Does the constitution of the political party determine how democratic a country would be or the constitution of the state?

 It is the nature and the constitution of the political parties which decide how democratic a country is, not the constitution of the country.

Indeed, it's a hot topic these days when the world is under political crisis. A democratic country follows its constitution for the peaceful transfer of power but is this the only way to get the best out of it. Perhaps not, as the state's constitution is the prerequisite for fair democratic transfer of power and authority. Certainly, the constitution guarantees the rights and prevalence of justice and order but what if when there is a futile premier. Constitution is only a piece of paper until enforced. It suits the best ruler who could rule as to its soul. 

Another, matter that has the potential threat to democracy is unfair corruption, lawlessness, monopoly, and delayed justice. Constitution never allows powerful to sneak past without justice fulfilled but what if he escapes justice. Surely, there is no flaw in the constitution but there is a flaw in its execution. What if I say, "there should also be a constitution of each political party"?

This might occur awkwardly but it works. The constitution of the Soviet Union was confederal but there is only one political party in the country. As a result, the government of the Soviet Union is more centralized than in any state in the West or the third world. The political parties in the US do not have any special constituency to which they are tied. The result is that every government in the US is a right-wing government on an international scale. 

The political parties in Britain, France, Italy, etc have distinct constituencies. The result is a major shift in policy when there is a change in the ruling party.

Every constitution of Pakistan that was made was quite workable, it is the ruling group that weighs the scale in their favor to gain control over bureaucratic apparatus. The political parties do not adopt democratic instruments to organize themselves, like in Pakistan and India, instead of the local constituency or constituents - political leadership gives party tickets to contest elections. But Congress party in India has rather a distinct approach where constituency party selects candidates candidly.

What is far more important than the constitution is that the political parties and the politicians should have a constitutional approach to governance and administration that would have a far-reaching constructive impression on the country and that would more likely wear off stiffening martial law and bureaucratic hegemony. In this regard, the constitution of the Muslim League drafted by Quaid-e-Azam is our best guide in restoring democratic norms in the country. No compromise over democratic norms and the constitution can better lead us to achieve what we lost in decades ago.