Parties and Candidates

Internal Functioning of Political Parties

Political parties perform many tasks both during election campaigns and between elections. Since much of the work of policy-making, ideological changes, and candidate selection take place within the parties rather than in the public domain, it is important to look at the internal functioning of political parties. It is common to demand a certain degree of internal democracy in political parties, and even though the concept is not very well defined, some features can be identified. Accountability of party leadership, procedures for consultation with party members (and the electorate as a whole), local and regional presence, and transparent candidate selection are some building blocs for internal democracy.

Internal functioning and operations of political parties may depend to some extent on legal regulations – such as the constitution or a political party law – but is more commonly guided by internal party regulations. The internal functioning of political parties has an impact on how different needs, interests, and social demands in the society get represented in parliament.

Legal regulations regarding internal functioning may include standards for intra-party democracy, such as regulations for internal elections for leadership positions or women’s representation in the party leadership.

Internal voluntary party regulations stipulate candidate selection processes, such as primary elections that are held in some countries, or voluntary party candidate quotas, e.g. for women or ethnic minorities. Political parties select and nominate candidates for elections, support them in the elections campaign, and furnish them with all necessary equipment to stand as candidates.

Furthermore, the party structure is essential to the study of the internal functioning of political parties. It determines who has influence on the decision making process and how much influence they have.

Important to the understanding of the internal functioning of political parties is also the role of the party media.

How the members of a political party may exercise influence on the leadership and on the internal party decision-making process will be discussed in the file "The Role of Members".

Image:

Discarded Election Signs by wfiupublicradio is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic License.

Legal Regulations Regarding Internal Functioning

This section deals in particular with the legal regulations that concern the internal functioning of political parties, such as laws and regulations for nomination and leadership elections and women’s representation in the party leadership, such as membership requirements, rights and duties of party members, and forbidden activities of the party.

Internal Elections for Leadership Positions

Most of the political parties in democratic societies try to involve their members by giving them a role in the process of selecting local and national party leaders as well as candidates for a range of elected offices. Here, the focus will be on internal selection of party leaders only. To read about candidate selection within political parties, see the file "Candidate Selection within Political Parties".

There are three concepts that are central to the issue of party selection of leaders. One is centralisation, which is what level in the party – local, regional, or national –controls the candidate selection. The second is participation, meaning who – ordinary members or top leadership – controls the process at the level where the decision is taken. A third is mediation, the mechanism through which organized interests within the party can gain influence.

Centralisation

In an extremely centralised system, a national party agency would decide on the leadership selection without any involvement by the local branches of the party. At the other end of the scale would be a system where the most local branches of the party would decide on their leaders and possibly also representatives on national leadership bodies without any approval or participation from the national level. As in so many other fields, the actual practice is usually somewhere between the two extremes.

In most political parties, local selection processes deal mostly with local candidates to general elections, while the national leadership is selected on a national basis. In both cases, the party has to strike a difficult balance between national level strategies and local sensitivities.

Participation

A situation with extremely low participation would be if the party leader alone would decide on his or her leadership body. The other extreme would be if the ordinary members of the party would decide without any participation or involvement of the current party leaders.

Parties in different countries have chosen to have varying degrees of member participation in the selection process, from party-run primary elections to indirect elections where party branches send delegates to a national congress.

Mediation

Mediation describes the problem of recognizing, and the process of mediating, the distinct interests in a political party and its organisations. Most political parties consist of different wings, subunits or special groups, which constantly seek to influence the party’s leadership and therefore also the selection process of party leaders. High mediation of different interests would lead to a fair representation and participation of all distinct groups in the leadership selection and as a consequence in the leadership committee, too.

Mechanisms of party leadership selection

The three concepts of centralisation, participation, and mediation need to be balanced in party leadership selection processes. Some parties put more emphasis on one of them while others try to include all, and it will ultimately depend on issues of political culture, party ideology, and organisational traditions what the outcome will be. Some parties also apply internal quotas to diversify the representation on the top national leadership body.

Common mechanisms of leadership selection include the following:

Only the members of the party's parliamentary caucus decide. The group that makes the decision about who is going to be the next party leader therefore consists of a small number of people. This shows a high level of centralization and low levels of participation and mediation.
Another selection method is election by an Electoral College, which consists of a limited group of, for example, the parliamentary caucus, representatives of constituency associations, and representatives of any affiliated trade unions or trade associations. Each of the groups usually holds an equal share of the votes necessary to elect the party leader. This mechanism reflects a compromise and the aim to mediate between different interests.
Some parties let widely open party conventions (also called direct party vote or open primary) decide rather than the parliamentary party. A certain similarity to American primary elections for election candidate selection cannot be overlooked. This method emphasizes participation.
Another type of selection method would combine restricted participation in the election with a wide mediation of interests (especially those linked to de-centralization) called the indirect party vote (Carty and Blake 1999). Voting can be restricted to party membership or parliamentary membership and can be set up with fees to pay. A fair mediation of the votes is achieved through weighing the votes with results of the constituency associations or voting results in the regions in order to ensure representation of regional interests in the political party’s decision on leadership.
The last type can be named a structured selection, because the voting is on the one hand universal to everybody who wants to participate, while the results are strongly structured through mediation, i.e. different interests are recognized more than others. This means that the result of the leadership election will be modified ex post in a way that the votes of for instances regional party branches, women’s wings and subunits will gain more influence than others,

Consequences of different selection methods

The leadership selection mechanism a political party applies has implications on what types of leaders are selected.

Leadership selection through only parliamentary party members by caucus tends to lead to the election of a leader from within the parliamentary circle, usually with long experience in the parliamentary arena.

When the concept of mediation dominates the process, organized party branches and/or auxiliary organisations get a bigger role, and the negotiation between them can be clearer than in internal struggles between member interests. In the best-case scenario, leaders selected through this process enjoy legitimacy within the party, but mediation processes can also leave the general membership with no or little influence over the decision.

Mechanisms with emphasis on decentralization clearly shift the balance towards candidates from states or regions and open opportunities for persons outside traditional areas of office to be selected.

Open selection processes with a high level of participation from ordinary party members tend to lead to the election of.the most popular and well-known candidate, often regardless of profound experiences in legislative and party work. Since the party leadership has no influence on the selection process (such as through mediation of certain interests), even party leaders with rather short parliamentary careers or with no experience in an elective office may be elected.

The opening of internal leadership selection mechanisms to more general participation or democratization has also led to unintended consequences such as to the rise of internal battles between party groups and factions or even to the phenomenon of candidates taking part in leadership elections without any dedication to the party itself but rather to a single issue that in their view needs to be addressed publicly.

In general, political parties all over the world tend to want to have a wide involvement in their leadership selection, but decisions vary on how to balance different regional, issue-based, and participatory interests.

Other Legal Regulations Regarding Internal Functioning

This section deals in particular with the legal regulations that concern the internal functioning of political parties, other than laws and regulations for nomination and leadership elections and women’s representation in the party leadership.

Some countries have codified general principles of the internal functioning of political parties in their electoral or party laws. In some cases, the regulations are vague and only require political parties to adhere to (unspecified) principles of internal democracy – in other cases, the law prescribes specific procedures such as the holding of internal elections for leadership positions and candidatures.

The membership of political parties can be regulated specifying the minimum age for party membership, rights and obligations of members, etc.

Depending on the requirements to register a political party or to present candidates for election, political parties can be required to have a certain number of members, present an election manifesto, have party statutes, or organize local branches in different parts of the country.

Internal Voluntary Party Regulations

In contrast to legal regulations, i.e. constitutional provisions, party law, and electoral law provisions that concern the internal functioning of political parties, regulations may also be voluntarily introduced by political parties themselves in order to ensure internal democratic processes and operations.

Most political parties have a Party Constitution or similar document adopted by the highest decision-making body in the party. Many also have an internal rule-book or set of regulations that are internal to the party and guide decisions and procedures.

These voluntary regulations can concern for example:

The structure of the party, especially the relative independence of local branches and auxiliary groups
Decision-making procedures
Membership
The election or selection of leaders and candidates
Mechanisms for conflict resolution within the party
Ethical rules of behaviour of party members and staff

Candidate Selection within Political Parties

Candidate selection is the process by which political parties decide who will be on the ballot paper as their recommended candidate(s). The way in which they make that choice is mainly determined by their own internal rules and procedures. Nomination is the legal process by which election authorities screen the candidates recommended by the party, approve their candidacy, and print their names on the ballot paper.

In each election, thousands of persons could potentially stand for election, but it would be impossible for voters to make an informed choice among them. Political parties therefore act as useful and necessary gate-keepers narrowing down the list of candidates to a small enough pool.

Parties can select their candidates in many different ways. In numerous cases, the existing legal framework establishes that political parties should “democratically” elect their candidates, but this concept is very vague, and there are few if any applicable legal provisions. Only in a few cases does legislation lay down the process by which candidates should be selected.

There are two concepts that are central to the issue of party selection of candidates. One is centralisation, that is, what level in the party – local, regional or national –controls the candidate selection. The second is participation, meaning who – ordinary members or top leadership – controls the process at the level where the decision is taken.

Centralisation

In an extremely centralised system, a national party agency would decide on the candidate selection without any involvement by the more local branches of the party. At the other end of the scale would be a system where the most local branches of the party would decide on candidates without any approval or participation from the national level. As in so many other fields, the actual practice is usually somewhere between the two extremes.

In most political parties, candidates are chosen at the local level even though the national level of the party has a varying degree of influence. The influence can be pro-active by encouraging, recommending, or forcing the local branch to chose a particular candidate – or negative by the national level party reserving the right to veto candidates. In both cases, the party has to strike a difficult balance between national level strategies and local sensitivities.

Participation

A situation with extremely low participation would be if the party leader alone would decide on the candidates. The other extreme would be if the ordinary members of the party would decide without any participation or involvement of the party leaders.

The latter can be illustrated with the case of the United States, where members (or in some states, all registered voters) can elect the party candidate(s) through direct votes in primary elections. The election is between all candidates that present themselves, and the process takes place under the supervision of the government – largely outside the control by the party organisation. The government also ensures that the person who won the primary election is the one who will be on the ballot paper representing the party.

Other parties in different countries have chosen to have varying degrees of member participation in the selection process, from party-run primary elections to indirect elections where party branches send delegates to a national congress.

What determines the selection process?

Factors such as electoral system, party ideology, political culture, and the organisation of government have been thought to have an influence on the centralization and participation in the candidate selection process. However, there is no evidence that any of them is decisive.

It would be natural for national party agencies to be more influential in multi-member district systems (where more than one person is elected to the legislature from each constituency), while single-member constituencies would give more power to local branches.

In the same logic, federal systems would tend to favour decentralized candidate selection, parties with an inclusive political ideology would favour participatory selection procedures, and parties in countries with a hierarchical political culture would foster non-participatory processes.

However, all these (and more) criteria are mixed in all political parties, and conclusions are therefore hard to draw. Not even in cases where legislation stipulates a particular selection process is it always possible to say if the law has determined the processes, or if they simply reflect practice.

Primary Elections

Primary elections are internal party processes that choose a political party’s candidate(s) for the next general election by holding an internal election. Exactly how this is done depends on the legal framework, internal party rules, and informal practices.

Primary elections are an example of a selection process with a high level of participation, meaning that ordinary members (or in some cases all voters in the electoral district) control the process.

Arguments for primary elections

Those who argue for primary elections tend to say that:

Primary elections help the political party select the candidate who is most likely to win a general election by consulting a considerable number of those who are likely to vote for the party’s candidates.
Primary elections start the democratic process even before the general elections
Primary elections give the candidate(s) a clear mandate and legitimacy since the decision has been taken by party members in general and not only by the top leadership.
Primary elections give a party, its candidate(s), and perhaps even its platform significant public visibility.
Primary elections empower the ordinary members and engage them in party strategy and key decisions.
Primary elections help members overrule unpopular but entrenched party elites

Arguments against primary elections

Those who argue against primary elections claim that:

Primary elections do not produce the candidate(s) most likely to win the general election since only a small fraction of party members (usually hard-liners) tend to vote in the primary elections. Strategically, it might be better to choose candidate(s) who can also appeal to other parties’ members or supporters rather than only to the party’s own core members.
Primary elections are very expensive and (unless organized and paid for by the public purse, which they are in some cases) take funds away from the general election campaign.
Primary elections encourage internal party strife instead of fostering an environment of negotiation, consultation, and compromise at a time when efforts need to be focused on defeating external challengers, not internal ones.
Primary elections take the decision away from the most experienced, the office holders, and party leadership. Instead, ordinary party members with little or no experience of running for or holding public office get to decide.
Primary elections weaken the party structures by putting the focus on individual candidates rather than on the party manifesto or policies.

Legislated and non-legislated primary elections

Legislated primary elections refer to cases where the country’s legal framework stipulates that political parties must choose their candidates by holding internal elections. In some cases, the laws or regulations (or, in other cases, the Constitution) merely state that parties must select their candidates democratically, while other countries have chosen to lay down the details of how primary elections must be held. Where this is the case, the law sometimes gives the Electoral Management Body (EMB) the responsibility to organize, monitor, and supervise the primary elections. Legislated primary elections are often membership based; otherwise, they can be open to all voters in the constituency (see Types of primary elections below)

Laws also differ on sanctions for non-compliance with the provisions requiring internal party elections. In some countries, the law does not stipulate any sanctions, while in others, having held primary elections is a prerequisite for registering a political party for election or for nominating candidates.

Political parties that hold primary elections even though it is not required by law are often guided by their own party constituencies or internal rules for candidate selection. Party system, electoral system, and party ideology tend to influence this decision, and even in the cases where legislation exists, it is not always possible to say if the law has determined the processes or if they simply reflect practice.

Types of primary elections

There are three main types of primary elections: the Congress (or Convention/Caucus) election, the membership election, and the open voter election.

The Congress election is a common internal party mechanism where the election takes place at a party meeting, often called a party congress, convention, or caucus. Some political parties allow all their members to attend and vote at the selection congress, while others restrict attendance to delegates from the subunits of the party. The advantages of this system are that the Congress allows the participants to discuss and reach compromises before a vote is held, the subunits of the party can be given a clearer voice than in other systems, and, in general, the Congress system strengthens the role of the party organisation vis-à-vis the individual candidates. Disadvantages include the often unrepresentative participation, the risks of manipulation (such as not calling the meeting on time or closing deals behind closed doors), and the lack of division of power within the party. Voting in party Congresses is also sometimes done by acclamation or other methods that do not allow for secrecy of the vote, which might inhibit the democratic process.

Membership elections are sometimes called “closed” primary elections given that they are open to all members of the party but closed to other voters. Membership elections are at times operated by the Electoral Management Body (EMB) but can also be organized internally by the party itself. Advantages of this system are that it is more open and transparent than the Congress elections, empowers the ordinary members, and involves them more in the business of the party. It limits the dominance of the party elites but may in that process also take the decision away from those who are more experienced and might be in a better position to take a good decision. Another disadvantage might be that the decision is taken only by those who want to be publicly affiliated with a political party, and not by supporters or potential supporters who might help the party get a better indication of which candidates(s) would do well in a general election. In volatile or polarized political environments with high levels of political violence, voters may not want to publicly display their affiliation by turning out to vote in a membership election.

Open voter elections are primary elections where all registered voters in a constituency, even those who are members of other parties or of no party, can participate. This is not a very common method. EMBs tend to organize open voter elections since they require enrolling all those who could vote in a general election. The advantage of this system is that political parties do not need a formal and fully updated membership register, and voters do not have to declare their affiliation through membership. Open voter elections take one of the main functions away from the party: that of acting as gate-keepers and recruiters of candidates. Given that primary elections tend to inspire a lower voter turnout than general elections, there is also a significant risk that the result does not reflect the view of the majority of voters who will vote in the general election. Since supporters of other parties can also take an active part in the primary election, they may seek to ensure that the candidate with least possibilities of winning the general election would win the primary – and thereby take competition away from their preferred party’s candidate.

Factors influencing primary elections

The electoral system and election law influence the conduct of primary elections, not only because requirements to hold primary elections are often included in election laws, but also because the electoral system in itself influences politics. In single-member constituencies, the regional and local branches of political parties would naturally tend to have greater influence, while the central party organisation would be more influential in systems with multiple-member districts. This tendency is, however, not clear-cut, and there are many cases that would contradict this. Electoral laws may also include legislated quotas that have an impact on the selection of candidates. Quota laws can reserve seats in the national legislature to ensure gender equality or to enhance the participation of under-represented groups such as national minorities. They may also stipulate the number of, for example, women on the parties’ candidate lists and in some cases even dictate the placement on the list.

The party system is heavily influenced by the electoral system but also by legal regulations such as the threshold to win seats in the national legislature, the political geography of the country, and other contextual issues. The number of political parties contesting an election, the number of parties likely to win seats in the legislature, and other issues can determine the need for coalition-building and other party strategies that can influence the selection process.

The political context and culture are major factors in deciding on primary elections. As has been mentioned above, polarization and political violence can for example affect voters’ will to publicly display their affiliation. The level of trust in a society can set different needs for transparency and participation, and cleavages in the society can be reflected in internal party practices.

The political party culture, lastly, is another of the major factors influencing the process of candidate selection. If the party is membership based or not, if it is built on a strong ideology or on the leadership of an individual, and what its ideological values and traditions are ultimately decide if the party chooses to voluntarily select its candidates through internal elections.

Voluntary Party Candidate Quotas

Candidate selection processes in democratic systems are mostly controlled by political parties rather than by voters’ decisions. Political parties act as gate-keepers and effectively decide who stands the chance of being elected and who does not.

Quotas may guide the political party’s candidate selection process for general elections and for internal party posts. These may be either legislated in the Constitution or in the electoral law, or be voluntary introduced by political parties.

Voluntary party quotas can be either quotas for internal party posts or quotas for different stages of the candidate selection process in the political party. For the former, please read Internal elections for Leadership positions and top national leadership selection. This file deals only with voluntary party candidate quotas.

Internal voluntary party quotas for candidates to general elections are targets set by political parties to include a certain percentage of, for example, women or national minorities as candidates. The quota has voluntarily been adopted by the political party and is not required by law. Parties can choose to stipulate their internal quota in their constitution or in other internal regulatory documents.

With an internal quota system, political parties can clearly demonstrate their willingness to encourage disadvantaged groups and to put the idea of fair representation and equal opportunities into practice – even in countries without legislated quotas. Where legislated quotas exist, parties can still choose to go even further in their internal quotas.

Given that internal voluntary party quotas are not mandated by law, they are not legally binding, and there is no sanction system in place. However, since these quotas stem from an internal decision within the party, they are often just as respected as legislated quotas and thereby also as effective.

Types of voluntary party candidate quotas

Voluntary party quota requirements can be on three levels:

Quotas for the pool of potential candidates

This quota type is made to open up the possibilities for party selection committees or voters in primary elections to select candidates from a more diverse pool of potential candidates than is normally presented to them. “Women only shortlists” is one way of broadening the pool of potential candidates by including more women on the party list than would have been represented otherwise

Quotas for candidates/candidate lists

Most voluntary party quotas fall into this category, where a fixed number or percentage of the places on the candidate lists or total number of candidates is set aside for persons belonging to the group(s) targeted by the law. For this type of voluntary quota to be really effective, it is often combined with a placement criteria whereby the disadvantaged groups are promised not only nomination but nomination to winnable seats. This is sometimes called a “double quota”. Quotas for candidate lists exist in plurality/majority systems but tend to be most effective in proportional representation systems (see also Factors influencing the implementation of voluntary party candidate quotas).

Quotas for the elected representatives

Quotas for the elected representatives target the outcome of the elections. A political party can decide that out of the seats they win in an election, a certain number or percentage should be set aside for women or minority groups. This is only applicable to systems where parties are able to determine who is going to occupy the seat. (see the example of Niger)

Voluntary Party Candidate Quotas for Women

A quota is an allocation rule through which offices, goods, or political functions are distributed in accordance with a certain formula. A quota system for women’s representation is mostly deployed because an unregulated distribution causes unintentional imbalances and inequalities. It is aimed to achieve a more equal or balanced access to political power for women by applying positive measures.

Gender quotas can be of three types: constitutional quotas, electoral law quotas (also called legislated quotas), and voluntary party quotas adopted and implemented by individual political parties.

Voluntary party candidate quotas for women are targets set by political parties to include a certain percentage of women as election candidates. Given that voluntary party quotas are not mandated by law, they are not legally binding, and there is no sanction system in place. However, since these quotas stem from an internal decision within the party, they are often just as respected as legislated quotas and thereby also as effective.

Why women?

Three main arguments lie behind the call for quotas to enhance women’s representation [1]:

Women represent (more than) half the population and hence have the right to half of the seats (the justice argument)
Women have different experiences (biological or socially constructed) that ought to be represented (the experience argument)
Women and men have partly conflicting interests, and thus men cannot represent women (the interest group argument)

Types of Quotas

Internal party quota requirements can be on three levels:

Quotas for the pool of potential candidates

This quota type is designed to open up the possibilities for party selection committees or voters in primary elections to select both male and female candidates. "Women only short lists", which only contain women candidates to choose from, is one way of broadening the pool of potential candidates.

Quotas for candidates/candidate lists

Most voluntary party quotas fall into this category, where a fixed number or percentage of the places on the candidate lists or total number of candidates is set aside for women. For this type of quota to be really effective, it is often combined with placement criteria whereby women are promised not only nomination but nomination to "winnable" seats. This is sometimes called a "double quota". The "zipper quota" where women are put in every second place on the candidate lists is an example of this. Quotas for candidate lists are sometimes used in majority/plurality systems but tend to be more effective in proportional representation systems.

Quotas for candidate lists are sometimes phrased as targeting a gender balance rather than increasing women’s participation (even though in most, if not all, cases women are the under-represented sex). Quotas can, for example, state that neither sex may hold more then 60 percent of the candidacies, or that there should be a 50/50 distribution.

Quotas for the elected representatives

Notes:

[1]Dahlerup, Drude (2003): “Comparative Studies of Electoral Gender Quotas” in International IDEA (2003) The Implementation of Quotas: Latin American Experiences, International IDEA, Stockholm.

Voluntary Party Candidate Quotas for other Disadvantaged Groups

Voluntary party quotas can be either quotas for internal party posts or quotas for different stages of the candidate selection process in the political party. For the former please read the fil about internal elections for Leadership positions and top national leadership selection. This file deals only with voluntary party candidate quotas.

There have been efforts among political parties to recruit ethnic minority candidates, especially in local, but also in national, elections on a voluntary basis. One means to increase minorities’ participation is to introduce voluntary quotas, but there are several other steps that have been undertaken by political parties, such as the establishment of ethnic liaison units in order to promote the party’s principles within ethnic communities, or to serve as recruitment centres for ethnic minorities to become political candidates.

Types of voluntary party candidate quotas

Voluntary party quota requirements for minorities can be on three levels:

Quotas for the pool of potential candidates

This quota type is designed to open up the possibilities for party selection committees or voters in primary elections to select candidates from a more diverse pool of potential candidates than is normally presented to them. One way of broadening the pool of potential candidates would be to secure the representation of ethnic minorities in the possible pool of candidates. In a very few cases, ethnic groups have created their own lists, only containing candidates representing the minority.

Quotas for candidates/candidate lists

Most voluntary party quotas fall into this category, where a fixed number or percentage of the places on the candidate lists or total number of candidates is set aside for persons belonging to the group targeted. For this type of voluntary quota to be really effective, it is often combined with a placement criteria whereby the disadvantaged groups are promised not only nomination but nomination to winnable seats. This is sometimes called a "double quota". Quotas for candidate lists exist in plurality/majority systems but tend to be most effective in proportional representation systems.

Quotas for the elected representatives

Quotas for the elected representatives target the outcome of the elections. A political party can decide before an election that out of the seats they win in an election, a certain number or percentage should be set aside for ethnic minority groups.

Conditions under which voluntary party quotas are most likely applied

Liberal political culture

Regarding women’s possibilities for gaining political power, traditional cultural values are said to work against the participation of women in any political process. Quota systems are therefore said to be more often applied in modern and liberal political systems. Political parties there may have internalised the progressive values and thus try to foster gender equality in all spheres of the society.

Furthermore, voluntary party quotas often result from a general women’s movement in the society and hence in the political parties themselves. As the Scandinavian example indicates, voluntary party quotas have often been introduced only after women already have gained powerful positions inside the party structure. These finding suggests that the presence of mobilised women groups in the party are of great importance for the emergence of voluntary party quotas.

Interventionist party policy and tolerant party culture

Positive discrimination of unprivileged groups by quota systems is said to be more consistent with certain political parties than with others, for instance with Labour or welfare state parties. Their party culture or main policy of intervention and redistribution to struggle against social or economic inequalities is very similar to the intervention by a quota system and its allocation rules.

Not surprisingly, the voluntary gender quotas have been first introduced by social democratic and left parties in the Scandinavian countries in the 1970s.

Relations to party organisation

Clear bureaucratic practices and procedures for candidate selection in a political party are claimed to be of great advantage to women, especially when there are specific rules or quotas that aim to guarantee women’s representation. In general, the absence of an institutionalised candidate nomination system often fosters hierarchical and hence patriarchal selection process.

Correct implementation can only be ensured by the establishment of an adequate policy plan that governs the process of implementation. Such a policy requires that the quota should be considered from the very beginning of the candidate nomination and selection processes. Quota systems are usually more successfully implemented when they evolved through mobilization movements, than if their introduction just mirrors the wide integration of the disadvantaged social group in the society.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Voluntary Party Candidate Quotas for Women's Representation

The arguments for and against voluntary party candidate quotas for women are almost identical to those concerning legislated quotas. This is due to the fact that both quota types often raise the same concerns by people who generally object quotas for women or minorities.

This section will therefore only mention those arguments for and against voluntary party candidate quotas for women’s representation that are different to those discussed in the file about advantages and disadvantages of legislated quotas for women’s representation. For a comparison of advantages and disadvantages, see the table "Legislated and Voluntary Party Candidate Quotas" at the right hand side.

Arguments against voluntary party quotas for women’s representation

Those who oppose quotas or voluntary party quotas in particular often raise that

Voluntary party quotas cannot be enforced by law and are therefore not implemented effectively

Given that voluntary party quotas are not mandated by law, they are not legally binding and there is no sanction system in place. Political parties may or may not implement the party quotas.

Arguments for voluntary party quotas, additionally to those mentioned for legislated quotas

Some of the main arguments for voluntary party quotas are the following:

Voluntary party quotas are the most effective ways of achieving a better gender balance, because they are voluntarily introduced

Since voluntary party quotas stem from an internal and voluntary decision-making within the party, one can assume that parties intend to implement them properly. Voluntary party quotas are just as respected as legislated quotas by the political party and therefore just as effective.

Voluntary quotas build on party values

Since voluntary party quotas stem from an internal and voluntary decision-making within the party, they are often seen as a conscious demonstration and expression of a liberal and progressive party culture. Voluntary party quotas, as opposed to legislated quotas, give political parties a chance to show their electorate in practice that they are committed to gender equality – maybe as opposed to other parties.

Voluntary party quotas do not interfere in internal party affairs

Some argue that legislated quotas interfere too much with the internal organisation of political parties. Voluntary party quotas, however, are drafted and passed by the parties themselves under no obligation and thus do not constitute interference by outsiders.

Voluntary party quotas are easier to pass than legislated quotas

Legislated quotas are very difficult to pass and require a majority (or in the case of constitutional quotas usually a two-thirds majority) in the legislature, while party quotas only require an internal decision by the party.

Factors influecing the implementation of voluntary party candidate quotas

One factor that can influence the implementation of voluntary party quotas is the electoral system. Proportional representation systems in particular are claimed to facilitate the election of a diverse pool of representatives.

In single-member constituencies (which are common in majority/plurality electoral systems), each party organisation can generally nominate only one candidate. In practice, parties tend to select the candidate to whom they attribute the greatest chances of winning: in practice, often a man and often a member of the majority group. This makes it more difficult to implement voluntary quotas, and women and members of minority groups are often nominated only in constituencies where the party does not see any chance of winning. Therefore, quotas in majority/plurality systems tend to produce less result in terms of elected candidates than quotas in proportional systems.

Political parties compete for a larger number of seats per constituency in a proportional representation system and can therefore “balance the party ticket” between competing factions inside the party (ibid). Otherwise disadvantaged party members often benefit from this balancing process. Given that the seats in proportional representation systems are allocated to the party in proportion to their share of the national vote, the party can also, under some PR systems, decide over the rank ordering of the candidates. Certain candidates can be placed in more promising party list positions than others. This makes voluntary party quotas work better in proportional representation systems where a share of the candidacies can be allocated to under-represented groups. To make voluntary party quotas even more effective, political parties often have a placement criteria (also called “double quota”) that ensures that persons who take advantage of the quota are not only placed on the candidate list, but placed in winnable positions – i.e., in positions the party expects to win. If a party expects to win five seats in a fifteen-seat constituency, positions one through five on the party’s candidate list are “winnable” while positions six through fifteen are not.

Another important factor for the implementation of voluntary party quotas is the political culture in the country. If greater representativity is encouraged by the political elite, media, and ultimately the voters, political parties are more likely to see the advantages of voluntary party quotas. The openness of a political culture determines the opportunities unprivileged social group members have to gain influence over political decisions.

Party culture has an impact on the implementation of quotas. Positive discrimination in favour of unprivileged groups by quota systems is said to be more consistent with certain political parties than with others, for instance with Labour or welfare state parties. Their party culture or main policy of intervention and redistribution to combat social or economic inequalities is very similar to the intervention by a quota system and its allocation rules.

Party Structure

A political party may be guided in its structure and functioning by external regulations, such as the Constitution or laws and regulations, by internal party rules, such as the Party Constitution, or by both. Practice, however, may differ from written Party Constitutions or internal rules. Given that political parties perform such important tasks in democracies today, their internal functioning becomes very important. Aspects of this include the policy-formulation and general decision-making process of the political party, the involvement of members and party groups, and the accountability of the party leadership.

Common organisational structures in a party include the following:

National leadership committee, i.e. the national executive body

This is usually the “party government” taking and implementing decisions on a day-to-day basis. The decision on who is to be member in this body determines much of the party functioning. The composition of the national executive body varies between political parties: sometimes just a few party leaders form the leadership, while in other cases, representatives of party wings, such as the women’s wing, members of local branches, or auxiliary groups are represented in the leadership committee. How members of this committee are appointed differs between political parties and countries: some parties hold elections for leadership committees where for instance delegates from the party organisations, such as regional and local groups, are entitled to vote, while others do not. When elections are held, quotas for women or ethnic minority groups may be applied. There is also a difference between countries and parties as to whether the members of the national executive body are paid by the political party or not. This may have a great influence on the professionalism, responsibilities, and dedication of the leadership committee.

National Conference, Congress, or Convention

The National Congress is usually the highest decision-making body of the party and meets one to five times a year. Attendance at the conference may include delegates from regional and local branches, auxiliary groups, the women’s wing, and the youth wing of the party, if any. Ordinary members may also be welcomed. Sometimes, Congress resolutions are binding upon the party leadership, while in other cases they are just suggestions or guidelines.

Local and regional party branches

Most political parties try to have local and regional party branches, sometimes in up to five layers below the national level. Internal party rules determine who is in control of the decision-making process – the national level or the local levels of the party. Local and regional party branches can be more or less independent from the national party organisation in leadership, budget, and campaigning. The local levels often play important roles in connecting with the electorate, nominating candidates, and carrying out local election campaigns.

Auxiliary groups

Youth wings and women’s wings are the most common auxiliary groups in political parties all over the world. They are usually part of the party organisation and lobby the party leadership on issues of specific concern to their members. The independence of the auxiliary groups differs in terms of rights to have their own membership registers and budgets and to make independent decisions. Auxiliary groups often have the right to send their own delegates to National Conventions and are sometimes even represented on the National Executive Committee. The degree of internal fractionalization in the political party denotes how heterogeneous the internal party structure is. In some political parties, distinct factions are independently organized and elect their own leadership.

Affiliated groups

Affiliated groups are usually not formally part of the party organisation, but constitute independent organisations with strong links to the party. Trade unions or employer’s organisations are typical examples of affiliated groups. At times, membership in the affiliated group automatically gives membership in the political party, and even if large and regular donations between them are common, the organisations’ budgets are separate.

Party Media

Many political parties have their own media outlets to communicate with their members, supporters, and the general public. What type of media outlet the party owns determines and is determined by the rules by which it is bound.

Political party media fall into one of the three following categories.

Party Propaganda outlets that are distributed mainly to party members but can also function as an outreach to the general public. Party propaganda does not usually fall under general media regulation and is therefore generally free to write whatever it wants as long as it adheres to prohibitions against hate speech and defamation. In some cases, legislation may regard Party Propaganda outlets as elements of campaign spending, and they may therefore fall under campaign funding regulations.
Conventional private media that just happen to be owned by a party or one of its leaders or eminent members.

Private media is often regulated both by media laws and by electoral law. Regardless of who owns private media, they will have to conform to the prevailing standards or regulations. Legal frameworks often deal with all or some of the following when dealing with election coverage:

how time or space will be allocated to candidates and political parties
- whether political advertising is permitted
- what duty the media have to carry voter education material
- whether there is a right of reply to factual misrepresentation in the media
- news blackouts or “reflection periods”
- restrictions on reporting of opinion polls
- policies on hate speech and defamation
Government media, in a situation in which the ruling party and government have been intertwined. In that case, media using public funds should conform to the same standards as any other public media - which in practice probably means that they cannot campaign for the party at all. It is generally accepted that public media should not be politically partisan in their editorial coverage, as they are a resource for the entire electorate. Many argue that it is an obligation of the state-owned media to give voice to a variety of opinions and not to be a propaganda organ for one particular political party. Also, they have particular obligations to provide civic education, as well as to provide a platform for the different political parties.

Use of a public resource for partisan political campaigning carries all the same legal and ethical implications whether the resource is funds, a vehicle, a building, or a radio station. That is why there are so often clear laws or regulations protecting public media against government interference.

The Role of Members

The definition of party membership varies considerably among different countries. In some countries, a voter who reports supporting a party when registering to vote is automatically considered being a member of that party, whereas in others, membership requires an active decision to join the party and support it financially through payment of membership dues. Different forms of indirect membership, such as in affiliated trade unions, may also be interpreted as forms of party membership.

Parties with a large number of members and a good membership organisation have significant advantages in elections campaigns, particularly in relation to tasks such as publicity, voluntary information collection, and mobilization through door-to-door canvassing.

There is a general trend that party membership is declining. Political parties in new democracies are often not built on membership the way the Western European parties used to be, and all over the world, a growing professionalisation of political campaigns, reliance on public funds, and media domination seem to lead to lower membership numbers.

It has also proven very difficult to estimate the membership base of political parties in a comparative perspective. One important source of comparative data derives from the official figures compiled by parties. These figures may be unreliable, particularly where parties exaggerate their support or where central record keeping is simply inefficient or erratic. Political parties are often not obliged to maintain public records.

One means to analyse the role of members in a political party is to distinguish between the different kinds of party organisations and which role they attribute to their members, if they rely on membership base at all.

Classification of party organisations

The most well-known and often cited classification of party structure is that one by Maurice Duverger (1954), who identified three major types of party organisations; more recently, a fourth type has been added by other scholars.

Cadre parties are considered to be the oldest and most traditional form of political party, being rather loose associations of legislators, with a minimal role for a wider membership, and a formal organisational structure. Caucus-cadre organisations are essentially based on political elites and leadership factions, usually created within parliament.

In the so-called militia parties, party membership may be widespread, but it doesn’t have any role in influencing the party leaders’ decisions and the policy process. Nor do members exercise any real power in the political party, e.g. holding political leaders accountable for their actions, or remove them if necessary. Militia parties are dominated by a top-down command structure and strong mechanism of control. Party supporters are enrolled along military lines, and the party maintains its power on the basis of control of the military and the civilian bureaucracy. Party leaders often use patronage, corruption, and intimidation to encourage local party supporters and as another means to exert control over the general population.

In contrast, mass membership parties can rely on a large membership organisation and therefore attribute a larger involvement to members in the party. The prevailing motivation for getting involved in party work will be the sharing of a common ideology and strong beliefs in party goals. The so-called “parties of social integration” have foreseen a very high involvement of party members in party activities, such as cultural activities, mainly through membership in related organisations. Some mass membership parties have affiliated extra-parliamentary organisations, like trade unions, through which they obtain group memberships.

The rising importance of public funding for political parties and, as a consequence, the growing reliance on the state as a service provider for the political parties have given rise to a debate about a fourth type of party organisation; the so-called ‘cartel’ party or electoral-professional party. This type of party has a shrinking membership base and tends to loose contact with its members and the electorate. It does not rely on volunteer activists or members to spread its political messages. Mass communication media are fully taking over this function for the electoral-professional party. Politicians have become professionals and focus on the governmental and parliamentary sphere instead of on the civic society.

Consequences of shrinking or low party membership

Party membership is especially weak in many newer democracies, while levels of membership have fallen considerably in many established democracies in the last couple of decades. This development gives rise to concern for various reasons:

limiting the opportunities for political participation of citizens
widening the gap between professional politicians and the electorate
disconnecting the people from the parties and all their services regarding voter education, social activities, and other awareness raising activities
diminishing the accountability of leaders to followers
decreasing the legitimacy of party leaders and political decisions in general
lessening popular involvement in and knowledge of political processes and the functioning of political parties in society
causing misunderstanding of difficult political processes
strengthening party centralization and empowering party leaders due to diminished control through party members

On the other hand, it is less clear that declining party membership implies a parallel trend in decreasing party activism. It is possible that the active party members remain in the party, due to their greater ideological commitment. Moreover, the impact of any fall in membership upon the structure of the party remains unclear. There is no general correlation between decreasing members and increasing centralization of power.

ACE Electoral Knowledge Network

Herramientas Personales