Selecting party leaders, reform processes and methods: Examining the Australian and New Zealand Labour parties
| Author | Anika Gauja,William P Cross |
| DOI | 10.1177/0192512119888295 |
| Published date | 01 March 2021 |
| Date | 01 March 2021 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512119888295
International Political Science Review
2021, Vol. 42(2) 261 –276
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0192512119888295
journals.sagepub.com/home/ips
Selecting party leaders, reform
processes and methods: Examining
the Australian and New Zealand
Labour parties
William P Cross
Carleton University, Canada
Anika Gauja
University of Sydney, Australia
Abstract
It is well documented that there has been significant change in the methods of political party leadership
selection in recent years. It is now estimated that close to half of the parties in Western democracies use
some form of ‘primaries’ for this purpose. However, research suggests there is marked variance in the
methods used among parties that have adopted more inclusive processes. Using two qualitative comparative
case studies, New Zealand Labour and the Australian Labor Party, this article identifies the main organizational
decisions that stem from the choice to expand the leadership franchise. In doing so, we explore the range of
options open to parties and examine the rationales supporting each of these. The relationship between the
type of reform process undertaken and the decisions made is also explored.
Keywords
Political parties, leadership selection, intra-party democracy, Australia, New Zealand, party primaries
Introduction
Political party leaders play a central role in both internal party organizations and governing institu-
tions. The leader is the ‘head’ of the party, has significant influence over key party functions and is
the focus of both media and voter attention. This role is particularly significant in Westminster
systems, in which leaders are central players in legislatures, governments and elections.
For many decades, the process of selecting party leaders was shrouded in secrecy and intrigue.
Behind closed doors, and often occurring with great haste, parliamentarians would choose a leader
Corresponding author:
William P Cross, Department of Political Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S5B6, Canada.
Email: Bill_cross@carleton.ca
888295IPS0010.1177/0192512119888295International Political Science ReviewCross and Gauja
research-article2019
Article
262 International Political Science Review 42(2)
from among themselves (Cross and Blais, 2012a). Over the years, however, considerable reforms
have been made to the process. Although the party conference remains the most popular vehicle for
selecting leaders (Pilet and Cross, 2014), many parties in Western democracies are expanding the
leadership franchise to include the rank-and-file membership. A study of parties in 13 countries
reported that in 2012, one-third chose their leaders with the input of party members, whereas only
1 in 20 continued to restrict participation to parliamentarians. This is a remarkable shift from 1965
when not a single party in these countries chose their leader in this manner (Pilet and Cross, 2014).
In the years since, there continues to be movement in the direction of expanding the leadership
franchise (Cross et al., 2016).
Although it is the focus of most existing studies, we suggest that the decision to involve party
members in the selection of leaders is only one of several complex decisions that need to be made
when a party chooses reform. As Kenig et al. (2015) observe, there are many different types of
processes that generally fall into the membership vote category, reflecting a significant diversity of
systems among parties (Stewart, 2018: 85). Furthermore, there is ‘little consensus on how such
systems ought to be organized and operated’ (Carty and Blake, 1999: 213). This is similar to a deci-
sion to adopt a proportional representation (PR) electoral system – the initial determination must
be followed by others in relation to thresholds, electoral formulas, mixed-member PR versus pure
PR, open or closed lists and district magnitudes, all of which define the system.
This article moves beyond the initial decision to expand the leadership selection process1 to
analyse the various sub-decisions that a party must make. These are equally important in defining
the implications of the reform. We map the range of decisions made by our two case studies – the
New Zealand and Australian Labo(u)r parties – locating these within comparative trends. Our
analysis highlights the relationship between the process of reform, the questions that are consid-
ered and the decisions made. We then reflect on the rationale and, hence, the potential conse-
quences of the various reform options taken.
Our analysis has theoretical significance in articulating a broader range of considerations that
comprise key elements of the selection process, but which are often obscured in existing analyses.
It develops a schema of five critical aspects of selection reform that could be examined in contexts
beyond our case study parties. We further add to the existing literature by considering how the
method of reform (particularly who participates) influences the type and scope of reforms adopted.
At a time when other parties are re-evaluating how they choose their leaders,2 our research has
direct practical significance in articulating the technical options for reform, the political considera-
tions involved and the pathways for navigating change.
Existing literature and research approach
The comparative study of leadership selection is a rapidly expanding field of inquiry, anchored in
foundational studies undertaken, for example, by Cross and Blais (2012a, 2012b) and Pilet and
Cross (2014). A growing literature considers both the factors leading to organizational change and
their implications (see, e.g. Cross and Pilet, 2015; Cross et al., 2016; Gauja, 2017; Kenig, 2009;
Quinn, 2012; Sandri et al., 2015; Schumacher and Giger, 2017). These studies, many of which are
‘large-N’ comparative works, examine the electoral and organizational contexts of parties adopting
leadership selection reforms, the impact of a more inclusive selectorate on the contests and the
implications for parties’ subsequent electoral success.
Although we are concerned with the context of reforms, our primary interest is not in determin-
ing why change occurs, but how the process of reform, in turn, shapes the range of options parties
consider and the decisions they ultimately make. Explicitly linking the process of reform with its
practical outcomes provides an important theoretical step forward in undertaking comparative
To continue reading
Request your trial