The Presidential Candidate Selection in the Main Mexican Political Parties: PRI, PAN and PRD ( )

Transcription

1 The Presidential Candidate Selection in the Main Mexican Political Parties: PRI, PAN and PRD ( ) (Please, do not cite or distribute this article without the permission of the authors) Francisco Olucha-Sánchez (University of Salamanca) Manuel Portillo Pérez (University Pablo de Olavide) Abstract: During the eighties of the twentieth century, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which had ruled uninterruptedly Mexico since 1929, lost some space and power in the political arena. The irruption of the PRD in the electoral arena and the increasing of supporters in the right-wing party (PAN) generated a new political scenario. Those events have impacted in the traditional and new political parties forcing them to change their organizational structures and mechanisms. The parties have adopted new measures to adapt the parties to face the political demands of the party members and the citizens. The aim of this work is to explore if the candidate selection was one of this organisational key-element that have transformed, in other words, if the main Mexican parties have opened the two main elements of the candidate selection (selectorate and candidacy) to the society and they have enhanced the democratic political rights of the Mexican people. The work will describe the evolution of the presidential candidate selection in the Mexican political parties in 1994, 2000, 2006 and 2012 through the process-tracing. Key words: political parties, candidate selection, Mexico, PRI, PAN, PRD

2 1. Introduction The study of political parties has generated a broad amount of analysis in Political Science. As it was already mentioned by Schattschenider (1941: 1), political parties are in the origin of representative democracy which cannot be understood without political parties. This is mainly explained by the fact that political parties are the way to drive the political demands of the society and group together the different intere4sts of people around certain values ant thoughts. Thus, political parties are organizations that hold together citizens with common and similar views to perform actions instead of these citizens in that political institutions. Along different historical periods, the society has developed and diversified the forms of political participation. This evolution has been done whenever greater proportions of citizenship claimed for a getting a better role in political processes and resolutions. Citizens demand greater levels of participation in the process of decision making inside the parties as well as an increase in the degree of internal democracy (Scarrow, 1999:279). Political formations must became adapted to new times and requirements of citizens, otherwise it is generated distrust in the political parties as a channel of representation (Van Biezen and Katz, 2005). The organization of political parties is framed in the thesis by Duverger (1974:163) having two slopes, on one side a democratic appearance and on the other side an oligarchy reality. Although political parties are actors representing and competing in elections as a keystone element of the democratic system, there is no internal agreement to the political scenario in which they develop their activity (Rahat, Hazan and Katz, 2008). Thus, political parties make changes in their organization to the end of getting better visibility of their democratic internal participation. The main focus of this appearance is the process of candidate elections. Thus, work is aimed at the fact of candidate election as an internal democratic process in political parties. Recent democratic transitions in Latin America provide this process a great impact. By contrast, this process has not been of greaqt relevance in other countries with longer democratic tradition. Thus, this research propose a case study in Mexico analyzing the three main parties along the period of 1994/2012. This country can be considered a relevant case as the political and institutional changes that have occurred during last decades. Those changes have forced that political parties have had to be

3 adapted to new contexts of political competence with new rules affecting the internal dynamics of the parties. Thus, it is pertinent to put the question of the development of changes in the process of candidate elections in Mexican political parties. 2. Candidate selection: a political participatory mechanism. Candidate selection is a process of great relevance for political parties as it is the way to decide which are going to be the representatives of the parties and parties citizens in representative democracies. The relevance of this aspect is growing up as society demands for increased democracy in politics. To that end, political parties are reaching forms of participation of citizens through direct democracy (Donovan and Karp, 2006). Thus, the process of candidate selection is one of the new challenges in stablished democracies (Bartolini and Mair, 2001). However, the society was not upon opening the issue of the candidate selection as a mechanism to get increased level of democratization and this is an essential element in the political process (Lundell, 2004: 25). Thus, candidate election is not only the design of the leader of a branch or a party, it is also the election of the leaders of the whole country. In this way, it is inferred that the method that parties use points at the political situation and the level of democracy in a particular country. Also it has been demonstrated that is the confluence of different factors what leads the election of the method for candidate election (Freidenberg and Alcántara, 2009). In some cases, the law collects the rules and methods to be applied for candidate selection according to democratic mechanisms 1, but in most cases there is not a particular regulation of this process. In other words, there is a wide variety of rules ranging from the broadest to a fairly detailed and specific law (Rahat 2006). When considering candidate selection, there is a tendency to be focused on the election of several persons to occupy public charges in the name of the party 2. This leads to the mistake of confounding internal democracy by direct democracy. To consider internal democracy, we must take into account its two side, i.e. political participation and political 1 In United States, each state determinate in detail how the political parties must choose their candidates (Rahat 2007). 2 Public office refers to achieving quotas of power within the institutions, that is, the election by party members or even citizens, who will be chosen to compete in elections

4 control (Cross and Katz, 2013). The process for candidate selection is a feature of political participation and, although is taken as a mechanism of political control (Pennings and Hazan, 2001). There are different types of mechanisms inside the parties for political participation and for political control, but some of them can be part of both dimensions of the intra-party democracy. According to Ranney (1981:75), the candidate selection is the process by means a political party decides which person legally eligible to occupy a popular election position will be designed in the list and communications as party s candidate to be recommended and supported. Thus, we can conclude that candidate selection is the process by which some persons are named to play a leadership in a particular party or to represent the party in an election. Usually, candidate selection can be viewed as an election process for political party members with different proposals between the groups that are represented Ware (2004). Thus, candidate selection is composed by two main actors, the selectorate and the candidature 3. Moreover, these two actors cannot be understood without the other (Rahat and Hazan, 2001). These two dimensions can be taken as the offer and the demand of the candidate selection (Rahat and Hazan, 2001) Democratization of the candidate selection processes? The distrust generated by political parties has generated the opening of political participation mechanisms by citizens as a way to increase the quality of democracy. In this sense, it is proposed the candidate selection process as a way to a better citizen s involvement in political participation (Pennings and Hazan, 2001). In addition, the method of opening the selection not only makes the party more democratic but also it must be compatible to get and maintain quotes of power. The democratization of the candidate selection process has not come by random. The problem came when political parties has lost the sole of being the ways for social 3 The selectorate are those people who can exercise the vote and the nomination is for those who can exercise their candidacies. 4 On the one hand, the supply is the candidacy, as different proposals for the position are presented and voters choose between them. On the other hand, the demand is selectorate, as this body is the one who chooses the candidate to be taken according to their interests.

5 representation and are not reflecting the society in political institutions. According to Scarrow (1999: ) the rhetoric support to the reform of direct democracy empathizes the contrast between the channels for decision making without intermediaries and those controlled by the parties. Parties have taken positions closer to the political institutions in order to warranty its own survival over the society. Thus, several organizational changes have taken place and one of them is the democratization of candidate selection. Thus, the democratization of the process for candidate selection has taken place in several parties due to distancing between the party and its voters (Pennings and Hazan, 2001). However, the democratization of the candidate4 selection does not assess that the party became democratic as internal democracy holds some additional elements. It needs to be taken into account the political control and not only the political participation dimensions. If political control is not performed, then there is no effect on political participation (Cross and Katz, 2013: 10). Most parties stand in a strong organized structure as a result of an internal ideological and pragmatic congruence (Ruiz Rodríguez and García Montero, 2003). This fact becomes specially relevant because if political parties change significantly the leaders election process then they may face unexpected consequences (LeDuc, 2001). In fact, not all elements of the candidate selection are even, several of them are more inclusives than others aiming the control for candidate selection. In some cases, the party leadership play an important role in the control of the process although the process are more inclusive (Katz 2001). Moreover, this process may help the strengthening of the party elites (Pennings and Hazan, 2001; Katz, 2001). Furthermore, a few changes may dig in the relationship between the voter or the member with the party. In the same way, Scarrow (1999:279) pointed at the effect of direct democracy in the roles and organization of the party, even these mechanisms are enough for the parties to retain the control of internal democracy and is used to strengths the party s position and compromises. Lundell (2004:27) studied the factors that determine the candidate selection and the dimensions that may affect the variation between processes. However, the process for candidate selection, in addition to unexpected consequences, may be done to increase the power of the party. On the most important reasons to bring

6 democracy to candidate selection is the opening of the selectorate in the political parties 5 with the aim to recruit a greater number of members and detain the declaim of membership filiation (Cross and Blais, 2012). The candidate selection has been described as a key step in the process of recruitment as it happens in Scandinavian countries (Gallagher, 1988:2). There is also a tendency to democratize the party whenever it has suffered an important defeat that tenses the fights between branches with the goal to recover the power (Pennings and Hazan, 2001) 6. Another reason for this opening is to give a greater power to the bases of the party in order to increase citizen participation (Van Biezen and Katz, 2005). In this way, it is produced a greater direct citizen participation in the process of decision making generating a greater legitimacy. In addition, the process can be done because the institutional power have produced several national rules and laws that force parties to democratize the process for candidate selection (Pennings and Hazan, 2001). That mentioned factors to democratize the process for candidate selection are better managed in new generated parties than in old ones (Cross and Blair, 2012). In this way, the irruption of new parties with open methods for candidate selection fight with obsolete and exclusive mechanisms of oligarchic parties which, at the end, accepts those mechanisms in order to avoid a reduction of poll possibilities against rivals 7 (Freidenberg, 2006). Thus, the democratization of the candidate selection can be done in any political party but according to the political situation, the opening of the process is determined by the political organization and other elements. 4. The problem of candidate selection In the previous section, we point at the main aims by which the opening of the process for candidate selection can be done according to different authors. However, researchers 5 The selectorate is the most important point that often manage political parties in the democratization process of selection of candidates (Pennings and Hazan, 2001), even you get to produce the inclusion of all citizens of a country to the process. 6 After the defeat of the French Socialist Party in the 1993 parliamentary elections, the party held internal elections to nominate a candidate for the presidential elections of 1995, they were won by Lionel Jospin beating Henri Emmanuelli. Since then, all party members elect the presidential candidate of the French Socialist Party. 7 In the early twentieth century, the first internal elections in the US Progressive Party founded by former President Theodore Roosevelt were made. Following this process within the Progressive Party, the main political parties of the United States would end up adopting it: first, the Democratic Party and then the Republican Party. These internal elections were denominated "caucus".

7 study no only the elements that affect the democratization of the candidate election processes but also the occurrence of troubles when it is decided to opening the process. Some of these troubles can be appreciated directly with the naked eye while others can only be appreciated when the process is already open or is going to be concluded. Although the democratization of the candidate election process is aimed at the opening to the political participation for the citizenship, this process may generate unexpected consequences inside the parties in the change for the organizative model in significant points (Pennings and Hazan, 2001: 269), what may produce disagreements between different branches to change the party (Close, 2012). This may lead to a reduction in the cohesion inside the party and, even, the split of a sector of the party and the creation of a new one. When a process of candidate selection is opened, there is a tendency to the generation of fractions and branches by either personal (Key, 1949) or ideological reasons (Nyomarkay, 1965). In contrast, when the elite of the party choose the candidate to occupy public charges through their own mechanisms or by imposition of the leader, the parliamentary group that represents the party will be more cohesive and disciplined and then more stable (Cordero y Coller, 2014). It is at this point when the debate on if it is better to have a stronger leadership generating cohesion or it is better to get higher quotes of internal democracy encouraging the debate and the rise of new factions. The problem is that factions are perceived as threats for the general interest of the party (Van Biezen y Katz, 2005). Lijphart (2012:79) explains that factions are very similar to segregated political parties and councils composed by parties with this degree of internal division make governments short in time. There is a great normative debate to this respect, this becomes conceptual when considering factions inside parties. In some countries there a\re parties that spread its power over nearly all political institutions and, because of this monopoly, the internal disputes to get a political charge are more intense that with the other parties. Another problem generated through this debate with the opening of the candidate selection is the control of the process by the elites of the party. Supposedly, candidate selection has become an important element inside the party whet here is a decrease of the influence of the elites or there is a division in the elite (Ware, 2004),

8 Nonetheless, the implementation of new mechanisms is not enough to generate internal democracy as the elite may handle the system to strengthen its position (Scarrow, 1999). As a result, the candidate of the party elite will become legitimated by the candidate selection. Thus, it can be concluded that the democratization of the process does not necessarily mean that is controlled by a little elite of the party and the power goes to the citizens. Moreover, the democratization may strengthen role of the elites of the party in candidate selection (Pennings y Hazan, 2001: 268). The elite of the party may generate a democratic process in candidate selection, but without loosing control in decisionmaking. In this way, the elite generates democratic procedures to take into account demands of minorities that will be considered but not applied (Parry, 2005:108). For that reason, those that control the machinery of the party can become those who choose the candidates of the party and not the members of the party (Ware, 2004). Then, there is a conflict inside the party for candidate selection. Those persons that may postulate to occupy a political charge face the dilemma of defending the interest and ideas of the members and citizens that have voted him/hers or defending the interest of the party, i.e. the heads of the party that have the control of the mechanisms for candidate selection (Katz, 2001). In order for these persons could be elected as candidates they must choose an intermediate position but in many cases there is a bias for the position of the elite of the party as the group in charge of the election system. Thus, the party will not have internal democracy if the mechanisms of selection are controlled by the party elite, until mechanism for fair and competitive process is implemented (Freidenberg, 2006). The conflicts and dilemmas already mentioned that appear when opening candidate selection can be done in any party. However, in cartel parties the problem is more stressed because their internal organization and the coordination of its elites Katz (2001), Katz y Mair (1995) pointed out that as society becomes more complex and there is an increased political professionalization leads to generation of a cartel of ruling elites. Then, the process may induce the strengthening of the elites of the party that is a cartelization effect, if it is allowed the opening of a process for candidate selection (Katz, 2001). Thus, the combination if cartelization and internal elections do not mean that a greater level of democratization is achieved (Pennings y Hazan, 2001:271).

9 5. Methodology This research focuses on the Mexican case study for presidential elections in a specific period of time ( ) 8. The processes for candidate selection in a particular country, between parties or inside a particular party along time may be diverse (Freidenberg y Sánchez, 2002). The main elements in which the studies are based selection of candidates are in the scheme proposed by Rahat and Hazan (2010). The selection processes have varied due to a specific event or a several different historical political events that need to be related in order to know if they have affected to a change in the parties. The analysis of the candidate selection for the presidential elections in the three main Mexican political parties (PRI, PAN and PRD) as these were parties having the possibility to get executive power. The process for presidential candidate selection of the main political parties generates an important turning point due to the fact that because of its institutionalization whichever of the three elected candidates can become elected president. The relevance of this idea stands to the importance of the candidate selection and the political system of Mexico is more focused in the political parties and in a lesser degree in the leadership of the politicians. Therefore, the role for the election of the people running for public office belongs to the political parties. This shows the power that Mexicans political parties have to achieve power for their members. Studies on candidate selection focus more in legislative elections (Freidenberg, 2013), while studies focusing presidential elections are no so much abundant (Freidenberg and Sánchez, 2002). On the other hand, other studies combined legislative and presidential processes as they are centered in a particular phenomenon that may generate the processes for candidate selection (Siavelis and Morgenstern, 2005). The study deals with the variation of the candidate election process due to the political events done during this period of time. In addition, data from this study may reflect how the candidate selection in the three main parties have been done in the four last elections. Thus, we have raised the following questions: How has variated the process of candidate election along the period ? And, How the candidate selection processes have affected the final electoral results? 8 The period addressed is between the presidential elections of 1994 to The reason for the selection of the 1994 elections is that it was the first elections that occurs after the configuration of the PRD and the loss of some PRI power quotes at expense of the PAN and subsequently PRD also.

10 This work is a qualitative research through process-tracing, made as a longitudinal study through data collected from primary and secondary sources are analyzed. The study also reflects how the candidate selection occurs in political parties in the last four presidential elections, tries to advance in checking the evolution of candidate selection process in the parties because the different political events occurred during the chosen period. Therefore, the questions this work set out are the following: Has changed the selection of candidates in Mexican political parties between 1994 and 2012? Has it affected the possible change in the selection of candidates in their election results? This research will face two of the main elements of the selection of candidates nominated by Hazan and Rahat (2010) i.e. the selectorate and candidacy. These two aspects may evaluate the level of inclusiveness of the presidential candidate selection within parties. To analyse the inclusiveness it is need to hold these two elements in a set in such a way that the process cannot be understood taking only one of this dimensions and disregarding the other. Firstly, the selectorate is the body that chooses the candidates (Hazan and Rahat, 2001); then, it is the main actor in the selection of candidates and the one that can be more inclusive (Figure 1). The inclusiveness may be determined is given by the volume of the selectorate body. On one extreme, the highest form of inclusiveness is the one in which the selectorate are all people having the right to vote 9. On the opposite extreme, the most exclusive, is when the candidate is selected only by the leader (Hazan y Rahat, 2001). Moreover, this is the actor of the process that legitimizes the leader or party candidates running on elections. On the other hand, Best and Cotta (2000: 11) describes it as "an important intermediate player in the recruitment process." If the selectorate becomes opened, the party may attract supporters as the process display an image of better internal democracy. Therefore, changes in the selectorate are the ones having a more significant political consequence (Hazan and Rahat, 2010: 34). 9 In some cases, the selectorate may be even larger than the electorate as in the case of parties in Canada, where immigrants who are not citizens of the country, can become members and participate in the process, but are not part of the electorate (Cross and Young, 2004).

11 Figure 1. Party Selectorate. 1. Electorate 2.Party 3. Selected 4. Non-Selected 5.Leader, members Party Agency Party Agency Party < > Inclusiveness Exclusiveness (Source: Rahat y Hazan, 2001) The second actor determining the candidate selection is the candidacy. This element makes reference to the persons that may postulate as candidate for candidate selection in a party and in a particular moment (Hazan and Rahat, 2010: 19). As in the selectorate, the candidacy display different degrees of inclusiveness ranging from the possibility to be candidate from every citizen to the demand of different restrictive requirements from the party to be postulated as candidate 10 (Hazan and Rahat, 2001) (Figure 2). In addition, the opening of the candidacy generates a process of recruitment of members although in a less amount as for the selectorate. This is being done as when a person may postulate as candidate 11, a greater variation and possibilities of election between candidates may induce a greater participation of more persons. This last means that, usually, the levels of inclusiveness of the selectorate are greater than the candidature. Figure 2. Party Candidacy. 1. All the citizens 2.Party members 3. Party members + Additional Requeriments < > Inclusiveness (Source: Rahat y Hazan, 2001) Exclusiveness Beyond these elements, other variables such as the election results and the organs that control the electoral process will be used. The first is to analyze how the various selection 10 In some countries, the law imposes requirements that must have a determinate candidate for political office as the election of Italian senators that under art.58.2 of the Italian Constitution, "as senators are eligible voters who have reached forty year old". While, in other countries, the requirements for becoming a candidate dictates the party itself as in the case of the Colorado Party in Paraguay, which is the age requirement it will vary according to political office to which they want to be nominate. 11 The opening of the candidacy does not need to pass into the next level; just with lowering the requirements often, demand makes it possible for a greater number of people that can be present to the nomination.

12 processes of each training affect the election results. While the second refers to the organs that control the selection process or even decide on the candidates. In addition, a variable of ideological political party and party members will be included through Latin American Parliamentarian Elites Project (PELA) 12. Thus, it explore the intra-party coherence comparing of ideological location of the party members and the perception of the party as other studies have done (Ruiz Rodríguez and García Montero, 2003). In addition, it will be used the standard deviation to see if it affects the candidate selection and find different factions within the party. 6. The candidate selection processes in PRI, PAN and PRD 6.1 Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) Throughout its history, the PRI has been always viewed as a cohesive party until the end of 80 s were there was a cleavage of different party personalities 13 that grouped in a coalition of different left wing forces that gave rise to the Democratic Revolution Party (Partido de la Revolución Democrática, PRD). However, the PRI candidate, Carlos Salinas de Gortari, becomes elected president in 1988 over 50% of the valid votes. In the following presidential elections in 1994, the President Carlos Salinas de Gortari designated Luis Donaldo Colosio as the PRI candidate. However, Colosio was murdered five months before the election and was replaced by his Head of Campaign, Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de Leon; that was elected president of Mexico. Both, Colosio and Zedillo, were elected by the ruling president Salinas de Gortari and PRI organization 14. The statutes of the party, did not specify a concrete way of selection of presidential candidate; so, both candidates were appointed by President Salinas and ratified by the Political Council of the PRI. This process for candidate selection is the most exclusive as the 12 Latin American Parliamentarian Elites Project (in Spanish: Proyecto de Elites Parlamentarias Latinoamericanas, PELA) is a research Project which belongs to the University of Salamanca and directed by Dr. Manuel Alcántara Sáez. 13 Among these PRI leaders include Cuauhtémoc Cardenas, son of former President Lazaro Cardenas, and Porfirio Munoz Ledo, former president of the PRI ( ). 14 The decision to appoint as presidential candidate Zedillo Ponce was imminent because of the approaching elections. Besides he was the only one who was not in public office at the time.

13 candidate is a member of the party with the requirements determined by the party s leadership and is chosen by the leader of the party 15. By contrast, during the following presidential elections of 2000 was implemented a process for candidate selection that was more open and inclusive. To this process, the candidate will be that winning in more districts in the same way as for legislative elections for the lower house. The districts were divided in 300 among the 32 states. Four candidates who were members of the party and accomplished with the requirements, which Francisco Labastida Ochoa and Roberto Madrazo Pintado were the most remarkable candidates. All members of the party can vote. This means that the selectorate became open to all party s members but the candidature was 3equally exclusive as before. Labastida won thanks to the support shown by 272 districts with more than 4 million votes 16 and distance with the second, Roberto Madrazo, who had only won in 19 districts. Therefore, Labastida was a candidate of the PRI to the presidency of Mexico 17, but he was the first candidate that lost the election that was obtained by the candidate from the PAN Vicente Fox. The same process was also repeated for the presidential elections of In 2005, the PRI celebrated internal elections in the party but before, the PRI celebrated the XVIII National Assembly in November 2001 in which they modify their statutes with the aim of design new methods of participation and to deepen in internal democracy (Reveles, 2003). The internal elections of 2005 were as inclusive as those in 1999, the only difference was that in 2005 the rules for selection were determined by the statutes. This time, the candidate Roberto Madrazo, that postulated for the previous selection process, won the candidacy 18, but there was only 2 more candidates and its main rival, Antonio 15 Freidenberg and Sanchez (2002) highlight in their work that PRI decision of the presidential candidates through the President of the Republic in exercise. This selection mechanism often referred to colloquially as "handpick". 16 The results of the PRI primary election in 1999 can be found in: Base de Datos Políticos de las Américas. (2001) Mexico: 1999 Elecciones Primarias (PRI). [Internet]. Georgetown University y Organización de Estados Americanos. In: 31 de agosto Aznarez, Juan Jesús, Labastida arrasa en las primarias del PRI y será candidato a la presidencia de México, El País, 9 de noviembre de anos-su-creacion/partido-revolucion-80-anos-su-creacion2.shtml#ixzz3BvnluEKN 18 Roberto Madrazo será el candidato del PRI en las elecciones presidenciales mecianosde2005, El Mundo, 14 de noviembre de

14 Montiel Rojas, withdraw as he was accused of illicit enrichment. Even though, the PRI obtained the worse electoral results of their history. Finally, before the presidential elections of 2012 and internal election process was generated. Enrique Peña Nieto was the only one to be presented and the only tramit was to endorse as candidate for President of Mexico 19. Peña Nieto was elected president of Mexico and the PRI. Despite of this, Manlio Fabio Beltrones tried to present his candidacy, but at the last time he refused. The statutes had concretized the rules of the candidate selection as well as the same structure of previous processes. Although the statutes maintain an inclusiveness process, the decision of the party elites was the candidacy of a single person. According to the Bylaws of the PRI, the requirements to be presidential candidate are wide and all are expressed in art 166. This article not only contains requirements that general laws regulate but several more, proper of the PRI. Meanwhile, the selectorate has become open from the proper decision of the President to the participation of all members of the party. There are other reasons by which the process cannot be defined as entirely open and inclusive. On one hand, there is a great influence of the elites of the PRI at the time of candidate selection. On the other hand, the election of the procedure that depends on the National Political Council as is reflected in art. 180 of the statutes. Thus, although the opening to the selectorate 20, the party leadership controls the persons that postulate to be candidate and the process to be elected. 6.2 National Action Party (PAN) In the 1994 elections, Diego Fernandez de Cevallos was the PAN candidate chosen to face Zedillo. Fernandez de Cevallos was elected by the PAN electoral convention in which he defeated the other candidates Rosas Adalberto Lopez, Javier Livas Cantu and Eduardo López García. Party members who could be candidates were those who meet certain requirements. The candidate was chosen by the Electoral Council, which was legitimated by the party members in the XL Panista National Convention Reséndiz, Francisco, PRI logró candidaturas de unidad para el 1 de julio, El Universal, 30 de diciembre de In the art. 181 of the statutes of the PRI is stated that the candidate can choose two ways: directly or by delegate s council election. 21 Martínez Alarcón, Ángel Rafael, Perdiendo el gobierno, y ganado el partido?, El Tiempo de Veracruz, 9 de julio de 2012.

15 However, for the 2000 elections there was a constitutional reform of Art. 82, which allowed to be nominated candidate for the presidency of the country those peoples whose parents were foreigners. In addition, the PAN held the XI Extraordinary National Assembly in 1999, where it was reformed the Art. 38 of the party statutes concerning the selection of the presidential candidate. This made possible that Vicente Fox Quesada could be nominated as a candidate of the PAN presidential government. Although, any candidate with specific requirements could be submitted to a primary election, the only one who ran was Vicente Fox, the former governor of Guanajuato, and 134,860 party members ratified him. Vicente Fox was the first one elected president of Mexico who was not a candidate of the PRI. In the following internal elections in 2005, three candidates seeking to be the party's presidential candidate submitted for election i.e. Felipe Calderon Hinojosa, Santiago Creel Miranda and Alberto Cardenas Jimenez. These internal elections were characterized by the participation of all party members to choose between different candidates and that was done in three election days. Mechanism were applied to avoid polarization between two candidates (Freidenberg, 2005). These internal elections symbolized the two currents that existed in the PAN at the time: on the one hand, the conservative and Catholic branch represented by Santiago Creel; and on the other hand, a more moderate and liberal current headed by Felipe Calderon. The second round was not necessary since Felipe Calderon won the overall 58% of the vote versus 24% of those who got Creel; thus, Calderon was elected presidential candidate of the PAN. Finally, the PAN's internal elections of 2011 that were carried out to select their candidate for running in the presidential elections of 2012 were very similar to the internal elections of The were three candidates: Josefina Vazquez Mota, Ernesto Cordero and Santiago Creel. There were other PAN members who tried to run in the elections, but declined, failed guarantees or did not have much relevance. Failed candidates included renowned members as Javier Livas Cantu, who had already postulated in This time, the race was held in one day and Josefina Vazquez Mota won with over 53% of the votes and proclaimed presidential candidate of the PAN Josefina obtuvo 53,7% de los votos, oficializa PAN, El Universal, 6 de febrero de

16 In the PAN s statutes, it is specified that between the rights of their members is the right to occupy a political charge, including the presidential position under the acronym of the PAN 23. However, in the art.85.1 of the Bylaw it states that "applicants must comply with the percentage of signatures of members in the proportion and conditions laid down in the relevant regulations". So, besides being affiliated to the party, also a requirement for those who want to run for president, which is the presentation of a number of guarantees proportional to the number of members is required. Meanwhile, the active suffrage is guaranteed to all party members, according to art. 81.1, which states "Party members, elect candidates for elected office, with the exceptions and the procedures set out in this Bylaw." 6.3 Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) In the late eighties of the twentieth century, some critic leaders of the PRI left the party and were congregated in five different political formations of left wing to compete in the 1988 presidential elections together as a coalition called the National Democratic Front presenting Cuauhtémoc Cardenas Solorzano, a former PRI member, as candidate. After the 1988 elections, members of the coalition with other leftist leaders and organizations met for the establishment of a true social-democratic alternative. Thus, on May 5, 1989 would be born the Party of the Democratic Revolution led by Cuauhtémoc Cardenas. From the time of its formation, the leadership of the PRD was under the auspices of Cuauhtémoc Cardenas. In the Second National Congress of the PRD in 1993, Cardenas introduced 230,000 guarantees of their supporters to stand as the party's candidate for the presidential elections of The 740 delegates at this congress had voted unanimously in favor of the candidate. Although only one candidate run, there was no requirement rather than being affiliated to the party and delegates elected by the militants were the body that ratified the sole candidate. Unlike previous elections, the PRD together with various parties concurred with agglutinated in the "Alliance for Mexico" coalition postulating a candidate Cuauhtémoc Cardenas 24 as he resigned his position as head of government of the Federal District. 23 According to art. 11 of PAN statutes, which recompile the right of the party members, one of them is be aspirants, candidates and, where appropriate, National Action candidates to elected office. 24 In this coalition, the PRD is grouped with 4 more games. As the PRD was the party with the most strengthened by both, members and representation, the candidate was a PRD member.

17 Previously, Muñoz Ledo was one of the founders of the PRD wanted to be candidate by the party to achieve the presidency of the republic, but it was not possible. The Electoral Service of the PRD declared Cardenas candidate for the elections of 2000 without internal elections, i.e. the party leadership made the choice. Porfirio Muñoz Ledo, not get the nomination, denounced "caudillismo" 25 in the PRD, he left the party and decided to support the PAN candidate Vicente Fox 26. The following internal elections for the presidential nomination of 2006, Cardenas wanted to return to stand as a candidate of the PRD. However, Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador attracted greater support from the party and, ultimately, Cardenas declined to participate in the internal elections 27. Therefore, Lopez Obrador ran as PRD candidate for the 2006 presidential elections without any internal elections again 28. However, the Head of Government of Mexico City, Marcelo Ebrard, announced that was running to be nominated as PRD candidate for the presidential elections of 2012 disputing Lopez Obrador this position. In late 2011, both candidates agreed to go through surveys for PRD presidential candidate selection 29 ; the purpose of this method was not only to reach the members, but also citizens. Lopez Obrador was claimed candidate after confirming the support of the public surveys 30. In short, Article 17 of the Bylaw of the PRD contains various rights for members among which it is included: "the right to be voted for all elected positions or appointed or appointed to any office, position or commission, provided they meet the qualities to establish, as appropriate, the Constitution of the United Mexican States, this ordinance and the regulations emanating from him". This means that any member of the PRD can apply for internal elections for being postulated as presidential candidate provided it 25 Muñoz Ledo tried to refer Cardenas as an authoritarian leader who organized the party around him. 26 Rueda, Rivelino, Confronta al PRD su séptima crisis, El Financiero, 17 de marzo de Biography Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas Solórzano. biografia&itemid=59 28 Yañez. Sofia, AMLO y Cárdenas: una historia de encuentros y diferencias, Red Política in El Universal, February 7, Guzmán Roque, Sharenii, PRD tendrá candidato antes del 15 de noviembre; Ebrard, El Universal, October 27, AMLO gana a Ebrard encuesta presidencial del PRD, ADN político, November 15,

18 complies with the requirements available under Mexican law. However, it is also said in Article 112 of the statutes that "citizen servers may not be elected representatives of the party ", this being a requirement imposed by the party. On the other hand, art. 274 explains the possibilities of being chosen the candidate for president of the republic 31 and the organ responsible for organizing internal elections is the Election Commission of the National Executive Committee art. 158 of the Constitution. 7. Conclusions At first, it can be easily deduce that the three analysed political parties have opened their selection processes of candidates from the presidential elections in For this reason, the element that has opened the selection of candidates has been the selectorate. Meanwhile, the candidacy is still exclusive, despite of some requirements have been repealed. The requirement of guarantees by the party and agencies that control the candidate selection process remains the main factor for candidacy, although is different percentages of guarantees that the candidates need depending on the public office which the candidate pretend to launch its candidacy. The presidential candidate wants to be the highest authority in the country, that means that this is the position that more number of guarantees needs and therefore it difficult the opportunity to stand for many member parties. Despite the selectorate have increased its levels of inclusiveness throughout this period, the candidacy have not followed this pattern. So, it cannot be said that the selection process of candidates are fully inclusive, in particular for the tough requirements imposed on the nomination. The selectorate can achieve high levels of inclusiveness; but if there is only one candidate, the selectorate can only ratify or not the candidate. Among the 12 selection processes analysed in this study, half of these processes have had a single official candidate in the processes (Annex 1). Thus, the party elite maintain the exclusiveness in the candidacy and the inclusiveness in the selectorate does not only keep control, it strengthens also. 31 The art.274 of the Statutes of the PRD, which includes three ways can elect the candidate for president who are: 1) universal, direct and secret vote by members of the relevant field; 2) a vote of the respective Directors of the corresponding instance; and 3) only bid submitted to the Council.

19 In the Annex 2, we can observed the ideological evolution of the parties and their elites. As it does not vary so much the personal and the party ideology. There is not any a great distance between their members, the largest difference among the party members is a Standard Deviation (SD) of 1,8 in the last PRI candidate selection. The rest of the individual ideology is from 1 to 1,5 in the SD, so there is not so much ideological difference among the legislators. Moreover, there is less distance in the ideological perception of the party, the SD is shorter. So, we can conclude that maybe there are ideological political differences among some members, but there is a cohesion in the party. The legislation allows a lot of freedom to political parties for choosing its presidential candidate. The law permits political parties establishing the criteria for candidate selection in the statutes that they will consider suitable to the democratic requeriments and comply the legislation. This precept generates that the statutes does not especify the procedure that the party use. Then, the legislation lets the decision of the choice of procedure for the candidate selection for the party organisation and its electoral/control body to regulate this process (Annex 3). At this manner, the party elite will select the candidate who best fits its preferences, despite the level of inclusiveness in the selectorate because the legislation declines the organization of the candidate selection processes in favour of the party. Based on this idea, as we have observed is mostly nominated a single candidate for each party limiting competition within the party. This mechanism can produce better results than an open electoral process, in which not only the selectorate is inclusive, the candidacy also. Moreover, if the selectorate is opened and the party members or all citizens between the proposed candidates, the candidate who proposes will be legitimized and strengthened its position. In short, the vote in the candidate selection have been increasingly more open, while the candidacies maintains certain requirements. Thereby, not all people have the right to stand as a candidate in the selection process because of the restrictions. Finally, it would be interesting to study how the party elites, who configure the party organisation, are chosen because they have a great capacity to influence the presidential candidate selection or other public office. In this line, they would also be included bodies dedicated to the organization of the selection process of candidates: its structure,

20 components and functions. To a large extent, the study of candidate selection confirms Duverger s thesis that although the parties generate democratic mechanisms within their organization have an oligarchic trend that is imposed on democratic innovations. 8. References BARTOLINI, Stefano & MAIR Peter, (2001). Challenges to contemporary political parties, Political parties and democracy, BEST, Heinrich & COTTA, Maurizio, (2000) Parliamentary representatives in Europe, : legislative recruitment and careers in eleven European countries, Oxford University Press. BUTLER, David, PENNIMAN, Howard R., & RANNEY, Austin, 1981, Democracy at the polls: a comparative study of competitive national elections, vol. 297, Aei Press. CLOSE, Caroline. (2012) Parliamentary party coherence or factionalism: a consequence of candidate selection methods? A theoretical framework, paper submitted at Party Primaries in Europe. Consequences and Challenges, ECPR Joint Sessions, Antwerp, Belgium. CORDERO, Guillermo & COLLER, Xavier, (2015). Cohesion and Candidate Selection in Parliamentary Groups, Parliamentary Affairs, 68 (3), CROSS, William, & YOUNG, Lisa, (2004). The contours of political party membership in Canada. Party Politics, 10(4), CROSS, William, & BLAIS André, (2012). Who selects the party leader? Party Politics, 18(2), CROSS, William P., & KATZ, Richard S. (2013). The challenges of intra-party democracy. Oxford University Press. DONOVAN, Todd & KARP Jeffrey A., (2006). Popular support for direct democracy, Party Politics, 12(5), DUVERGER, Maurice. (1974). Los partidos políticos. Madrid, Alianza. FREIDENBERG, Flavia, (2005), El proceso de selección del candidato presidencial en el Partido Acción Nacional de 2005, Salamanca, Universidad de Salamanca, Instituto Interuniversitario de Iberoamérica, OPAL/OIR. FREIDENBERG, Flavia. (2006). La democratización de los partidos políticos en América Latina: entre la ilusión y el desencanto, In José Thompson y Fernando Sánchez (Eds.). Fortalecimiento de los partidos políticos en América Latina: institucionalización, democratización y transparencia. San José de Costa Rica: IIDH.