, the firmerinstitutionalization of democratic values,and improvements in the overall socio-economic and political environment.Despite their other faults, African parties ingeneral still also contend with the burdenof high levels of underdevelopment thatcan weaken democracy—widespreadpoverty, relatively high levels of illiteracy,and a widening income gap between thehaves and have-nots as well as rural-urbandisparities.

In addition, most African politicalparties do not yet fully own theirpolitical agendas. A globalized notion

of party-based democracy operateswithin the confines of a neo-liberalglobalization that makes politicssubservient to the market. This hasshaped not only political party ideolo-gies, with the triumph of neo-liberalismover its more radical opponents(communism and military socialism),but also imposed economic and socialpolicy reforms that no political party canescape complying with. These are alsoreasons why African parties lose credi-bility among their electorates, who feelthat the parties are not worthy of theirsupport.

—M. A. Mohamed Salih is Professor ofPolitics at the Institute of Social Studies, The

Hague, and a member of the IDEA WorldPanel on Political Parties. This contribution

was prepared for this handbook.

SECTION 5: HOW IS UNDP ALREADYOFFERING ASSISTANCE?

HO

W IS U

ND

PA

LREAD

Y OFFERIN

GA

SSISTAN

CE?

57

COUNTRY EXAMPLESThe following examples of UNDP’s existingwork with parties, drawn from themapping and the network dialogue,highlight some of the specific program-matic approaches that country offices aretaking, using one or more of the sets ofentry points identified in Section IV. Fromcapacity development to conflictmanagement to multiparty dialogues, theexamples feature activities that frequentlycharacterize UNDP political party assis-tance, in line with the corporate prioritiesreflected in the service lines and the MYFFdevelopment drivers.

Capacity development: TanzaniaAcquiring new skills for campaigningIn Tanzania, political party capacity devel-opment was an integral part of anelectoral support programme designedaround the 2005 election. One of theprogramme’s primary goals was to assist“the effective preparation and conduct ofa free and fair electoral process…fullyrecognized as such by political parties and

domestic and international observergroups.”To this end, it featured a menu ofcapacity development projects—for theNational Electoral Commission, civil socie-ty, the media, the police and politicalparties. A joint donor basket supportedthe programme, comprising 11 donorsand administered by a programmemanagement unit under the auspices ofUNDP. NDI assisted with the political partycomponent.

Tanzania has 18 political parties, but theruling party dominates the political scene.Only three to four opposition parties canclaim to be nationally visible, and of these,some have influence only in specificregions. In the 2000 election, the alreadysmall number of seats held by oppositionparties actually declined. “Smaller partiesstruggle for relevance, resources andrecognition,” noted Margie Cook fromUNDP Tanzania.

The goal of the party capacity develop-ment project was to help level the playing

5How Is UNDP Already Offering Assistance?A recent mapping exercise by UNDP’s Oslo Governance Centre found that 43 UNDPcountry offices, representing all five geographical regions, are offering some form ofpolitical party support. Most of these projects fall under three service lines: electoralsystems and processes, parliamentary development and policy support for democraticgovernance. Initiatives can be loosely grouped into six areas of focus: capacity develop-ment for members of parliament, capacity development for political parties, enhancingpolitical party engagement in dialogue processes, increasing women’s political partici-pation, improving electoral systems and processes, and strengthening political partysystems.

Sixteen country offices say they are engaging directly with parties, and 28 indirectly.One office is involved on both levels (see chart on page 58). There are wide variationsregionally.

field by increasing party capacities toengage in political and electoral process-es, mainly through a series of national andregional training workshops. Nationalseminars brought together all parties andhosted prominent speakers who weremostly current or former politicalleaders—some came from other Africancountries. They spoke on subjects such asexperiences in moving from opposition toruling party status, constitutional issuesand internal party democracy. Otherseminars briefed parties on the mainmessages being delivered through theelectoral assistance programme’s NGOand media components, which wereoriented around a civic educationprogramme that parties later publiclyendorsed.

Parties worked with the ElectoralManagement Authority on a comprehen-sive programme to train party poll-watch-ers. They were also invited to identify thoseissues where their capacity developmentneeds were the greatest. On the basis oftheir responses, training was designed forspecific parties, covering, among otherthings, mass mobilization techniques,campaign strategies, political communica-tions and methods for engaging withconstituents. To bring parties closer to their

constituencies, these sessions took place indifferent regions of Tanzania.

Cook dubbed the responses to theproject “very warm and enthusias-tic.” Achievements included the

increasing participation of women politi-cians during the course of the project, thegrowing visibility of some oppositionparties in the regions, and the stepped upinvolvement of ward and district leaders.Closer links grew between party leadersand members in regions whereworkshops were held. These events delib-erately provided time for internal partymeetings, a tacit acknowledgment thatparties strapped for resources oftencannot perform the basic task of gather-ing their members together.

Policy-making: Honduras A commission to debate electoral reformLong-needed electoral reforms inHonduras fell by the wayside first due toconflict in Central America during the1980s and then during the necessarydemilitarization period that absorbed the1990s. But by the end of the latter decade,the need for electoral reform was onceagain apparent, and civil society beganactively lobbying for it during the 2001election campaigns.

58

0 2 4 6 8 10

Latin America andthe Caribbean

(13 countries)

Europe and the CIS(four countries)

Asia and the Pacific(nine countries)

A Regional Picture of UNDP’s Direct and Indirect Support

Arab States (five countries)

Africa (12 countries)

DirectIndirect Both

Source: UNDP’s Engagement with Political Parties, 2005, UNDP Oslo Governance Centre.

A Regional Picture of UNDP’s Direct and Indirect Support

In May of that year, the five primarypolitical parties established the PoliticalCommission of the Honduran Political

Parties. Its purpose was to set up adialogue mechanism before the electionsto discuss electoral reform. The commis-sion included high-level representationfrom each party—the president, vice-president, secretary-general, etc., all withdecision-making power. One or twomembers represented each party,depending on human resources, but allparties enjoyed only one vote in thecommission regardless of their number ofappointees or size of legislative represen-tation. The parties agreed that consensuswould be the rule for decision-making.

The commission asked UNDP to help facil-itate the dialogue, and UNDP acceptedunder two conditions: First, the negotia-tions should address structural reformissues and not just short-term problems,and second, UNDP’s intervention shouldnot be taken as a warrant for complyingwith commission decisions (this responsi-bility lay completely with the parties).

In September, the commission issued the“Statement of the Political Parties to theHonduran People,” which addressedelectoral reform steps advocated by civilsociety. These included separating theCitizen Registry Department from theSupreme Electoral Court, and promotingthe independence and autonomy of both;amending the Constitution to allowplebiscites and referendums; regulatingand reducing electoral campaigns; regulat-ing and recognizing alliances betweenpolitical parties; improving the financialcontrol mechanisms for political partyfunding; searching for a new electionmodel for legislative elections; revising thesystem of presidential appointees; anddrafting a new electoral law

The commission agreed that the winning

party in the November elections wouldcomply with this agreement, and wouldbe supported by the rest of the parties. ALegal Commission, also facilitated byUNDP, was created to help the PoliticalCommission draft constitutional reformsand new laws. By November, the legisla-ture had approved the last of the constitu-tional reforms. Since then, the PoliticalCommission has remained as an openspace for egalitarian discussion amongparties about political reform issues,contributing to improved public percep-tion of political parties and their willing-ness to respond to public concerns.

Elections: CambodiaParties make the newsUNDP projects with parties in Cambodiahave been tailored to different phases ofthe elections cycle. Before the NationalAssembly poll in 2003, the democraticgovernance programme focused initiallyon assistance to help review and amendthe 1998 Electoral Law, which resulted inthe formation of a new National ElectionCommission. Several major electoralmanagement changes followed, includingthe creation of a permanent voter register,a new election security apparatus and amove to counting ballots at thecommune level. UNDP also took the leadin coordinating development partners forthe election preparations.

With the new National ElectionCommission up and running, UNDPpartnered with the commission, theMinistry of Information and the statemedia on a project to introduce equitablecoverage of parties’ election campaigns.“Equity News” became a programmebroadcast on the main state television andradio stations. It marked Cambodia’s firstcomprehensive coverage of elections, andthe first time that all parties, includingthose in the opposition, had an opportu-nity to make the news.

59

The project provided balanced coverageof campaigning based on the equitabledistribution of airtime. Each party wasassigned a quota linked to its past electionperformance, number of seats in theNational Assembly, and current popularityand visibility. The quotas included all 23contesting parties and were publiclyannounced in advance. Several organiza-tions monitored adherence; theCommittee for Free and Fair Elections inCambodia published its results weekly.

The participating broadcasters commit-ted to two primary goals: keepingeditorial opinions out of election

reports, and understanding that impartiali-ty does not imply refraining from investiga-tive journalism that reveals importantinformation, as long as it allows targetedsubjects an opportunity to respond. At thestart, the media sent out a request forcooperation to all registered politicalparties, spelling out the media’s obligations,along with what political parties needed todo to ensure coverage—such as designat-ing media liaison officers and disseminat-ing information about events. For its part,UNDP, aware of the potential pitfalls ofworking on such sensitive issues, drew up arisk management matrix that assessedmajor risks, their probability, their impactand how to respond.

By the time the election concluded, EquityNews was widely considered a success inCambodia. The coverage broke away fromthe usual lineup of official meetings andincluded interviews with leaders, featureson campaign issues and opinions fromordinary people. Politicians told journaliststhat members of the public wereapproaching them on the street for thefirst time. The final statistical analysisrevealed much more balanced coverageof different parties than in previouscampaigns, and a slew of e-mails from

viewers were mostly supportive.

One political party did try to withdraw atone point from the project, complainingof bias. A meeting between party andtelevision staff and UNDP smoothed outmisunderstandings about technicalproblems, and helped party officialsunderstand that the policy to includebalanced criticism allowed differentperspectives on the air, including theparty’s own points of view.

Since the election, UNDP has continuedengaging with political parties throughthe National Election Commission, helpingit improve its outreach to parties. Oneproject assists the commission in trainingparty electoral agents on electoral lawand procedures, including voter registra-tion. Another gathered representativesfrom 20 political parties and an array ofcivil society groups at a high-profilemeeting in Phnom Penh to critique thecommission’s performance in the 2003elections and offer ideas on futureimprovements.

Multiparty dialogues: LesothoInclusive conversations foster political stability Lesotho’s history of post-electoralviolence, including the political conflictthat flared up after its 1998 election,underscored the urgent need for nationaldiscussion of the country’s electoralmodel. Since its independence in 1966,Lesotho had used the first-past-the-postsystem, but there were concerns that thishad led to one-party dominance ofnational voting, with the opposition ballotreturning only a single candidate toParliament in the 1998 general poll andnone in the previous election in 1993.

In early 1999, UNDP Lesotho started bring-ing the opposition and the Governmenttogether to work through some of their

60

differences. In partnership with NDI, UNDPco-convened the National Forum on theReview of Lesotho’s Electoral Model, amultiparty gathering to debate a reviewof the electoral system. The forum agreedto adopt a mixed member proportionalmodel, where two-thirds of the NationalAssembly would be elected under thefirst-past-the-post method and one-thirdunder proportional representation.

UNDP also began supporting the InterimPolitical Authority, formed with the assis-tance of the Southern AfricanDevelopment Community states ofBotswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe aspart of the settlement of the 1998 post-election conflict. The authority comprisedtwo representatives from each of the 12parties that had contested that election. Itworked out the details of the newelectoral model, and submitted recom-mendations to the Government thatParliament enacted. The authority alsoprovided an ongoing forum for inter-partydialogue on an array of issues, such asamending the Constitution to accommo-date the electoral changes and levelingthe campaign playing field.

“Inevitably there will be opposing interestsand views to mediate,” said N. S. Berengfrom UNDP Lesotho in a contribution tothe network discussion on political parties.“Engaging parties in multiparty forums canreduce acrimony, forge closer inter-partycollaboration for the greater national goodand strengthen people’s confidence innegotiation over confrontation.”

While tension flared at times between theGovernment and the Interim PoliticalAuthority, resulting in the two-yearpostponement of elections originallyslated for 2000, an unprecedented level ofpolitical cooperation was reached, and the2002 poll went smoothly. Lesotho hasenjoyed peace and political stability ever

since. The current Parliament has a record10 political parties, becoming the mostinclusive in Lesotho’s history. After theelection, Lesotho’s parties were able tojoin forces around the country’s biggestdevelopment challenge—HIV/AIDS. Theyadopted a common national policy andare currently cooperating on scaling upthe national response to the epidemic.

“The Government and Basotho politiciansrose to the occasion and engaged in longand hard negotiations to reach a settle-ment, agree on the way forward andstrengthen the national culture of peace-ful negotiation for settlement of disputes,”Bereng said. “UNDP is proud and gratefulfor having been there to do what we dobest—helping people help themselves.”

A focus on the issues: Kosovo,Cambodia and Tanzania Raising awareness of human developmentWorking with political parties on differenthuman development issues has been acommon practice in some UNDP countryoffices, often taking the form of providinginformation or convening parties todiscuss a key development concern. Thiscan inject new forms of awareness intothe political system, and result inimproved practices and/or policies.

As Kosovo readied itself for elections in2004, for example, the UNDP office thereinvited parties to contribute to Kosovo’s2004 Human Development Report, TheRise of the Citizen: Challenges and Choices.Against the backdrop of Kosovo’s recentconflict as well as the extraordinary finan-cial, political and security investments thatfollowed, the report analysed participationand representation, and stressed the needto coordinate action on development andconflict resolution. The report’s prepara-tion included household surveys andopinion polls, and the active involvement

61

of ethnic and women’s groups, as well asthe parties. They worked on identifyingthe theme for the report, reviewing itsdrafts and eventually launching it.

The process of inviting political partyrepresentatives—particularly those whoare not yet senior leaders but showpromise for the future—to discuss andshape the main findings of the reportfamiliarized many with human develop-ment perspectives. This led to advocacyby party members that encouraged thePrime Minister to contribute an essay,“Democracy and Development,” to thereport’s final version. During electoraldebates, candidates used human develop-ment figures to evaluate progress by localgovernments. And after the elections, thegovernment took steps to fulfil some ofthe report’s recommendations, includingpassing a law for a new population andhousing census, creating an Office forPublic Safety to train government officialson security policy issues, and starting anemployment generation programme.

The report itself included a special sectionon political parties. It noted that whileparties are among the core institutions ofdemocracy, they suffer from decliningcredibility in Kosovo, as reflected in lowturnout at the polls. A major problem isthat the political culture favours strongleaders over the parties themselves, whichtend to be poorly organized, have fewmembers or funds, and are perceived aselitist and patriarchal. The report called onparties to develop a more participatorypolitical culture, and to turn politicaldebates towards the everyday concerns ofthe majority of people. It also assessed theelectoral system in Kosovo, delineatingthe disadvantages and advantages ofproportional representation, and demon-strating how the current closed-listelectoral systems have fostered a lack of

democratic structures within parties.

The UNDP country offices in bothCambodia and Tanzania have turned toissue platforms when working with partiesduring election campaigns. Workshopswith new and existing parties inCambodia have promoted MDG aware-ness and encouraged parties to incorpo-rate MDG themes into their 2003 electioncampaigns. In Tanzania, UNDP partneredwith NDI on a series of workshops withparties on developing urgently neededHIV/AIDS strategies and responses.

Conflict management: GuyanaSteps towards social cohesionGuyana’s political system has become aforum for continually re-enacting atroubled colonial legacy of racial mistrustand animosity. Two parties, largely repre-senting the two main ethnic groups,dominate the system. In an environmentof political and racial mistrust, civil societytypically finds itself divided. Violent crimeis on the rise, and some observers predictthat without serious attempts to reducehostilities, Guyana could be on the road tocivil warfare. All developmentprogrammes suffer from the ongoingpolitical tension and paralysis.

Donors and UN agencies such as UNDP,concerned about carrying out their work,came together in 2003 around a jointstrategy to improve social cohesion,human security and governance inGuyana. Under this umbrella, UNDP tookon the administration of the GuyanaSocial Cohesion Programme, whichcomprises activities and partnerships withthe media, civil society, the police,Parliament, arms of the regional andcentral governments, and political parties.

The party work began with support-ing the joint participation of thesecretary-generals of the two main

62

political parties in a UN training workshopin Curacao on early warning and conflictprevention measures. They returnedconvinced that the youth arms of theirparties could benefit from a similar experi-ence, so in late 2003, the Social CohesionProgramme organized a party youthleadership planning session. Participantsdid exercises to increase their capacities toidentify threats to social cohesion, andopportunities to build it. They worked ondeveloping a common vision for Guyana,and understanding how to factor differentperceptions into working towards thefuture, but left the workshop frustratedbecause they could not reach consensus.

At a follow-up workshop in 2005, theyouth arms delved into specific conflictmanagement techniques, looking atreactions and approaches to conflict, andpractising communication and trust-building skills. This time, having been ableto achieve a greater level of trust, the twoparties committed themselves to devel-oping a joint calendar of activities on‘non-contentious’ issues, and to resortingto dialogue as a first response todisagreements.

On another front in 2005, Guyana’s EthnicRelations Commission—establishedduring the 2001 constitutional reform toaddress issues including ethnic peace andharmony—partnered with the SocialCohesion Programme to bring togetherleaders of parliamentary political partiesand civil society. Representatives fromparties cooperated on deciding theformat and content of a workshop toexplore ideas to move Guyana forward.Roelf Meyer, a former South African politi-cian who served in the cabinets of bothPresident F. W. de Klerk and PresidentNelson Mandela, acted as an internationalresource person.

The workshop, attended by high-level

representatives from the Government andparliamentary parties, featured exercises toexplore new ways of understandingconflict, perceptions and attitudes.Participants identified some of the mainobstacles in Guyana as the lack of trust,weak relationships, a future too overshad-owed by past history and the currentleadership culture. They agreed thatleaders, for example, need to do more toassume responsibility for problems, learnto compromise and defuse conflicts. Anexercise on the path to the future encour-aged participants in four groups to explorea common vision. While differences werewide on some issues, there was supportfor the creation of a multi-stakeholderforum to convene representatives fromgovernment, parliamentary parties andcivil society. The forum could meet on anongoing basis, with the goal of seekingconsensus on the needs and interests ofthe nation, and provide a safe space awayfrom the usual political contest inParliament and within party structures.

For many participants, the workshopwas a rare opportunity to have anopen discussion with members of

other parties. One person pointed out thatmuch of the political dialogue has takenplace among a very small group of partyleaders, whereas people at other levels inthe parties did not know each other well.Another noted the breaking down ofhabitual psychological barriers and stereo-types. Others spoke positively of leavingthe past behind, the benefits of talking,making a difference together, and beingcautiously optimistic, although they werealso realistic about the need to translateideas into implementation.

With the Ethnic Relations Commission, theSocial Cohesion Programme is nowholding consultations to organize themulti-stakeholder forum, along with a

63

workshop for women parliamentarians.Activities to reduce tension are plannedfor the run up to the 2006 elections, andthe party youth arms are finalizing theirprogramme of joint activities. “One hasbegun to hear the echoes in the pressreleases of the political parties: We needto work for cohesion, we need to think ofwhat happened in the past, and so on,”said Chris Spies from UNDP Guyana. “Anew reality has been created that no onecan dare to criticize or distancethemselves from: People are talking!”

Working in one-party states: VietnamWith the party but not for the partyOne-party states present unique issues forpolitical party assistance. Lenni Montiel atUNDP Vietnam pointed out that no donorovertly supports the Communist Partythere. But with nearly 100 per cent ofelected representatives belonging to it, allforms of governance support in the endassist the party.

Following Vietnam’s political ‘renovation’,which began with the 1992 Constitution,UNDP in 1998 initiated the first ever interna-tionally funded project to support thecapacity development of local People’sCouncils. The programme was designed tobolster grass-roots democracy by improvingparticipation in council activities and theresponsiveness of local authorities, includingthrough closer links to constituencies, andbetter managerial and communicationsskills. It also sought to strengthen informa-tion flows between the councils and thenational Government. A newer project thatfollowed in 2003 has enlarged the scope ofthis work to include capacity developmentof both the councils and the NationalAssembly. It focuses on activities to helpimprove legislative processes and parlia-mentary administration, develop regularpublic consultation processes, strengthencoordination of sectoral work on issues suchas poverty and HIV/AIDS, and establish a

strategic training programme for deputies atcentral and local levels.

In a submission to the network discussion,Montiel shared his impression thatimproved governance is in many ways relat-ed to the understanding of policy issuesamong officials at different levels. However,in part because UNDP doesn’t officiallysupport Vietnam’s Communist Party, peopleworking exclusively within party structurestend to have less exposure to policy infor-mation than those working within govern-ment institutions. “Developing policydialogues and facilitating exchanges ofexperiences directly with party structureswould certainly be a good contribution tothe improvement of governance and thefight against poverty in Vietnam,” Montielsaid. “If we have an explicit mandate to workon political party capacity development,and if the Vietnamese Communist Partywould accept our assistance, we coulddevelop innovative activities with a win-winapproach. This of course would have to bedone cautiously and with great involve-ment of country office senior manage-ment.”

Women’s political participation:Kyrgyzstan and SudanMoving towards gender equity in partiesWhile a number of UNDP countryprogrammes work on increasing women’spolitical participation, some have startedspecifically targeting women’s positions inpolitical parties, an acknowledgment thatimprovement of the almost universallylow percentages of women in legislaturesand other branches of government needsto include all the mechanisms that putcandidates into office.

In Kyrgyzstan, the last parliamentaryelection resulted in a legislature with nota single woman representative. Parties

have regularly mouthed promises about

64

what they are doing for women, but theyears of transition have also brought aresurgence of traditional notions aboutwomen’s roles. Nevertheless, women havebeen prominent in civil society organiza-tions and have led some of Kyrgyzstan’s 44political parties.

Working with the Swedish InternationalDevelopment Agency, UNDP helpeddevise a programme to develop women’scapacities to work effectively within theirparties, and advocate gender equalityboth in the parties and in public politicaldiscussions. Political parties were invitedto submit names from their party lists for aseries of workshops. Women and somemen from 19 political parties—186 inall—came forward. They included not onlyparliamentary candidates, but also repre-sentatives from local councils, ministrystaff and women running for local govern-ment positions. A networking strategycalled for mixing women from differentparties at the meetings.

Two initial seminars for people from differ-ent sets of oblasts or districts focused onadvocating for gender within parties.Participants learned how to analysedocuments from a gender perspectiveand considered which gender equalityadvocacy strategies that have beensuccessful in other parts of the worldwould be suitable in Kyrgyzstan. Theystudied the legalities of campaigning forgender, and debated introducing quotasfor women on candidate lists. Agreeingthat party documents have a poor recordon gender, referring mainly to women interms of traditional stereotypes, theycommitted to being more proactive inintroducing gender issues at partymeetings and conferences.

A second component of the programmeinvolved preparatory round tables for theGenderstan 2004 conference, a regional

meeting of women from across Central Asiaand other members of the Commonwealthof Independent States where the issuesincluded democracy and women’s leader-ship. At the round tables, participantscompiled gender advocacy strategies relat-ed to party building, elections andcampaigning, and assessed the strong andweak points of their parties in terms ofgender. The final programme activity was aworkshop on strategies for female leader-ship in parties. It debunked stereotypesabout the political roles women can play,analysed how women’s active involvementin politics improves the status of women ingeneral, helped participants developarguments for gender equality in theirparties, and featured specific skills training,such as on public speaking.

Because of its remote location and politi-cal transition, Kyrgyzstan has beensomewhat isolated from current thinkingin the rest of the world. It was clear duringthe course of all of these activities thatmany women lacked basic knowledgeabout the status of women in theircountry, about the positions of theirparties on gender, and about how tointroduce and advocate gender-equalitystrategies. The workshops provided a firstopportunity for women from parties tocome together, and instilled a new senseof unity and common purpose.

Despite the turmoil of Kyrgyzstan’srevolution in early 2005, womenwho participated in the workshops

have been active on several fronts, build-ing on some of the cross-party ties thatgrew out of the networking strategy. Twopolitical parties have implemented genderanalysis in their programmes; severalwomen decided to run for office or for ahigher office; and the interim presidentinvited participants to make proposals forstrengthening institutional mechanisms

65

on gender equality. With theConstitutional Assembly having initiatedamending the Constitution to allow moreparliamentary seats, mixed proportionaland majority elections, and a redistribu-tion of executive and legislative power,women have lined up to support the shiftto proportional elections, which can helpincrease women’s participation, and havecalled for putting more women into seats.

UNDP Sudan has also opted to work onissues related to women in politicalparties, starting with a short-term Womenin Politics project in 2004 that was fundedby the Democratic Governance ThematicTrust Fund. Women’s political participationvaries across the country, but women’simpact on political decisions is generallylimited. Men dominate legislative councilsat all levels, as well as traditional andcustomary law mechanisms, even aswomen have shouldered many social andeconomic responsibilities during Sudan’slongstanding conflict.

The project was premised on the notionthat civil society is not defined merely byNGOs, but by all those entities that exert astrong influence on Sudanese society,including religious figures, academic insti-tutions, students, parties and the media. Itdefined politics broadly, with a compre-hensive emphasis on social awareness, theability to participate in decision-making,and the capacities of both individuals andinstitutions.

The first part of the Women in Politicsproject involved establishing a series offorums comprising women in parties, civilservice officials, university students andjournalists, in which the members coulddialogue on issues related to gender andpolitical participation. The forum for womenin parties brought together representativesfrom 15 parties. Its activities included cross-party discussions on subjects such as the

Convention on the Elimination of All Formsof Discrimination against Women, and howit relates to Sudanese and Islamic laws. Theforum met with international organizationsinvolved in the Joint Assessment Mission onSudan’s post-conflict development needs todiscuss mainstreaming women and genderinto mission reports, and the inclusion ofperspectives from opposition politicalgroups and civil society organizations.

Another part of the project offered capaci-ty development support to womennominated by 25 parties. A group to carryout training was chosen in collaborationwith the women in political parties forum.The training covered issues such as strate-gic thinking, campaigning techniques andengendering the Constitution. A thirdproject component involved raisingawareness of women’s political participa-tion through the media and a nationalconference on the Advancement ofWomen’s Role in Politics. The latterfeatured a presentation on how politicalparties can help advance women’s politi-cal role in Sudan, delivered by the deputysecretary of the Umma party.

The momentum that began to gather fromthese activities resulted in a three-yearexpansion grant from the NetherlandsMinistry of International Cooperation.Shortly thereafter, Sudan’s ComprehensivePeace Agreement was signed. It calls forthe “equal right of men and women to theenjoyment of all civil and political rights”,and an increase in their participation inboth political mechanisms and the peaceprocess. The follow-up UNDP programme,Good Governance and Equity in PoliticalParticipation in Post-Conflict Sudan, aims toestablish a cadre of women, from villagesto the national level, who can take leader-ship roles in the civil service, local govern-ment, the legislature and the judiciary.

In addition to work on constitutional

66

reform, service delivery and customarylaw, there will be activities to increaseparty receptiveness to gender equity andwomen’s participation, including throughcontinued interaction with the women inpolitical parties forum. An early focus willbe on identifying capacity deficits andconstraints that parties face, and sharingbest practices from within Sudan and thesurrounding region. Other initiatives willcomprise gender sensitization sessions,including for party leaders, and technicalassistance on customary law interpreta-tion and the implementation of genderstrategies.

Working with youth: NicaraguaThe next generation articulates its needsIn Nicaragua, two decades of a painstak-ingly slow struggle against poverty andinequality have fomented a growingdissatisfaction with political institutionsthat don’t seem to be keeping up. Citizenshave bluntly reported in surveys that theyview political parties as interfering in theworking of state institutions, and lackingleadership and strategic goals. Negativeperceptions and a sense of alienation areparticularly prevalent among youngNicaraguans.

To help reverse some of these trendsand move towards stronger andmore democratic political institu-

tions, UNDP—working in close consulta-tion with parties, political analysts, civilsociety groups, and external partnersincluding the IMD, the InterAmericanDevelopment Bank, the OAS, and theBritish, Danish, Dutch and SwedishGovernments—has created a three-pronged initiative that includes modern-ization of the National Assembly, buildingpolitical leadership among youth andmodernization of political parties.

In mid-2005, a first step forward was to askthe eight political parties that met the

criteria of being represented in theNational Assembly and/or the RegionalCouncils from the Autonomous Regionsalong Nicaragua’s Atlantic Coast tonominate liaisons to participate in a groupto steer the programme. One of the firstactivities that the group has taken on hasbeen the organization of a Political YouthForum, a recommendation of a preparato-ry assistance survey carried out by UNDPand other partners. The forum is intendedto encourage younger party members toarticulate their needs to political leadersand society at large. Training sessions arenow being held to cultivate political skills,with an emphasis on the protection ofhuman rights. In providing the leaders ofthe future with access to innovative ideasand practices, the sessions will contributeto the modernization of parties and politi-cal participation in general.

Thirty young political leaders from acrossthe country and the political spectrumhave already participated in an initial two-week workshop—most were mid-levelyouth political secretaries in their cities ordepartments. They studied classical andmodern political theory on democraticinstitutions, good government and localdevelopment—the first time many haddone so—and looked at ways to integratewhat they learned into their party work. Ata second workshop, they learned practicaltools, such as survey analysis and politicalmarketing.

Other aspects of the youth programme willinclude internships and an awareness-raising campaign to project positiveimages of the ways politics can bechanged, and the roles young politicalleaders can play in shaping moredemocratic political practices that benefitsociety at large. It will run in tandem withthe political party segment, whichembraces a medium- to long-term strategy

67

that covers the 2006 national elections, andincludes a mix of activities common to allparties and those targeted to some parties’specific needs. Its emphasis is on cultivat-ing capacities that the parties themselveshave acknowledged are falling short—including to draft national policy proposalsthat respond to citizens’ concerns, managelocal cadres, increase internal democracyand improve relationships with the media.

Sharing knowledge: Mongolia ‘Soft’ assistance to help a coalition formIn Mongolia, recent experiences withpolitical parties have involved offering‘soft’ assistance to difficult political negoti-ations for forming a national unity govern-ment after the 2004 parliamentaryelections. This assistance has been mainlyin the form of knowledge resources. Theprocess has served as an entry point forcloser dialogue and engagement withpolitical parties, and as a step towardsdeepening and consolidating democracy.

Mongolia brokered a comparativelysmooth transition from a one-party totali-tarian regime to a multiparty parliamentarydemocracy in early 1990, with theMongolian People’s Revolutionary Party(MPRP) yielding its 70-year monopoly onpower. In the 1992 national election, theparty won a majority of parliamentaryseats, but it lost to the Democratic UnionCoalition of opposition parties in 1996, onlyto regain its power with an overwhelmingvictory in 2000. In 2004, for the first time,two major political forces—the MPRP andthe Motherland-Democracy Coalition(MDC)—obtained an almost equal numberof seats, and no party or coalition couldclaim a clear majority. A deadlock set induring July and August, with the mainissue being how to establish a grand coali-tion in order to form a government.

Representatives of the two major politicalforces approached the UNDP countryoffice on a very informal basis, seekinginformation on other country experienceswith political negotiations that successful-ly produced a grand coalition. The countryoffice quickly reviewed resources availablewithin the office, and sent relevant materi-als to the two groups for their internalreview. UNDP Mongolia also posted aquery on the issue on UNDP’s DemocraticGovernance Practice Network andreceived a number of useful and interest-ing responses with related practicalresources from around the world. Thesetoo were immediately forwarded. At therequest of national counterparts, UNDPsubsequently organized a rapid learningmission. An equal number of representa-tives from both political forces traveled toanother country in order to get hands-onexperience with coalition-building undersimilar circumstances.

In September, with various forms of infor-mation on hand, a sensitive politicalnegotiation process that included informaldialogues and formal meetings finallyproduced three consensus agreementdocuments. These included a joint decisionon power-sharing within a grand coalition,and on the key principles of new parlia-mentary and government structures.Another important official document was ajoint MPRP-MDC declaration—“ForMongolia Together”—that set forth thecoalition’s framework Program of Action for2004-2008. UNDP could claim a ‘success’story in this case, including the fact thatthroughout it, all political forces continuedto perceive the organization as a neutralpartner helping to promote politicaldialogue and share relevant best practices.

68

SECTION 6: WHO ELSE IS INVOLVED?

WH

O ELSE IS

INVO

LVED?

The initiatives of these organizations havegenerally followed either the fraternalparty method or the multiparty approach.The former usually involves a relationshipbased on a similar political philosophybetween a party or foundation in a donorcountry and a single party in a developingcountry. Under the multiparty method, aparty aid organization engages with anumber of parties at once.

In recent years, new sources of politicalparty assistance have emerged. One ofthe most significant and active organiza-tions is the Institute for MultipartyDemocracy (IMD), which is run by all thepolitical parties in the Netherlands.Slightly older is the WestminsterFoundation for Democracy, which isfunded by the British parliament andgoverned by its parties.

Very few groups to assist parties havebeen based in the South. In South Africa,the Electoral Institute of Southern Africaruns a political parties programme that

offers technical support betweenelections. It aims to promote party devel-opment and also emphasizes skillsrequired for coalition building. The Centrefor Democracy and Development inGhana researches democratic develop-ment issues, mainly for West Africa.

Some regional political and parliamen-tary associations have taken upissues related to parties. The

Commonwealth Parliamentary Associationholds trainings for newly elected parlia-mentarians that include guidance on theroles of government and the opposition,while the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU)has held regional events on the rights andduties of the opposition. In 1999, IPUpartnered with UNDP to convene theParliamentary Seminar on RelationsBetween Majority and Minority Parties inAfrican Parliaments in Libreville, Gabon.The parliamentarians who attendedproduced guidelines on the rights andduties of the opposition in parliament.

69

6Who Else Is Involved?Traditionally, political party support has been the terrain of a few bilateral agencies andorganizations mainly associated with Western political parties. Bilateral organizationsassociated with the British, Canadian, Dutch, German, Scandinavian and US govern-ments have been involved—the US Agency for International Development (USAID), forexample, has played a prominent role in the field. Party-affiliated groups like NDI and IRIhave links to the US Democratic and Republican parties, respectively, while the GermanStiftungen (or political foundations) are associated with German parties (for example, theFriedrich Ebert Stiftung with Germany’s Social Democratic Party, the Konrad AdenauerStiftung with the Christian Democrats and the Friedrich Naumann Stiftung with theliberal Free Democratic Party). Other players include the party internationals, which areorganized more around political ideology than specific institutions. They includeSocialist International and the conservative International Democrat Union.

Along with an increased understanding ofthe need to work with parties as compo-nents of functioning democracies hascome a call for greater involvement bymultilateral organizations. Donor govern-ments and bilateral agencies haveexpressed an interest in this direction, onthe assumption that the trusted and non-partisan standing of multilaterals couldput them in a better position to workeffectively with governments and acrossthe party spectrum.

UNDP, the OAS and IDEA have beenamong leading multilateral organizationsworking with parties, activities which areparticularly developed in Latin America.The OAS has set up the InterAmericanForum on Political Parties. Its recent workhas included convening nearly 50 partyand civil society leaders from theCaribbean to debate how to strengthenparties in the region, touching upon coreissues such as constitutional reform, andpolitical party and campaign financing.

IDEA is compiling comparative knowledgeon internal functioning and legal regula-tion of political parties, first havinganalyzed worldwide provisions for fundingof parties and election campaigns, andhow quotas for women are used.

WHEN TO PARTNERWhile UNDP’s reputation for impartialitymay be of benefit in political party assis-tance, this publication and the networkdiscussion have also underscored theneed to safeguard that reputation. Someparticipants in the network discussionsuggested that judicious partnershipscould help bolster UNDP’s expertise anddiffuse concerns about UNDP being toodirectly involved with the political appara-tus. In its capacity development for politi-cal parties project, UNDP Tanzaniarecognized from the start that it had limit-ed experience in working with parties,

and so went through a competitive andtransparent process of selecting a partner.The country office chose NDI, which iswell respected in many corners and hasbeen involved with party work for twodecades. “We believed we would manageto get the required outputs and at thesame time not expose ourselves to anyantagonisms,” said Lucie Luguga.

She also pointed out that the University ofDar es Salaam has a Research andEducation for Democracy in Tanzaniaprogramme that annually engages withpolitical parties to review the state ofpolitics. Luguga maintained that theseconsultative processes have helped shapethe thinking of the parties. In the future,she proposed, “such organizations can beimplementing arms for UNDP onprogrammes that are too hot to handle.What is required is to work together whendeveloping the programme so that it isdirected towards the intended outcomes.By the use of national organizations likethis one, there is a possibility of facilitatinghome-grown solutions to some of theproblems within our many mushroomingpolitical parties.”

Partnerships, however, require some of thesame considerations about perceptions ofimpartiality as political party work ingeneral. Partners can come with stringsattached, and these need to be under-stood and evaluated before projectsbegin. One such experience involved aproject where UNDP partnered with thedemocracy unit of a national university ona preparatory assistance project for devel-oping a long-term party supportprogramme. The programme specialist incharge recounted, “The fact that thepreparatory project was financed by aninstitution associated with the formercolonial power was in itself reason forsuspicion by certain political parties of‘external interference’.”

70

While UNDP has had collaborative relation-ships with NDI and IRI in several countries,in four countries in politically complexCentral Asia, both organizations wererecently subject to constraints that have

essentially shut down their operations.

71

Donors Discuss Their Different Contributions—and How They Can Work TogetherLinda Maguire from the DemocraticGovernance Group at UNDP New Yorkdescribes the evolution of a workinggroup on political parties:

As UNDP begins developing a policyframework for political party workbased on its accumulated experi-

ences, it has been helpful to join multilateral,bilateral and other organizations that alsoprovide such assistance to compare notesand better understand what each brings tothe table.

Since early 2005, UNDP has participated in aworking group on political parties firstconvened at a USAID-hosted meeting ofdonor organizations and institutions thatsupport political parties. The group’s purposeis to provide common ground for theexchange of information on political partywork and assessment and evaluationmethodologies, and to serve as a mecha-nism for eventual joint activities in the field.At this point in time, the working groupalmost exclusively comprises donors, as thefocus is on sharing their perspectives.However, some members, including UNDP,straddle the line between donors and imple-menters of party assistance. The group willlikely eventually expand to encompass awider spectrum of party actors.

Within the working group, there is anemerging recognition that UNDP may bepoised to play a unique role in political partysupport, with its multilateral, human devel-opment approach, and strong relationshipswith programme countries. National

counterparts may give UNDP a benefit ofthe doubt not otherwise afforded to bilateralactors and their agents. As ThomasCarothers pointed out in the USAID meeting,“National counterparts may be confusedwhen UNDP says it wants to work with polit-ical parties, but they will not suspect thatUNDP wants to get a certain party intopower.” At the same time, he cautionedUNDP not to squander this capital by simplyadopting the same approaches that havebeen used by others for years.

From discussions within the working groupand with a wider complement of partners, itis becoming clear that one of UNDP’s biggestcomparative advantages may lie in facilitat-ing consensus among the various actorsregarding the rules and legal frameworksrequired to make parties more accountable,democratic and representative. The workinggroup information exchanges have under-scored that the political party institutes havea niche in capacity development and theparty internationals in the development ofideology with likeminded parties. The bilater-als have a particular role in advocatingcertain positions consistent with their states’global interests. UNDP’s primary role couldthus be in establishing environments thatsupport the effective functioning of politicalparty systems, without limiting ourselves tojust this, of course. The party-based actorsand bilaterals have a hard time doing this,just as UNDP would have a hard timecopying some of their initiatives, which maybe perceived in some quarters as having apolitical cast.

72

Traditionally, international develop-ment cooperation has shied awayfrom involvement with political

parties. However, the last decade hasseen considerable emphasis put ongovernance issues and on creating orrecreating state capacity. And in post-conflict societies, development workinevitably includes state-building. Inaddition, there has been a growingmomentum for democracy promotionto be mainstreamed in internationalcooperation more generally.

There is an emerging consensus thatmainstreaming party support in democ-racy assistance has to be the newfrontier. Parties have been called theweakest link in the democratic process. It

is time to move the focus of attentionbeyond elections, to explore ways ofmaintaining and building party organiza-tions that are democratically organizedand representative of society, servingdemocracy between election campaignstoo. They should gain in public trust andsupport as a consequence.

It is important to note that representa-tives of democratic political forces inemerging democracies are themselvescalling for more international support fortheir efforts to build viable parties andsustainable party systems, in the cause ofdemocratic advance. The demand isthere, and it is authentic.

Although the general direction is clear,there are probably still more questionsthan answers about the best way to goforward. But a significant number oforganizations in international develop-ment cooperation and democracypromotion are coming to the view thatdelay will push back—perhaps terminal-ly—the advancement of sustainabledemocracy. The relevant question then isnot about whether party support is desir-able but about how to do it, and whereto start. For there is so much to do; andso much that can be done.

As international party support increases,both the need and the opportunity toshare experience will increase. Parties,especially fragile new parties, have limit-

ed capacity to develop quickly. Improveddialogue and coordination amongdemocracy foundations can make lifeeasier for them. Naturally, differentfoundations might want to offer theirown distinctive approach, as befits eachorganization’s individual mandates,strengths and traditions. There is talk ofdeveloping a specifically Europeanprofile. At the same time, and in thewords of a leading American player (NDIPresident Kenneth Wollack), “there ismore that brings us together thandivides us.”

It is important not to inflate expectationsabout how much party support canachieve and how quickly. In some placesdurable results will need a lengthy andsustained commitment. At the sametime, it will be increasingly necessary todemonstrate results. That means devel-


Westminster Foundation for Democracy: The Way Forward

73

oping the methodologies for evaluation,which in turn rests on having a clearsense of the objectives. Different regionsand countries pose different scenariosand call for differences of approach, so agood understanding of the localspecifics is absolutely essential. Forexample, in Russia the challenge rightnow is to keep opposition parties alive;whereas in Africa there is scope for inter-party dialogue over how to movebeyond the dominant party situation. Bycontrast, in Latin America there areentire party systems in retreat, andneeding reconstruction.

Providing training opportunities isone obvious approach to theweaknesses that afflict individual

parties, but it is no panacea. Attentionmust also be given to the underlying

conditions that hold back the develop-ment of coherent and effective partysystems as a whole.

Everywhere, the purpose should be toprovide support to local initiatives, not toexport some model of a party or partysystem that may reflect an image that nolonger exists—perhaps never did exist—even in the well-established democra-cies. The goal is to share democracy’svalues and democratic principles, not totransfer party blueprints or models. Andfor democracy assistance organizationsto go out ‘party hunting’ would make nosense at all.

Party work should not be conceived inisolation but must take account of therelationships with other major compo-nents of the political system as a whole,including civil society, the media and

legislature. Bringing parties and parlia-ments into policy deliberations withdonors on strategies for pro-poor devel-opment offers opportunities to bringdemocracy and development agenciescloser together. This will help partiesimprove their capability to analyse policy.And because building parties and partysystems that can sustain democracy is along-term commitment, the democracyfoundations themselves need an appro-priate and secure financial base.

—Excerpted from a 2004 conference reportfrom the Westminster Foundation for Demo-cracy entitled “Building Better Democracies:Why Political Parties Matter,” commissioned

from and written by Peter Burnell.

SECTION 7:MONITORING ANDEVALUATING POLITICALPARTY ASSISTANCE

MO

NITO

RING

AN

DEVA

LUATIN

G PA

RTYA

SSISTAN

CE

The shift away from monitoring andevaluating activities and outputs—and towards monitoring and evalu-

ating results—stems from the realizationthat producing good ‘deliverables’ is notenough. In some cases, even efficient orwell-managed projects or outputs do nothave any discernable effect on develop-ment at the end of the day.

Monitoring and evaluating political partyassistance faces many of the same, as wellas some unique, challenges as monitoringand evaluating democratic governanceassistance overall. For one, it usuallyinvolves a higher quotient of capacitydevelopment assistance, which includes,but is not restricted to, policy advice,dialogue and brokerage. Capacity devel-opment efforts are usually different fromprogrammes that focus on definedproducts and services, as is the case inmany ‘traditional’ UNDP projects.

In political party programming, the objec-tive of a capacity development effort isnot necessarily to supply a service or helpproduce something tangible, but to fosterthe development of specific individualsand organizations. As such, capacitydevelopment cannot be ‘done’ byoutsiders. A change agent or facilitator

(e.g., UNDP) can only promote or stimu-late capacity development and provideinformation, training and other types ofsupport through advocacy, dialogue andso on. But an external agent should notattempt to lead an organization’s capacitydevelopment effort or take responsibilityfor it. Leadership must emerge fromwithin the organization (in this case, thepolitical party), and the organization'smembers should do most of the requiredwork and must be in the driver’s seat.Capacity development of political partiesthus raises particular issues in terms ofmonitoring, evaluating and measuring theeffects of political party assistance and thechanges it produces.

Most monitoring and evaluation of politi-cal party work will be captured throughthe normal programming arrangementsand their M&E components—i.e., the UNDevelopment Assistance Framework, theCountry Programme, the CountryProgramme Action Plan and the AnnualWork Plan. These represent the currentminimum programme standards, thoughsome country offices will also continue tohave individual projects. Where projectsover $1 million or lasting more than 10years once required mandatory evalua-tions, only a certain number of outcome

75

7Monitoring and Evaluating Political Party AssistanceIn providing political party assistance, UNDP has an interest and obligation to knowwhether that assistance is effective, and to understand why it is or is not. In 2001, UNDPoverhauled its monitoring and evaluation (M&E) policies and procedures to ensurealignment with results-based management, promotion of evaluative knowledge andlearning around results, and simplification. The current policies, including a new 2005Evaluation Policy Statement, are available from the UNDP Evaluation Office.

evaluations are currently required forcountry offices. This depends on the sizeof the Country Programme.

The current arrangements are designed sothat the focus is on the outputs createdand outcomes influenced by the fullrange of UNDP actions. In this way, resultsachieved by a variety of methods arecaptured, including those from a tradition-al project, and from policy advice anddialogue, advocacy and brokerage thatthe country office or senior managementmight undertake outside the project’sscope.

Measuring the effectiveness of politicalparty assistance requires both monitoringand evaluation. M&E should provide arecord of how political party worksupported by UNDP and other develop-ment partners had a significant impact—positive or negative, intended or not—in agiven country, and qualify and quantifythis impact with a fair degree of plausibili-ty. Crafting monitoring and evaluationsystems that capture both the countrycontext and the specificity of UNDP’scontributions is key to measuring change,as is selecting good indicators.

Political party assistance should lead tooutcomes, and indicators can signalprogress towards these outcomes. What isrequired in selecting indicators is a goodunderstanding of the result desired, the

steps needed to get there, and the type ofassistance to be used. Even where politicalparty assistance contributes to outcomesin an unplanned and unexpected way,previously selected indicators within theCountry Programme or the CountryProgramme Action Plan might still beusable. When selecting indicators,programme managers should apply theSMART criteria, meaning that indicatorsshould be specific, measurable, attainable,relevant and trackable (see box below foran example). Further guidance is availablefrom the Evaluation Office.

Impact or human development indicatorscan also be developed and used at thenational level to track progress in politicalparty development, reform and otherprocesses. There are currently no UNDPuniversal indicators, but guidance onresults indicators is under review at thetime of the publication of this handbook.For information on how other organiza-tions are working with political partydevelopment indicators, see the IMDpublication A Framework for DemocraticParty Building: A Handbook and USAID’sHandbook of Democracy and GovernanceProgramme Indicators in the FurtherResources list in Section VIII.

Steps to Assess an Indicator

76

Selectioncriteria

Attainableor ‘clear direction’

Outcome

Transparencyin politicalparty financing

Poor proposal foran indicator

Reducednumber ofpolitical partyfinancingcorruptioncases reported

Why indicator isinadequate

Transparency may(at least initially)lead to number ofcases going upnot down; nobaseline/target.

Possible refinement of indicator (within a given timeframe)

Policy and practicechanged to makesources of politicalparty income availablefor public inspection(yes/no)

MONITORING A good monitoring system capable ofcapturing the effects of political partyassistance will:

4Follow and assess political party devel-opment, reform and other processes ina sustained manner over time at thenational, regional and local levels

4Describe the relative importance ofmultiple policy reform and other initiatives

4Assess the effectiveness of the politicalparty assistance strategy and interven-tions pursued by UNDP

4Periodically assess results in relation tothe initial objectives and expectations

4Include stakeholders

4Acknowledge the contributions of otherdevelopment partners in the area anduse networks with and of partners

4Measure the success or failure of thepolitical party assistance provided byUNDP via projects/programmes

4Capture unplanned political party assis-tance provided by UNDP

4Highlight the need for political partyassistance in areas where none ispresently being offered

The building blocks of a good monitoringsystem capable of capturing the effects ofpolitical party assistance are:

4Good baseline data

4Efficient and effective information-gathering methods that focus on inputs,outputs, performance and outcomes

4Qualified country office personnel whopossess in-depth understanding of thenational political scene, includingparties and how they operate

4Cultivation of good stakeholder relation-ships

4Cultivation of good donor relationships

EVALUATING In political party assistance, evaluation canassess the major capacity, policy, legal andother changes at the national level relatedto political parties; determine how theyaffect the state of democratic governance;and depict UNDP’s role in the change.However, it may not always be possible todraw a clear causal relationship betweenUNDP’s action and the resulting change.What becomes important then is thecredibility of the link between the changeand UNDP.

Before deciding on the need for anevaluation, it is useful to run througha number of questions designed to

tease out the rationale and potential usesof such an exercise. A guiding list of thesequestions follows.

1. Relevance: Is the evaluation addressingthe right things? To what extent is therea well-considered justification for anevaluation, including for its timing?

• To what extent is the evaluationconsistent with the understanding ofand rationale behind outcome andother evaluations as defined in thepolicy documents?

2. Coherence: Is the evaluation clear?

• Is the objective, or set of objectives, forthe evaluation clear?

• Is a clear scope presented, one thatdefines what the evaluation will andwill not cover, and why?

3. Credibility: Is the evaluation trustwor-thy?

• Is the methodology well consideredand plausible, outlining how results

77

will be assessed, and how UNDP’scontribution to outcomes will bemeasured?

4. Engagement: Does the evaluationinvolve key stakeholders?

• Is there evidence of engagement withand consensus among key stakehold-ers (e.g., civil society actors) regardingthe objective and rationale for theevaluation?

5. Pragmatism: Can the evaluation beimplemented?

• Is there a set of clear implementationarrangements (who is going to dowhat, and by when)?

• Do the arrangements (including timeand resources) look achievable?

6. Utility: Will the findings be usable?

• Is there an outline of what product orproducts will be delivered as a conse-quence of the evaluation (taking intoaccount political sensitivities, etc.)?

• Is there evidence of how these may beutilized, and by whom?

Once the decision to conduct an evalua-tion has been made, certain elements arecritical in order to evaluate party assis-tance effectively, regardless of the particu-lar type of evaluation (e.g., project, cluster,outcome, country programme, etc.). Theseare similar to the essential elements ofgood monitoring, as follows.

During project/programme formulationand implementation:

4Get good baseline data. In evaluatingpolitical party support, baseline datacan be even more important than usual,since the cause and effect linkages areoften harder to establish. Questions toask include: How many parties arethere? What is their relative condition in

terms of membership, representation inthe legislature, influence, financing, etc.?What are their platforms? What is thelegal framework for parties?

4Craft good indicators. Good indicatorsgo hand in hand with good baselinedata in situating UNDP’s interventionand charting its effect. Good indicatorsare SMART indicators.

4Research and follow political, social,economic and other developments inthe country. Knowing a country’scontext, and how decisions about politi-cal parties and other issues are madeand implemented, are crucial to influ-encing these decisions.

4Research and follow what your partnersand other donors are doing. An accurateassessment of the nature and relativesuccess of the political party efforts ofpartners and other donors is essentialfor assessing progress toward outcomes.

Immediately before and during the evaluation:

4Include political party assistance in theterms of reference. If the evaluation is aproject evaluation, and the project apolitical party one, this will be obvious.If, however, it is an outcome evaluation,the evaluation team should know fromthe outset that political party assistancewill fall within the purview of the evalu-ation.

4Secure the appropriate expertise. Getevaluators who understand politicalparties and the challenges they face, aswell as the challenges of providingpolitical party support.

4Focus beyond beneficiaries.Beneficiaries might not always be awarethat UNDP political party assistancecontributed to an outcome, and thatpolitical party assistance can take years

78

to bear fruit. Any evaluation of politicalparty assistance needs to look beyondperceptions to documentation andquantification.

After the evaluation:

4Make the lessons learned and bestpractices work for you. If an evaluationreveals that the design of UNDP’s politi-cal party assistance in a given country issound, but is not reaching the rightstakeholders, UNDP should change itsapproach.

HOW TO APPROACH POLITICALPARTY ASSISTANCE WITHIN ANEVALUATION Political party assistance can be evaluatedwith any of the UNDP evaluation tools,although some types may lendthemselves more readily to party work. Forexample, outcome evaluations are partic-ularly conducive to evaluating party assis-tance because they focus on thedevelopment change of capacities,policies, regulations, laws, etc.

Whatever the type of evaluation used,however, there are several ways ofapproaching political party assistancewithin the context of a given evaluation.These are similar to the quantitative andqualitative approaches to monitoring.

Tools to help discern the effects of politi-cal party assistance:

Perception: Focusing on perceptions—of stakeholders (partners, beneficiariesand ‘losers’), donors and citizens—willhelp gauge whether UNDP politicalparty assistance has had an effect, be itpositive or negative. Stakeholder percep-tions can reveal information that othertools miss. Some methods for assessingperceptions are:

• In-depth interviews with key stake-

holders

• Systematic observations of participantperspectives and experiences

• Surveys, questionnaires and focusgroups

Quantification: This involves trackingthe number of political party laws,policies, charters, trainings and otherevents or changes that have taken placesince the inception of UNDP’s politicalparty assistance. Combined with qualita-tive analysis provided by documentation,quantification can provide a usefulobjective yardstick of performance.Some methods include:

• Information on the number of politicalparty policy, legal, etc. changesgathered via monitoring tools

• Information on the number of inter-ventions UNDP made with the inten-tion to affect a certain outcome

• Information on the types and numberof interventions made by partners inthe same area

Documentation: Documentation onthe ‘before and after’ status of politicalparties and the environment withinwhich they operate will help to deter-mine whether or not UNDP’s interven-tions have had a tangible effect oninstitutions and processes, at least in theshort term. Some sources of documenta-tion are:

• Information on the quality and relativeimportance of political party changesgathered via monitoring tools

• Information gathered/reported in theResults-Oriented Annual Report

• Information gathered in other reports(other evaluations, tripartite reviews,annual progress reports, annual

79

reviews, country reviews, etc.)

• Case studies that compare politicalparty development across countriesand regions

Each of these tools can be integrated intoan evaluation plan to help measure theeffect of political party assistance on hardoutcomes.

CAVEATS• Political party assistance can take years

to bear fruit. M&E tools need to takethis into account. Programmemanagers need to be patient.

• Direct and quantifiable attribution ofoutcomes to political party assistanceis usually impossible. M&E tools needto be flexible enough to captureintended and actual results—particu-larly outcomes—over time, andanalyse each.

• As noted elsewhere in this handbook,political party assistance is almost bydefinition highly political. Variousstakeholders could perceive UNDP’sassistance as partisan. UNDP needs tobe prepared to accept and managethe responsibility that comes withinvolving itself in national processes,while at the same time being clearthat UNDP supports these processes,not individual parties. UNDP shouldalso be conscious of supportingprocesses that are truly participatoryand do not run counter to humandevelopment goals and principles.

• As also noted in this handbook, crisisand post-conflict contexts presentunique challenges to political partyassistance; the same is true formonitoring and evaluating in thesesituations. Staff should consult asrelevant the guidelines to assessprogrammes in crisis and conflict

countries that UNDP’s EvaluationOffice and the Bureau for CrisisPrevention and Recovery have devel-oped.

• Political party assistance can beineffective if solely driven by donors.UNDP’s products and services will bearfruit only if they respond to a real needat the country level.

• Political party support, like mostdemocratic governance interventions,creates winners and losers. Not allstakeholders will therefore support apolitical party programme advocatedby UNDP.

80

SECTION 8: TOOLS AND RESOURCES

TOO

LS AN

DRESO

URCES

ORGANIZATIONS WORKING WITHPOLITICAL PARTIES

Multilateral supportInterAmerican Development Bank (IDB): TheIDB is the main source of multilateralfinancing for economic, social and institu-tional development projects as well astrade and regional integrationprogrammes in Latin America and theCaribbean. Its governance work focuseson judicial reform, public sector manage-ment and social sector projects involvingcivil society. In 2003, the IDB’sModernization of State Strategy stipulatedworking indirectly with parties tostrengthen democratic systems. Projectswith a political party component include apartnership with UNDP and other organi-zations in Nicaragua (see page 67-68). TheIDB is also engaged in a technical cooper-ation project with the OAS to study politi-cal party systems in the Andean countriesand Central America. For more informa-tion: http://www.iadb.org.

Organization for American States (OAS), Unitfor the Promotion of Democracy: This wingof the OAS supports democratic consoli-dation in member states in the Americas.Its activities include support to improvedemocratic institutions and processes,election observation, and assistance withnational reconciliation and peace-build-

ing. The OAS has established theInterAmerican Forum on Political Parties,and has partnered with UNDP on partywork in Guatemala (see page 12) andNicaragua (see page 67-68). For moreinformation: http://www.upd.oas.org/lab/aboutudp.html.

Intergovernmental organizationsCommonwealth Parliamentary Association:The association consists of the national,provincial, state and territorial parliamentsand legislatures of the countries of theCommonwealth. Members share theassociation’s mission to promote knowl-edge and understanding about parlia-mentary democracy, and respect for therule of law and individual rights andfreedoms. For more information:http://www.cpahq.org.

International Institute for Democracy andElectoral Assistance (IDEA): With a mandateto support sustainable democracy world-wide, IDEA connects those who analyseand monitor trends in democracy, andthose who engage directly in politicalreform or act in support of democracy athome and abroad. Its political parties’programme aims to contribute to aninformed debate on how parties –governing and opposition alike – canbecome better at communicating with

81

8Tools and ResourcesMany international, regional and national organizations now work on different aspectsof governance; some have an explicit mandate for political party assistance. The follow-ing list includes many of those who are either directly or peripherally involved withparty issues. Lists of UNDP resources and further readings include sources of research,analysis and practical experience.

their members, representing theirconstituencies, organizing their internalaffairs and securing sustainable funding.Research and dialogue with politicalparties is in progress, having begun inmore than 60 countries in Latin America,Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, andSouth Asia. For more information:http://www.idea.int.

Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU): The IPU isthe primary international organization ofparliaments, and a focal point for world-wide dialogue and the exchange ofknowledge on parliaments and represen-tative democracy. Its Promotion ofRepresentative Democracy programmeemphasizes advancing parliamentaryknowledge, assisting parliamentaryelections and supporting parliamentaryinstitutions. For more information:http://www.ipu.org.

Parliamentarians for Global Action: Thisnetwork of over 1,300 legislators from 114parliaments is engaged in promotingdemocracy, peace, justice and develop-ment throughout the world. For moreinformation: http://www.pgaction.org.

Regional political organizationsAfrican Parliamentary Union: Based inAbidjan, the union is a continental inter-parliamentary organization involving 35national parliaments. Besides bringingtogether African parliaments, the unionalso facilitates ties to parliaments in otherregions, and contributes to promotingdemocracy and reaching the objectives ofthe Organization of African Unity. Formore information: http://www.parlia-ment.gh/APU/APU.htm

Arab Inter-Parliamentary Union: With 22member parliaments, the union’s mandateincludes strengthening contacts andpromoting dialogue among Arab parlia-ments; coordinating the activities of Arab

parliaments in various internationalforums, and with different regional organi-zations, particularly within the frameworkof the Inter-Parliamentary Union; andworking on enhancing democraticconcepts and values in Arab countries. Formore information: http://www.arab-ipu.org.

Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum: The forumseeks to provide opportunities for parlia-mentarians from 27 member countries toidentify and discuss matters of commonconcern and interest. It promotes greaterregional cooperation particularly on: thefurther advancement of peace, freedom,democracy and prosperity; the expansionof free trade and investment, and sustain-able development and sound environ-mental practices; and regional peace andsecurity. For more information:http://www.appf.org.pe.

Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas:The forum has 26 member states thatwork on common objectives such asstrengthening the role of the legislativebranch in democracy and human rights;promoting the development and harmo-nization of legislation among memberstates; and contributing to integrationtowards sustainable and harmoniousdevelopment in the hemisphere. For moreinformation: http://www.e-fipa.org/news_en.htm.

Inter-Parliamentary Organization of theAssociation of South East Asian Nations: Thiseight-country organization promotescloser cooperation among member parlia-ments on issues related to achieving theobjectives of ASEAN, namely, peace, stabil-ity and progress. For more information:http://www.aipo.org/.

Southern African Development CommunityParliamentary Forum: The forum bringstogether 12 parliaments from Southern

82

Africa to support the growth of democra-cy in the region, motivated by a legacy ofstruggle against the deprivation of humanrights and civil liberties. Forum activitiesinclude those related to election observa-tion, conflict resolution and raising thenumber of women in parliaments. Formore information: http://www.sadcpf.org

Bilateral supportAmong the bilaterals, USAID has tradition-ally had the most focused political partyassistance programme. Other agencies areinvolved in a broad spectrum of gover-nance issues, listed here for reference:

Canadian International DevelopmentAgency (CIDA): CIDA supports programmesfor democratic development and goodgovernance, with activities related toelections, civil society participation, a freemedia, public sector development, effec-tive urban government, and other issues.Its funds help back the party-related workof the OAS and IDEA. For more informa-tion: http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/index-e.htm.

Danish International Development Agency(Danida): Danida assists efforts to promotefreedom, democracy and human rights. Acornerstone of its governance work is theWider Middle East Initiative—Partnershipfor Progress and Reform. For more infor-mation: http://www.um.dk/en.

Department for International Development(DFID): DFID aids a range of civil societyand democracy projects on issues rangingfrom electoral support to civil societyempowerment to the promotion ofwomen’s rights. For more information:http://www.dfid.gov.uk.

German Agency for Technical Cooperation(GTZ): Work on good governance includesa political reform programme, with initia-tives on democracy and the rule of law,

decentralization, corruption, publicfinance, urban and municipal develop-ment, public sector reform, regionalizationand social development. For more infor-mation: http://www.gtz.de/en/themen/857.htm.

Swedish International DevelopmentCooperation Agency (SIDA): SIDA takes arights-based approach, focusing on civiland political rights, including the right tolife, freedom of expression, the right tovote, personal safety and integrity. Formore information: http://www.sida.se/.

US Agency for International Development(USAID): Political party assistance is aUSAID policy priority. Primary goals are todevelop and consolidate representativedemocracies; develop transparent politicalenvironments; establish viable democraticparties; and ensure conduct of free andfair elections. USAID programmes supportrepresentative, multiparty systems, and donot seek to determine election outcomes.For more information: http://www.usaid.gov.

Groups associated with individualgovernmentsThe Democracy Canada Institute: In 2004,the Canadian Government began consid-ering supporting the Democracy CanadaInstitute as a non-profit, non-governmen-tal organization within the fledglingCanada Corps. In an organizationalblueprint, the Institute for Research onPublic Policy proposed that the neworganization have an exclusive focus ondemocratization, and assist in coordinat-ing international initiatives among politi-cal parties and existing organizations. Formore information:http://www.irpp.org/miscpubs/archive/wp/wp2005-02.htm.

National Endowment for Democracy (NED):This non-profit US organization aims tostrengthen democratic institutions around

83

the world through non-governmentalefforts. It supports and was part of thefounding of the IRI and NDI, which arelinked to the major US political parties.With its annual appropriation from the USCongress, the NED makes hundreds ofgrants each year to support pro-democra-cy NGOs. It also works on electionmonitoring, and facilitating links betweenparliamentarians and constituents. Formore information: www.ned.org. TheEndowment’s International Forum forDemocracy Studies produces the Journalof Democracy, one of the most widelyread and cited publications on theproblems of and prospects for democracyaround the world. For more information:http://www.journalofdemocracy.org.

Westminster Foundation for Democracy:Funded through grants from the BritishGovernment and accountable toParliament for its resources through theForeign and Commonwealth Office, theWestminster Foundation for Democracyassists projects to build pluralistdemocratic institutions. Initiatives general-ly fall into one of eight sectors: civil socie-ty, human rights, legal organizations andreform, independent media, parliamentsand other representative institutions, polit-ical parties, trades unions, and women’srights and political participation. WFDdoes not engage directly with individualparties, although it does support cross-party projects. Otherwise, it relies on theBritish political parties to establish contactwith, offer assistance to and strengthenindividual political parties or movementswith which they have a political affinity.For more information: http://www.wfd.org

Groups associated with one or morepolitical partiesFriedrich Ebert Stiftung: Linked toGermany’s Social Democratic Party andfunded through the German Government,

the foundation works in all areas of gover-nance, including by providing training andtechnical assistance to political parties inemerging democracies. For more informa-tion: http://www.fes.de.

Friedrich Naumann Stiftung: An independ-ent foundation that works in 60 countries,the Friedrich Naumann Stiftung iscommitted to initiatives that foster liberal-ism, defined as advances in individualfreedom. Its mandate calls for strengthen-ing democratic structures, reducing stateinterventionism, advocating decentraliza-tion and privatization, and cutting bureau-cratic regulations. For more information:http://www.fnst.de.

International Republican Institute (IRI). TheIRI is linked to the US Republican Party,and was created with support from USAIDand the NED. IRI programmes are non-partisan and adhere to the principles ofindividual freedom, equal opportunity andthe entrepreneurial spirit that fosterseconomic development. In more than55 countries, IRI conducts international

programmes that include training on suchissues as civic responsibility, the legislativeprocess for newly elected governmentofficials, and the mechanics of organizingpolitical parties and election campaigns.For more information: http://www.iri.org.

Konrad Adenauer Stiftung: Affiliated withthe Christian Democratic movement, thefoundation offers political education,conducts scientific fact-finding researchfor political projects, grants scholarships togifted individuals, researches the history ofChristian Democracy, and supports andencourages European unification, interna-tional understanding and developmentpolicy cooperation. For more information:http://www.kas.de.

National Democratic Institute forInternational Affairs (NDI). The NDI is the USDemocratic Party counterpart to the IRI. It

84

provides non-partisan assistance to helpbuild political and civic organizations,safeguard elections and promote citizenparticipation in over 70 countries. Inselecting parties to support, NDI assessesthe socio-political environment andattempts to identify all democratic, non-violent and viable parties. The institutenarrows its targets based on a set ofstandards established on a case-by-casebasis, and reflecting political realities andresources. For more information:http://www.ndi.org.

Netherlands Institute for MultipartyDemocracy (IMD): An independent organi-zation created by a coalition of all Dutchpolitical parties and funded by the DutchMinistry of Foreign Affairs, the IMD’s activi-ties focus on strengthening the capacitiesof political parties and groups in youngdemocracies. Support is provided fordeveloping internal party capacities,enhancing inter-party cooperation, andenlarging people’s participation in thepolitical decision-making process. Focuscountries include Bolivia, Ghana,Guatemala, Indonesia, Malawi, Mali,Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia andZimbabwe. For more information:http://www.nimd.org. A more completelist of party foundations is found at:International IDEA | Political Parties Links(scroll down to Political Party foundations).

Party internationalsCentrist Democrat International: This is aninternational association of politicalparties and groups adhering to Christianhumanist and Christian democratic ideol-ogy. For more information, see:http://www.idc-cdi.org.

International Democrat Union: The union isa working association of over 80Conservative, Christian Democrat and like-minded political parties of the centre andcentre right in 60 countries. For more

information: http://www.idu.org.

Liberal International: The world federationof liberal political parties embraces theprinciples of human rights, free and fairelections, multiparty democracy, socialjustice, tolerance, a social market econo-my, free trade, environmental sustainabili-ty and a strong sense of internationalsolidarity. For more information:http://www.liberal-international.org/.

Socialist International: This worldwideorganization brings together 161 socialdemocratic, socialist and labour partiesand organizations. For more information:http://www.socialistinternational.org/main.html.

Non-governmental resourcesCarter Center: The Carter Center’s PeacePrograms include the Americas Program,on improving the quality of democracy,thwarting corruption, increasing trans-parency, and decreasing social inequitiesin the Western Hemisphere. Activitiesunder the Democracy Program includeobserving elections, strengthening thecapacity of civic organizations andpromoting the rule of law. For more infor-mation: http://www.cartercenter.org.

Carnegie Endowment for InternationalPeace: This private, non-profit organizationis dedicated to advancing cooperationbetween nations and promoting activeinternational engagement by the UnitedStates. Activities include research, publish-ing, convening people, and, on occasion,creating new institutions and internationalnetworks. One programme focuses ondemocracy and rule of law. CarnegieEndowment scholar Thomas Carothershas played a prominent role in researchon political party assistance. For moreinformation: http://www.carnegieendow-ment.org.

Centre for Democracy and Development:

85

The centre aims to promote the values ofdemocracy, peace and human rights inAfrica and especially in the West Africansub-region. It works through advocacy,training and research in the areas ofgovernance, human rights, peace andsecurity, environment, gender, and socialand economic development. For moreinformation: http://www.cdd.org.uk/index.html.

Centre for the Study of Global Governance:Based at the London School of Economics,this is an international institution dedicat-ed to research, analysis and disseminationof information about global governance. Itencourages interaction between academ-ics, policy makers, journalists and activists,and conducts research on such key facetsof globalization as global governance,global civil society and global security. Formore information: http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/global/.

Council for a Community of Democracies:The council seeks to strengthen collabora-tion among governments and democracyadvocates in building an effective world-wide community of democratic nations,based on agreements at the June 2000Warsaw Community of DemocraciesConference. Its mandate includes promot-ing partnerships in support of democraticpractices among democratically electedparliaments and delegations to the UnitedNations, and international organizations. ADemocracy Library, accessible through anonline request, features an array of relatedresources. For more information:http://www.ccd21.org.

Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA):EISA’s mission is to strengthen electoralprocesses, good governance, humanrights and democratic values throughresearch, capacity development advocacyand other targeted interventions. Theorganization works with governments,

electoral commissions, political parties,civil society groups and other institutionsoperating in the democracy and gover-nance fields throughout Africa. EISA’spolitical parties programme offers techni-cal support to parties between elections.It aims to promote party development atstrategic, organizational and structurallevels by developing leadership throughyouth empowerment and equippingparty leaders with the skills to representthe interests of their constituents in aneffective and democratic manner. EISAalso helps parties to improve their under-standing of and the requirements forparty coalition building. The institute’sextensive research is available online. Formore information: http://www.eisa.org.za/.

International Foundation for ElectoralStudies (IFES): IFES provides targetedtechnical assistance to strengthen transi-tional democracies, including throughsupport for political party developmentand post-election institution building. IFEShas implemented comprehensive, collab-orative democracy solutions in more than100 countries. For more information:http://www.ifes.org.

Netherlands Institute of InternationalRelations (Clingendael): The Clingendaelpromotes understanding of internationalaffairs, particularly on the issues ofEuropean integration, transatlanticrelations, international security, conflictstudies, policy-making related to nationaland international energy markets, negotia-tions and diplomacy, and the UnitedNations and other international organiza-tions. For more information:http://www.cligendael.org.

Open Society Institute (OSI): Backed by theSoros Foundation, the Open SocietyInstitute aims to shape public policy topromote democratic governance, humanrights, and economic, legal and social

86

reform. Within nations, the institutepursues a range of initiatives to supportthe rule of law, education, public healthand independent media. Across bordersand continents, OSI works to buildalliances on issues such as combatingcorruption and rights abuses. For moreinformation: http://www.soros.org.

Local organizations Some of the following organizations maybe useful for decentralization or localgovernance programmes.

Commonwealth Local Government Forum:The forum has been actively involvedacross the Commonwealth in encourag-ing and developing local elections andsystems, election monitoring, and capacitydevelopment support for councillors andcouncils. For more information:http://www.clgf.org.uk/.

Federación de Municipios del IstmoCentroamericano (FEMICA): This groupworks in Central America on issues relatedto municipal finance, local economicdevelopment and transparency. For moreinformation: http://www.femica.org.

Federación Latinoamericana de Ciudades,Municipios y Asociaciones (FLACMA): Thefederation's objectives include helping todeepen decentralization in its associateLatin American countries; to promoterespect for municipal autonomy; and tofacilitate the exchange of experiencesbetween local governments, and munici-pal associations and institutions. For moreinformation: http://www.flacma.org.

International City/County ManagementAssociation (ICMA): ICMA is the professionaland educational organization formanagers, administrators and assistants incities, towns, counties and regional entitiesthroughout the world. For more informa-tion: http://www.icma.org/main/ sc.asp.

United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG):This is the largest local governmentorganization in the world, with a diversemembership that includes both individualcities and national associations of localgovernments. As the main local govern-ment partner of the United Nations, UCLGpromotes the policies and experiences oflocal governments in key areas such aspoverty, sustainable development andsocial inclusion. Regional branches areactive in Africa, Asia Pacific, CentralAmerica, Europe, Latin America, theEastern Mediterranean and Middle East,and North America. For more information:http://www.cities-localgovernments.org/uclg/index.asp.

UNDP RESOURCESDemocracy in Latin America: Towards aCitizens’ Democracy. A report published in2004. [http://www.undp.org/democracy_report_latin_america].

Human Development Report 2002:Deepening Democracy in a FragmentedWorld. [http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/].

UNDP’s Engagement with Political Parties. Amapping of UNDP’s work with politicalparties published in 2005 by the UNDPOslo Governance Centre, Bureau forDevelopment Policy. [http://portal.undp.org/server/nis/4649027220126077?hiddenRequest=3Dtrue].

“UNDP Practice Note on Electoral Systemsand Processes.” Issued in 2004.[http://content.undp.org/go/practices/governance/docs/?d_id=164291].

“UNDP Policy Guidance Note onParliamentary Development.” Issued in2002. [http://www.undp.org/policy/docs/policynotes/parliamentarydevelop-ment.pdf ].

Democratic Governance Work Space: See

87

the news, e-discussions, consolidatedreplies and rosters of partners under eachservice line for information related topolitical party assistance. Requires apassword. [http://practices.undp.org/democratic-governance/].

OTHER KEY REFERENCESThe following resources were important inthe preparation of this handbook.

Axworthy, Thomas S., Leslie Campbell andDavid Donovan. 2005 “The DemocracyCanada Institute: A Blueprint.” IRPPWorking Paper Series no. 2005-02a.

Institute for Research on Public Policy, Montreal.[http://www.irpp.org/miscpubs/archive/wp/wp2005-02.htm.]

Carothers, Thomas. n.d. “Analyzing the Goals and Methods of Political Party Aid.”Background paper prepared for the United Nations Development Programme, NewYork.

———. 2004. “Political Party Aid.” Paper prepared for the Swedish InternationalDevelopment Agency.[http://www.idea.int/parties/upload/Political_Party_Aid_by_Carothers_Oct04.pdf ].

Democracy Agenda: Alliance for Generating a European Network for DemocracyAssistance. 2004. “The Hague Statement on Enhancing the European Profile inDemocracy Assistance.” [http://www.democracyagenda.org/index.php].

Doherty, Ivan. 2001. “Democracy Out of Balance: Civil Society Can’t Replace PoliticalParties.” Policy Review, April/May.[http://www.accessdemocracy.org/NDI/library/1099_polpart_balance.pdf ].

IDEA (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance). 2005. ElectoralSystem Design: The New International IDEA Handbook.[http://www.idea.int/publications/esd/new_en.cfm].

IMD (Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy). 2004. A Framework for DemocraticParty Building: A Handbook. [http://www.nimd.org/upload/publications/2004/imd_insti-tutional_development_handbook-a4.pdf ].

———. 2005. “Support for Political Parties and Party Systems: The IMD Approach.”[http://www.nimd.org/default.aspx?menuid=17&type=publicationlist&contentid=&archive=1].

NDI (National Democratic Institute for International Affairs). 2001. A Guide to PoliticalParty Development.[http://www.accessdemocracy.org/library/1320_gdeppdev_102001.pdf#search='ivan%20doherty].

———. 2004. Political Party Capacity Building Programme Manual. [http://www.access-democracy.org/library/1719_na_politicalpartiesmanual_060104.pdf ].

USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 1998. Handbook ofDemocracy and Governance Programme Indicators.[http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/pnacc390.pdf ].

88

———.1999. Political Party Development Assistance.

[http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/pnace500.pdf ].

———. 2003. “USAID Political Party Assistance Policy.”

[http://www.dec.org/pdf_docs/PDABY359.pdf ].

Westminster Foundation for Democracy. 2004. “Building Better Democracies: WhyPolitical Parties Matter.” Report prepared by Peter Burnell on the conference “AchievingSustainable Political Change in Emerging Democracies: The Political Party Challenge,” 15-17 March, Wilton Park, United Kingdom

FURTHER READINGSSome of these are cited in the handbook; colleagues and contributors suggested others.

Anheier, Helmut, Mary Kaldor and M. Glasius, eds. 2004. Global Civil Society 2004/5.Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Bevis, Gwendolyn. 2004. “Civil Society Groups and Political Parties: SupportingConstructive Relationships.” USAID Occasional Paper Series. US Agency for InternationalDevelopment, Washington, DC.

Burnell, Peter. 2000. “Promoting Parties and Party Systems in New Democracies: Is ThereAnything the International Community Can Do?” Paper for the Political StudiesAssociation-UK 50th Annual Conference, 10-13 April, London.[http://www.psa.ac.uk/cps/2000/Burnell%20Peter.pdf ].

Canada, Parliament of. 1988. “The Opposition in a Parliamentary System.” Paper preparedby Gerald Schmitz, Political and Social Affairs Division. [http://www.parl.gc.ca/informa-tion/library/PRBpubs/bp47-e.htm].

Carbone, G. M. 2002. “Developing Multi-Party Politics: Stability and Change in Ghana andMozambique.” Crisis States Programme Working Paper No. 36. Development StudiesInstitute, London. [http://www.crisisstates.com/download/wp/wp36.pdf ].

Carothers, Thomas. 1999. Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve. Washington, DC:Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

———. 2004. Critical Mission: Essays on Democracy Promotion. Washington, DC: CarnegieEndowment for International Peace.

Caul, Miki. 1997. Women’s Representation in Parliament: The Role of Political Parties. Irvine,California: Centre for the Study of Democracy, the University of California at Irvine.[http://www.democ.uci.edu/ democ/papers/caul.htm].

The Commonwealth. 2005. Annnotaed agenda from the Workshop on Government andOpposition: Roles, Rights and Responsibilities, 26 July, Port of Spain.[http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=144615].

Diamond, L. and Richard Gunther. 2001. Political Parties and Democracy. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins Press.

89

Erdmann, Gero. 2005. “Hesitant Bedfellows: The German Stiftungen and Party Aid inAfrica: An Attempt at an Assessment.” Paper prepared for the workshop “GlobalisingParty-Based Democracy,” 7-8 July, Warwick University.

Gershman, Carl. 2004. “Democracy Promotion: The Relationship of Political Parties andCivil Society.” Democratization 11(3).

Hameso, Seyoum. 2002. “Issues and Dilemmas of Multi-Party Democracy in Africa.” WestAfrica Review 3(2): 1-26.

IDEA (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance). 1999. Code ofConduct for Political Parties: Campaigning in Democratic Elections.[http://www.idea.int/publications].

———. 2002. Democracies in Development: Politics and Reform in Latin America.[http://www.idea.int/publications].

———. 2003. Funding of Parties and Election Campaigns Handbook.[http://www.idea.int/publications].

———. 2004. From Regulations to Good Practices: The Challenge of Political Funding inLatin America. [www.idea.int/publications].

______. 1998. Women in Parliament: Beyond the Numbers [http://www.idea.int/publica-tions/wip/index.cfm].

IMD (Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy). 2004. “A Report on the Evaluationof the IMD Programme in Bolivia.”[http://www.nimd.org/default.aspx?menuid=17&type=publicationlist&contentid=&archive=1].

———. 2004. “A Report on the Evaluation of the IMD/IEA Programme in Ghana.”[http://www.nimd.org/default.aspx?menuid=17&type=publicationlist&contentid=&archive=1].

IPU (Inter-Parliamentary Union). 1999. “Guidelines on the Rights and Duties of theOpposition in Parliament.” Unanimosly adopted by the participants at the ParliamentarySeminar on Relations Between Majority and Minority Parties in African Parliaments, 17-19 May, Libreville, Gabon. [http://www.ipu.org/splz-e/gabon.htm].

Janda, Kenneth. n.d. “Adopting Party Law.” A paper prepared for the National DemocraticInstitute for International Affairs, Washington, DC. [http://www.ndi.org/globalp/polpar-ties/programspp/research.asp].

———. 2005. “Party Law and the Goldilocks Problem: How Much Is Just Right?” A paperprepared for the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, Washington, DC.[http://www.ndi.org/globalp/polparties/programspp/research.asp].

Jesse, Macy. 1974. Party Organization and Machinery. New York: Arno Press.

Johnston, Michael. n.d. “Political Finance Policy, Parties, and Democratic Development.” Apaper prepared for the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs,Washington, DC. [http://www.ndi.org/globalp/polparties/programspp/research.asp].

90

———. 2005. “Good Politics Is Good Government: Parties, Political Finance, andDemocracy.” A paper prepared for the National Democratic Institute for InternationalAffairs, Washington, DC.[http://www.ndi.org/globalp/polparties/programspp/research.asp].

Kaldor, Mary. 2002. “Civil Society and Accountability.” Background paper for the 2002Human Development Report. United Nation’s Development Programme, New York.

———. 2003. Global Civil Society: An Answer to War. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Katz, R. and P. Mair. 1994. How Parties Organize: Change and Adaptation in PartyOrganizations in Western Democracies. London: Sage.

Kethysegile, Juru, and Monica Bookie. 2003. “Intra-party Democracy and the Inclusion ofWomen.” Journal of African Elections 2(1): 49-62.

Kumar, Krishna. 2004. “International Political Party Assistance: An Overview and Analysis.”Working Paper 33. Netherlands Institute of International Relations (Clingendael) ConflictResearch Unit, The Hague.[http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2004/20041000_cru_working_paper_33.pdf ].

Mair, Stefan. 2004. “Multi-Partisan or Bi-Partisan Co-operation: What Is the Best Solutionfor Democracy Assistance?” Paper presented at a conference on the enhancement ofthe European profile in democracy assistance, July, The Hague. [http://www.democra-cyagenda.org/papers/3.4_Mair.doc].

Mathisen, Harald, and Lars Svarsand. 2002. “Funding Political Parties in Emerging AfricanDemocracies: What Role for Norway?” Chr. Michelson Institute, Bergen.[http://www.cmi.no/publications/2002/rep/r20026.pdf#search='political%20party%20development].

McKinnon, Don. 2005. Speech by the Commonwealth Secretary-General to theWorkshop on Government and Opposition: Roles, Rights and Responsibilities, 26 July,Port of Spain.[http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodelD=144841].

Michels, Robert. 1958. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of Oligarchies in Modern PoliticalParties. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.

Moar, M. 1996. Political Parties and Party Systems. London: Routledge.

Netherlands Institute of International Relations. (Clingendael). 2004. “Lessons Learned inPolitical Party Assistance.” Seminar report, 4 November, The Hague. [http://www.clingen-dael.nl/publications/2004/20041100_cru_proc_schoofs.pdf#search='political%20party%20assistance].

Norris, Pippa. n.d. “Developments in Party Communications.” A paper prepared for theNational Democratic Institute for International Affairs, Washington, DC.[http://www.ndi.org/globalp/polparties/programspp/research.asp].

———. 2005. “Strengthening Party Communications.” A paper prepared for the NationalDemocratic Institute for International Affairs, Washington, DC.[http://www.ndi.org/globalp/polparties/programspp/research.asp].

91

Randall, V., and L. Svasand. 2002. “Political Parties and Democratic Consolidation inAfrica.” Democratization 9(3). [http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/jointsessions/paperar-chive/grenoble/ws13/randall_svasand.pdf ].

Sabatini, Christopher. 2003. “Lost Illusions: Decentralisation and Political Parties.” Journalof Democracy, April 2003.

Salih, Mohamed M. A. 2003. African Political Parties: Evolution, Institutionalization andGovernance. London: Pluto Press.

Scarrow, Susan E. n.d. “Implementing Intra-Party Democracy.” A paper prepared for theNational Democratic Institute for International Affairs, Washington, DC.[http://www.ndi.org/globalp/polparties/programspp/research.asp].

———. 2005. “Intra-Party Democracy.” A paper prepared for the National DemocraticInstitute for International Affairs, Washington, DC. [http://www.ndi.org/globalp/polpar-ties/programspp/research.asp].

SIDA (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency). 2002. “The PoliticalInstitutions: Parties, Elections and Parliaments.”[http://www.undp.org/governance/docspublications/policy_dialogue/23_Political_Institutions.pdf ].

Smith, B. C. 2003. Understanding Third World Politics: Theories of Political Change andDevelopment. See the chapter “‘Political Parties and Party Systems.” Bloomington, Indiana:Indiana University Press.

Southall, Roger. n.d. “Beyond Hit and Hope? Party Assistance and the Crisis ofDemocracy in Southern Africa.” Unpublished paper.

Teorell, Jan. 1999. “A Deliberative Defense of Intra Party Democracy.” Party and Politics 5:363-382.

United Nations. 2005. In Larger Freedom: Towards Security, Development and Human Rightsfor All. A report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations for decision by Heads ofState and Government in September 2005. [www.un.org/largerfreedom].

———. 2005. “World Summit Outcome.” Draft resolution referred to the High-levelPlenary Meeting of the General Assembly by the General Assembly at its fifty-ninthsession. A/60/L.1*. [http://www.un.org/summit2005/].

Williams, R. 2002. “Aspects of Party Finance and Political Corruption.”[http://www.palgrave.com/pdfs/0333739868.pdf ].

92

United Nations Development ProgrammeDemocratic Governance GroupBureau for Development Policy304 East 45th Street, 10th FloorNew York, NY 10017F: (212) 906-6471www.undp.org 05

/06

Des

ign:

Cyn

thia

Spe

nce

UNDP is the UN’s global development network, advocating for change and connect-ing countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life.We are on the ground in 166 countries, working with them on their own solutions toglobal and national development challenges. As they develop local capacity, theydraw on the people of UNDP and our wide range of partners.

a handbook on working with political parties · other development partners in this area. undp now...

Documents