In the words of the Lortie Commission,
[t]he selection of candidates by political parties is one of the most fundamental functions that parties perform. It distinguishes them from all other types of organizations that bring individuals together to promote common political ideas, interests and values 12.
In majoritarian systems, candidates are normally selected to contest single-member constituencies. Questions that arise about the selection process are:
- what are the relative powers of central and local party organizations?
- how wide is the circle of party members involved in the selection process? (i.e. is the selection process participatory and 'democratic' or not?)
- is the selection process regulated by law?
Central versus Local Party Control
In the past, there have usually been severe limits on the influence of central party organizations over the selection of candidates for Parliament, or for regional or municipal office. There have been several reasons for this. Local party leaders have often resented central inference in the selection function. National leaders have been careful to avoid obvious interference because the success of local campaigning has depended to a considerable extent on the keenness of the local organization, whose activists it has been unwise to offend. Moreover, local party organizations have had the ultimate power to break away from the national party and to put forward a candidate of their choice in competition with the candidate imposed from the centre.
In Canada, the Lortie Commission emphasizes local party influence over candidate selection. In Britain, too, central party leaders and organizers have traditionally found it difficult to place candidates of their choice in specific constituencies.
Britain is an example of a country in which central party organizations have at least a small say. It has been the practice to maintain a central list of prospective candidates, and to require that local selections be made from members of the approved list. In practice, local party associations have sometimes insisted on interviewing applicants - especially those with local associations - even if they have not been included on the official list. In these cases, the central party organization has tended to include such applicants on the approved list in order to avoid conflict with the local party association. In any case, the central list of approved candidates has tended to be long, and inclusion in it has been relatively easy.
There are signs that central influence over candidate selection has tended to grow. This has certainly been the case in recent years in the British Labour Party. Centralization of influence over candidate selection has been part of a wider process of the centralization of power. This has resulted from the decreasing membership of local party associations, the declining importance of local party workers in securing electoral support, and the increasing role of central parties in fund-raising.
A number of developing nations report a considerable influence over candidate selection by central party organizations. In many African states, candidates are identified at local, electoral district, and regional level, but require the approval of the central committee of their parties.
Participatory versus Non-Participatory Procedures
A common complaint about selection processes within local party organizations is that they place too much power in the hands of narrow, unaccountable groups of local leaders.
In the United States, a rebellion against what was (rightly) seen as political corruption stemming from selection of candidates by party 'bosses' led to the introduction of primary elections. Under a primary system, the right to nominate candidates who will contest elections using the party's name does not rest with party office-holders, but with a far broader group of ordinary voters. Those entitled to vote in a primary election in the United states include - depending on the state in which the election is held - all those whose voter registration indicates that they support the relevant party, or all registered voters (irrespective of their registered party affiliation).
In other countries, complaints have centred on the criticism that the circle of people involved in the selection has been too small. Typically, a committee of office-holders in the local party has been responsible for winnowing the initial list of applicants. A short list has then been presented to a somewhat larger group. However, the full local membership has often played no part in the selection.
The recent tendency has been for a 'democratization' of the selection rules, and the provision of a formal role for individual party members. The smaller party memberships have become, the greater the role of the remaining members in the choice of candidates. The development of votes by party members to select candidates along the lines of primary elections in the United States has been a recent feature of political organization in countries such as Spain.
Whether it is democratic to give ordinary members a fuller voice in choosing candidates is a matter of controversy. The argument for 'one member, one vote' in candidate selection is simply that it is fitting for political parties which participate in democratic elections to be democratic in the way they run their internal affairs, see Encouraging Internal Party Democracy.
However, selection of parliamentary candidates by votes of local party members is subject to abuse. Often, a local party organization will have few members, and its lists will be in disorder. It then becomes relatively easy for a local contender to recruit new members specifically for the purpose of asking them to attend the selection meeting, or to take part in the selection ballot. Such 'members' may have their subscriptions paid by the would-be candidate or his supporters, and they may have virtually no connection with the local party association.
Moreover, the turnout at primary elections or 'one member, one vote ballots' may be low. Critics argue that those who do vote will tend to be unusually ideological and atypical of party voters at large. Paradoxically, party bosses will be more likely to select candidates whose views are acceptable to the party's general supporters. This is because party 'bosses', in contrast to active party members, place great weight on choosing a candidate likely to perform well at the polls; activists will prefer candidates whose extreme views mirror their own, regardless of their electoral prospects.
Legal versus Non-Legal Rules
Legal controls over candidate selection are the exception. Selection methods are normally a matter for discretionary decisions by the parties themselves.
The two main examples of countries where the selection process is controlled by statute are the United States and Germany, see Party and Candidate Registration. In Germany, where the system is proportional, Parties Laws have been enacted which regulate the procedures used by party organizations. This is in keeping with the provision requiring internal party democracy in Article 21 of the Basic Law of 1949.
Draft Only
