ORIGINAL PROPOSAL · OPEN FOR DISCUSSION
The political party as an accountable organisation
A proposal for professional management, local autonomy and internal democracy. Initiator: George Dobritoiu.
The starting point
A political party could adopt the discipline of a well-run organisation: clear roles, accountable budgets, competent teams and assessment of results. These tools should serve the public interest and democratic decisions by members.
George Dobritoiu formulated the idea in May 2025 and revisited it in June 2026 as a “franchise party”: a shared national centre with semi-autonomous local branches. “ACTIV” was a working name. This page is an updated editorial synthesis, not a reproduction of the complete original document.
Professional management under democratic control
Teams would receive a mandate, resources, named responsibilities and deadlines. Members would elect the governing council and determine the organisation’s direction. The council would approve strategy and budgets, while an executive team would manage daily operations under a limited, reviewable mandate.
Independent oversight would review finances, conflicts of interest and compliance with agreed procedures. Decisions would have documented reasons, a right of reply and an appeal process handled by people not involved in the initial decision.
Local autonomy and common standards
The national centre would provide shared values, identity, training and digital tools. Local branches would develop community priorities and account for their work. “Franchise” is an organisational analogy: the proposal does not envisage buying branches, selling candidacies or granting political control in return for funding.
Selection and evaluation
Executive roles would have published competence criteria, interviews and periodic reviews. Elected positions and candidacies would retain member participation and rules announced in advance. Integrity checks would need to be proportionate, documented and open to correction.
Traceable funding and decisions
- Approved budgets, documented expenditure and understandable periodic reports.
- Declarations of relevant interests and recusal where conflicts arise.
- Independent audit with published findings and corrective actions.
- A proposed digital platform for projects, consultations, internal voting and reporting, with access controls and personal-data protection.
What would be measured?
Indicators would cover delivery of organisational commitments, timely reporting, member participation, quality of proposals and handling of complaints. Electoral results would not replace integrity or quality of work. Every indicator would have a definition, source and verification process; the proposal does not include automated scoring of members’ opinions.
A pilot before expansion
The editorial proposal is a six-month trial with two or three voluntary local teams. No pilot, implementation team or funding is currently confirmed. The stages would be agreement on rules and appeals, a baseline and detailed budget, testing of reporting and consultation, and independent evaluation before expansion.
Coordination, legal advice, accounting, audit, training and digital infrastructure require costing. Budget amounts and funding sources remain to be established.
Risks and limits
Concentrated power, unaccountable local autonomy, manipulated indicators and sanctions against legitimate disagreement are key risks. The proposed safeguards are separation of duties, independent review, reasoned decisions and impartial appeals.
Implementation would require debate and legal review covering party organisation, financing, electoral procedures and personal data. This presentation does not establish that a statute is legally compliant.
Contribute
Feedback on internal democracy, local organisation, audit and digital security is welcome. The concept’s author is George Dobritoiu. Collaborators and relevant interests would be disclosed as an implementation team develops.