Exploring intra-party conflict in candidate recruitment and selection

It has long been established that candidate recruitment and selection are key functions of political parties (for example, Hazan and Rahat 2010). In this paper, we examine the relationships and tensions in these processes in a single-member-plurality system (Canada) among the different faces of the party as identified by Katz and Mair (1995). We begin with the stratarchical model (Eldersveld 1964, Carty 2004, Bolleyer 2012) and then nuance it to show that all three levels of the party - on the ground, in central office, in public office – play an important role in selecting and recruiting candidates for national office (Cross 2018). Using unique data collected from elite interviews and from a survey of local political party associations, we illustrate that the different faces of the party have different priorities in terms of the characteristics and experiences they desire in their candidates. For example, national party officials are increasingly concerned with increasing the representativeness of their candidate pool, particularly in terms of gender, ethnicity, Indigeneity and sexual orientation. At the same time, local party officials rank issues relating to community attachment (such as local name recognition, involvement in the local community, residency in the district) as their primary concerns. As both groups play consequential roles in candidate selection and recruitment, these differing priorities can create intra-party conflict. This is often presented as problematic for the party (Blondel 1978), as internal divisions are typically reported as a sign of organizational weakness. Beyond exploring how parties navigate these challenges, and their implications, we suggest it is also possible to view these intra-party differences as a healthy form of contestation. When things run smoothly, the ‘competing’ interests of the two levels of the party can result in both sets of objectives being met. Often, however, the two-levels are suspicious of each other and jealously work to project their own authority. As part of this paper, we attempt to tease out the dynamics of the relationship, and organizational structures, that lead to mistrust and in-fighting versus those allowing for more productive management of potential conflict.