The Selection of Political Party Leaders in Contemporary Parliamentary Democracies

A Comparative Study

Jean-Benoit Pilet, William Cross

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780415704168
• eBook ISBN: 9781317929444
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Comparative Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book explores the ways in which political parties, in contemporary parliamentary democracies, choose their leaders and then subsequently hold them accountable. The authors provide a comprehensive examination of party leadership selection and accountability both through examination of parties and countries in different institutional settings and through a holistic analysis of the role of party leaders and the methods through which they assume, and exit, the office.

The collection includes essays on Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Norway and the United Kingdom which have important differences in their party systems, their degree of democratization, the role assigned to party leaders and their methods of leadership selection. Each country examination provides significant data relating to party rules and norms of leadership selection, leadership tenures and leadership contests. The book concludes with a chapter that merges the country data analyses to provide a truly comparative examination of the theoretical questions underlying the volume.

This book will be of strong interest to students and scholars of legislative studies, elections, democracy, political parties, party systems, political elites and comparative politics.

1 The selection of party leaders in contemporary parliamentary democracies

William P. Cross and Jean-Benoit Pilet

The importance of party leadership

On 27 June 2007, Gordon Brown replaced Tony Blair as prime minister of the United Kingdom. The succession was not decided by voters, nor by members of the parliamentary majority that was backing the Labour government in Westminster. Rather the choice of the new British prime minister was taken three days earlier, at a special conference of the Labour Party. Exactly three years later, on the other side of the globe, Australia also changed its prime minister with Julia Gillard replacing Kevin Rudd. Here too the choice of the new prime minister was not decided by voters or in parliament, but rather through a closed-door, internal process of the party’s parliamentary caucus. Even if these cases are extreme, in the respect that the selection of the party leader is at the same time the choice of a new prime minister, party leadership selection processes are regularly crucial events in the designation of new governing leaders in contemporary democracies. In fact, in most cases, voters’ options regarding the choice of prime minister or president are limited to those selected as party leaders. For example, with the sole exception of, Helmut Schmidt, every chancellor of post-war Germany has served as leader of his party as has every recent prime minister of Australia, Canada, Israel, Spain and the United Kingdom.

These examples illustrate how consequential processes of leadership selection are in modern democracies. They are so important that some countries have even decided to legislate on how party leaders are selected. This is the case, for example, in Germany where the Party Law stipulates that leaders have to be chosen through a vote of delegates at a party conference. This importance of leadership contests within political parties is not particularly surprising considering the central role parties occupy in modern democracies. Schattschneider’s (1942: 1) often repeated observation that ‘political parties created modern democracy and modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of parties’ has subsequently been confirmed by leading contemporary specialists of political parties (see, among others, Dalton and Wattenberg 2000). Parties are the leading actors in elections. They organise the selection of candidates and the recruitment of future legislators (Norris and Lovenduski 1997). They develop the policy programmes that are presented to voters in election campaigns. They convey this message through the organisation of the campaign for their candidates (Farrell and Webb 2000). And, most importantly, they are central elements in voters’ determination of who to vote for (Miller and Shanks 1996).

However, political parties are not only important during campaigns. They are also key players between elections. Both parliaments and governments are organised along party lines (Docherty 2005; White 2006). In parliament, parties structure the everyday work, from purely organisational matters, such as where legislators sit in the assembly, to the most crucial activities, including legislative votes and the control of the executive. Even in the most personalised systems, widespread party dissent remains rare, at least outside the US (Depauw and Martin 2008). And in government, parties are central in building the ruling coalition, in defining policy priorities and in the balance of power within the executive, whether among parties of a coalition, or between individual ministers.

And while political parties have long operated at the centre of democratic politics, the role played by their leaders has expanded in the last 15–20 years, leading some scholars to talk of a presidentialisation of politics (Poguntke and Webb 2005). Their hypothesis is based on four fields in which party leaders have increased their influence. First, party leaders have become more powerful within their party. Decentralised parties, or parties controlled by middle-level elites have lost ground. Although it is still unclear and widely debated among specialists of parties what is the exact new model that is emerging (cartel, stratarchical, modern cadre party?), they all agree that party leaders have been able to accumulate more power in their hands (Webb et al. 2002). Second, in elections, leaders have also gained ground and are today more central in the choice made by voters. They may not have become the single most crucial driver of vote choice, but their influence has been on the rise in most Western democracies (Aarts et al. 2011). This growing importance of party leaders is also apparent in how the media cover politics. Parties are less often described as teams with several prominent candidates, and more and more as electoral organisations dominated by a clear leader (Mughan 2000). And, finally, the party in public office (government or parliament) is also more controlled by its leader (Foley 2000). Dowding (2013) has correctly pointed out that presidentialisation is not the best term for this phenomenon. As he notes, prime ministers have typically been more powerful than have presidents within their political settings. Nonetheless, he too agrees that prime ministers have increased their relative degree of authority over time.

Interestingly, in many parties, the growing role of party leaders has been accompanied by a transformation in the way they are selected. While leaders may once have been chosen by party and parliamentary elites, there is today great diversity in methods of their selection as many parties have broadened the leadership selectorate. As underlined by Katz and Mair (1995) in their cartel party model, party leaders have increased their power by empowering individual rank-and-file members at the expense of the more organised, more easily mobilised and more ideological middle-level elites. One of the crucial reforms in this respect has been to organise the selection of candidates and party leaders by a direct vote of the party’s members. The most frequently used illustration of this transformation is the gradual increased weight of the vote of individual members, at the expense of the more organised votes of the parliamentary groups and of trade unions, within the British Labour Party (Russell 2005). But beyond this specific case, according to the first significant comparative work on the topic (Kenig 2009a), it seems that this trend towards more inclusive selectorates for the choice of party leaders is widespread and often more straightforward than in the case of British Labour. It is, however, not universal as major parties in countries such as Australia, Germany, Spain and New Zealand have resisted this trend.

Yet, surprisingly, the central role of party leaders, and their growing influence in recent years, together with the increased diversity in the methods of their selection has not translated into considerably more academic attention to this subject. As demonstrated by Cross and Blais (2012a), the number of publications on the topic is much more limited than in related subfields such as the study of electoral systems, of the organisation of political parties, or even of methods of candidate selection. In fact, most publications on the topic examine only one country, and sometimes only one leadership contest (among others Heppel and Hill 2008; Drucker 1984; Cowley and Bailey 2000).

The most extensively studied countries are the United Kingdom and Canada. In the UK case, substantial research interest began in the 1980s and 1990s when the major parties expanded their selectorates beyond their parliamentary group (for example, Quinn 2004; Stark 1996; Punnett 1992; Alderman 1999; Denham and O’Hara 2008; Russell 2005). And in Canada, the topic has attracted scholarly attention with the transfer of selection authority first from the parliamentary caucus to the party conference in the early twentieth century, and more recently to the rank-and-file membership (for example, Courtney 1973, 1995; Carty and Blake 1999; Cross 1996). Beyond these two countries, a few case studies examine leadership selection in individual countries such as Austria (Müller and Meth-Cohn 1991), Belgium (Wauters 2009), Australia (Bynander and ’t Hart 2007), Japan (Sasada 2010) and Ireland (Rafter 2003).

Comparative studies of leadership selection remain sparse. A special issue of the European Journal of Political Research that included a collection of six country-specific case studies of the issue was edited in the early 1990s by Marsh (1993). A few years later, Davis (1998) produced a rather superficial comparison of leadership selection in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. More recently, in an article in the journal Party Politics, LeDuc compared selection processes in the UK, Canada and the US (LeDuc 2001). Very recently, more systematic comparisons of more cases have been completed. The most important of these are the study of leadership selection mechanisms in 11 countries published by Kenig in Electoral Studies (2009a) and a book-length study of parties in Westminster democracies by Cross and Blais (2012a).

The low number of publications on the topic is even more surprising considering that studies of leadership selection can easily dialogue with many related subfields of the study of parties and elections. There are at least seven different sets of literature that the study of party leadership selection can both draw-upon and contribute to. First, it can contribute to the debate on the transformation of party organisations. For more than 20 years now, scholars have been exchanging ideas on how parties’ internal organisations can best be defined. The dominant models of the 1950s and 1960s, and even 1970s, like the mass party, the cadre party and the catch-all party (Duverger 1964; Panebianco 1988) appear to be inadequate for parties at the turn of the new millennium (Katz and Mair 1994). New models have subsequently been proposed, such as the cartel party (Katz and Mair 1995) or the stratarchical party (Carty 2004; Carty and Cross 2006). And, as mentioned above, these models are closely linked to the new distribution of powers within the party, with more strongly empowered leaders and new methods for selecting them. These models are also characterised by the relationship between the different faces of the political party, defined by Katz and Mair (1995) as the party in public office, in central office and on the ground. The relative role of the leader clearly influences the patterns of these relationships which in turn influence the relative role of each party group in the selection of the leader.

Another subject that studies of party leaders are naturally connected to is the literature on the transformation of intra-party democracy (Cain et al. 2003; Scarrow 1999a; Cross and Katz 2013). This body of research has been questioning the way parties conceive of democracy within their organisation, and how this echoes in their vision of democracy outside the party itself, in the broader political system. Gallagher and Marsh (1988: 1) claimed some years ago that ‘the way in which political parties select their candidates may be used as an acid test of how democratically they conduct their internal affairs’. We believe that the same can be said for the way parties select their leader, and how they organise the control of the leader between elections. The methods of leadership selection and accountability, and particularly the relative roles of party elites, external supporters (such as labour unions) and grassroots members, both in selecting the leader and in holding her to account, illuminates much about the distribution of power within political parties.

Related to this is a better understanding of why parties engage in organisational reform. Given the movement of some parties to a broader selectorate and the resistance to this by others, this case offers substantial explanatory value relating to the factors that result in this type of organisational change. As discussed more fully below, many scholars have suggested that party organisational reform is best explained through consideration of both a party’s environment and internal circumstances (Harmel 2002; Panebianco 1988; Wilson 1980). Following this path, in their study of leadership selection change in the Westminster systems, Cross and Blais (2012b) find that parties are most likely to engage in this type of organisational reform when in opposition, after an electoral defeat and when others in their party system have also done so. This is consistent with the hypotheses relating to internal reform offered by Deschouwer (1992), Frantzich (1989), and Panebianco (1988).

A fourth field of research that can be linked with the study of party leaders is the study of political participation. The recent changes mentioned above in the way party leaders are selected imply a growing role for rank-and-file members. These reforms clearly influence how activists exercise and conceive of their role within political parties. And, the idea of making the role of members more attractive has often been central in debates about these intra-party reforms (Scarrow 1999b; Young 2013). Parties perceive them as a way to limit, or even to reverse the trends of declining party membership (van Biezen et al. 2012). Their possibility of succeeding at this assumes that party supporters want to participate in leadership selection and that offering them such a role will increase their propensity to join and become active members. Some suggest that this may not be the case and that the apparently growing disinterest in party activism may have less to do with the internal organisation and distribution of power within parties than with broader societal changes making political parties less desirable vehicles for participation by those seeking political and social change (Katz 2013).

Dialogue is also possible with specialists of elections. After all, leaders are in most cases selected through some sort of an electoral process – even if the rules defining who is eligible to be an elector may vary significantly (parliamentarians, middle-level elites, party members, all voters). The relationship between campaign dynamics, the voting behaviours of electors, activities engaged in by the candidates, and the influence of electoral rules – such as the electoral system – on issues such as the competitiveness of these contests and the characteristics of leaders emerging from them should be of interest to specialists of legislative and presidential elections.

Related to this is the question of public regulation of these contests. There is a growing literature relating to statutory oversight of the activities of parties, and sometimes of their internal organisation through party laws and sometimes constitutional provisions (van Biezen 2004). One of the most consequential things parties do is select leaders from among whom voters essentially select their prime ministers. Thus, understanding whether and how these contests are publicly regulated speaks to a fuller understanding of this phenomenon and to the notion of political parties as public utilities (van Biezen 2004).

Finally, a better understanding of how party leaders are selected, and the outcomes of these contests, will provide interesting insights to broader theories of representation. For example, the trend towards more inclusive selectorates of party leaders raises questions relating to who the party leaders are representing and to the possible principal–agent relations that are at play in the leadership selection process. Similarly, consideration of the types of leaders who emerge, in terms of gender, age and political experience, and the relationship between these and the methods of selection, contributes to the literature on descriptive representation.

Cumulatively, the chapters that follow make contributions to each of these important questions and we return to some of them in the concluding chapter in which we distil what the individual country studies, taken as a whole, tell us about these questions. In many of these areas, we build upon the work of Dowding and Dumont (2009), and their contributors, in their study of ministerial careers. Party leaders serve at the head of the party and in many cases, though not all, are responsible for the hiring and firing of ministers. When serving in government they are the senior minister, and focusing on how they are hired and fired contributes to the existing work in this book series.

What do we know about the selection of party leaders?

Though limited in number, existing studies of leadership selection within parties have identified some of the key issues underlying these processes. In particular, the main element of interest has been the movement towards more inclusive selectorates. Several authors have identified a trend to transfer the power to choose the party leader away from the party elite (in most cases, the parliamentary group) to either conferences attended by party delegates or to party members, and in a very few cases, such as the Italian Partito Democratico, to voters generally (Kittilson and Scarrow 2003; Kenig 2009b). The trend has been questioned recently by Cross and Blais (2012a, 2012b) who paid more attention than others to countries such as Australia and New Zealand where parties have resisted the broadening of the selectorate. Moreover, they have pointed to other developments in the rules organising the selection of party leaders in Westminster systems that could moderate the idea of more open procedures for selecting party leaders. In particular, it appears that, with the direct involvement of party members (and in some cases of voters), leadership contests have become more centralised, reducing the role and autonomy of party branches at the local and constituency levels. Moreover, in several parties, though it remains unclear whether this pattern is valid in most countries, requirements for standing as a candidate for party leadership have become stricter. In some parties, such as those in the UK, while the selectorate has been expanded, party elites continue to play a crucial gatekeeping role through control of the nomination process.

Beyond identifying a trend towards a particular type of intra-party democratisation, scholarly attention has focused on factors driving the change and on the consequences of the new, more inclusive, methods of leadership selection. Research offering explanations of the democratisation of leadership selection, has been consistent with the analytical model developed by Barnea and Rahat (2007) relating to candidate selection. They explain that the decision to reform the procedures to select candidates (or in our case party leaders) can be explained through an interplay between three levels: the political system, the party system and the intra-party level. At the level of the political system, the central argument is that parties adapt to changes in their environment. In particular, the democratisation of leadership selection should be linked with three transformations of politics and society: the personalisation of politics, the democratisation of society generally and the global decline of party membership. The personalisation of politics (Karvonen 2010) has induced the need for parties to put at the forefront a few individuals (or even one single individual) who can personify the party to the public. Parties therefore are seen less as collective organisations and more as entities dominated by a single leader, which obviously can affect notions regarding the legitimacy of processes controlling how the leader is selected and leads to more party members and activists wanting to influence this choice. Second, Western societies have witnessed a deep change in their citizens’ democratic values in recent decades. Access to education has increased, which has induced a shift in citizens’ values and demands (Inglehart 1990). In particular, a significant share of the population is calling for more political participation, for more inclusive democracy and for more transparency in politics. The shift to more inclusive methods of leadership selection is said to be a reaction by parties meant to illustrate that they are responding to these demands. And third, as mentioned above, intra-party democratisation is, for some parties, a reaction to the growing disengagement of citizens towards political parties, and to the decline in party membership (Scarrow 1999b; Dalton 2004; Dalton and Wattenberg 2000). By allowing their members a formal voice in the choice of leader, parties hope to increase the value of membership and thus to make it more attractive to their supporters.

At the level of the party system, explanations are most commonly linked to the electoral competition between parties. In particular, research has shown that parties are more likely to democratise internally when they are electorally unsuccessful or when other, more democratic parties, are increasingly popular with voters. The first element has been underlined by Cross and Blais (2012b) who have shown that in Britain, Canada and Ireland, almost all reforms towards more inclusive selectorates of the party leader were adopted after a party suffered a poor electoral showing. Parties, by reforming themselves inter...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Notes on contributors
• Series preface
• Acknowledgements
• List of party names and abbreviations
• 1. The selection of party leaders in contemporary parliamentary democracies
• 2. The selection of party leaders in the UK
• 3. The selection of party leaders in Belgium
• 4. Unanimous, by acclamation? Party leadership selection in Norway
• 5. The selection of party leaders in Austria: channelling ambition effectively
• 6. Party leader selection in Germany
• 7. The selection of party leaders in Italy, 1989–2012
• 8. The selection of party leaders in Spain
• 9. The selection of party leaders in Portugal
• 10. Let’s not risk too much: the selection of party leaders in Romania
• 11. Stable leadership in the context of party change: the Hungarian case
• 12. Party leadership in Canada
• 13. Leadership selection in Australia
• 14. Selecting party leaders in Israel
• 15. The selection of party leaders in comparative perspective
• Bibliography
• Index