At the Welsh Liberal Democrat Autumn Conference in November, members will debate a constitutional amendment I’ve submitted to broaden eligibility for the leadership of our party and make the nomination process more accessible. It raises an important question: when our parliamentary representation is small, should our constitution restrict members’ choice of leader before potential candidates have even decided whether to stand?

Following Jane Dodds’ decision to stand down, David Chadwick has put himself forward as her successor. Under our current rules, he is the only other person eligible to stand.

These proposed changes are not about David’s suitability for the role. From what I have seen, he has the energy and ambition to make a very good leader. He has made a real impact in Westminster, often being a more effective voice for Wales than all the other Welsh MP’s combined.

But I believe his leadership would be strengthened by a more open selection process. There is an important distinction between being unopposed because nobody else chooses to stand and being unopposed because nobody else is permitted to stand. The former may not produce a direct mandate from a membership ballot, but it provides a much stronger foundation of democratic legitimacy.

Andy Burnham offers a valuable illustration of how a mandate can be provided unopposed, and how leadership can change the direction and public perception of a political party. Although he became Labour leader without a membership ballot, other MPs had the opportunity to stand, and his overwhelming support among parliamentary colleagues provided a democratic mandate of its own.

Zack Polanski’s rise within the Greens demonstrates something else, the power of effective political communication, but compelling soundbites are not a substitute for developing credible policies and exercising sound judgement. Taxing billionaires might make an attractive headline, but how would it work, what are the wider economic consequences, and what difficult choices would implementation require? His decision not to participate in the Greens’ recent debate on whether Zionism is racism also raises questions about the responsibility of leaders to engage with difficult and divisive decisions. Leadership requires more than communicating an appealing message; it requires an underlying philosophy and the willingness to put it into practice.

A leader is much more than the person who appears on television or speaks for the party in Parliament. Those things matter, but leadership also means setting a direction, building a team, resolving disagreements, developing future candidates and giving members a reason to commit their time and energy. In a party heavily dependent on volunteers, that internal leadership is not a luxury. It is fundamental to our success.

What does it actually mean to belong to a political party? Too often, parties risk treating their members primarily as a resource. We ask them to pay subscriptions, campaign and defend decisions made elsewhere. Yet members are not simply a campaigning workforce. They are participants in a democratic organisation, entitled to influence its direction and hold its leadership accountable.

Choosing a leader is central to that relationship. A leadership election should be more than a mechanism for filling a vacancy. It is an opportunity to debate the party’s direction, challenge assumptions, test competing ideas and engage members in deciding what sort of organisation they want to build. A leader who emerges from that process has a stronger foundation from which to ask members to follow, to make difficult decisions and to lead change. Equally, that mandate carries responsibilities: to listen, explain decisions and remain accountable.

Some colleagues have raised concerns that a leader outside Parliament might lack the resources, time or public profile required for the job. Others question how such a leader would work with our parliamentary representatives.

Those are legitimate concerns, but surely they are questions for candidates to answer and members to judge, rather than for our constitution to decide in advance?

My motion does not suggest that a candidate or councillor would necessarily make a better leader than an MP or Senedd Member. It simply gives members a wider choice when our parliamentary numbers are small, while reducing nomination barriers that can favour those with established connections.

Ultimately, this debate is about the distinction between eligibility and suitability. Constitutional rules determine who is permitted to stand. Members should determine who is best suited to lead.

We trust voters to choose their representatives. We trust members to campaign for our values and defend our policies.

Surely we should trust them to choose their own leader?

* Steve Aicheler is a Lib Dem member, activist and Community Councillor in Machen, Caerphilly, and can be found online on Bluesky at @steveaich.bsky.social and on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/SteveALibDems