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 1: basic features of the primary process (2015)