In democracies, political parties play a crucial role in representing the will of the people by allowing voters to select their preferred leaders through competitive elections. Recently, in the United States, the Democratic Party’s decision to bypass the 2024 primary election following President Joe Biden’s withdrawal and his endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris marks a significant departure from these democratic norms. This lack of an open primary vote is inherently undemocratic, as it limits voter participation, consolidates power among party elites, and weakens the integrity of electoral competition. I argue that this decision is not merely a strategic move but an act of democratic erosion that risks undermining intra-party democracy and, consequently, democratic governance in the U.S. more broadly.
One of the central tenets of democracy is competition. Free and fair elections, including primaries, allow voters to choose among multiple candidates, ensuring leadership reflects the will of the people. As Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue in “How Democracies Die”, electoral competition is critical for maintaining legitimacy and preventing the concentration of power. By avoiding a primary and endorsing Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party undermines this principle. The absence of competition reduces the legitimacy of the eventual nominee and diminishes voters’ role in shaping the party’s future. This decision deprives Democratic voters of the chance to debate and contest important ideas that would typically emerge during a primary. Without this process, the party risks becoming disconnected from its electorate, as leaders become less accountable to the people they represent.
Moreover, the lack of competition leads to a consolidation of power among party elites, which is a sign of democratic erosion. Political theorist Robert Michels’ “Iron Law of Oligarchy” argues that all political organizations, over time, tend to centralize power within a small group of elites, sidelining the broader electorate. The Democratic Party’s decision to endorse Kamala Harris without a primary exemplifies this tendency. By allowing a small group of leaders to select the nominee, the party bypasses the democratic input of its members, reinforcing an oligarchic structure within the party.
This centralization of power within the Democratic Party mirrors trends in other democracies experiencing erosion. For instance, in Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has concentrated power within his ruling party, using his influence to stifle competition and marginalize internal dissent. While these actions are technically legal, they have been widely criticized for undermining Turkey’s democratic institutions. The Democratic Party risks following a similar path by removing the primary process and shifting decision-making away from voters and into the hands of elites. Although the U.S. and Turkey operate under different political systems, the consolidation of power within political parties demonstrates a worrying trend of democratic backsliding.
Beyond the immediate effects on competition, bypassing the primary has serious implications for voter engagement, particularly among key sub-groups within the Democratic Party. Primary elections are not only a mechanism for selecting candidates but also serve as a means of mobilizing voters. Research by the Bipartisan Policy Center shows that competitive primaries boost voter turnout and political participation. By avoiding this process, the Democratic Party risks alienating these critical groups. The consequences of decreased voter engagement extend beyond the immediate election. When voters feel excluded from the decision-making process, they are less likely to participate in future elections or engage in political activism. As Levitsky and Ziblatt warn, democratic erosion often begins with minor decisions that limit participation and centralize power, eventually leading to a more profound weakening of democratic institutions.
It is important to acknowledge that the decision to endorse Kamala Harris without a primary could be viewed as an effort to maintain party unity and avoid internal conflict during a tumultuous time. However, this short-term strategy comes at the cost of alienating party members who would have preferred a more open and transparent process. Intra-party democracy is essential for maintaining the legitimacy of political parties, and when it is weakened, trust in the party and the broader political system begins to erode. This erosion of trust can fuel the rise of populist movements, as discussed in Jan-Werner Müller’s “What is Populism?”, which often capitalize on voter dissatisfaction with established political institutions.
Finally, the most concerning aspect of the Democratic Party’s decision to forgo a primary is the precedent it sets for future elections. These actions normalize the bypassing of competitive primaries, creating a culture in which internal democracy is sacrificed for the sake of expediency or political strategy. This precedent is dangerous because it can lead to further democratic erosion, both within the party and in the broader political system. Political scientists such as Nancy Bermeo have noted that democratic backsliding often begins with seemingly minor decisions that weaken norms set by precedent rather than written law. Over time, these decisions accumulate and contribute to a more profound erosion of democracy. The Democratic Party’s decision to endorse Kamala Harris without a primary is one such decision. While it may seem like a practical move to avoid internal divisions, it ultimately undermines the principles of competition and participation that are essential to a healthy democracy.
For these reasons, the Democratic Party’s choice to bypass a primary election not only consolidates power among elites but also diminishes the role of voters, setting a problematic precedent for future elections. The long-term consequences of this decision extend beyond the 2024 election, posing a significant threat to intra-party democracy and, by extension, the broader democratic system. To maintain the legitimacy and health of democracy, political parties must prioritize transparency, competition, and voter engagement—values that this decision appears to undermine.
