XXVII — Truly democratic parties
Chapitre XXVII
TRULY DEMOCRATIC PARTIES
A political party that claims to represent the people but functions internally as a monarchy is a fraud. How can we trust an organization to defend democracy if it doesn’t practice it itself?
27.1 — The Observation: Locked-Up Parties
Too many parties function according to a centralized model. One leader, an inner circle, members reduced to the role of window dressing. Nominations are decided at the top. Orientations are imposed. Dissent is punished. The party becomes the property of one man or one clan.
This model produces elected officials who owe nothing to their voters and everything to their party leader. They vote as they’re told. They represent no one.
27.2 — The Requirement: Internal Democracy as a Condition
To be recognized and able to present candidates in elections, a party must respect democratic operating rules:
- Leader election by all members, by direct suffrage, at regular intervals. No life presidency, no automatic renewal
- Nominations decided by members of the relevant constituency, not by a central committee. Local activists choose their candidate
27.3 — Internal Fluid Voting, Strictly Egalitarian
The permanent recall system also applies within parties. Any member can, at any time, withdraw their support from the leader or elected party officials. If the recall threshold is reached, a new election is triggered.
But unlike the national system, internal party voting is strictly egalitarian: one person, one vote. No census weighting.
Why? Because a rich person must not be able to capture a party by weighing more than other members. The party is an association of equal citizens, not a joint-stock company. Money gives weight in state budget decisions—that’s logical, it’s taxpayers’ money. But money must not give weight in a party’s internal decisions—that would be corruption.
Right to tendencies: internal currents can organize, express themselves, propose alternative orientations. Internal debate is protected, not repressed.
Financial transparency: party accounts are public, funding sources identifiable, expenses traceable.
Regulated exclusion procedures: you cannot exclude a member without serious grounds and without adversarial proceedings. Political disagreement is not grounds for exclusion.
27.4 — The Control
An independent authority verifies compliance with these rules. A party that fails to comply loses its accreditation and can no longer present candidates under its label.
This is not an infringement on freedom of association. No one prevents creating a centralized movement. But this movement cannot claim political party status and the advantages that come with it.
27.5 — Consistency
One cannot demand democracy in the State and tolerate autocracy in parties. Parties are the antechamber of power. If they are corrupted by leader worship, they corrupt the democracy they claim to serve.
A truly democratic system is democratic at all levels: in institutions, in parties, in intermediate bodies.
27.6 — Case Study (Empirical Example): The German Parteiengesetz (1967-present)
Germany is the country that most strictly regulates the internal functioning of political parties [130][131]. The Basic Law (Article 21) requires that parties’ internal organization conform to democratic principles, and the Parteiengesetz (party law) of 1967 details these requirements.
What Worked
Mandatory internal democracy. Each party’s statutes must provide for leader election by members, regular congresses, and fair exclusion procedures [130]. Authoritarian parties are legally impossible.
Financial transparency. Parties must publish detailed accounts, identifying donors above €10,000 and declaring all expenses. Violations are punished by loss of public funding [131].
Protection of member rights. A member cannot be excluded without adversarial proceedings. They can contest their exclusion before civil courts. Political disagreement is not sufficient grounds for exclusion.
Guaranteed pluralism. Parties cannot ban internal currents. Debate is protected by law.
Party system stability. The German party system is one of the most stable in Europe. Major formations (CDU, SPD, Greens, FDP) have functional democratic structures.
What’s Problematic
Uneven application. Parties respect the letter of the law but not always the spirit. Outgoing leaderships often control congresses, nominations are negotiated behind the scenes [131].
Bureaucratization. Legal requirements create administrative burden. Small parties struggle to comply with all obligations.
No permanent recall. The law requires regular elections, but no continuous recall mechanism between congresses. An unpopular leader can remain in place until the next internal vote.
Dominant public funding. Major parties depend on public funding (linked to electoral results). This creates an entry barrier for new movements.
Ex post, not ex ante control. Courts intervene after violations, not before. A party can function undemocratically for years before being sanctioned.
What We Keep from the German Model
- The constitutional obligation of internal democracy
- Financial transparency with publication of accounts and donors
- Protection of member rights against arbitrary exclusion
- Control by an authority (courts or independent authority)
What We Improve
- Internal permanent recall: our system extends the recall mechanism to party leaders, not just periodic elections
- No public funding: parties are funded by their members and donors, not by the State. No entry barrier for new movements
- Mandatory local nominations: candidates are chosen by constituency members, not negotiated at the top
- Preventive control: the authority verifies statutes before accreditation, not just after violations
What We Don’t Keep
- Public party funding: source of dependence and entry barrier
- Only periodic internal elections: our permanent recall is more demanding
- Tolerance of backroom deals: our system requires transparent local nominations