Internal party democracy is an interesting and complex concept with which usually few have the temptation to bother. It deals with questions like these: What determines the character and substance of a political party organization? What is its profile? But not only with the ones of the philosophical realm. Its deals with questions that have to do with real and concrete policies, decisions and leading styles: Do autocratic parties suffer from a deficit when it comes to democratic governance? If voters chose a leader- centric party to rule for a mandate, is it fair to say that they would not mind if the standards of respecting the party statute fall down? Is debate and friction damaging in times of hard reforms and should we go for unity behind the commander instead?
These questions are legitimate and have characterized political debates all over. One brings them to mind when considering the current discussion in the Socialist Party. The upcoming Congress of the Party on March 19th, organized much too late in respect to the set timeline, will not pose a chance to have elections for the party leader, a decision that overlooking the Party Statute. Party members will only have the chance to reconfirm the party leader: this is not even clear how it will happen, and what value does it have? Is reconfirmation a process? Indeed some vocal prominent Party members have expressed their utter disconnect.
Ben Blushi has directly challenged SP leader Rama to compete. Some other members including present MPs but also many disgruntled former ministers and MPs of the Socialist Party have joined him in deploring what they call a disgraceful fall from standards for their Party. However the competition itself is not going to happen. It is ironic that the Socialist Party, well known for much higher levels of IPD than its counterpart, the DP, is now facing the debate. The DP was led by what can describe as ‘a clenched claw’ (oriron fistif you like) for most of the time until the leadership change.
Current ministers and other high ranking profiles of the SP mention several reasons: the general and local elections were won hence the mandate is nationally confirmed (yet they were in a large coalition with one specific king-maker party!); the statute of the party will change to accommodate the scenario of reconfirmation after national election victory (albeit the changes cannot be retroactive, they will shape the future organization!), etc. None seems like a sound reason, all seem justifications. One will say that in Albania this is a minor problem. How a party is run has little to do with major challenges that depend on how a government is run.
In fact, the model big parties chose to run themselves often reflects or shapes the model they act upon when governing. Autocracy is a much easier route and a more comfortable mantel to warm the shoulders. Considering and accommodating debate and criticism is much harder, even though healthier. Indeed lack of respect for internal party democracy from the main political parties has been a decisive factor in the problem that emerged with candidate lists for the general elections. The MPs with ‘problematic profiles’, it was argued, would have not been the decision of collegial party assemblies. They were rather single decisions of party leadership on both wings.
This ultimately led to a legislative body that had to be purged clean through a special decriminalization law. Although there could be counter-arguments to this thesis, if respected properly IPD has the potential to be an additional quality filter for elected representatives. With taking away the chance from Socialist Party members to express their preference over platforms of organization, which the race would yield, the party leadership and not only the leader deprives itself form a good face of with reality. Considering that this year will be followed by the general elections, this cost might be higher than what they estimate right now.
Knowing the real degree of discontent can tell volumes to the leadership about problematic issues, problematic people and problematic reforms. This can serve as a starting point to correct the route of governance as well as that of party conduct. Second the lack of race, the lack of respecting status and the association of criticism with lining up to the enemy discourages both independent young professionals and active youth, two crucial segments which every party targets to incorporate given the boost of energy and quality they can give.
Finally there is a risk that ignoring IPD is the first step towards sliding into an undesirable, absolute leader-centric, leader appoints all, leader blind loyalty model. Some might gloomily argue this has already happened. The Socialist Party has the potential to prove them wrong. Hence the arguments speak clearly in favor of upholding the IPD rules: there is nothing to lose and much to win from it!
