1 Introduction
Since the arrival of democracy to Latin America during the last third of
the 20th century, parties have become crucial vehicles for representing the
public interest.
Political parties are regulated by national constitutional frameworks
and internal regulations. Some rules are well developed with specific and clear
requirements, while others are more ambiguous. An important issue regarding the
activity of political parties concerns their procedures for selecting leadership
positions within the party. This includes selecting candidates to run for
public office, as well as selecting candidates for the executive positions of the
party. The vast array of methods employed in both of these processes, including
elite selection, convention selection, and voter selection, prevents experts
from easily identifying common practices among different countries in the
region. Primary elections are the principal method for selecting candidates for
public office, but there is still no well-documented scientific research as to
why this occurs.
This article aims to investigate common patterns of presidential
candidate selection among different countries in Latin America. It will also serve
as a starting point for researchers to explore the motivation for holding
primary elections and consequences of such elections, including some advantages
and disadvantages to consider before adopting this model.
2 Primary
elections in Latin America: rationale, advantages, and disadvantages
All Latin American regimes are presidential systems that share some
common features, including that candidates who run for president are ultimately
selected by their parties. In general, candidates can be nominated in a variety
of ways, from strict control by party elite to self-nomination.
- Elite
selection: Candidates can be selected directly by the elite, which reinforces
control of the party hierarchy.
- Convention
selection: Leaders can be elected in a competition between party elites at a
Party Convention. This could potentially lead to fractionalization of the
party.
- Voter
selection: Leaders can be nominated through an electoral process in which
either the whole register of voters or only the affiliated members of the party
are able to vote. Both methods should reinforce the candidate’s independence
from the party and increase democratic legitimacy. Candidates may be nominated by
the party or faction to run as a presidential candidate during the primary, or
they may run without fulfilling initial party requirements. The latter gives
the greatest level of independence to individuals.
In most countries in the region, candidates were traditionally selected
by the elite as a means of awarding loyal party members. These leaders had
financial, logistical, and moral support from their party.
The evolution of the party institution from a mass-based[1]
to a catch-all party[2]
model during the third wave of democratization in Latin America brings the
candidate selection process front and center in the political debate. Bearing in mind that those chosen to run for
public office would have access to public funding for campaigns, citizens began
to demand that parties be more transparent and called for more participation in
the selection process through democratic mechanisms like primary elections. The
use of primary elections for presidential candidate nominations has risen in recent
years, with more than 60 such processes in the last 20 years.
Citizens expected these primary elections to promote intra-party
democracy, solve conflicts between factions, strengthen party links with
society, and ultimately attempt to institutionalize the party system.
Sometimes primary elections are used to help a party find a candidate who
has widespread public appeal.[3] This applies especially to coalitions of parties, as finding the most
suitable candidate among all of the different parties that comprise the
alliance may be challenging. For example, this was the case with Nueva Mayoria
and Alianza in Chile in 2013.
Primary elections have also been favored as a method for avoiding internal
fighting among different factions in the same coalition or party once the
presidential nomination process has begun.
The main reasons to adopt primary elections as the tool for nomination
to public positions are: (1) extend democracy to all layers of the system; (2)
open a path based on transparent rules for competition within the party itself;
(3) involve affiliates, activists, and supporters in the political process; (4)
increase the legitimacy of the political process.[4]
Another advantage of primary elections may be the ability of a candidate
to gain experience and exposure to the public before a general election.
From an institutional standpoint, one main disadvantage of primaries is
the loss of party control over selecting candidates preferred by the
establishment.[5] This
may cause party instability if the primary results in the selection of a
candidate from outside of the traditional elite. Another potential downside for
the party is that voters may not select the most suitable candidate to compete
against other parties in a general election.
There are also examples of irregular practices committed by a party
during primary elections, discrediting the primary process. In 2002 in Guatemala,
the Partido de Avanzada Nacional (PAN) did not respect the final results of the
presidential primary and chose to run a different candidate in the general
election.[6]
In the Dominican Republic in 1985, fraud was reported during the primary
process.[7]
A final concern for parties is internal strife during the primary
process that could risk the long-term stability of the party and political
system. During primary elections for the Liberal Party (PL) of Honduras in
2008, the faction supported by former president Zelaya was not successful and
an alliance between all the factions developed, isolating the president’s closest
circle. The situation eventually escalated to a coup d’état.[8]
Despite all of the disincentives parties seem to have for holding
primary elections, experience and research shows that a candidate selected in a
primary usually has a better chance of winning the general election.[9]
This was the case of Lula da Silva (Partido dos Trabalhadores) in Brazil, who
ran as a presidential candidate (without using primaries) without success in 1989,
1994, and 1998, but finally won the presidency in 2002 after first winning primary
elections open to the affiliate members of his party that same year.
3 Latin
America’s systems of primaries in presidential elections
This section will cover three main topics: description of the general
framework (formal and informal) of the primaries in the region, the nature of
the mechanism, and authorities in charge of organizing the primary process in
terms of technical and financial assistance.
Primary elections for presidential candidates in the region may be differentiated
by four core criteria: (1) The nature of the mechanism: mandatory, when all
parties must go through the primary process to select candidates, or voluntary,
when the party has the right to decide the most appropriate method of selecting
its candidates; (2) The timing in which the election takes place: simultaneous,
when all parties’ presidential primary processes take place at the same time, or
non-simultaneous, when presidential primary elections take place at different times
for each party; (3) Who is entitled to participate: open, with all of the
electorate having the right or obligation to participate, or closed, with only
affiliated members of the party having the right to participate;[10] and (4) The authority in charge of organizing the
primary elections: the National Electoral body or an ad hoc political body created to supervise the election.
Nineteen out of the twenty electoral frameworks in Latin American
countries have been intensely reviewed for this paper.[11]
In all cases, some presidential primary process has taken place at some point
in the political history of the country. Fourteen of the nineteen countries
examined have developed rules related to primary elections, and the parties
based in countries without a legal framework frequently use primary elections
as a candidate selection method regardless.
The first important element to consider in this analysis is the
increasing number of legal frameworks for primary elections implemented in the
region during the last decade. Currently, all countries except Brazil, Nicaragua,
Guatemala, and El Salvador have some kind of legal regulation included in their
framework for these procedures. For example, Ecuador started to use primary elections
after adopting a mandatory legal framework, with the country’s first primary
process taking place in 2009 (Movimiento Alianza Pais, led by Evo Morales).
Some of these countries even have a specific law targeting primary
elections, including Chile (2012) and the Dominican Republican (2004, though this
law has been declared unconstitutional by Constitutional Court) and Uruguay
(1998).[12]
The main parties in the Dominican Republic have used primary elections
regularly since 1982, but it was not until 2004 that the government developed specific
rules to cover the practice.[13]
Some countries, including Chile and Colombia, include in their rules
specific obligations for parties to respect the primary results even if they
are not favorable to the party elite.
Some parties in other countries have regularly used primary elections as
a candidate selection process, including Costa Rica, which has used this method
since 1978 for all of its main parties, with the exception of the 2006
elections. This makes Costa Rica one of the longest users of the primary
process, along with the Liberal Party (PL) in Colombia, which used primaries in
most of its elections (1978, 1986, 1990, 1994, and 2006).
Some countries hold primaries even without a supporting legal framework.
Countries such as Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala have parties with an
interest in using primaries in the selection of their candidates, and in all
the three formal rules for primary elections do not exist.
For example, El Frente Farabundo Marti de Liberacion Nacional (FMLN) held
primaries in 2004 for first time in the history of El Salvador. The opposition
party ARENA also held primaries the same year. In Guatemala, el Partido de
Avanzada Nacional (PAN) held primary elections in 2002, but in the end the
result was not respected by the party. Frente Liberacion Nacional Sandinista in
Nicaragua has a more regular history of selecting candidates through primaries (1996,
2001).
However, primaries have not been used consistently in cases in which the
law does not make them compulsory. In 2006, no party held primary elections in
Costa Rica despite its long tradition of this kind of elections. Primaries were
also not used in Colombia in 2002 and the Dominican Republic in 2004 (until laws
were passed requiring them).
The extent of the legal framework’s development shows the level of
intervention of the Electoral Court in the internal organization of political
parties. More detailed and specific rules regarding the candidate selection
process give less autonomy to political parties.[14]
The growing number of legal frameworks regulating the candidate
selection process exemplifies the importance the state places on primaries. The
increasing number of informal primary processes occurring in the region during
the last decade highlights the necessity of establishing clear rules around key
issues related to this process, including who is entitled to vote, who is
responsible for carrying out the process and providing funds, and who has the
final duty to announce the results and resolve discrepancies.
It is important to consider the nature of the legal framework when
evaluating primary elections in Latin America. On one end of the spectrum are mandatory
primaries. These primaries can be mandatory only for parties or for both
parties and voters (compulsory voting), as is the case in Argentina. In some
cases, primaries are mandatory for presidential, legislative, and local
elections, and in other cases they are only required in certain elections. On
the other end of the spectrum, primaries may be voluntary and the frequency
of using this mechanism may vary from case to case.
Around half of the countries with presidential primary election rules
incorporated into their legislation allow the parties to choose whether or not
to use this method (Bolivia,[15]
Chile,[16]
Colombia,[17]
Costa Rica,[18]
Mexico,[19]
Paraguay,[20]
and Venezuela[21]).
In Argentina,[22] primaries
are mandatory for both voters and parties, and Ecuador[23]
(since 2009), Honduras,[24]
Panama,[25]
and Uruguay[26]
have adopted the use of mandatory primaries for parties.
The most important parties in countries where the legal framework does
not impose an obligation to hold primary elections often decide to use the procedure,
but the flexibility of the system in these cases allows parties to use other candidate
selection processes if they so choose. As was mentioned earlier, in Costa Rica,
no party used the primaries at all for the 2006 elections, and in 2013 only
Partido de Liberacion Nacional (PLN) decided against using primaries while the
other two major parties did.
As expected, whether primaries are compulsory or voluntary impacts
variables like the level of participation in the electoral process. In
countries where primaries are compulsory for the voters and parties (e.g. Argentina),
the participation rate will presumably be higher than in countries where the
process is voluntary. Following the same logic, participation in primary
elections should also be higher in countries with mandatory rules for parties to
hold primaries. These rules standardize the process and give citizens a better
understanding of the mechanisms involved, so clear rules that are understood by
voters in advance of the election will make voters more likely to turn up.
The action and behavior of parties will generally be determined by the democratic
standards established by regulations. If democratic practices, as determined by
the legal framework, apply equally to all parties, parties will be more eager
to follow the rules and live up to the standards. Countries like Uruguay and Argentina
(since 2009) have legally standardized primary elections at the national level.
The adoption of a legal framework explains why primaries have been internalized
by the electorate as a common practice within the political party system and
accepted by the parties as a further step in consolidation of democracy.
Finally, we will consider the level of engagement of the state in
organizing, supervising, and legitimizing the process. When primary elections
are mandatory, electoral authorities and the state tend to be more involved in
the organization of the process both technically and financially, giving the
candidates more opportunities to focus on the campaign itself. As a result, greater
transparency has been reported during primaries, lending more credibility to
the candidate as a potential president.
The primary processes in countries with mandatory frameworks often receive
more funds from the state – as is the case in Argentina, Chile, Honduras,
Panama, and Uruguay – but even countries without such a legal framework may
have resources from the Electoral Commission to fund logistical needs (ballot
papers, booths, preparing polling stations, etc.) in case they decide to hold
primary elections, as in Colombia and Mexico.
Finally, whether or not primaries are held at
the same time for all parties has financial and organizational consequences for
whichever body is responsible for organizing the elections. Cases like Honduras,
Chile, and Argentina, where all the parties hold primary elections simultaneously,
enjoyed better logistical organization and less costly administration than
countries where the primary elections take place whenever the parties choose,
as in Peru, Costa Rica, and Bolivia.
When parties are responsible for organizing the electoral process and
funding related costs, the decision to have all presidential primary elections
at the same time or at different times will be based mainly on the attitude of
the electorate towards the primaries. If the electorate better supports a
separate process, the parties will be more eager to follow this line to satisfy
their supporters.
4 Conclusions
Regardless of technical procedures, the level of democratic legitimacy
of candidates selected through a primary process is higher when elections are
fair and transparent. This kind of election is usually considered more
transparent by the electorate when some kind of regulatory legislation is in
place, but adopting a legal framework for a primary process is not a
prerequisite to holding primary elections. Real or perceived fraud erodes
democratic legitimacy, as does a party deciding not to respect the outcome of a
primary.
As John M. Carey argues in his paper “The bonus of primaries in Latin
America” (“El bono de las elecciones primarias en Latinoamerica”), candidates
selected in primary elections are stronger than those selected through other
methods. It is therefore important to pay attention to the increasing
regulation of this process, the increasing number of mandatory practices being
implemented, and the level of state involvement in the process during the last
decade.
Chart 2: presidential primary elections that took place in some selected
countries of Latin America between two main political parties (2015)
[1] Duverger, M. (1981). Les partis politiques (1951). Paris:
Armand Colin, coll. Points. Mass-based parties have a strong organization and hierarchical
structure. Members of mass-based
parties identify with party ideology rather than with a specific leader.
[2] Catch-all parties attempt to attract a wide variety of people with diversified viewpoints.
[3] Taylor, S. (2000). Towards a detailed discussion of candidate
selection in Latin America. XXII International Conference of the Latin
American Studies Association, Miami, Florida, March 16-18.
[4] Alcántara, M. (2002). Experimentos de democracia interna: Las
primarias de partidos en América Latina. Working paper #293 Kellogg Institute.
[5] In Chile and Colombia the
results of the primary elections are binding.
[6] Institute for
Election Support (IFES). (2004). Ace
Project Election Guide. Available from:
www.ifes.org/eguide/result-sum/guatemala_preso3.htm
[7] Lijphart
Election Archive. (2004). Dominican
Republic Elections. Elections and events 1970-1989. Available from : Dodgson.ucsd.edu/las
[8] Estaun, E.
(2012), Master Thesis. Honduras, causes of the Coup d’Etat.
Instituto Universitario Gutierrez Mellado.
[9]
Carey, J. M. (2008). El bono de las primarias en América Latina. In: Fontaine,
A., Larroulet, C. et al. Reforma de los
partidos políticos en Chile. Santiago: PNUD, CEP.Libertad y
Desarrollo, Proyectamerica y CIBPLAN, pp. 429-448.
[10] Freidenberg,
F., and Pomares, J. (2014).. The Latin American experience suggests primary
elections can be effective but not a magic recipe for party democratization. Democratic Audit Blog. [Online]. Available from: http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=5328.
[11] These
countries are Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico,
Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela. Only Cuba was not
included because it did not hold elections during the later years of analysis.
[13] While the laws
regarding primary elections were declared unconstitutional, parties tended to
hold such elections anyway.
[14] Freindenberg,
F. (2010). Las Reformas Electorales en
Panamá, claves del desarrollo humano para la toma de decisiones. In: Cuadernos de Desarrollo Humano n.1 Tribunal
Electoral de Panamá y UNDP. [Online]. Available from: http://www.tribunal-electoral.gob.pa/html/fileadmin/user_upload/publicaciones/revista/libros/cuaderno-de-desarrollo-humano.pdf
[15] Ley 26 de 30 de
junio 2010 de Regimen Electoral, Provision 49. [Online]. Available from: http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Electoral/Bolivia/Ley26-2010.pdf.
[16] Ley 20.640, as
of 5 May 2015, , sobre el sistema de
elecciones primarias, art. 2. [Online]. Available from: http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=1046533.
[17] Ley130, del 23
de marzo de 1994 (Estatuto Básico de los partidos y movimientos políticos) art.
10. (Law regarding political parties). Available from: http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Electoral/Colombia/ley130-94.html.
[18] Código
Electoral, Ley No. 8765, August 2009 (Electoral Law). [Online]. Available from:
https://www.tse.go.cr/pdf/normativa/codigoelectoral.pdf.
[19] Ley General de
Instituciones y Procedimientos electorales, 2014, art. 226( Law regarding Electoral
institutions and procedures). [Online]. Available from: http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5345952&fecha=23/05/2014.
[20] Ley No. 834/96 que establece el
Código Electoral Paraguayo, art. 32.r.
(Electoral Code 1996, as of 2013).
[Online]. Available from:
http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Electoral/Paraguay/ley834.html.
[21] Constitución de
la República Bolivariana de Venezuela , art. 67 (Constitution). [Online].
Available from: http://www.oas.org/dil/esp/Constitucion_Venezuela.pdf.
[22] Ley 26.571 de
la democratización de la representación política, la transparencia y la equidad
electoral, 2009, art.19. (Law about democratization of the political representation, transparence
and electoral equity). [Online]. Available from: http://www.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/160000-164999/161453/texact.htm.
[23] Ley Orgánica
Electoral, Código de la Democracia de 27 de abril del 2009 (art.94-105). (Law
regarding electoral rules and democracy). [Online]. Available from:
http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=35394757.
[24] Ley electoral y
de las organizaciones políticas, Decreto 44-2004, 2009, art. 106 (Electoral
Law). [Online. ] Available from: http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Electoral/Honduras/Leyes/LeyeElectoral.pdf.
[25] Código Electoral,
as of 2013, art. 236, 237 (Electoral Code). [Online]. Available from: http://www.tribunal-electoral.gob.pa/html/fileadmin/user_upload/publicaciones/CODIGO_ELECTORAL_01.pdf.
[26] Ley no. 17.063
dictanse normas relativas a las elecciones internas de los partidos politicos,
art. 8 (Law regarding internal elections of the parties). [Online]. Available
from: http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=17063&Anchor=.
