Tenuous rules
Albert Einstein is noted to have counselled that there is “nothing more destructive of respect for government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.”
Advertisement
That is the issue confronting the New Patriotic Party (NPP) as it struggles to ensure congruence between words and deeds with the process of selecting a flag bearer.
Under the party’s rules governing the election of a presidential candidate this year, some provisions have been made to restrain party officials and members of Parliament (MPs) from using their influences to commit their members to support individual aspirants. But, does that mean their inalienable rights to support a candidate of their choice have been curtailed?
The clauses purporting to restrain such officials of the party do not suggest personal restraint. Indeed, the provisions appear tenuous and could be interpreted differently. The provisions do not suggest that those involved cannot make their personal preferences publicly known.
It is instructive to note the relevant provisions and then proceed to discuss them. The first clause states that “Party officers at all levels — national, regional, constituency electoral area, polling station, overseas branch (international), as well as MPs — shall refrain from openly declaring support of any branch, constituency, or organ for any individual candidate or campaigning for them”. The other restriction is that “no national, regional, constituency, electoral area, polling station or overseas branch officer shall issue a press statement in support of any candidate.”
The inevitable question is, although phrased in mandatory terms, are the restrictions imposed on the affected persons in their official or private capacities or in both. If a constituency chairman offers his or her personal support to a candidate without entangling the constituency, will that fail or pass the litmus test? What about when an interview is granted to the media, will that be construed to equate a press statement or what?
It is imperative for the rules to be unequivocally interpreted and explained, for as they are now, there is no certainty. There is a wide difference between committing whole groups to one candidate as against an officer publicly making a choice among the candidates.
My simplistic understanding of the issue is that officials are not permitted to declare the support of any unit nor issue a press statement in the name of any unit pledging for a candidate. That is not the same as saying that officials of the party are debarred from publicly making a personal declaration in support of a particular candidate.
If my understanding has any basis, then the national executive must be ready to deal with those who have gone beyond their personal rights and mortgaged the fundamental rights and privileges of other party members to commit them to support identified candidates. That may be easier to deal with than to attempt to deal with individuals when in the end, these are the same people who will exercise the franchise. There must be the policy to monitor the process such that executives do not mortgage and pledge the support of their constituencies or organs to any candidate.
That will also require that between now and the elections, no unit meetings will be organised to discuss which of the candidates must be supported. Otherwise, some overzealous executives may organise meetings at which members may be committed to pledge their support to a candidate. Such a declaration might have implications for future party unity, especially where the preferred candidate does not win to become the presidential candidate.
Another important thing is that despite whichever candidate an executive has come out to openly declare support for, that should not be a hindrance in facilitating interaction between any candidate and delegates in the course of the campaigns.
The Constitution of the Republic of Ghana (1992) requires transparency in the conduct of the internal affairs of political parties. Therefore, officers of the political parties must demonstrate a commitment towards principles and rules. But then there must be certainty about rules and regulations such that interpretation and enforcement are functional and productive. No albatross must be created and hanged around necks to cause nightmares and anguish.
The campaign to be the flag bearer must not be construed differently from the contest to any position within a political party. After all, every election is an election and the rules must be the same to ensure smooth enforcement rather than in the nature of besepa ne konin ahahan, which are similar but one is edible and the other not, such that they have to be gathered with tact; yetase no oba nyansafoo.