Party branches’ organisational prowess can be seen in whether they practise what they preach. If they respect democracy, they should implement it within their organisations and how they manage party careers and internal leadership provides indications of how successful their organisations are.

Party Career Advancement as Proof of Intra-party Democracy

In the theoretical literature on democracy, intra-party democracy is deemed crucial for ‘effective participation’ and ‘voting equalities’, two elements of Dahl's definition of democracy (1998: 37-38). Theorists argue that voting makes for equal rights among party members and guarantees that their voices matter, and that parties’ efforts to implement democratic principles in their own organisations are key to projecting honesty and transparency. The granting of greater power to members is one means of convincing supporters of a party's genuineness and its desire for members to be heard and counted in the party.

As explained earlier, parties employ various strategies to recruit aggressively, one of which is to give more power to members in internal decision-making. The implementation of intra-party democracy has been heavily influenced by parties’ efforts to adopt changes that could attract more supporters – for instance, by promising more power to potential members, particularly after election losses (Pennings & Hazan 2001: 269). By allowing greater member participation, parties hope to increase members’ ‘sense of involvement’, and open up their party to other groups and ideas (Pennings & Hazan 2001: 268). Parties also project democracy in their membership and leadership management. For example, they might try to create equal opportunities for all eligible candidates in leadership elections. Duverger has pointed out that parties have not necessarily practised democratic measures in electing their leaders, noting that the principles of ‘practicality’, ‘autocracy’ and ‘heredity’ were traditionally seen as equally valid bases of leaders’ elections and influenced parties in Europe (1964: 133). He also noted that the application of democracy in leaders’ elections at the local level is more difficult than at the national level (1964: 136). In the early 1960s European parties were still in an early stage of implementing intra-party democracy, and they often resorted to ‘traditional’ and ‘practical’ ways of choosing leaders.