CANDIDATE SELECTION METHODS an Analytical Framework
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
03 Rahat & Hazan (JB/D) 18/4/01 10:02 am Page 297 PA R T Y P O L I T I C S V O L 7 . N o . 3 pp. 297–322 Copyright © 2001 SAGE Publications London Thousand Oaks New Delhi CANDIDATE SELECTION METHODS An Analytical Framework Gideon Rahat and Reuven Y. Hazan A B S T R A C T The framework presented in this article supplies tools for delineating candidate selection methods, defines what is meant by their democra- tization and offers an analytical framework for cross-national compari- son. The first section of this article raises the problems of classifying candidate selection methods and suggests solutions for them. Each of the next four sections offers a dimension for the classification of candidate selection methods: candidacy; party selectorates; decentral- ization; and voting/appointment systems. The sixth section defines the process of democratizing candidate selection, and demonstrates its implementation in the three largest political parties in Israel prior to the 1996 elections, via the dimensions of the analytical framework. The subsequent section assesses the repercussions of this democratizing phenomenon in general and provides empirical evidence drawn from the Israeli experience in the 1990s. The article concludes by examining the ability of political parties to comprehend and to overcome the conse- quences of democratizing candidate selection. KEY WORDS Ⅲ candidate selection Ⅲ democratization Ⅲ Israel Ⅲ party organization Ⅲ primaries Developing tools for the study of candidate selection methods is important in two respects. First, when we study party politics, appropriate tools enable us to draw a map of a major element in the party’s internal power structure. Second, if we claim that the behavior of parties is affected by the nature of the electoral system, then the behavior of individual politicians must be affected by the nature of the selection method. This means that without ana- lytical tools such as those supplied by electoral systems researchers (for example, Rae, 1967; Taagepera and Shugart, 1989), we lack an important factor for analyzing party politics. In light of the personification of politics and changes in party organization that lead to increased autonomy for the 1354-0688(200105)7:3;297–322;016987 03 Rahat & Hazan (JB/D) 18/4/01 10:02 am Page 298 PA R T Y P O L I T I C S 7 ( 3 ) individual politicians at the top (Katz and Mair, 1995; Katz, in this issue), this gap needs to be filled through further research. On the one hand, candidate selection methods are less stable mechanisms than state institutional mechanisms (such as electoral systems), and are rela- tively more prone to change. As such, they should be seen as reflecting party politics. On the other hand, these changes are not frequent enough to justify an inclusive treatment of them as only a mirror. Thus, candidate selection methods should be treated as institutional mechanisms that both reflect the nature of the parties and affect party politics. Until now, only a few studies of candidate selection methods have offered tools for comparative analysis (Gallagher, 1988a, 1988c; Ranney, 1981). The framework presented in this article sets out to achieve two goals: first, to supply tools for delineating candidate selection methods and for defining what is meant by their democratization; second, to offer an analytical frame- work that will enable a cross-national comparison of candidate selection methods. Candidate selection methods are only one aspect in the more compre- hensive analysis of candidate recruitment. As Norris (1997) points out in her study of legislative recruitment, a broad range of selection actors and processes outside the party arena should be addressed when one answers questions regarding who becomes a candidate, and how and why this happens. This study is not about candidate recruitment in general, but rather about a particular and important aspect of it inside the party arena. While the broader context of selection is certainly important, parties are critical to the process. Thus, this article offers an institutional anchor for the study of candidate selection methods. As an analogy, electoral systems are also but one aspect in the more comprehensive study of electoral politics, yet they still supply us with useful tools for their analysis.1 The unit of analysis is the single party, in a particular country, at a specific time. Only in cases where several parties in a particular country use similar candidate selection methods (usually due to legal requirements), where a single party uses a similar candidate selection method more than once, or when both similarities occur, will we make generalizations about the selec- tion system at the first stage of the analysis. The first section of this article raises the problems of classifying candidate selection methods – problems that stem from having to deal with a number of complex features – and offers solutions for them. The next four sections offer four dimensions, or continua, for the classification of candidate selec- tion methods, and elaborate how these dimensions correspond to the phenomenon of democratizing candidate selection. The analytical frame- work is, therefore, built around four major questions: 1 Who can be selected? Are there any restrictions on presenting candidacy in a given party? If so, how strict are these limitations? How much do they affect the size and nature of the potential candidate pool? 298 03 Rahat & Hazan (JB/D) 18/4/01 10:02 am Page 299 R A H AT & H A Z A N : C A N D I D AT E S E L E C T I O N M E T H O D S 2 Who selects candidates? Are there any restrictions on participating in a given party’s candidate selection process? If so, what is their impact on the size and nature of the selectorate? 3 Where are the candidates selected? Are candidates selected by a national or a sub-national selectorate? If candidates are selected by a sub-national selectorate, is it a regional or a local one? Does the party allocate pos- itions for functional representation, i.e., are candidates selected formally as representatives of social groups or sectors? 4 How are candidates nominated? Is candidacy determined by a voting pro- cedure or are candidates simply appointed? The sixth part of this article defines the process of democratizing candi- date selection, and demonstrates its implementation in the three largest political parties in Israel prior to the 1996 elections, via the dimensions of the analytical framework. The subsequent section assesses the repercussions of this democratizing phenomenon in general, and provides empirical evi- dence drawn from the Israeli experience in the 1990s. The article concludes by examining the ability of political parties to comprehend and overcome the consequences of democratizing candidate selection. Problems of Classification and their Solutions The concept of safe positions on the candidate list, or safe seats when dealing with majoritarian systems, is used quite freely in the research litera- ture. Since we also use this concept, we define it according to the following parameters. Although the size of the party’s legislative representation is not known in advance – intra-party selection is made before the general elec- tions – parties and politicians tend to relate to their party’s actual represen- tation as the one that distinguishes ‘safe’ list positions from ‘unsafe’ positions. As for new parties that did not compete previously, and thus cannot relate to any existing size, we are forced to estimate according to their projected size, through the use of opinion polls.2 The tools offered in the following sections can be easily used when ana- lyzing a simple, one stage, uniform candidate selection method. Such a simple method is one in which all potential candidates face similar restric- tions, and the selection of all candidates is made by the same selectorate, at the same level, using the same nomination method. Empirically, however, we face complex candidate selection methods – methods in which, simultaneously, different requirements are set for candi- dacy for different positions on the list; selection is made by different selec- torates; these selectorates use different nomination systems; and some candidates are selected at different types of locations, defined territorially and/or functionally. We distinguish between two kinds of such complexities. First is the mixed 299 03 Rahat & Hazan (JB/D) 18/4/01 10:02 am Page 300 PA R T Y P O L I T I C S 7 ( 3 ) candidate selection system. This is a method in which different potential candidates face different restrictions; or different candidates are selected by different selectorates, in different locations, or according to different nomi- nation systems. Second is the multi-stage candidate selection method. This is a method in which the same candidates have to face more than one selectorate during the selection process. These selectorates may be defined differently in terri- torial and functional terms, and may also use different nomination systems. In this kind of process, screening happens through the candidate selection process, and not only by candidacy requirements.3 In cases of both mixed and multi-stage candidate selection methods, classification becomes more complex. As our goal here is to offer a cross- party and cross-national analytical framework, we must try to offer a way to integrate one-stage, uniform candidate selection methods and different complex cases, such as mixed and multi-stage methods, into the same frame- work. The difficulty with mixed candidate selection methods can be addressed in two steps. First, there should be a separate analysis of each selectorate – its location and its nomination system. Second, toward the goal of ‘summing up’ the system, the relative impact of each procedure should be weighted by calculating the ratio of safe positions that are filled by the particular selec- torates.