Impacts and Consequences of Digital Democratic Innovations in Political Parties

Gema Sánchez Medero

Universidad Complutense de Madrid - ICCA (España)

Rubén Sánchez Medero

Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (España)

RECEIVED: February 13, 2025

ACCEPTED: April 8, 2025

MODIFIED: April 12, 2025

https://doi.org/10.7440/colombiaint123.2025.01

ABSTRACT. Objective/context: In recent years, political parties have undergone significant transformation by adopting digital tools aimed at increasing member engagement and participation in internal processes. Digital democratic innovations have emerged as a key response to the crisis of legitimacy and declining membership facing traditional parties. This article offers a comprehensive overview of the main digital democratic innovations implemented by political parties, analyzing their forms—such as online platforms, digital primaries, fundraising, and deliberative spaces—and their impact on intraparty democracy. Methodology: Using a descriptive-analytical approach, the article first clarifies the concepts of democratic and digital innovation and then systematically reviews the digital tools used by parties to open new channels for participation and decision-making. It also examines explanatory factors for digitalization, such as party age, size, ideology, and institutional context, and critically assesses the potential and limitations of these innovations. Conclusions: The democratization of political parties through digital means has produced mixed results, falling short of expectations. The article concludes with practical recommendations to enhance meaningful participation, transparency, and inclusivity in intraparty democracy. Originality: The originality of this study lies in its integrative mapping and critical analysis of recent digital democratic innovations in political parties, providing both a broad perspective and nuanced insights into their real-world impact.

KEYWORDS: digital democratic innovations; intraparty democracy; online political participation; political parties and technology; political party digitalization.

Impactos y consecuencias de las innovaciones democráticas digitales en los partidos políticos

RESUMEN. Objetivo/contexto: en los últimos años, los partidos políticos han experimentado una profunda transformación a través de la adopción de herramientas digitales orientadas a incrementar la participación y el compromiso de sus militantes en los procesos internos. Las innovaciones democráticas digitales han surgido como una respuesta clave a la crisis de legitimidad y la pérdida de membresía que enfrentan los partidos tradicionales. Este artículo ofrece un panorama integral de las principales innovaciones democráticas digitales implementadas por los partidos, analizando tanto sus formas —como plataformas online, primarias digitales, recaudación de fondos y espacios deliberativos— como su impacto en la democracia intrapartidista. Metodología: mediante un enfoque descriptivo-analítico, el artículo aclara primero los conceptos de innovación democrática y digital, y luego revisa sistemáticamente las herramientas digitales utilizadas por los partidos para abrir nuevos canales de participación y toma de decisiones. Además, examina los factores explicativos de la digitalización-como la edad, tamaño, ideología y contexto institucional del partido-y evalúa críticamente el potencial y las limitaciones de estas innovaciones. Conclusiones: la democratización de los partidos a través de medios digitales ha producido resultados mixtos y aún dista de las expectativas. El artículo concluye con recomendaciones prácticas para fortalecer la participación significativa, la transparencia y la inclusión en la democracia interna. Originalidad: la originalidad de este estudio reside en su mapeo integrador y análisis crítico de las innovaciones democráticas digitales recientes en los partidos políticos, ofreciendo tanto una visión amplia como aportes matizados sobre su impacto real.

PALABRAS CLAVE: democracia intrapartidaria; digitalización de los partidos políticos; innovaciones democráticas digitales; participación política en línea; partidos políticos y tecnología.

Impactos e consequências das inovações democráticas digitais nos partidos políticos

RESUMO. Objetivo/contexto: nos últimos anos, os partidos políticos passaram por uma transformação significativa com a adoção de ferramentas digitais voltadas para aumentar o engajamento e a participação dos militantes nos processos internos. As inovações democráticas digitais emergiram como uma resposta central à crise de legitimidade e à queda de filiação enfrentadas pelos partidos tradicionais. Este artigo apresenta um panorama abrangente das principais inovações democráticas digitais implementadas pelos partidos, analisando tanto suas formas-como plataformas online, primárias digitais, captação de recursos e espaços deliberativos-quanto seu impacto na democracia intrapartidária. Metodologia: utilizando uma abordagem descritivo-analítica, o artigo esclarece inicialmente os conceitos de inovação democrática e digital, revisando de forma sistemática as ferramentas digitais usadas pelos partidos para abrir novos canais de participação e decisão. Examina ainda fatores explicativos da digitalização-como idade, tamanho, ideologia e contexto institucional partidário-e avalia criticamente o potencial e as limitações dessas inovações. Conclusões: a democratização dos partidos por meios digitais produziu resultados mistos e ainda aquém das expectativas. O artigo conclui com recomendações práticas para fortalecer a participação significativa, a transparência e a inclusão na democracia interna. Originalidade: a originalidade deste estudo reside no mapeamento integrador e na análise crítica das inovações democráticas digitais recentes nos partidos políticos, oferecendo tanto uma visão ampla quanto insights detalhados sobre seu impacto real.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE: democracia intrapartidária; digitalização dos partidos políticos; inovações democráticas digitais; participação política online; partidos políticos e tecnologia.

Introduction

In recent decades, there has been a steady increase in public distrust toward political parties. This trend has led to significant changes within the parties themselves: a decline in party membership, reduced capacity to mobilize voters, and the emergence of new competitors that have directly challenged the stability of traditional party systems (Chiaramonte and Emanuele 2022; Dalton and Wattenberg 2000; van Haute and Ribeiro 2022). In response, many parties have begun to redefine their relationship with citizens (Ryan and Smith 2012), implementing a series of reforms to make their internal decision-making processes more inclusive (Cross and Katz 2013). For example, some parties have allowed their members to participate in the selection of candidates and leaders or in policy formulation through deliberative processes (e.g., referendums, forums, surveys, electronic voting). In some cases, parties have even enshrined minority rights. They have also guaranteed internal pluralism.

Ultimately, this strategy seeks to adapt the traditional model of delegation by introducing alternative forms of intraparty democracy, primarily aiming to mobilize both party members and citizens in the democratic process (Borz and Janda 2020; Cross and Pilet 2016; Deseriis and Vittori 2019; Gauja 2015), in an attempt to regain lost legitimacy. As such, parties have been implementing these mechanisms due to two main factors: necessity (where party leaders respond to external pressures, such as declining membership) and conviction (where leaders address internal demands for greater voice and participation in key decisions) (Wauters et al. 2011).

In the case of necessity, party elites have introduced a series of actions aimed at halting the steady erosion of membership. Regarding conviction, these reforms respond to the complex dynamics between party leaders and grassroots members. However, the adoption of more participatory decision-making mechanisms has yielded mixed outcomes in terms of intraparty democracy (Kittilson and Scarrow 2003; Scarrow, Webb, and Farrell 2000). One possible explanation is that when parties implement reforms out of necessity, such changes are primarily reactive measures intended to stem organizational decline rather than genuine attempts at democratization (Bolleyer 2008; Carty 2004; Katz and Mair 1995). Alternatively, when reforms are driven by normative beliefs, parties must confront the complex interplay between leadership and the rank-and-file, the centralization of decision-making, and ideological divisions, among other factors (Rodríguez-Teruel et al. 2011). Therefore, the democratization of party structures has become a necessary step to reengage citizens in political activism within party organizations (Norris 2005; Scarrow 2005). In recent years, academic literature on political parties has increasingly focused on documenting the most significant innovations in party democracy and examining their implications and impacts (Chadwick and Stromer-Galley 2016; Cross and Katz 2013; Deseriis and Vittori 2019; Gerbaudo 2019; Sandri et al. 2024; Scarrow 2014).

Among these innovations, participatory methods for selecting candidates and leaders, as well as voting mechanisms for internal decision-making, have attracted the most academic attention. Deliberative practices, by contrast, remain comparatively understudied. The objective and originality of this article lie in its description and analysis of the main democratic innovations promoted by political parties in recent years. In doing so, we offer a broad overview of these developments and assess their impact on intraparty democracy. To this end, we have employed a descriptive-analytical methodology. This approach has allowed us, on the one hand, to present and detail these phenomena as they manifest in practice—offering a clear and precise account of the tools involved—and, on the other, to interpret and reflect on these digital democratic innovations in order to identify their potential and limitations. Guided by this approach, we pose the following research questions: What are democratic innovations, and what do they entail? Do digital democratic innovations have a tangible impact on intraparty democracy? What are the advantages and disadvantages of such innovations? This framework constitutes the basis for understanding the special issue presented here with contributions by Díaz-Montiel (2025), González Galán (2025), and Villaplana (2025).

  1. Digital Democratic Innovations

Classical studies have consistently shown that political parties tend to operate according to oligarchic principles and mechanisms (Carty 2013; Duverger 1951; Michels 1962). However, as discussed above, parties are now introducing democratic innovations to increase opportunities for member participation in intraparty processes (Scarrow, Webb, and Poguntke 2022), to communicate with citizens, and to improve organizational management (Barberà et al. 2021; Close and Gherghina 2019; Ignazi 2020; Scarrow 2014). Therefore, democratic innovations are primarily intended to enhance the decision-making power of party members (Smith 2009, 2019) and, above all, to re-legitimize political parties (Ignazi and Fiorelli 2021).

The ongoing and expanding debate on intraparty democracy highlights the need to analyze party democracy through the lens of democratic principles. Efforts to enhance citizen participation are often associated with different models of democracy (Held 1995), each of which defines its own ideal of participation—a crucial aspect for assessing the impact of democratic innovations. For example, the participatory democracy model (Pateman 2012) emphasizes expanding the scope of citizen involvement in decision-making; the deliberative democracy model (Habermas 1996) focuses on establishing decision-making processes based on rational deliberation; and the direct democracy model seeks to create mechanisms that allow citizens to decide directly on specific issues. All these dimensions are highly relevant for understanding the scope and objectives of democratic innovations.

Indeed, some political parties are incorporating democratic innovations that correspond to each of these models: adopting processes that allow members to propose political initiatives (participatory democracy), establishing primary systems for candidate selection (direct democracy), and creating discussion spaces in congresses or local offices (deliberative democracy). Thus, the new organizational realities of political parties have prompted a reconsideration of the concept of internal democracy, which now extends beyond inclusion to encompass deliberation, diffusion, and pluralism—in other words, participation, competition, representation, responsiveness, and transparency (Rahat and Shapira 2017, 88; Villaplana, Megías, and Barberá 2023).

Thus, intraparty democracy is now understood as the implementation of a broad range of methods to increase party members’ participation in deliberation processes and decision-making, provided certain prerequisites are met, such as openness, inclusiveness, shared decision-making, transparency, and a culture of tolerance and debate (Scarrow 2005). Furthermore, internal democracy requires bottom-up decision-making processes that actively involve all party members. Such processes should permeate all levels of the party organization, from the local to the national. Although the democratic character and the benefits of these changes for political parties remain not fully understood (Hazan and Rahat 2010; Wauters and Kern 2020), it is clear that they promote inclusivity and the decentralization of decision-making within the organization.

With the emergence of information and communication technologies (ICTs), political parties have, at least in theory, gained powerful tools to develop new forms of participation and engagement with citizens, thereby addressing the shortcomings of traditional political activity (Sampedro and Sánchez-Duarte 2011). Digital innovations could increase political participation—both in quantity and intensity—potentially extending it to sectors of the population that traditionally participate less, such as youth, adolescents, and unaffiliated citizens (Colombo 2006; Fischer and Gilardi 2023). This is mainly because their flexibility and immediacy facilitate the creation of online participation spaces, such as forums or chats, while also reducing economic, organizational, and time-related costs (Colombo 2006, 8).

In fact, the academic community has even suggested that digital democratic innovations could serve as a potential solution to the “crisis of representative democracy,” particularly—but not exclusively—in the Western world (Chadwick and Stromer-Galley 2016; Dommett, Kefford, and Power 2021; Núñez, Close, and Bedock 2016; Smith 2009, 2019). It is also important to note that there is a persistent gap between citizens’ expectations and desires for the political system and how these systems actually function (Fishkin and Mansbridge 2017; Norris 2011). Another issue is that, once these innovations are established, citizens may wish to influence or participate in political decisions (Hibbing and Theiss-Morse 2002), participation may at times conflict with respectful deliberation (Mutz 2006; Mansbridge et al. 2012), or participatory mechanisms may directly affect decision outcomes (Papadopoulos and Warin 2007).

In any case, this has renewed interest in the importance of democracy and the need to examine intraparty functioning (Cross and Katz 2013; Pettitt 2012; Sandri et al. 2024, Sandri, Seddone, and Venturino 2015; van Haute and Gauja 2015). With the emergence of digital and movement parties, recent studies have focused on how these organizations adopt digital technologies, consequently expanding their channels for participation and collaboration. These parties are notable for their use of digital tools and platforms to promote democratic participation and deliberation. Even traditional parties, often influenced by contagion effects, have adopted various digital tools to encourage member participation.

Consequently, there are parties that conduct all their processes online (e.g., the Five Star Movement), parties that maintain some offline activities while digitalizing specific processes, parties that simply replicate traditional procedures in the digital realm, and parties that reject digitalization altogether. Therefore, the process of internal democratization is not occurring uniformly across all parties (Cross and Katz 2013). Nevertheless, most parties are introducing democratic innovations to, at least in theory, increase the decision-making and control power of their members.

The specialized literature indicates that the digitalization of political parties is not a uniform phenomenon. Most studies distinguish between external digitalization (centered on communication and participatory competition) and internal digitalization (focused on member participation) (Peña and Gold 2023). External digitalization focuses on the party’s relationship with voters and the general public. Innovations in this area include the use of social media, forums, surveys, regulations, party and leader positioning, event agendas, news dissemination, and membership management. Through these tools, parties provide information directly to citizens, foster direct dialogue, promote participatory engagement and mobilization, and even enhance electoral competition. Internal digitalization refers to opening up internal party processes, such as the selection of candidates and leaders, internal consultations, and virtual debates. However, both dimensions are complementary and can significantly contribute to the further democratization of political parties.

On the other hand, in both external and internal realms, there are aggregative and disruptive procedures, which refer to how forms of participation are managed and organized within political parties. Aggregative procedures focus on aggregating preferences through methods such as dichotomous voting. In contrast, disruptive procedures alter the paradigm of party interaction with members, voters, and society by fostering deliberation, collaboration, and horizontal participation.

Moreover, it is important to consider the level of openness in democratic processes within political parties—that is, who can participate and in what capacity. Historically, parties have been “organizations based on membership, with clear organizational boundaries between those who belong to the political force and those who remain outside” (von dem Berge and Poguntke 2017, 138). Therefore, many internal democratic processes within parties have traditionally been open only to registered members. However, parties are now expanding participation in certain procedures, for example, by including supporters.

This discussion is further complicated by debates over the degree of decentralization versus centralization of democratic innovations within political parties. This debate addresses key issues, such as how decision-making should be organized, who controls participation platforms or deliberative spaces, and the degree of autonomy afforded to different party levels.

Furthermore, the specialized literature identifies several factors that may help explain the varying levels of digitalization within political parties:

Electoral competition and institutional isomorphism are explanatory factors for the digitalization of political parties (Barberà 2019). In this regard, party systems characterized by higher levels of institutionalization and stability may lead to a lower degree of innovation and digitalization within their political party structures (Ward and Gibson 2009). The study by Raniolo and Tarditi (2020) indicates that new parties make more intensive and radical use of digital tools through the introduction of disruptive innovations, while traditional parties adopt digital innovations to improve their competition with these new political formations, whether to capture resources, disseminate their message in new spaces, or enhance their connection and interaction with their social bases (Barberà 2019).

  1. The Most Common Digital Democratic Innovations

Political parties are increasingly concerned with opening the political process to greater individual participation within and outside the organization. This has led them to experiment with tools that enable members and supporters to influence party policies (Gauja 2015, 96). In this section, we discuss the most common democratic innovations implemented either via the official websites of political parties or through dedicated digital platforms.

  1. Official Websites of Political Parties

Initially, political parties used websites as broad information boards for both citizens and journalists. Much of the information provided on these sites came from standard official materials, such as party statutes and party history (Löfgren 2000, 63). Although some of these basic features remain, websites now function as direct communication channels between the party elite and its members and supporters (Pedersen and Saglie 2005). Websites are also used for engagement, mobilization, and interaction. First, they engage citizens through requests for donations, crowdfunding campaigns, microcredits, forums, and surveys. Second, they mobilize activists and citizens by displaying the party’s activities—such as rallies, protest calls, meetings, and events—on a calendar. Lastly, they provide spaces for interaction through discussion forums, emails, and the social media accounts of key party members. Some parties have even begun investing in transforming their sites into political portals that serve as entry points for users into online politics.

Information Dissemination

Websites can serve as tools for delivering top-down information (Gibson and Ward 1999; Lusoli and Ward 2004). Moreover, information technologies enable political leaders to bypass the media and establish direct contact with citizens. Official party websites present a wide range of informational content, including history, organizational structure, statutes, regulations, programs, statements, positions, and management reports. Furthermore, the more accessible and regularly updated the information on the website, the stronger the party’s rapport with citizens.

Online Membership

Party websites have enabled citizens to join directly and immediately, making party membership more accessible and breaking with the traditional model, which is what Gerbaudo (2019, 17) has defined as an “open membership model,” similar to registration on social networks like Facebook, with minimal membership requirements (Gómez and Ramiro 2019, 536). This new way of affiliation reduces entry barriers because the only requirement is to register through the website, with no need for a trial period or endorsements. Furthermore, some parties distinguish between membership and financial contributions, allowing individuals to join without paying a membership fee. Online membership represents a key strategy for promoting active participation and strengthening the internal structure of the party.

Fundraising

Official party websites are also used to raise financial resources. For instance, crowdfunding is a digital financing model with a specific purpose and structured around campaigns with predetermined objectives and durations (González-Cacheda and Cancela Outeda 2021; Jovanović 2019). Thus, through small donations, party members and supporters can fund material items or activities of the party (González-Cacheda 2018). Additionally, non-specific microdonations are made to cover the ordinary expenses of the party and its campaigns. Even so-called “microcredits,” which are digitally managed, are typically aimed at financing campaigns and electoral processes. The amounts raised vary according to the guidelines established by the parties. In some cases, the reimbursement of amounts donated by supporters and members is often tied to the receipt of electoral subsidies resulting from election outcomes. Electronic civil financing models allow certain parties to emphasize not only their anti-system discourse but also their autonomy from large economic groups and financial institutions (González-Cacheda and Vázquez-Refojos 2020). Furthermore, funds can also be raised through the online sale of party products or merchandise, generating additional resources.

  1. Online Platforms

Participatory platforms are sections within official party websites where registered members can engage in a range of activities, such as participating in political decision-making or debates, voting in electronic consultations, donating money, attending online training sessions, organizing political action, and facilitating internal communication, among other activities (Lioy, Del Valle, and Gottlieb 2019, 5). Many political parties have opted to create digital platforms to transform internal democracy (Cross and Katz 2003; Rahat and Shapira 2017; Scarrow 2005) and revitalize participation (Cross and Katz 2013; Loxbo 2013; Rahat and Shapira 2017; Scarrow 2005). This is a promising tool for parties to reinforce representation and decentralize internal governance, as it exerts participatory pressure on parties with hierarchical structures (Esteve del Valle and Borge 2018; Gustafsson 2012) and blurs the traditional marked differentiation strategy between party members and the general public (Löfgren 2003; Margetts 2006). These online platforms are often seen as natural allies of outsider parties that challenge traditional parties. In fact, most of these parties are adept at utilizing digital media to attract supporters and strengthen ties with their followers (Mosca and Quaranta 2017). In some cases, online platforms are even described as their “digital heart” or “collective intelligence” because they become the space where various processes occur through which party members and their elected representatives make decisions regarding the party’s strategy (Scarrow and Gezgor 2010).

  1. Selection of Candidates and Positions

The selection of candidates and positions through online processes is widely regarded as one of the most decisive activities for intraparty democracy (Cross and Katz 2013; Detterbeck 2005; Rahat, Hazan, and Katz 2008; Scarrow 2015). As such, its study involves analyzing the intraparty power relations among the various organizational units within political parties (Detterbeck 2005; Pedersen 2010). It can be argued that the use of the internet in candidate selection processes is intertwined with a broader trend toward greater inclusiveness in party decision-making (Gauja 2015) and may influence these power dynamics by making visible who holds power within the party (Gallagher and Marsh 1988; Hazan and Rahat 2010). For example, it shifts decision-making power from delegates at party conventions (representatives of intraparty democracy) to the universal suffrage of party members, supporters, and/or voters (direct intraparty democracy) (Cross and Pilet 2016; Hazan and Rahat 2010; Pilet and Cross 2014; Sandri, Seddone, and Venturino 2015). In this way, these reforms challenge the traditional delegation model and introduce alternative models of intraparty democracy. However, candidate and leadership selection procedures also serve as indicators of the degree of intraparty democratization (Hazan and Rahat 2011; LeDuc 2001). Following Scarrow (2000), we consider candidate selection rules a potential source of democratization. This potential lies in the increased inclusiveness of the selection methods (Hazan and Rahat 2011; LeDuc 2001). The inclusiveness dimension refers to the question of who holds the power to nominate candidates (e.g., party supporters, party members, delegates, and party representatives). It also concerns who is allowed to participate in the voting processes, the methods of candidate recruitment, and the level of competition. Despite variations, primary elections represent the most inclusive method for selecting candidates or leadership positions, as they involve a direct internal vote by party members and, in some cases, by party sympathizers and even the general electorate (Cross and Blais 2012; Kenig 2009). In this regard, two main types of primaries can be distinguished: 1) closed primaries, in which only party members are allowed to vote, and 2) open primaries, which extend participation to non-members.

In this sense, primaries can be considered a form of democratic innovation within political parties, not only because they broaden participation but also because they require candidates to work harder to increase their appeal among median voters (Hortala-Vallve and Mueller 2010, 2). However, they also entail organizational risks. The growing role of intraparty competition has often been a response by party elites seeking internal legitimacy, although frequently without encouraging genuine competition among candidates. Indeed, while primaries tend to reinforce the electoral principle of democracy, they do not necessarily enhance other democratic dimensions. By reducing decision-making participation to binary choices, such procedures often strengthen the control of party leaders over key decisions while diminishing the influence of minority voices (Katz and Mair 1995). In this regard, as Urbinati (2014) argues, voting for the leader or selecting candidates from a limited set of policy proposals is not, in itself, a sufficient condition for democracy.

  1. Deliberative Spaces

Political parties have established their own spaces for deliberation within digital platforms, such as forums, participatory programs, and citizen initiatives. Intraparty deliberation is crucial for empowering party members and maintaining their engagement. Moreover, as Wolkenstein (2016) suggests, such practices can counteract the tendency of purely aggregative models to silence internal dissent and consolidate the power of the party elite. Forums are open spaces for member participation. These platforms allow the promotion of debates and engagement in discussions on a range of topics, including internal party matters and politically oriented proposals aimed at institutional or political action. In addition, participants can often express their opinions on proposals and debated topics by casting a vote (Ardanuy and Labuske 2015). In contrast, participatory programs differ from discussion forums in the clarity and specificity of their primary objective. In these programs, the proposals suggested, debated, and adopted by the party’s grassroots members focus exclusively on creating a programmatic document tied to a specific electoral event. Depending on their design, digital programmatic development processes may replace or complement traditional mechanisms of program drafting and approval. Furthermore, citizen initiatives—proposals put forward by party members on matters of organizational relevance—represent another form of participation. However, these initiatives often face limitations regarding their effectiveness in fostering participation and influencing decision-making.

However, some scholars regard these deliberative mechanisms as potentially detrimental to intraparty democracy (Invernizzi-Accetti and Wolkenstein 2017; Muirhead 2006, 2014; Muirhead and Rosenblum 2012). This is because ensuring internal democracy would require parties to establish “vertical links between the different spheres of deliberation, as well as horizontal links between competing issues” (Teorell 1999, 363). Such structures would enable members to engage in deliberation by interacting with their peers and, potentially, with party leaders, which reflects the logic underpinning deliberative democracy models. As Wolkenstein (2016) argues, three key conditions must be met to ensure their effectiveness: 1) meaningful deliberation among members; 2) transmission of the outcomes of these deliberations to the party elite (either directly or through elected delegates); and 3) regular engagement between the elite and party members regarding their positions. When these conditions are not fulfilled, deliberation loses its essence, suggesting that the restriction of the deliberation space is closely tied to the concentration and verticalization of power within political parties.

  1. Citizen Consultations

Some parties, particularly those known as “digital parties,” have leveraged these platforms to promote citizen consultations, whether binding or non-binding, as a means of making significant organizational decisions. These innovations provide a compelling example of how technology can serve as a democratizing tool, enabling members to express their positions on current and relevant issues. However, as Gerbaudo (2019) notes, these platforms have, in some cases, shifted from functioning as deliberative assemblies to more plebiscitarian instruments. The key issue lies in the fact that such consultations are typically initiated by the party leadership and framed in binary terms. Moreover, the rules governing these consultations are defined by the party’s internal regulations.

  1. The Limitations of Digital Democratic Innovations

Political parties are generally regarded as essential to democracy, yet there is no consensus on whether internal democracy within parties is necessary for democracy itself (Novelli et al. 2024). Some argue that external competition among parties is sufficient and that internal democracy might even weaken party cohesion and effectiveness (Dahl 1970). Nevertheless, to address the crisis of representative democracy, others contend that parties should embody democratic values by promoting participation in deliberation and decision-making, as well as ensuring transparency and accountability (Cross and Katz 2013). In this regard, specialized studies have examined the relevance of digital tools for promoting inclusion in the most significant internal processes of political parties. There are both optimistic and pessimistic perspectives regarding the impact of technology on party organizations. Techno-optimist approaches suggest that new technologies can serve as enablers of internal participation, thereby fostering intraparty democracy.

In contrast, techno-pessimist perspectives highlight how these tools may reinforce oligarchic tendencies, such as the centralization of power or the personalization of political leadership. At present, the prevailing conclusion appears to lean toward a pessimistic assessment of the participatory potential of these tools (Villaplana, Megías, and Sandría 2023), mainly because studies have shown that being digital does not necessarily translate into greater participation, nor does novelty automatically imply openness to citizen engagement (Bronet and Borge 2024, 12). Correa et al. (2021) capture this nuance, identifying two major subtypes of new digital parties: authoritarian-personalist and connective. The former makes intensive use of technology to organize and mobilize members and supporters within a top-down, plebiscitary decision-making system, whereas the latter emphasizes the use of digital tools to foster bottom-up, participatory decision-making. Thus, digitalization itself does not enhance internal democracy; it is rather the underlying democratic intent digital technologies are expected to fulfill that determines their impact (Gerbaudo 2019, 4). Although such reforms may represent significant democratic innovations compared to previous mechanisms, they have rarely resulted in substantial improvements in internal party democracy over the medium term. Ultimately, these types of innovations remain far from satisfactory, as the democratic functioning of political parties is not about enabling the mass ratification of decisions (quantity) but about fostering meaningful and inclusive participation (quality) (Presno Linera 2000, 30).

This means that the digitalization of democratic innovations does not always yield purely positive outcomes, primarily because outcomes depend on whether reforms are aggregative or disruptive. Aggregative reforms reflect “a conception of democracy that sees the aggregation of individual preferences as the essence of democratic activity” (Invernizzi-Accetti and Wolkenstein 2017, 101). For example, implementing a primary system for candidate selection based solely on binary voting while disregarding deliberation and preference formation falls into this category (Sandri, Seddone, and Venturino 2015). Although such reforms may represent significant democratic innovations compared to previous mechanisms, they have rarely resulted in substantial improvements in internal party democracy over the medium term. Moreover, these innovations often serve merely to strengthen leadership control over the party’s decision-making process (Katz and Mair 1995) without offering members genuine opportunities to express their preferences among real alternatives. By contrast, disruptive innovations involve intense and radical changes that create significant discontinuities within party organizations and the broader systems in which they operate. These innovations tend to foster deliberation and the collective creation of policy options; as a result, decisions emerge from debate and consensus among all participants.

In addition, from a strategic perspective, the democratization of intraparty decision-making and the opening up of party organizations may also entail significant costs for political actors. More open procedures or disruptive processes may lead to the adoption of measures or policies that diverge from the preferences of party leaders (Serra 2011) but are more closely aligned with the views of the broader party membership (Hazan and Rahat 2011). As a result, these measures are considered more democratic. However, this also implies a loss of control for party elites, which can undermine intraparty cohesion and increase levels of uncertainty and internal conflicts. For this reason, disruptive innovations are less common than aggregative ones. Consequently, one of the defining features of most democratic innovations is that they are often designed and managed by those already in power. Typically, participatory spaces are created in a way that rank-and-file members have little control over them or the participatory process itself (Cornwall 2004; Gaventa 2006).

The lack of participatory culture constitutes another limitation; however, this issue affects not only digital participation but also in-person participatory processes. Active participation requires a shift in mindset, where individuals move from being mere recipients of information to becoming actors who influence decision-making processes. This transition is not always easy. This is primarily because many party members still distrust the actual effectiveness of these mechanisms. If members perceive that decisions are already made before a consultation or vote takes place, they may feel unmotivated to participate. A lack of transparency in internal processes can contribute to this skepticism. In this regard, if the relationship between the base and the leaders of the political force is distant, the former may feel that their voices are not heard or that centralized decisions are undermining their interest in participating. Furthermore, many party members lack the time, energy, or resources to engage fully with the party’s activities.

Daily obligations may leave little space for active participation. The quantity and low quality of information can discourage members, as they may feel unable to keep up or discern relevant discussions. Digital stratification leads to the exclusion of some members, as factors such as age, gender, place of residence, economic status, and educational level can condition digital participation. Internal corruption or the inability to resolve structural issues may demotivate the most active members, causing them to withdraw or limit their involvement. A lack of adequate political education may lead many to feel unqualified to participate meaningfully. There may also be a lack of clear incentives or the fact that parties may not have the necessary infrastructure to support member participation, such as training, materials, or accessible technological resources.

Conclusions

The introduction of intraparty digital democracy measures is arguably the most transformative process many political parties have undergone in the past two decades. As Dommet, Kefford, and Power (2021) note, the digitalization of parties is giving rise to hybrid organizations (Chironi and Fittipaldi 2017), which are more porous and interactive with individuals and their environment. In this way, digital tools provide parties with three distinct dimensions (Barberà 2019): 1) potential for recruitment and grassroots activism through the creation of contact, participation, and deliberation channels; 2) involvement of parties in decision-making; and 3) improvement of transparency and accountability. To these three dimensions, we add a fourth: the potential that digitalization offers for mobilizing financial resources (Gibson and Ward 2009).

Digitalization has enabled parties to act more quickly, cheaply, and inclusively, with some procedures or processes becoming more continuous, generalized, and rapid. It has also introduced processes that were previously impossible, such as internal deliberative procedures; digital technologies now enable thousands of members and supporters, geographically dispersed, to engage in an inclusive and open dialogue.

However, so far, the democratization of political parties in general has yielded mixed results. On the one hand, it has not reversed the widespread negative trend in membership figures (Faucher 2015); the hypercentralization of party processes in some countries has not disappeared with digitalization (Blasio and Viviani 2020), and parties have demonstrated a tendency toward what Stromer-Galley (2014, 104) has called “controlled interactivity” in the adoption of digital tools. While digital possibilities have granted greater roles and visibility to party members and citizens, they have also allowed elites to control these activities. Digitalization has facilitated the growth of informal party networks at the expense of formal organizational procedures, among other things.

On the other hand, it has stimulated participation among party members (Scarrow 2014) who were previously mostly passive. It has led to organizational changes, including both “alterations in formal rules” within the party’s internal regulations and changes in “practices and routines” that are not necessarily codified (Gauja 2017, 17). It has revitalized the party’s direct connection with the electorate, which can be considered particularly important given the decline in membership figures. Specifically, digital technologies enable thousands of members and supporters, geographically dispersed, to engage in inclusive and open dialogue.

In any case, new parties have introduced more innovations that promote direct participation as an alternative to established political parties. As Raniolo and Tarditi (2020) note, these new parties tend to be more inclined to adopt digital tools and disruptive innovations due to a greater need to connect with members and supporters through new channels that respond to heightened participatory sensitivity (Barberà 2019; Chadwick and Stromer-Galley 2016; Lioy, Del Valle, and Gottlieb 2019; Mosca and Quaranta 2017), as well as to address their organizational deficiencies. In contrast, as Barberà (2019) points out, traditional political parties tend to manifest greater resistance to change. However, as they seek to return to the “golden age” of mass parties to revalidate the “legitimizing myth” (Hopkin 2001; Katz and Mair 1995), they too have introduced digital democratic innovations. These, however, are primarily aggregative, as they mostly grant party members the right to participate indirectly.

There are two opposing a priori logics: in the first case, decision-making is assembly-like, and outcomes are adapted through deliberation. This model has its roots in more participatory democratic systems. In the second case, a plebiscitary logic is followed, focusing on the principle of one member, one vote (von dem Berge and Poguntke 2017, 144). The issue is that the adoption, implementation, and diffusion of innovations do not follow a linear process but rather depend on contextual factors that can alter their original objectives, primarily because the innovation promoted can evolve, and its goals, implementation, and relevance may change. This occurs among new parties, which, once they become electorally consolidated and institutionalized, modify part of their objectives and, as a result, begin to develop a certain centralizing tendency. Moreover, these innovations can also evolve unexpectedly as they are implemented and adapted to local realities and changing normative frameworks or simply because they prove to be inefficient or unable to meet their initial expectations, ultimately failing as a central part of the innovation process. Similarly, studies on disruptive innovations highlight that they face not only acceptance barriers but also opposition from power structures that prefer to maintain traditional governance methods (Christensen 1997). Therefore, it seems clear that these innovations do not always remain true to their original objectives because, as they develop, tensions may arise between the ideals of democratization and the political and contextual realities. As a result, this categorization has become blurred, and mixed forms of democratic innovations can be identified now in all parties, displaying characteristics of both plebiscitary and assembly-like modes of participation (Hendriks 2019). Thus, the digitalization gap between new and traditional parties has narrowed.

Finally, although political parties have offered more opportunities for member participation, these may not have been utilized as effectively as initially expected (Katz 2013, 59). This argument aligns with a broad body of literature suggesting that individuals in contemporary societies do not view political participation as inherently valuable but are only willing to engage if the perceived costs of not participating outweigh those of participating (Hibbing and Theiss-Morse 2002; Posner 2003). To address this situation, political parties should consider implementing several countermeasures.

First, greater emphasis should be placed on bottom-up initiatives, particularly on deliberative processes with binding mandates, which would ensure more active and meaningful participation from members, as well as more extensive inclusion in the party’s internal life. Second, the management of platforms and decision-making processes should be entrusted to an independent committee, separate from the party leadership, thereby reducing the level of centralization in decision-making. This would protect against the risk of manipulating online voting or controlling deliberative processes and help restore credibility in digital democracy. Third, these processes should be significantly more participatory, moving beyond dichotomous decision-making and supporting member-driven initiatives. This would ensure that the procedures are more democratic and that participation is perceived as central to party life. Fourth, parties should implement training courses to reduce the digital divide among members and establish participation centers in areas with poor coverage or for members who lack access to adequate digital resources.

All this implies adopting a less naive approach, acknowledging the persistence of power structures, and admitting that digital technology, far from eliminating them, may serve to reinforce and obscure them. Additionally, it highlights the difficulties that party members may face in participation due to insufficient knowledge and resources.

References

  1. Ardanuy Pizarro, Miguel, and Eric Labuske. 2015. “El músculo deliberativo del algoritmo democrático: Podemos y la participación ciudadana.” Revista Teknokultura 12 (1): 93-110. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_TK.2015.v12.n1.48887
  2. Barberà, Oscar, Giulia Sandri, Patricia Correa, and Juan Rodríguez-Teruel. 2021. Digital Parties. Studies in Digital Politics and Governance. London: Springer.
  3. Barberà, Oscar. 2019. “Decidir de otra manera: la transformación de los modelos de partido ante las nuevas tecnologías.” In La Digitalización de los Partidos Políticos y el Uso del Voto Electrónico, edited by Jordi Barrat i Esteve and Miguel Pérez-Moneo, 47-64. Pamplona: Thomson Reuters-Aranzadi.
  4. Blasio, Emiliana de, and Lorenzo Viviani. 2020. “Platform Party Between Digital Activism and Hyper-Leadership: The Reshaping of the Public Sphere.” Media and Communication 8 (4): 16-27. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i4.3230
  5. Bolleyer, Nicole. 2008. “Inside the Cartel Party: Party Organisation in Government and Opposition.” Political Studies 56: 559-579. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00741.x
  6. Borz, Gabriela, and Kenneth Janda. 2020. “Contemporary Trends in Party Organization: Revisiting Intraparty Democracy.” Party Politics 26 (1): 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068818754605
  7. Bronet, Jorge, and Rosa Borge. 2024. “A Generational Approach to the Crisis Parties: Common Origins and Common Features.” Acta Politologica 16 (2): 9-33. https://doi.org/10.14712/1803-8220/14_2024
  8. Carty, Kenneth R. 2004. “Parties as Franchise Systems. The Stratarchical Organizational Imperative.” Party Politics 10: 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068804039118
  9. Carty, Kenneth R. 2013. “Are Political Parties Meant to Be Democratic?” In The Challenges of Intra-Party Democracy, edited by William Cross and Richard Katz, 11-26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Chadwick, Andrew, and Jennifer Stromer-Galley. 2016. “Digital Media, Power, and Democracy in Parties and Election Campaigns: Party Decline or Party Renewal?” The International Journal of Press/Politics 21 (3): 283-293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161216646731
  11. Chiaramonte, Alessandro, and Vicenzo Emanuele. 2022. The Deinstitutionalization of Western European Party Systems. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
  12. Chironi, Daniela, and Raffaella Fittipaldi. 2017. “Social Movements and New Forms of Political Organization: Podemos as a Hybrid Party.” Partecipazione e Conflitto 10 (1): 275-305. https://doi.org/10.1285/i20356609v10i1p275
  13. Christensen, Clayton. 1997. The Innovator’s Dilemma. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
  14. Close, Caroline, and Sergiu Gherghina. 2019. “Rethinking Intra-Party Cohesion: Towards a Conceptual and Analytical Framework.” Party Politics 25 (5): 652-663. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068819836044
  15. Colombo, Clelia. 2006. “Innovación democrática y TIC: ¿Hacia una democracia participativa?” Revista de Internet, Derecho y Política 3: 28-40. https://raco.cat/index.php/IDP/article/view/49962
  16. Cornwall, Andrea. 2004. “Introduction: New Democratic Spaces? The Politics and Dynamics of Institutionalised Participation.” IDS Bulletin 35 (2): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2004.tb00115.x
  17. Correa, Patricia, Oscar Barberà, Juan Rodríguez-Teruel, and Giulia Sandri. 2021. “The Digitalisation of Political Parties in Comparative Perspective.” In Digital Parties: The Challenges of Online Organisation and Participation, edited by Oscar Barberà, 287-304. Cham: Springer.
  18. Cross, William P., and André Blais. 2009. Who Selects the Party Leader? Paper for the ECPR Joint Sessions, Lisbon.
  19. Cross, William P., and Jean-Benoit Pilet. 2016. The Politics of Party Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  20. Cross, William P., and Richard S. Katz. 2013. The Challenges of Intra-Party Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  21. Dahl, Robert A. 1970. After the Revolution? Authority in a Good Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  22. Dalton, Russell J., and Martin P. Wattenberg. 2000. Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  23. Deseriis, Marco, and Davide Vittori. 2019. “The Impact of Online Participation Platforms on the Internal Democracy of Two Southern European Parties: Podemos and the Five Star Movement.” International Journal of Communication 13: 5696-5714. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/10804
  24. Detterbeck, Klaus. 2005. “Cartel Parties in Western Europe?” Party Politics 11 (2): 173-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068805049738
  25. Díaz-Montiel, Alberto. 2025. “El PSOE y el PS (2008-2024): ¿la democratización interna supone digitalización?”. Colombia Internacional 123: 61-80. https://doi.org/10.7440/colombiaint123.2025.03
  26. Dommett, Katharine, Glenn Kefford, and Sam Power. 2021. “The Digital Ecosystem: The New Politics of Party Organization in Parliamentary Democracies.” Party Politics 27 (5): 847-857. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068820907667
  27. Duverger, Maurice. 1951. Les Partis Politiques. Paris: Colin.
  28. Esteve del Valle, Marc, and Rosa Borge. 2018. “Leaders or Brokers? Potential Influencers in Online Parliamentary Networks.” Policy & Internet 10 (1): 61-86. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.150
  29. Faucher, Florence. 2015. “New Forms of Political Participation. Changing Demands or Changing Opportunities to Participate in Political Parties?” Comparative European Politics 13: 405-429.
  30. Fischer, Michaela, and Fabrizio Gilardi. 2023. “Level Playing Field or Politics as Usual? Equalization–Normalization in Direct Democratic Online Campaigns.” Media and Communication 11 (1): 43-55. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i1.6004
  31. Fishkin, James S., and Jane Mansbridge. 2017. “Introduction: The Prospects & Limits of Deliberative Democracy.” Daedalus 146 (3): 6-13. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_x_00442
  32. Gallagher, Michael, and Michael Marsh. 1988. Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective: The Secret Garden of Politics. London: Sage Publications.
  33. Gauja, Anika. 2015. “The Individualisation of Party Politics: The Impact of Changing Internal Decision-Making Processes on Policy Development and Citizen Engagement.” British Journal of Politics & International Relations 17 (1): 89-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.12035
  34. Gauja, Anika. 2017. Party Reform: The Causes, Challenges, and Consequences of Organizational Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  35. Gaventa, John. 2006. “Finding the Spaces for Change: A Power Analysis.” IDS Bulletin 37 (6): 23-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006.tb00320.x
  36. Gerbaudo, Paolo. 2019. The Digital Party: Political Organisation and Online Democracy. London: Pluto Press.
  37. Gibson, Rachel K., and Stephen J. Ward. 1999. “Party Democracy On-Line: UK Parties and New ICTs.” Information, Communication and Society 2 (3): 340-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/136911899359628
  38. Gibson, Richard, and Stephen Ward. 2009. “Parties in the Digital Age: A Review Article.” Representation 45: 87-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344890802710888
  39. Gómez, Raúl, and Luis Ramiro. 2019. “The Limits of Organizational Innovation and Multi-Speed Membership: Podemos and Its New Forms of Party Membership.” Party Politics 25 (4): 534-546. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068817742844
  40. González-Cacheda, Bruno. 2018. “Marcos y Estructuras de Movilización Digitales para la Financiación y la Democratización de los Actores Políticos: del 15M a Podemos.” Espacios Públicos 53: 36-54.
  41. González-Cacheda, Bruno, and Celso Cancela Outeda. 2021. “Political Crowdfunding and Resource Mobilization for Collective Action: The Keys to Success.” Technology in Society 67: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101743
  42. González-Cacheda, Bruno, and Javier Vázquez-Refojos. 2020. “Del 15M a Podemos. Rupturas y Continuidades en un Proceso de Incipiente Cartelización.” Inguruak. Revista Vasca de Sociología y Ciencia Política 68: 21-49. https://doi.org/10.18543/INGURUAK-68-2020-ART03
  43. González Galán, Fernando. 2025. “Impactos de las innovaciones democráticas digitales en los partidos políticos: los miedos de incomunicación a través del marketing electoral digitalizado”. Colombia Internacional 123: 31-59. https://doi.org/10.7440/colombiaint123.2025.02
  44. Grusell, Marie, and Lars Nord. 2016. “Setting the Trend or Changing the Game? Professionalization and Digitalization of Election Campaigns in Sweden.” Journal of Political Marketing 19 (3): 258-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2016.1228555
  45. Gustafsson, Nils. 2012. “The Subtle Nature of Facebook Politics: Swedish Social Network Site Users and Political Participation.” New Media and Society 14 (7): 1111-1127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812439551
  46. Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  47. Harmel, Robert, and Lars Svasand. (1993). “Party Leadership and Party Institutionalisation: Three Phases of Development.” West European Politics 16 (2): 67-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402389308424961
  48. Hazan, Reuven Y., and Gideon Rahat. 2010. Democracy Within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods and Their Political Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  49. Hazan, Reuven Y., and Gideon Rahat. 2011. “Parties, Politicians and Parliaments: The Impact of Democratizing Candidate Selection on Party Unity.” Paper in Parties as Organizations and Parties as Systems. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
  50. Held, David. 1995. Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.
  51. Hendriks, Frank. 2019. “Democratic Innovation Beyond Deliberative Reflection: The Plebiscitary Rebound and the Advent of Action-Oriented Democracy.” Democratization 26 (3): 444-464. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2018.1547896
  52. Hibbing, John R., and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  53. Hopkin, Jonathan. 2001. “Bringing the Members Back In? Democratizing Candidate Selection in Britain and Spain.” Party Politics 7 (3): 343-361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068801007003005
  54. Hortala-Vallve, Rafael, and Hannas Mueller. 2010. “Primaries: The Unifying Force.” Barcelona GSE Working Paper 496: 1-30.
  55. Ignazi, Piero. 2020. “The Four Knights of Intra-Party Democracy: A Rescue for Party Delegitimation.” Party Politics 26 (1): 9-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068818754599
  56. Ignazi, Piero, and Chiara Fiorelli. 2021. “The End of Cornucopia: Party Financing After the Great Recession.” Government and Opposition 57 (2): 193-216. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.3
  57. Invernizzi-Accetti, Carlo, and Fabio Wolkenstein. 2017. “The Crisis of Party Democracy: Cognitive Mobilization, and the Case for Making Parties More Deliberative.” American Political Science Review 111 (1): 97-109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055416000526
  58. Jovanović, Tanja. 2019. “Crowdfunding: What Do We Know So Far?” International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 16 (1): 1950009. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877019500093
  59. Katz, Richard S. 2013. “Should We Believe That Improved Intra-Party Democracy Would Arrest Party Decline?” In The Challenges of Intra-Party Democracy, edited by William P. Cross and Richard S. Katz, 49-64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  60. Katz, Richard S., and Mair, Peter. 1995. “Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party.” Party Politics 1 (1): 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540688950010010
  61. Kenig, Ofer. 2009. “Democratization of Party Leadership Selection: Do Wider Selectorates Produce More Competitive Contests?” Electoral Studies 28 (2): 240-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2008.11.001
  62. Kitschelt, Herbert. 1989. “The Internal Politics of Parties: The Law of Curvilinear Disparity Revisited.” Political Studies 37: 400-421. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1989.tb00279.x
  63. Kittilson, Miki Caul, and Susan E. Scarrow. 2003. “Political Parties and the Rhetoric and Realities of Democratization.” In Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies, edited by Bruce E. Cain, Russell J. Dalton, and Susan E. Scarrow, 59-80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  64. LeDuc, Lawrence. 2001. “Democratizing Party Leadership Selection.” Party Politics 7 (3): 323-341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068801007003004
  65. Levitsky, Steven. (1998). “Institutionalization and Peronism: The Concept, the Case and the Case for Unpacking the Concept.” Party Politics 4 (1): 77-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/135406889800400100
  66. Lioy, Alberto, Esteve del Valle, and Julián Gottlieb. 2019. “Platform Politics: Party Organisation in the Digital Age.” Information Polity 24: 41-58. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-180093
  67. Löfgren, Karl. 2000. “Danish Political Parties and New Technology: Interactive Parties or New Shop Windows?” In Democratic Governance and New Technology. Technologically Mediated Innovations in Political Practice in Western Europe, edited by Jens Hoff, Ivan Horrocks, and Pieter Tops, 57-70. London and New York: Routledge.
  68. Löfgren, Karl. 2003. “Intra-Party Use of New ICTs – Bringing Memberships Back In?” Paper prepared for ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, Edinburgh, Scotland.
  69. Loxbo, Karla. 2013. “The Fate of Intra-Party Democracy: Leadership Autonomy and Activist Influence in the Mass Party and the Cartel Party.” Party Politics 19 (4): 537-554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068811407583
  70. Lusoli, Wainer, and Stephen J. Ward. 2004. “Digital Rank-and-File: Party Activists’ Perceptions and Use of the Internet.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6 (4): 453-470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2004.00150.x
  71. Mansbridge, Jane, James Bohman, Simone Chambers, Thomas Christiano, Archon Fung, John Parkinson, Dennis F. Thompson, and Mark E. Warren. 2012. “A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy.” In Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, edited by John Parkinson and Jane Mansbridge, 1-26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  72. Margetts, Helen Z. 2006. “Cyberparties.” In Handbook of Party Politics, edited by Richard S. Katz and William Crotty, 528-535. London: SAGE Publications.
  73. Michels, Robert. 1962. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. New York: Free Press.
  74. Mosca, Lorenzo, and Mario Quaranta. 2017. “Voting for Movement Parties in Southern Europe: The Role of Protest and Digital Information.” South European Society and Politics 22 (4): 427-446. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2017.1411980
  75. Muirhead, Russell. 2006. “A Defense of Party Spirit.” Perspectives on Politics 4 (4): 713-727. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592706060452
  76. Muirhead, Russell. 2014. The Promise of Party in a Polarized Age. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  77. Muirhead, Russell, and Nancy Rosenblum. 2012. “The Partisan Connection.” California Law Review Circuit 3: 99-112.
  78. Mutz, Diana C. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  79. Norris, Pippa. 2001. Digital Divide. Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  80. Norris, Pippa. 2005. Building Political Parties: Reforming Legal Regulations and Internal Rules. Boston: Report commissioned by International IDEA.
  81. Norris, Pippa. 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  82. Novelli, Claudio, Giuliano Formisano, Prathm Juneja, Giulia Sandri, and Luciano Floridi. 2024. “Artificial Intelligence for the Internal Democracy of Political Parties.” Minds and Machines 34: 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-024-09693-x
  83. Núñez, Lidia, Caroline Close, and Camilie Bedock. 2016. “Changing Democracy? Why Inertia Is Winning over Innovation.” Representation 52 (4): 341-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2017.1317656
  84. Papadopoulos, Yannis, and Philippe Warin. 2007. “Are Innovative, Participatory and Deliberative Procedures in Policy Making Democratic and Effective?” European Journal of Political Research 46 (4): 445-472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00696.x
  85. Pateman, Carole. 2012. “Participatory Democracy Revisited.” Perspectives on Politics 10 (1): 7-19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592711004877
  86. Pedersen, Helen H. 2010. “How Intra-Party Power Relations Affect the Coalition Behaviour of Political Parties.” Party Politics 16 (6): 737-754. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068809345855
  87. Pedersen, Karina, and Jo Saglie. 2005. “New Technology in Ageing Parties. Internet Use in Danish and Norwegian Parties.” Party Politics 11 (3): 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068805051782
  88. Peña, Alejandro, and Tomás Gold. 2023. “The Party-on-the-Net: The Digital Face of Partisan Organization and Activism.” Information, Communication and Society 26 (16): 3257-3274. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2022.2147399
  89. Pettitt, Robin T. 2012. “Exploring Variations in Intra-Party Democracy: A Comparative Study of the British Labour Party and the Danish Centre-Left.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 14 (4): 630-650. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2011.00475.x
  90. Posner, Richard. 2003. Law, Pragmatism and Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  91. Presno Linera, Miguel Ángel. 2000. Los partidos y las distorsiones jurídicas de la democracia. Barcelona: Ariel S.A.
  92. Rahat, Gideon, Reuven Hazan, and Richard Katz. 2008. “Democracy and Political Parties. On the Uneasy Relationships Between Participation, Competition and Representation.” Party Politics 14 (6): 663-683. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068808093405
  93. Rahat, Gideon, and Assaf Shapira. 2017. “An Intra-Party Democracy Index: Theory, Design and a Demonstration.” Parliamentary Affairs 70: 84-110. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsv068
  94. Randall, Vicky, and Lars Svasand. 2002. “Party Institutionalization in New Democracies.” Party Politics 8 (1): 5-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068802008001001
  95. Raniolo, Francesco, and Valeria Tarditi. 2020. “Digital Revolution and Party Innovations: An Analysis of the Spanish Case.” Italian Political Science Review 50 (2): 235-253. https://doi.org/10.1017/ipo.2019.27
  96. Rodríguez-Teruel, Juan, Oscar Barberà, Astrid Barrio, and Monserrat Baras. 2011. “¿Se han hecho más democráticos los partidos en España? La evolución en las reglas de elección del líder (1977-2008).” Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales 52 (208): 159-183. https://doi.org/10.22201/fcpys.2448492xe.2010.208.25939
  97. Ryan, Matt, and Graham Smith. 2012. “Towards a Comparative Analysis of Democratic Innovations: Lessons from a Pilot Fs-Qca of Participatory Budgeting.” Revista Internacional de Sociología 70 (extra_2): 89-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/ris.2012.01.28
  98. Sampedro, Víctor, and José Manuel Sánchez-Duarte. 2011. “La red era la plaza.” In Cibercampaña. Cauces y diques para la participación. Las elecciones generales de 2008 y su proyección tecnopolítica, edited by Víctor Sampedro, 237-246. Madrid: Editorial Complutense.
  99. Sánchez Medero, Gema, and F. Ramón Villaplana. 2024. “A Technocratic Way? Elite-Led Democratic Innovations Within Conservative Parties.” Acta Politologica 16 (2): 34-48. https://doi.org/10.14712/1803-8220/13_2024
  100. Sandri, Giulia, Antonella Seddone, and Fluvio Venturino. 2015. Party Primaries in Comparative Perspective. London: Ashgate.
  101. Sandri, Giulia, Fabio García Lupato, Marco Meloni, Felix von Nostitz, and Oscar Barberà. 2024. “Mapping the Digitalisation of European Political Parties.” Information, Communication & Society 27 (7): 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2343369
  102. Scarrow, Susan E. 2005. Political Parties and Democracy in Theoretical and Practical Perspectives: Implementing Intra-Party Democracy. Washington, DC: National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.
  103. Scarrow, Susan E. 2014. Beyond Party Members: Changing Approaches to Partisan Mobilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  104. Scarrow, Susan E., and Burcu Gezgor. 2010. “Declining Memberships, Changing Members? European Political Party Members in a New Era.” Party Politics 16 (6): 823-843. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068809346078
  105. Scarrow, Susan, Paul D. Webb, and David Farrell. 2000. “From Social Integration to Electoral Contestation.” In Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, edited by Russell J. Dalton and Martin P. Wattenberg, 41-63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  106. Scarrow, Susan E., Paul D. Webb, and Thomas Poguntke. 2022. “Intra-Party Decision-Making in Contemporary Europe: Improving Representation or Ruling with Empty Shells?” Irish Political Studies 37 (2): 196-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2022.2046430
  107. Serra, Gilles. 2011. “Why Primaries? The Party’s Tradeoff between Policy and Valence.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 23 (1): 21-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629810382805
  108. Smith, Graham. 2009. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  109. Smith, Graham. 2019. “Lessons from Democratic Innovations.” In Whose Government Is It? The Renewal of State-Citizen Cooperation, edited by Henry Tam, 91-108. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
  110. Stromer-Galley, Jennifer. 2014. Presidential Campaigning in the Internet Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  111. Teorell, Jan. 1999. “A Deliberative Defense of Intra-Party Democracy.” Party Politics 5 (3): 363-382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068899005003006
  112. Urbinati, Nadia. 2014. Democracy Disfigured. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  113. van Haute, Emilie, and Anika Gauja. 2015. Party Members and Activists. London: Routledge.
  114. van Haute, Emilie, and Pedro Floriano Ribeiro. 2022. “Country or Party? Variations in Party Membership around the Globe.” European Political Science Review 14 (3): 281-295. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773922000188
  115. Villaplana, F. Ramón, Adrián Megías, and Óscar Barberà. 2023. “Party Primaries and Turnout: Meso-Level Explanations.” Party Politics 31 (1): 86-100. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540688231199450
  116. Villaplana, F. Ramón, Adrián Megías, and Giulia Sandría. 2023. “From Open Government to Open Parties in Europe: A Framework for Analysis.” Frontiers in Political Science 5: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2023.1095241
  117. Villaplana, F. Ramón. 2025. “Primarias y consultas intrapartidistas en escenarios híbridos: clasificación y elementos de análisis”. Colombia Internacional 123: 81-100. https://doi.org/10.7440/colombiaint123.2025.04
  118. von dem Berge, Benjamin, and Thomas Poguntke. 2017. “Varieties of Intra-Party Democracy: Conceptualization and Index Construction.” In Organizing Political Parties: Representation, Participation, and Power, edited by Susan E. Scarrow, Paul D. Webb, and Thomas Poguntke, 136-157. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  119. Ward, Stephen, and Rachel Gibson. 2009. “European Political Organizations and the Internet: Mobilization, Participation, and Change.” In Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, edited by Andrew Chadwick and Philip N. Howard, 25-39. London and New York: Routledge.
  120. Wauters, Bram, and Anna Kern. 2020. “Does It Pay Off? The Effects of Party Leadership Elections on Parties’ Trustworthiness and Appeal to Voters.” Political Studies 69 (4): 881-899. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720932064
  121. Wauters, Bram, Juan Rodríguez-Teruel, Óscar Barberá, and Astrid Barrio. 2011. “Obligation and Belief: Leadership Selection in Belgium and Spain.” Working paper. Barcelona: Institut de Ciències Polítiques i Socials.
  122. Wolkenstein, Fabio. 2016. “A Deliberative Model of Intra-Party Democracy.” Journal of Political Philosophy 24 (3): 297-320. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12064

Gema Sánchez Medero holds a PhD in Political Science from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Spain). She is a tenured university professor and Director of the Instituto Complutense de Ciencia de la Administración. Her research focuses on political parties, politico-administrative institutions, and transparency. Recent publications: “A Technocratic Way? Elite-Led Democratic Innovations Within Conservative Parties” (in coauthorship), Acta Politologica 16 (2): 34-48, 2024, https://doi.org/10.14712/1803-8220/13_2024; and “Digital Models for the Selection of Party Organs and Election Candidates in Spanish Political Parties: The Impact of Intraparty Democracy,” Frontiers in Political Science 6: 1-17, 2024, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2024.1442331. * gsmedero@cps.ucm.es ✳ https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8047-0472

Rubén Sánchez Medero holds a PhD in Political Science from Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (Spain). He is a professor of political science in the Department of Social Sciences at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (Spain). His research focuses on political communication, cognitive biases, institutional communication, and party and institutional systems. Recent publications: “Technological Revolution 4.0 and New Forms of Political Communication and Information,” in International Relations and Technological Revolution 4.0. Contributions to International Relations, edited by David Hernández Martínez and José Miguel Calvillo Cisneros, 189-205 (Cham: Springer, 2024), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66750-3_12; and “Should You Put an Emoticon on Your Flag? How Subliminal Visual Stimuli Can Change Political Opinions” (in coauthorship), Nationalities Papers 52 (5): 1005-1024, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2023.62. * rsmedero@polsoc.uc3m.es ✳ https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8799-5685