A Comparative Analysis of Selection Criteria of Candidates in Belgium

Abstract

The literature on candidate selection has focussed extensively on the degree of inclusiveness and decentralization of the selectorate, as part of the debate on intra-party democracy. However, much less attention has been paid to the degree of openness of candidacies, or selection criteria within parties. Yet parties have a lot of leeway in how they design selection criteria internally. Which guidelines do parties follow when making the crucial choice on which candidates to select for elections? This paper investigates selection criteria from two perspectives: the formal rules set by parties that restrict the candidate’s pool and the (informal) preferences of selectors that shape who gets selected. We aim first at contrasting the degree of party institutionalization and parties’ formal rules in candidate selection and so, we shed light on whether parties formalise their candidacy requirements and candidate selection processes to the same extent as other party activities. Second, the paper investigates the role of the selectorates, and how selectorate’s characteristics matter for the kind of (informal) selection criteria, be they intended at maximizing offices, votes or policies. Drawing on party statutes coded in the Political Party Database (PPDB) and 23 in-depth interviews with selectors, we study three francophone Belgian parties that differ both in terms of inclusiveness of the selectorate who has the final say on candidate selection and in terms of degree of centralisation, and in terms of party institutionalisation: the green party (Ecolo), the socialist party (PS), and the liberal party (MR). Our comparative analysis of parties, selection criteria provides new insights into the secret garden of politics and highlights in particular the major impact of parties, degree of centralization.

The informal rules of candidate selection and their impact on intra-party competition

“…As such the rules are closely interlinked with the selection criteria (see e.g. Berz and Jankowski, 2022; Vandeleene and Van Haute, 2021) and may help explain gendered effects of candidate selection (e.g. Van Dijk, 2023).…”

“…Kenny and Verge, 2016; Colley and Van Acker, 2020; Gatto and Wylie, 2022). Another strand of research examines the interaction between informal and formal rules showing that informal rules are not always congruent with the formal rules in place, but are sometimes supplementary and rather interact or even compete with them (Cross, 2018; Kelbel, 2020; Meserve et al, 2017; Vandeleene and Van Haute, 2021). It is therefore essential to consider both types of rules in order to understand the strategic choices and incentives behind the political behavior of the actors involved (Helmke and Levitsky, 2004).…”

The why of candidate selection: How party selectors handle trade-offs between party goals

“…The first dimension of Hazan and Rahat's fourfold analytical framework is "the most brutal of dimensions because it has the potential to eliminate an overwhelming majority of the population from the pool of candidates " (2010: 19). While scholars investigated the selection process' outcome (Vandeleene, 2016;Put, 2015) or the rules constraining selection choices (Krook, 2009;Reiser, 2014), the question of the selection criteria as such, "which one might have supposed was central" (King in Stark, 1996: 124) has mostly been neglected.…”

“…These electoral features make that some list positions are more eligible than others, although one could get elected from anywhere on the list. (Vandeleene, 2018;Vandeleene and Van Haute, 2021). For Ecolo, a list committee pre-selects candidates before party members approve the draft list, scrupulously following written procedures.…”

“…The electoral law usually sets broad eligibility requirements, typically voting eligibility, nationality, age, residence, or incompatibility with other offices (Hazan and Rahat, 2010). Most parties also set formal candidacy requirements (Gallagher and Marsh, 1988) to ensure cohesion (e.g., a minimum length of party membership or a loyalty pledge (Rehmert, 2020; Vandeleene and Van Haute, 2021)) or to assess popularity (e.g., having a position within the party or gathering members or elected representatives’ signatures (Bjarnegård and Zetterberg, 2019)). Parties may ask a financial contribution to cover campaign costs or the settlement of any debts to the party (Hazan and Rahat, 2010).…”