Internal Party Democracy is critical ahead of Uganda's 2016 elections
We live in a business world today, where the concept of competition
has gained a lot of prominence.
Entrepreneurs are cutting their teeth in matching the competitors in
their space. And because of this
environment, creativity, innovation, invention, name it are becoming so staple
in today’s business world. The doctrines
of business that were once confined to the economic society have gradually spread
into the social and political drapery.
Attempts to be
democratic or appear to be democratic in many societies have further
exhilarated the spirit of political competition – painting politics as a field
exclusive to only those able to withstand the “heat”. Political competition in itself is not bad
and therefore we shouldn’t groan under the strain of competitive politics but
rather sanitize that competition to ensure that every member of society feels
confident and respected to participate in politics both at a political party
level and at the national level.
Today, the focus of my piece will be on
competition within political parties – usually defined as intraparty democracy
vis-à-vis democratic theorization and practice at the national level.
Political parties in Uganda are already
gearing up to aptly position themselves for the 2016 elections. Part of this process will involve
identification of respective political party candidates or ‘flag bearers’, as
they are commonly known. As can be
adjudged from previous election cycles, this is normally where the true test of
internal party democracy lies. In past
elections, there have been incidents where bonafide members of political
parties have been maneuvered out from participating in their own parties’
internal electoral processes. In other
parties, candidate identification processes have turned as ferocious as the events
leading to the capture of the Bastille
in the famous French revolution times.
These occurrences are just a tip of what happens in some political
parties as they tread the road to identifying their leaders and candidates.
Whereas these may be defined as internal party processes/actions, they (could)
have a far-reaching impact on the broader country level political practices and
the growth or reversal of democracy in particular.
Therefore, as Uganda heads for the
political party candidate identification processes this time round, the tension
between external and internal dimensions of party democracy should be areas to
pay attention to, in this season.
It is very possible for a political
party or organization to profess democratic ideals at an external level while
pursuing undemocratic principles on the inside of it. It is very difficult to explore the broader
factors of democratization on a national scale without concerning ourselves
with the democracy promotion efforts within parties. Like one of the political party heads in
Uganda likes to say, “you can not give what you do not have”.
It is therefore critical that political
parties do not only profess to espouse the rules of the game but also apply
these rules indoors, freely and fairly. By the same token, this time round, the
electorate must ask, therefore, whether a party's election manifesto is
coherent to the party’s supposed internal democratic structures and practices.
Frameworks such as the National
Consultative Forum (NCF) and the Inter-Party Organisation for Dialogue (IPOD)
should in this case play a central role in supporting internal democratic
processes within political parties and organisations. Supervisory outfits including, but not
limited to Uganda’s Electoral Management Body and the court system should be
willing and able to crack the whip on non-democratic parties. And to buttress this, our legal provisions
need to explicitly recognize the importance of party structures and internal
party democracy.
Continuing to ignore the crucial
processes relating to internal democratic behavior of political parties runs
counter to the foundations of modern day democracy. Political parties and organisations are
public entities – that’s why there are concepts like ‘public’ financing for
political parties; that’s why we have laws such as the Political Parties and
Organisations Act etc. These are all
meant to demonstrate how ‘public’ political parties are. And if they are indeed public institutions,
then we must scrutinize them the same way we would do for other public institutions
and offices such as ministries, constitutional bodies etc.
It is thus important that as parties
and political organizations embark on their candidate identification processes,
they must ensure inclusivity as well as uphold internal democratic
practices. They too must avoid
discriminatory practices. Those parties
that have previously embraced oligarchic structures and tendencies that deny
members the ability to affect the party leadership must uniquely consider this season
to pursue a holistic democratic approach to managing their internal and
external party’ business.
Comments
Post a Comment