As a result, although certain decisions are still centralised at the executive level, from an institutional perspective one can argue that DAHR presents the adaptation of a new mass party model, with decentralised and inclusive mechanisms of recruitment and decision-making.
From an institutional perspective, the general image of DAHR is one of a democratic organisation allowing open recruitment as well as integrative processes of decision-making.
DAHR is seen as a modern and responsible party synchronised with European values.
Furthermore, it will be shown that the only layer considering that the party should follow its track without changing the external strategy of DAHR is represented by the party representatives in public offices (national and county representatives) but, at the same time, these elites exhibit the highest level of disagreement and thus the possibility of conflict regarding this issue.
The general positioning of party delegates regarding the internal functioning of DAHR suggests the existence of intra party discontent and the articulation of internal opposing camps.
Furthermore, until 2008 DAHR had no woman as an MP.
At the same time, the main difference between DAHR and the other parliamentary parties consists in the degree of party discipline of DAHR members.
If the institutional analysis of DAHR suggested the existence of democratic procedures of recruitment and the study of the party delegates to the Congress unveiled a positive attitude towards the internal party democracy, when looking at the recruitment outcomes, the results are quite unbalanced.