The case against a small political party treating its own members as the enemy

As regular readers will remember, I was elected at the start of the year to a working group which is reviewing the Alba Party's constitution.  For confidentiality reasons I can't give a running commentary on the progress of that, but obviously having been involved in the process for a few weeks, I've become much more exposed to the main arguments against having a fully-fledged internal party democracy.  In view of that, I think it might be helpful to post an updated version of my own arguments in favour of democratisation, because ultimately it's rank-and-file members who will decide what happens.

First of all, a party which regards its own members with extreme suspicion and constantly tries to work out how to 'protect itself' from them is not in a good place.  What actually is a political party if not its members?  I suppose the alternative conception of a party is as a vehicle for a self-selecting leadership elite who may take members along for the ride but will never cede any real control to them.  That would be analagous to the way in which the powers of the House of Lords were previously used to protect the aristocracy from the voting masses.  It might be fine if the project a party represents is inspiring enough that people are willing to join simply to be part of a passive fan club, but my guess is that if Alba is to thrive, both existing members and potential new members will be looking for a lot more than that.  The problem is that Alba is mainly seeking converts from the SNP, and the obvious question is why would anyone leave a large party of power, one that denies its members much of a say, to join a much smaller party that also denies its members much of a say?  Where is the incentive?  Wouldn't you just think you might as well stick with the larger party which is actually in government?

There's also a really striking paradox in simultaneously saying that the leader should be trusted but the members should not be (because they might be a bunch of filthy infilitrators or whatever).  If you to try to protect the party from its own members (which again I think is a contradiction in terms) by substituting internal democracy with a system of patronage and leadership control, you're then putting all your eggs in one basket, because you're forgetting that the party leader himself is directly elected by precisely those awful members who you regard with such suspicion.  If the members are potential infiltrators who can't be trusted to elect the NEC or other committees, there clearly must be a fair chance that they will install an interloper as leader - and then having spurned the opportunity to introduce a democratic system of checks and balances, you'll be powerless to resist the absolute control of that one person.  That's exactly how the Sturgeon leadership of the SNP, once it had its feet under the table, was able to essentially ditch independence and replace it with an identity politics agenda.

It also does matter whether all party members are allowed to take decisions or only a tiny minority of members.  Alba's Conference Committee is an extremely powerful committee acting as a veto on issues reaching the floor of conference, which is supposed to be the body through which members exercise supreme control over the party.  In other words, members can only exercise control over the party via conference if they first have control over the Conference Committee - and they don't. The idea that party members are somehow in control of the Conference Committee because everyone on the Conference Committee is a party member is a bit like saying the system of rotten boroughs empowered the populace because the tiny number of people who could vote in them were all citizens.

Given its massive gatekeeping power, the case for the Conference Committee being directly elected by all party members is overwhelming. And any political party which uses its disciplinary machinery to suppress dissent among members must give members direct control over the composition of the committees which make the decisions on disciplinary matters.  That seems to me to be an indispensable safeguard, and without it individual members are helpless to protect themselves from arbitrary ill-treatment at the hands of an over-powerful leadership.

Last but not least, I never cease to be astounded that in the 21st Century people are still making the argument that the franchise for internal party elections should be restricted to a tiny minority of knowledgeable or experienced members, on the grounds that the wrong people will be elected otherwise.  That's essentially identical to arguing that the vast bulk of the public are too stupid or uneducated to be allowed to vote in general elections.  Nobody would ever dream of making that argument about elections to public office, so why it suddenly becomes OK in the context of the internal structures of a political party is beyond me.