Political Parties Internally Democratic Flashcards
1: evaluate the view that UK political parties are becoming more internally democratic
Introduction
Internal party democracy refers to the degree of influence that ordinary members- as opposed to elected MPs, donors or party elites- have over key decisions such as leadership selection, policy direction and candidate approval. In principle, democratic parties should empower their grassroots to shape the party’s identity, direction and leadership. In recent decades, UK political parties have introduced procedural reforms to enhance internal democracy, such as expanding leadership elections and revising candidate selection rules. However, there is growing evidence that many of these reforms have served as democratic facades, offering participation while protecting elite control. This essay argues that while parties may appear more internally democratic, in substance they remain increasingly centralised, with members exerting limited real influence on key outcomes.
1: evaluate the view that UK political parties are becoming more internally democratic
1:Leadership elections- democratic innovation or elite gatekeeping
Point
It could be argued that the way party leaders are now chosen reflects internal democracy. The widespread adoption of One Member One Vote (OMOV) systems has been significant departure from the elitist structures of the 20th century, where MPs or party elites dominated leadership selections
1: evaluate the view that UK political parties are becoming more internally democratic
1:Leadership elections- democratic innovation or elite gatekeeping
Points and analyses (AGAINST)
-the Labour Party’s OMOV system, introduced in 2014, allowed every member, affiliated union supporter, and registered supporter and equal vote- replacing the weighted electoral college which favoured MPs and trade unions. This enabled the stunning victory of Jeremy Corbyn in 2015, who secured 60% of the vote despite having minimal support among Labour MPS.
-HIs re-election in 2016, with an increased 62% of the vote, against Owen Smith, further demonstrated the membership’s power.
-similarly, the Conservative Party’s system, in place since 1998, empowers members to choose between the final two leadership candidates. This gave Conservative grassroots members decisive power in 2019 and 2022, leading to the victories of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, respectively, despite significant concern within the parliamentary party- particularly in Truss’s case, where she won just 50000 votes more than Sunak from a base of 172000 members.
1: evaluate the view that UK political parties are becoming more internally democratic
1:Leadership elections- democratic innovation or elite gatekeeping
Volta
However, a more convincing argument is that these elections remain heavily filtered and stage-managed by elites, meaning member participation occurs only with pre-approved boundaries.
1: evaluate the view that UK political parties are becoming more internally democratic
1:Leadership elections- democratic innovation or elite gatekeeping
Points and analyses (FOR)
-In Labour, Keir Starmer’s reforms in 2021 raised the MP nomination threshold for leadership contenders to 20%, making it far more difficult for left-wing or outsider candidates to get on the ballot.
-this procedural barrier significantly reduces democratic power of members.
-While corbyn’s rise appeared to democratise the party, it also prompted backlash from the parliamentary elite and resulted in subsequent reforms designed to discipline rather than empower the grassroots.
-in the Conservative Party, MPs control the shortlisting process and have eliminated popular figures before they reached the membership. In 2022, Penny Mordaunt consistently polled ahead of Truss among members but was eliminated in the final MP round- denying the grassroots their preferred choice.
-Moreover, both Labour and Conservative leadership elections are highly influenced by donor support, media framing and internal polling, which shape member perceptions.
-this aligns with Peter Mair’s “hollowing out” these, where formal democracy is maintained but real power is withdrawn from members. Thus, leadership elections appear democratic but are often carefully designed to channel member preference rather than be driven by them
1: evaluate the view that UK political parties are becoming more internally democratic
2: policy-making participatory structures or centralised strategy
Point
It could be argued that parties have opened up their policy-making processes to members, reflecting enhanced internal democracy.
1: evaluate the view that UK political parties are becoming more internally democratic
2: policy-making participatory structures or centralised strategy
Points and analyses (AGAINST)
-the Labour Party’s National Policy Forum and annual party conference enable members to submit motions and influence policy.
-under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour’s policy programme was seen as the most member-driven in decades.
-initiatives such as the 2017 manifesto’s pledge to scrap tuition fees, renationalise the railways and introduce a National Education Service reflected Momentum-backed grassroots proposals.
-Momentum- a member-led organisation- claimed over 40000 activists and became a dominant presence at party conference, even organising “The World Transformed”, a parallel, member-focused political festival.
-similarly, the Green Party’s policy process is structured around grassroots input, with members voting on policy motions directly at party conference. This represents a model of deliberative, participatory democracy contrasting with the command-style leadership of the major parties
1: evaluate the view that UK political parties are becoming more internally democratic
2: policy-making participatory structures or centralised strategy
Volta
However, a more compelling argument is that party policy is largely shaped by leadership strategy, not member input, especially in major parties where electoral pressure demands tight message control.
1: evaluate the view that UK political parties are becoming more internally democratic
2: policy-making participatory structures or centralised strategy
Points and analyses (FOR)
-since 2020, Keir Starmer has reversed or downplayed many member-driven policies from the Corbyn era. In 2021, the Labour Conference voted in favour of a £15 minimum wage, but Starmer publicly rejected this, instead backing £10.42- a direct contradiction of the membership’s stated will
-similarly, Green New Deal-style policies passed by members were omitted or diluted in 2023 conference platform
-meanwhile, conservative policy is decided almost entirely by leadership and special advisors, with Conservative Party Conference acting as a media event rather than policy forum. The influence of think tanks like the Centre for Policy studies and Policy Exchange, often funded by donors, further centralises control away from members,
-moreover, party messaging is increasingly shaped by polling firms, behavioural psychologists and data analytics teams, rather than activists or rank-and-file members.
-under Lynton Crosby, the Conservative Party operated a “dead cat strategy” and refined messaging based on voter segmentation data rather than internal consultation.
-Labour’s current campaign strategy under Deborah Mattinson focuses heavily on “hero voters” and swing seats, marginalising ideological debate in favour of message discipline. This reflects the “cartel party thesis” , Katz and Mair, in which parties function less as member-led movements and more as state-subsidised professional campaign organisations.
-hence, policy-making is increasingly professionalised and centralised, with members relegated to cheerleaders rather than co-authors of the political programme.
1: evaluate the view that UK political parties are becoming more internally democratic
3: candidate selection-local authority or central control
Point
It could be argued that candidate selection processes empower local parties and represent a key area of internal democracy.
1: evaluate the view that UK political parties are becoming more internally democratic
3: candidate selection-local authority or central control
Points and analyses (AGAINST)
-in both major parties, local associations of Constituency Labour Parties (CLPS) are formally responsible for choosing prospective parliamentary candidates.
-Labour’s trigger ballot system, for example, allows members to deselect sitting MPs of a majority of branches or affiliates vote against automatic re-selection.
-this system was used successfully by members in a handful of constituencies during Corbyn’s leadership, and is often cited as a means of grassroots accountability.
-meanwhile, in the conservative party, local Conservative Associations have formal autonomy in choosing centrally imposed shortlists. In 2018, several local associations threatened to deselect their sitting MPs over Brexit related positions demonstrating the potential power of local members.
1: evaluate the view that UK political parties are becoming more internally democratic
3: candidate selection-local authority or central control
Volta
However a more convincing argument is that candidates selection has become increasingly centralised, with national leaderships routinely interfering in local decisions- often to enforce ideological control or safeguard party image.
1: evaluate the view that UK political parties are becoming more internally democratic
3: candidate selection-local authority or central control
Points and analyses (FOR)
-under Starmer, Labour’s NEC has intervened in numerous local selections, blocking left-wing candidates such as Jamie Driscoll (North of Tyne Mayor) and Faiza Shaheen (Clingford and Woodford Green), both of whom had strong local support.
-the 2023 selection process for the new constituency of Weald of Kent saw all shortlisted candidates imposed by HQ, leading to member resignations.
-similarly, in the Conservative Party, CCHQ has regularly vetoed local choices, especially to parachute in loyal or high-profile candidates. In 2019, Johnson’s campaign centrally selected candidates like Claire Coutinho and Kemi Badenoch in winnable seats- a move justified by diversity and electoral strategy, but one that displaced local voice.
-additionally, these interventions are often motivated by brand control and the desire to avoid scandal or factional conflict, rather than member consultation.
-the decline in party membership- Labour’s dropped from over 550,000 in 2019 to under 400,000 by 2024- also means that fewer people are involved in local processes, increasing leverage of national bodies.
-combined with digital campaigning and centralised fundraising, this shift has diminished the relevance of local structures, reducing party democracy to formal procedure rather than genuine empowerment
1: evaluate the view that UK political parties are becoming more internally democratic
3: candidate selection-local authority or central control
Evaluation
While UK parties have reformed their structures to include members in leadership elections, policy debates and candidate selection, these reforms are often superficial and contingent. Leadership contests are still filtered by elites, policy-making is driven by leadership strategy and polling, and candidate selection is often centrally imposed. Members are increasingly treated as a source of legitimacy and financial support rather than partners in shaping party’s direction. In reality, internal democracy has plateued- or even declined- beneath the surface of democratic procedure. Thus, UK parties are becoming more internally democratic in form, but not in substance, with control resting firmly in the hands of leadership teams, advisers and elite actors.
