The ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) has emerged as "least democratic" party for the second consecutive year in a systematic evaluation of intra-party democracy in the country in which Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) is ranked as the most democratic party, according to a report issued by a think-tank on Monday.
Pildat, in its report on "Internal Democracy of Major Political Parties of Pakistan 2015", concludes that the selected eight political parties received an overall score of 40 out of 100, which indicates a drop from the overall score of 43 in 2014, which shows that the state of internal democracy of political parties further deteriorated in 2015.
The PML-N which scored 32 percent in 2014, witnessed a further decline in its intra-party democracy state which was recorded 31 percent for the year 2015. According to the report, the overall quality of political parties' internal democracy slipped from 43 percent in 2014 to 40 percent in 2015 with most of the parties mere lengthened shadow of their leaders and intra-party elections were found a mere formality in most cases.
The ranking score-card assessing internal democracy of eight political parties places the JI at the first with 56 percent score, the National Party (NP) at second with 47 percent score, the PTI at third with 44 percent score, Awami National Party (ANP) at fourth with 40 percent score, Pakistan People's Party (PPP) at fifth with 36 percent score, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazlur Rehman (JUI-F) and Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) both at sixth with 33 percent score each, and the PML-N at seventh with 31 percent score.
Within this overall score, the indicator of parliamentary parties' role in developing party position received the highest score of 49 percent. Discouragement of dynastic leadership in parties scored 47 percent, which is the second highest score followed by tolerance of dissent within parties with a score of 46 percent.
Credibility of political parties' annual statements of accounts submitted to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and whether their funding base was wide enough, received the lowest score of 26 percent. Pildat's 2014 Report had shown somewhat similar results in that the two weakest indicators were change in top party leadership, lack of credible funding base and audited statement of accounts.
Regular elections, regular change in leadership through election, regular meetings of the Consultative Council (Shura) and the Working Committee (Aamla) and discouragement of dynastic leadership within the party, have apparently favoured JI rated as the most democratic political party, it observed. It further noted that a landmark amendment was made in the constitution of the party in October 2015 in which 10 seats have been allocated for women in the party's Majlis-e-Shura. Although JI follows a particular type of internal democracy in which there are no candidates in party election and election campaign is not allowed, this peculiarity has not come in the way of the party securing top position as the most democratic party, the report added.
The NP, led by Senator Mir Hasil Khan Bizenjo, has emerged as the second most democratic party which is a significant improvement over party's 4th position in 2014, it noted. Regular change in top leadership since its founding in 2003, party conventions successfully conducted in 2015 in which transparent party elections also took place for all four provincial chapters of the party, and a lack of any sign of dynastic leadership have favoured the democratic credentials of NP.
On the other hand, the ruling PML-N has once again ranked as the least democratic party. Irregular or no party meetings, lack of competitive elections and continuation of the same leadership since the founding of the PML-N are the factors perceived as the major weaknesses in the democratic character of the party, the report noted. It added that the MQM and the JUI-F, rated as the second least democratic parties, are among the eight parties evaluated.
About the method of the assessment, it stated that in order to assess democracy within political parties objectively and scientifically, a framework consisting of 12 indicators was devised by a broad-based steering committee. A party-wise account of each of the 12 indicators was compiled after collecting data from various sources including the political parties. This account became the basis of quantitative assessment (scoring) for the parties, it added.
Comments
Comments are closed.