A key aim of the on-going process of electoral reforms is to force politicians to practice democracy in their parties, to make our political system acceptably democratic. However, a closer look reveals that neither the election commission (EC) nor our civil societies have proposed anything substantial which will help achieve this goal.

For example, the EC's press briefing, on April 05, on draft electoral reforms proposes that the constitutions of all registered political parties must have provisions for the formation of national and local level committees, and elections must be held for appointing members of those committees.

It is perhaps common knowledge that all our political parties have this provision in their constitutions, although they have not followed it faithfully and regularly. And making them obey their constitutions is a necessary condition for practicing democracy within parties, but certainly not sufficient.

This paper will illustrate the required conditions for practicing democracy within political parties, and hopes that they, if included in the forthcoming electoral rules, will go a long way in solving many critical problems that are making our political system ineffective.

The key word, which we must focus our attention on democracy. In public administration or governance, the most crucial point centers on the question: To whom does the sovereign authority of the state belong?

In democracy, this authority belongs to voters or people in general, and is vested in the institution of government. However, since the people cannot collectively exercise this power, they elect some their fellow citizens to run the government machinery on their behalf.

The critical point to be noted here is that ordinary members of any democratic association are, and ought to be, directly involved with appointing the individuals who will represent them and further their interests. The same principle must be followed in practicing democracy in our political parties.

In the parliamentary form of government, ordinary members of a political party ought to be involved in two very important party functions. First, they must be directly involved in the selection of the leadership teams, from the grassroots level up to the national level.

Second, they must nominate their party candidates for the national as well as local elections. When ordinary members are allowed to perform these two functions adequately, only then can a political party be said to be practicing democracy in the party.

How these democratic principles can be practiced in our country can be shown by describing Canada's example.

All major political parties in Canada have two parallel wings -- political and parliamentary -- and their structures and principles are very similar. However, since I am a member of Liberal Party of Canada (LPC), and have actively participated in many of its activities, I will describe the organizational structure and principles of this party.

The political wing of LPC is the base organization, and has countrywide set-ups. At the national level, the executive committee of LPC is composed of a president and a number of chairs for different departments.

They are all directly elected in national conventions for a period of two years. These conventions are held every two years and delegates, nominated from the grass-root level set-ups and ex-officio both, vote in these elections.

The grassroots level structure of LPC, to which all ordinary members belong, is called a riding (constituency in our terminology) association. The riding association has a president and several directors directly elected in an annual meeting.

The parliamentary wing, or parliamentary party, on the other hand, is headed by a leader who is elected in the same way, in a special convention. This special meeting is called Leadership Convention, and the vote in this convention is called leadership vote. The leader of LPC is its head, and rightful spokesperson. All party members elected to Parliament become members of the parliamentary party or caucus.

The leader has no fixed term. However, his/her popularity is reviewed in every biennial convention of the party through votes taken in the riding association. It is also conventional in Canada that the leader of the party running a government resigns if the party loses in general elections.

The major advantage of this division is that the leader, and its parliamentary team, is primarily concerned with national and international policy issues. In our popular jargon, they are absolutely absorbed in issues of good governance.

The political wing, on the other hand, is concerned with organizational issues including colleting membership, organizing meetings, selecting delegates for national and regional conventions, nominating party candidates for general elections, fund raising etc.

Although the two wings are separate, with two different kinds of executive, they are intimately integrated, as all the members of parliamentary team are involved with the appropriate level of the political wing.

The second important function in which general members directly participate in is the fielding of party candidates for general elections. Perhaps the point can be better explained by my experience here in Guelph.

The last general elections in Canada were held in January last year, in which LPC, which was running the government, lost. Immediately after the declaration of the results, the then leader of LPC, and prime minster of Canada, Paul Martin congratulated the leader of the Conservative Party, Stephen Harper, whose party formed the minority government.

He announced his resignation from party leadership at the same time. This opened the race for leadership. A new leader was elected in a special convention last September (?). It is also important to note that most of the top leaders of Martin's team removed themselves from leadership activities. The new leader, Stephane Dion, a former political science professor, formed his new team with mostly new faces.

In Guelph, Brenda Chamberlain of LPC, who won three consecutive elections, opened the door for a new nominee by announcing her decision not to seek re-nomination for the next general elections. This she did in July last year.

After this, we saw two veteran Liberals mobilizing their campaigns to take Mrs. Chamberlain's place. They met their Liberal friends, collected new members and funds.

In March this year, the LPC leader Stephane Dion advised all riding associations to complete their nominations. Accordingly, on 12th instant, a nomination meeting was held by the Guelph riding association.

First, all nominators were given three minutes to introduce their candidates (there were four). Then each candidate was given eight minutes to describe his or her qualifications and future policies. After this introduction meeting, actual voting was held. Members of riding association, were allowed to vote.

After the voting was over, we again assembled in meeting hall and the winner, Frank Valoriate, a lawyer, was declared. All the other contestants congratulated him, and promised him their support. From now on, the Guelph riding of LPC will be working united to win the upcoming general election.

This is, in short, how democracy is practiced in major political parties in Canada. This is perhaps common in all developed democracies. If this practice is absent in any country, then it must be understood that political parties in that country are using democracy to capture power for their own personal and group interests. Unfortunately, this has been the case with us.

Now, if we are serious about bringing reforms in our political parties and institutionalising democracy in the country, then the above two steps must be made mandatory for organizing a political party.

In other words, the constitutions of all political parties must have provisions for these two principles: (i) two parallel wings -- political and parliamentary -- and (ii) party nominations awarded directly by ordinary members.

The advantages of these reforms ought to be crystal clear. They will have tremendous effect on money and muscle power in politics. It will make the MPs accountable to their constituents, and make people politically more conscious.

The author, who taught at Bangladesh Agricultural University and Brac University, currently lives in Guelph, Canada.