Primary benefits

If leaders of countries can be chosen by its members (that is, its citizens) why is it that the leaders of political parties are ‘nominated’ or literally inherit the mantle? Incidentally, the present system of primaries was not always there in the US. It is a twentieth-century innovation done expressly with the idea of reducing the power of party bosses and moneyed fixers. Political parties are not voluntary supporters of transparency and popular sovereignty in their own inner workings. They prefer secret deals behind closed doors. Open caucuses and well-monitored primary elections ensure that an unrepresentative elite does not gain control of parties which then has the insidious impact of the voters’ choices being severely curtailed — a choice between one cabal or another. While the system of primaries is not perfect (it is seen as too long, too gruelling, too expensive), it is definitely an improvement on the older system and it does give an opportunity for fresh leadership to emerge.

Labour discovered to its dismay that union bosses who represented at best a small section of activists had disproportionate power. Local party units were getting infiltrated by diehard Marxists as most ordinary Labour supporters did not have the time or the inclination to attend endless boring committee meetings. The union bosses and the extremists controlling the constituency units were making Labour virtually unelectable. The party realised this and went in for reforms, which reduced the power of unions and made it impossible for unrepresentative extremists to gain control. That was the beginning of Labour’s revival.

... contd.