Search

This paper presents a comparative analysis of the extent to which party law influences the internal organisation of parties in four Commonwealth common law states: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The research engages with recent comparative party literature that emphasises the increasingly close relationship between political parties and the state, in particular the cartel party thesis. My findings indicate that over the last few decades parties have become subject to greater legal regulation, which supports the claim that parties are now managed more closely by the state. However, it is important to distinguish between legislative and common law (judicial) regulation, as each has a different impact on the organisational autonomy of the cartel party. I argue that parties (as autonomous actors and the authors of parliamentary decrees) have been able to shape legislative regulation to their advantage by eliciting significant financial support from the state, yet minimising the corresponding degree of legislative intrusion into their internal activities. However, cartel parties have not been able to prevent judicial scrutiny of their internal workings, and have lost a significant degree of organisational independence as principles of administrative law (usually reserved for state bodies) are being increasingly applied to their structure and behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent cross-national studies of the institutional prerequisites of economic growth have identified common law systems as superior to those of civil law. The assumption is that all common law systems share a similarity of structure and law which creates an environment facilitating investment and contract enforcement. Yet, due to its evolutionary nature, common law is not everywhere the same, nor is the historical development of the common law similar in all countries. This paper makes this point by examining the political development of common law in India and Kenya, in order to compare their legal institutions and histories. Both of these countries adopted common law through its transplantation in the context of colonial domination rather than organically. The paper concludes that the two countries, though sharing the common law, had very different colonial experiences of legal development. Moreover, once Kenya and India achieved independence, political circumstances affected institutional development and the application of law in each country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]