Maurice Rickard argues that while a party exists to gain the power of government, this is not an absolute goal for a party. It is merely a goal to achieve something more fundamental and important to the party.

From the Parliamentary Library Paper;

It is sometimes argued that the underlying interest of a political party, as an organization, is to gain or maintain power. Certainly, this is an important and crucial interest. But it does not make sense for the fundamental goal of political parties to be power for its own sake. The true value of political power is as a means, a capacity to achieve something else that is valued more fundamentally. It is the realisation in society of this something else - the party's values, principles and ideals - that is most plausibly taken as the fundamental goal.

In systems with greater constitutional protections, such as Australia and America, we have seen parties use taxpayer money and administrative power arbitrarily in order to entrench the ruling party as the natural party of government. DIMIA was politicised for electoral purposes and it is turning out that Justice in the US was for the same.

Rickard argues that the politics has become pragmatic rather than ideological, which waters down the using government for something more 'fundamental'. Another truth of party based government in Australia is that a party leader has no authority until they have won an election. Until that point the party they lead runs somewhere between quiet disdain and anarchy. It is only winning elections that brings party discipline.

I lean toward the conclusion that parties exist in order to gain executive or legislative power - and once in such a place will use government in order to persist their current situation and advance their future electoral interests.

cam