Ofer Kenig

PARTY PRIMARIES: TOWARDS A DEFINITION AND TYPOLOGY

While primaries were once associated almost exclusively with the United States, similar methods for selecting party leaders and candidates have lately become common in many parliamentary democracies. This considerable expansion of intra-party democracy has resulted in the rising popularity and increased usage of the term ‘primary’ election. However, despite the popularisation of the term, little work has been done to create a clear definition and to identify the range of selection methods that fall under this umbrella. Without conceptual clarity and a common definition, we lack the necessary tools for comparative work. This paper identifies the point at which a participatory selection method can be labelled a party primary. We begin by examining the conceptual muddle concerning primaries and propose a path that allows for clarification of the concept. We then present a definition of primaries focusing on their three main characteristics and conclude by providing a typology of the various types of primaries.

The Challenges of Inclusive Intra-party Selection Methods

Political parties around the world are democratizing the ways in which they select legislative candidates and party leaders. The move towards more inclusive methods, often labelled as “primaries”, is at least partly a response to declining party membership and growing public disaffection towards party politics. While this democratization of intra-party affairs has the potential to enhance democratic values such as participation, competitiveness and transparency, it also creates several challenges. This chapter begins by defining the term primary election (including the various types of primaries) and documenting the rapid expansion of inclusive selection methods worldwide. We then turn to a discussion of the various challenges associated with these methods. This includes concerns about oversight and accountability, the possibility of low-quality participation, fears of the divisiveness of primary elections, and questions surrounding the representational outcomes that primaries produce.

THE SOCIAL REPRESENTATIVENESS OF CABINET MINISTERS IN ISRAEL: ARE THE GAPS CLOSING?

Although parliaments are usually perceived as the political institutions responsible for the functioning of representation, it is not out of context to expect cabinets to also be representational of society. This applies especially to parliamentary democracies, where ministers are not only heads of executive portfolios but also the voting members of a decision-making organ, the cabinet. It also particularly applies to countries divided by multi-societal rifts. This article explores the social representativeness of cabinet ministers in Israel, a multi-cleavage society with a parliamentary system of government. Based on an original dataset of the 230 individuals who have served in Israeli cabinets since 1949, it aims to find whether the demographic characteristics of cabinet ministers have changed over time. It also investigates whether the current population of ministers reflects Israeli society today in terms of various social characteristics. It finds that the under-representation in cabinet of some social groups, such as women, Mizrahi Jews and young people has decreased. On the other hand, the representation of the Arab minority in cabinet has not improved and remains at an extremely low level.