This paper is about how, and under what conditions, an opposition party can 'succeed' in a new, divided democracy. I contend that if a political party is to compete effectively in its (new) electoral environment, it must develop a stable and legitimate mechanism that a) resolves crises of leadership succession within its own ranks, b) generates a slate of political candidates that reflects the major social categories in a divided society, and c) generates a slate of candidates who can perform competently in their role as a political representatives. (If a political party fails to develop the first aspect of this mechanism (resolving crises of succession), it cannot become institutionalized; this definition, then, prioritizes the internal, procedural definition of party institutionalization.) I develop this theory using the case of the Democratic Alliance (DA) in South Africa (2000-2014). I draw heavily on data gathered during a series of field-trips, which includes internal party documentation, interviews with party officials and representatives, and two surveys of the parliamentary caucus (conducted in 2006 and 2012). I contend that a sense of crisis in the DA led to the enactment of a series of 'professionalizing' reforms (including, in particular, reform of leadership selection procedures) that has led to positive electoral outcomes. This research relates directly to existing work on party development in central and eastern Europe (Grzymala-Busse 2002; van Biezen 2003; Bolleyer 2013).
