This paper attempts at bringing some order into the confusion with the use of the label "primary elections” for identifying both the procedures for the selection of candidates and the procedures for selecting the party leader. While these do share similarities, they are far from being identical processes. Moreover, the study of the political consequences of primary elections requires a clear distinction between the two types of procedures.
Reacting and adapting to social changes, an increasing number of political parties have transformed their internal distribution of power by granting their ordinary members a significant role in various aspects of party life. Two main processes in which party members are being allowed to play a role are in the selection of the party leader and in the selection of the party candidates. Thus we have witnessed a process of intra-party democratization in modern democracies. Although it is tempting to treat leadership selection as an offshoot of candidate selection, scholars should treat the two separately.
In this paper we delineate the differences and similarities between these two related yet distinct processes of intra-party democratization. The comparison will start with a mapping of the similarities and differences between leadership and candidate selection processes in terms of various dimensions (selectorate, candidacy, decentralization, timing, procedures). Then, evidence of the democratization of both processes will be presented. This will be followed by an examination of the differences and similarities in the motivations that lead parties to democratize these two separate processes. The paper will end with an analysis of the political consequences of the democratization of each selection institution and – when they occur simultaneously – of their possible interactions.
