Opinions differ about the desirability of internal party democracy.
Arguments for Internal Party Democracy
The logic that applies to the system of democracy should apply also, it is argued, to the internal affairs of the political party organizations themselves. The objective of democracy is that the people should have the right to choose. Through elections, they select and gain control over their political masters. Just as the citizens of a nation are entitled to cast ballots in elections, so
the citizens of a political party - the members - should be entitled to select and to reject their leaders, office-holders, and candidates for public office.
Germany is one country where the value of internal party democracy is taken for granted in the Basic Law of 1949. On the subject of political parties, this mandates that '[t]heir internal organization shall conform to democratic principles.' (Article 21, para. 1.)
Internal party democracy was a key demand of the Progressive Party reformers in the United States around the turn of the twentieth century. They complained that corrupt 'bosses' of 'political machines' in many cities and states dominated political party organizations. The bosses stayed in power because they had previously won elective office, or because they controlled a group of office-holders; the office-holders then awarded jobs, public contracts, and other material benefits to their cronies. By this corrupt means, a ruling clique kept a stranglehold over power within the party organization (usually a party organization in a city). The party supporters stood to gain petty favours if they remained obedient to their ward and city leaders, but they had no chance to obtain a say in the affairs of the party.
Following the chaos at the 1968 Presidential Nominating Convention of the Democrats in Chicago, the party determined once again to introduce reforms that would increase the powers of ordinary Democrats, and diminish powers of 'bosses' such as Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago.
Reformers have introduced devices such as the following to improve internal party democracy.
1. Political parties have been required to run their internal affairs in accordance with procedures set out in laws passed by state governments, and subject to review by the courts.
2. There is the primary election. Its purpose is to deny the party leaders and office-holders the power to select the party's nominees as candidates for elective office (for mayor, state governor, U.S. Congressman, etc.) The regulations vary in their details from state to state within the U.S.A. They enable each party's citizens (usually defined as voters who have registered themselves as party supporters) to vote in an internal party election to choose the nominee. See also Regulating Nominations in Majoritarian Systems.
3. When it comes to the nomination of each party's candidate for a presidential election, the process is more complex, but also designed, since 1968, to allow ordinary party supporters to have a say. Delegates at a national convention nominate the candidate. A high proportion of these delegates are selected in their own states, either through a primary election, or through a set of local party meetings. These party meetings must be organized in a way to ensure that voters who are registered party supporters have due notice and are able to participate.
Arguments against Internal Party Democracy
There are two main arguments, one theoretical, the other practical.
First, it may reasonably be argued that the essential feature of democracy involves the choice between a number of political parties, and a variety of candidates. Provided the voter has this choice, the internal structure of each party is immaterial. If a voter does not like the way in which a party runs itself, he has the choice of voting for an alternative party. It is the threat
of electoral unpopularity that is the best guarantee against dictatorial and corrupt behaviour by party leaders.
A comparison with economics will illustrate this point. Provided the consumer has the choice between several different shops, or between the services of several different companies, it does not matter how each shop or each company organizes itself. Rather than demand that a company's directors are accountable to its consumers, those consumers - if they are dissatisfied - have the power to take their custom elsewhere. Profiteering and other abuses can flourish only when consumer choice is restricted.
Second, there are practical considerations that make internal party democracy difficult to attain and open to abuse. Whereas a relatively high proportion of eligible voters is likely to participate in general elections, only a small, atypically enthusiastic minority will take part in internal elections such as primaries. Experience shows that those who participate in primary elections are not representative of party supporters in general. They are more ideological and more extreme.
As with some previous and later entries, this one does not attempt to come down on one side or another of what is a complex and continuing debate.
Draft Only
