Socialism is the democratisation of every level of society, or it is nothing. It is based on an understanding that the concentration of wealth and power leaves democracy hollowed out, and that simply trooping to a polling station every few years is an insufficient counterweight to the behemoths of global capital. Under the prevailing system, the same vested interests remain in power whoever is in office, which is why a transformative government must seek to democratise the workplace, the economy and all of society’s pivotal structures, from the media to local government. But if this is Labour’s mission, it must surely begin at home; and here, the noises are distinctly mixed.

A future contest could feature no candidate aligned with the grassroots of one of the biggest parties in Europe

Labour’s democracy review was launched with hopes of upending an era of top-down contempt for the membership. From the 1980s onwards, members were increasingly treated as out-of-touch leftwing eccentrics who had helped condemn Labour to electoral disaster. A cordon sanitaire was needed around both the activists and the trade unions who were treated “like embarrassing relatives that need to be locked in the attic”, as Ed Miliband memorably put it. Ironically, this mentality drove the Labour right to demand the abolition of the party’s electoral college for electing leaders – divided into three equal sections of members, MPs and trade unionists – and the introduction of its £3 registered supporters’ scheme. That would allow the centre-ground public to flood into the party, went the rationale, and dilute the union and activist left. Before Jeremy Corbyn entered the 2015 leadership race, Liz Kendall’s team were boasting the Blairite candidate could win a million votes (in the end, it was fewer than 19,000). One of the greatest own goals in modern British political history helped create one of the biggest political parties in the western world, but one committed to socialism rather than rehashed Blairite triangulation.

Yet a fudge emerging from discussions of Labour’s National Executive Committee has provoked consternation. At present, Labour MPs are automatically reselected to fight the next general election, unless 50% of the party and affiliated union branches say otherwise. The Labour leadership were right to resist mandatory reselection of MPs when their position was precarious. Having presented a socialist manifesto to the electorate and won 40% of the vote, surely the party can afford to devolve more power to members. Momentum argues that all MPs should face a fresh selection battle before every election. The compromise suggestion that the NEC looks likely to back is to reduce the threshold to trigger a reselection to 30% of branches. But even this puts Labour out of kilter with other parties: Conservative MPs have to be reselected by a majority of the local party executive; Liberal Democrat and SNP MPs have to win a reselection vote in their local parties. In the US, elected representatives from both main parties face regular open primaries.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Leadership contenders in 2015 (L to R): Jeremy Corbyn, Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall and Andy Burnham. Photograph: Owen Humphreys/PA

The current system breeds a particularly negative form of campaigning: activists have to single out MPs they wish to challenge. Each and every one becomes a martyred cause célèbre in the press. An open selection every few years– triggered, for example, if another candidate wins signatures of support from 5% of local members – would be far healthier. It would not cause mass deselections: MPs across the spectrum with good relationships with local members would have nothing to fear. It would simply encourage MPs to nurture closer relationships with their local members.

An obvious challenge is: if an MP has already won the confidence of local constituents, should that not be sufficient? But three-quarters of Britons don’t even know who their local MP is; and just 6% of Labour supporters voted for the party because of the local candidate.

Unions understandably fear that their power would be weakened. The Labour party was founded, after all, as the political wing of organised labour. The unions have long provided an organic relationship between the party and working-class communities, and – at times – were all that stopped Labour becoming a husk, rootless, overrun by careerist hacks and time-servers. But their levels of resources and staffing mean unions would still play a decisive role in internal contests.

Another proposed fudge is over nominations for the leadership. Candidates currently need to win the nominations of 10% of MPs to go forward to the ballot of all members. One mooted reform actually raises the bar, requiring leadership candidates to secure the support of 10% of MPs, plus 5% of local parties and at least three affiliates that cover 5% of affiliated union membership.

Labour party conference will vote for reselection, says Chris Williamson Read more

Leadership reforms aside, the reality that should defuse both the Labour left’s triumphalism and the right’s despondency is that there is no obvious successor to Corbyn. Corbyn’s politics are dominant among the membership, but marginal in the parliamentary party. Privately, Corbyn supporters fear an eventual succession by a “soft left” candidate who will junk policies on nationalisation and bring back the old party establishment. A future contest could feasibly feature no candidate with politics aligned with the grassroots of one of the biggest political parties in Europe. Surely a prospective candidate should make the cut if they win the backing of 5% of MPs, or of unions, or of local parties.

Genuine democracy is frequently messy, not stage-managed. But the decisions of Labour’s membership over the last three years have spared it the same fate as its European sister parties, who, in many cases, now face electoral oblivion. It doesn’t mean packing the parliamentary party with the uncritical and relentlessly on-message: Labour needs MPs committed to socialism, who are prepared to criticise the party’s failure to commit to reversing all benefits cuts, or to push for more radical tax policies, or to speak out more passionately in defence of migrants. Those future leaders exist, but the membership must be given the power to discover and support them. Labour’s mission is to democratise Britain: but first, it must surely democratise itself.

• Owen Jones is a Guardian columnist