Essentially, what is at stake in the democratic selection of persons to govern through elections can be assessed in three respects: that of the independence of candidates – and hence of future elected representatives – vis-à-vis the political machine, social fairness in recruitment and the renewal of the elite in power.

a. The extent to which candidates and elected representatives are dependent on the party machine relates directly to the electoral system. The latter can influence matters in this area in two ways. The first is whether candidatures are for single member or multi-member constituencies. A ballot for a single member, which brings personalities into play, naturally favours the candidate with the greatest “personal assets”. The qualities of the candidates, which have to do with their character, talents, training, or experience are as important as – or perhaps more important than – their membership of a party when it comes to determining whether they are to be candidates and whether they are elected. They owe the fact of their election first and foremost to themselves. This is not the case in a multi-member constituency where the most important thing is first of all to get a place on the list of candidates. Indeed whether one appears on the list depends almost invariably on the wishes of the local and/or national party authorities. Moreover, the more a candidate wishes to be on an electable position on the list, the more closely he or she is dependent on those authorities. 

The second influence concerns whether the electoral system is plurality/majority or proportional. This is because the dependence of elected representatives on parties is greatest in a proportional representation system. In most cases, the head of the list or the two or three candidates heading the list of the large parties have every chance of being elected in a large constituency, since it is only from the third or fourth seat to be filled that the real competition begins. In such a case, the fact that the party places a candidate in an electable position is tantamount to guaranteeing his or her election. It is the party and not the elector which selects the elected representative. How can the elected representative not be indebted to the kingmaker?

b. The problem as to the degree of social fairness in the selection of elective elites is less directly dependent on the choice of electoral system, even though it can reasonably be argued that a single-member ballot favours those who already have certain cultural and social assets whereas a list ballot enables less privileged persons to stand. This is naturally facilitated still further by the introduction of “positive discrimination” procedures as shown above (see paragraph 1.1). It tends to be through the related systems of the electoral system and the representative system that social fairness in the recruitment of candidates can be best assured. As regards the former, particular mention may be made of public funding for electoral campaigns and as regards the latter, of remuneration for elected office and provisions fostering the re-employment of elected representatives at the end of their term of office. As far as the latter aspect is concerned, public office holders, who are often guaranteed to return to their job at the end of their term of office, are markedly more advantaged than their opposite numbers from the private sector.

c. The extent to which elective elites are replaced by new blood is another major feature of selection. It depends first and foremost on the constitutional provisions relating to assemblies (duration of terms of office, whether or not there is a limit to the number of successive mandates allowed, whether local and national mandates may be combined etc.). But it also depends on provisions concerning who may be elected: the minimum age required to stand as a candidate, whether foreign residents may stand (citizens of other member states of the European Union for example) or the provisions on equality between men and women referred to above. The latterprovisions, adopted when the French constitution was revised in 1999, are potentially the mostimportant for the renewal of elective elites. Their effect has so far been more potential than actualbecause the parties – or rather the men leading them – have taken advantage of the difficultiesentailed by the single-member ballot so as to delay their application even if it means paying thepenalties provided for by the law.