By Yakubu Aboki Ochefu
Introduction
This paper interrogates the role of Internal Party Discipline and the commitment
to democracy. We proceed first by establishing the philosophical and historical
context under which order and discipline defines the framework for development
of society. We then outline the nature and character of political parties and
how discipline plays a critical role in the realisation of political goals. By
looking specifically at the role of intra-political crisis we show how internal
housekeeping issues can easily degenerate to major political conflagrations
that can impede the growth of emerging and existing democracies.
Background
It is now common to refer to the world that we live in as a knowledge
driven one. As a historian I know that this is the third time in the history of
mankind that the role of knowledge has become extremely critical to the
development of nations and its peoples. Ma’at in ancient Khemet and the Renaissance
in Western Europe are the first two. Each time that this has happened, mankind is
transformed in several fundamental ways with far reaching implications. When it
first occurred nearly 3000 years ago, the philosophical roots of our modern
world view was laid. From the concept of the creation of mankind and one
supreme God, to written language, principles of mathematics, geometry, medicine
[K]chemistry and the codification of teaching and learning, ancient Khemet or
Egypt as it is more popularly known gave the world its first knowledge based
civilisation.
It is generally agreed that the renaissance laid the foundation for
emergence of modern Europe. By assembling philosophies borrowed from Africa,
Islamic Arabia, India and China, Europe was able to chart a course that would
see it dominate the entire world less than five hundred years after its “dark
age”. The close of the 20th century has ushered in yet another knowledge age which
is perhaps more profound than the earliest two. I will not bore you with any
details. You are all living witnesses to the array of technology that is daily
shaping our lives.
For knowledge to triumph and become useful for the transformation of society,
order, discipline and patience must prevail. From philosophy we know that the
codification of knowledge emerges from rational and logical thought processes
which may be arrived at from randomised observation/behaviour, experimentation
and practice. An iron law of logic is order and discipline. Similarly from
pedagogy we know that, patience is a sin-qua non.
The concept of learned behaviour is firmly rooted on patience. This is
why time and sequencing exists in any thought and learning flow process. I have
given this background to underscore the integral relationship between order,
discipline and patience in human existence and endeavour. Let me now proceed to
relate this to politics and democracy to enable us draw some conclusions.
Political Parties, Discipline and the Commitment to Democracy
It is important to clearly understand what political parties are and
how they equate or relate to democracy. This is so because it is easy to
erroneously believe that political parties and democracy are synonymous. A
political party is an organised group of citizens or interests who aggregate similar
political views and work to capture control of government in order to translate
these views into public policy.
Sigmund Neumann (1977) also defines a political party as “the organisation of society’s active political agents, those
who are concerned with the control of governmental power and who compete for popular
support with another group or groups holding divergent views.” A clear distinction exists between interest groups and political
parties. The former operates largely as pressure groups who try to influence
which policies are chosen without actually bidding for power or setting
policies.
Parties however, have as their central purpose the acquisition of
power and the direction of policy. Thus a political party is a vehicle for
expressing choice and also a channel for the use of power. Political parties
mobilize the masses both as members of the electorate and as specific party
members. They recruit and socialise political leaders. They are a source of
political identity for their members and supporters and a channel of control,
mobilisation, communication. Parties more importantly provide guidelines and
codes of conduct for individual members. These provide for the rights,
obligations and responsibilities of members.
Political Scientists often use the term party discipline to mean the
extent to which parties and their leaders mandate their members to follow a
decision of the party. This may range from election of officials or adoption of
particular policies. “Toeing the party line” as it is often called can be an extremely
balancing act given the nature and character of the party itself.
Distinctions exist between individuals who commit fully to the party
and those whose loyalty may lie with the citizens or their personal interests. There
is also the matter of political rhetoric vis-Ã -vis reality. Here we refer to the
ability of the party to ensure ex-post adherence to pre-announced positions
usually made during the campaigns. The reality of the situation is that once
elected or appointed to political office, individual interest and or views
(which may be parochial) can more often than not, clash with the broad
ideological agenda of the party. This is especially true where local realities
at the constituency level contradict very sharply with goals and ideals at the
national levels.
Let us pose a few questions in order to ponder in some detail on three
core issues that often challenge the ability of political parties to manage its
internal order. These are: Emergence of party officials and electoral flag bearers,
adoption of public policy and fundraising and management of funds.
Emergence of Party Officials and Electoral Flag bearers
This refers to the process for determining both the party’s leadership
and officials as well as the candidates for public office. Against the backdrop
of the formation of the party, its ideological orientation, history and legacy
how does this take place?
How are leaders and officials of the party selected? By election? By appointment?
Are local party leaders and officials pre- determined?
• Do party leaders have ultimate veto power? Are
there measures of selecting candidates that reduce opportunities for corruption
and manipulation?
• Do all members vote on the selection of
candidates or does a committee decide?
• Are members of the public consulted before
candidates for public office are decided?
• Do branch offices choose the candidate from their
areas? Do marginal groups such as women, youths, and physically challenged
persons feature in the selection process?
• How does the party deal with problems encountered
in the selection process of both candidates and leaders such as vote buying,
bribery of electoral committees, cronyism, opportunism and patronage?
• Once appointed and elected do procedural
mechanisms exists to ensure commitment to party ideology and objectives?
As we reflect over these questions we assume that all the parties lay
claims to being democratic or concede to operating in a democratic sphere. In theocracies
or monarchies, our answers will definitely be different.
Adoption of Public Policy
How do parties formulate and agree on public policy? Given that this
the product which is ultimately sold to the electorate, the processes that
ensure the emergence of policies and their implementation can make or mar a
party.
• Are policies formulated using rigorous analytical
methods or figments of the moods of the leadership?
• Are the opinions of various interest groups
within the polity sought and sampled?
• Are policies modeled against the possible reaction
of the political opposition and or the wider electorate?
• To what extent do individual law makers or
appointed officials believe in these policies? Where such polices offend their
individual ideological convictions what happens?
• What are the mechanisms for recall and or
realignment of public policies that seem to be counterproductive to the party’s
electoral fortunes?
• How do parties manage pre-election promises and
rhetoric with post election realities?
Fundraising and Management of Funds
Here we refer to the way in which parties raise funds and manage them.
The pertinent questions include;
• Are there specific fundraising guidelines? Who
manages fundraising for the party?
• Do party members have to report all the funds
they raise?
• Should parties place any restrictions on donors
to the party? Are there sources of funding parties should reject? How can
parties monitor for contributions from “dark sources”?
• Do parties use fundraising tactics that limit
opportunities for corruption? How do parties handle contributions going
directly to the candidates?
• In cases where funds are given to candidates, do
parties have any particular policies to monitor and keep track of such
exchanges?
• How can parties protect the privacy of their
donors despite public demands for greater transparency?
• Are their institutional mechanisms to regulate
how the ruling parties in particular raise its funds?
• Should professional accountants manage party
funds?
• Should party financial records be made available
to all members of the party? To the public? To any particular government
monitoring agency?
• Should there be external audits of party
accounts?
• How should party funds be controlled? Who should
have authorization over bank accounts?
• Are greater checks on financial management
advantageous?
As we ponder over these questions it is easy to see how difficult it
is to maintain order and discipline in a party. In providing answers to these questions
it should become clear how and why cliques, camps, rebel wings and breakaway
factions are a common feature of political parties.
Intra-Party Conflicts
Intra-party conflicts refers to a sustained level of disagreements
amongst the formal and informal leadership of a political party whereby the
content for control is seen as a zero sum game in which one side must win. It
is often characterized by breakdown of controls and discipline as members and
even leaders take sharply divergent positions on core matters of the party. At
the heart of each intra- party crisis, are the allegations of marginalisation, oppression,
unfairness, and arbitrariness.
These are all symptoms that the rule of law and procedure within the
party which are necessary to ensure that the ultimate goals of politics namely
service for the common good of the public has disappeared, and has been
replaced by self seeking interests. As we noted in an earlier paper, political
pathologies are rife in emerging democracies especially those of our
sub-region. I stated that: For many of them (i.e. political leaders) capture of
state power is a matter of life and death. There is only one election and if that
is lost, the entire process and indeed country can burn. If they win, because
they do not have faith in the process (and for many in the country they run),
they commoditize state power and use it for private purposes.
This pathological context has its origins within the parties in the
first instance. As they emerge and trigger crises internally a trail of such
crises pervades the entire landscape, causing instability and breakdown of law
and order. When we critically analyses the demise of virtual all the
governments of the first republics in the sub-region after independence,
intra-political feuds always featured as the major cause.
The lesson here is that if the promoters of democracy are themselves
not democratic, how do they intend to use democracy as a platform to develop
the society? If they do not possess the discipline and order that is inherent
in democratic enterprise how do they propose to use state power to transform
society? And if they do not have the patience to learn and observe the
fundamentals of political behavior and culture, how can they logically practice
it?
Conclusions
According to our ancestors who founded the great civilizations of
Kush, Nubia and Khemet, “words have power”. That is why African elders do not
invoke and make pronouncements on individuals or situations casually. As we confront
the challenges of modern civilization and the inherent development imperatives,
we must look deeper into our traditional cultures to seek out values that are
unique and (natural) to us while borrowing systematically from other
civilizations in the world.
This is how Europe built its great civilization. The Chinese and
Indians have also done same. Indian democracy infuses elements of Hinduism with
western democratic ideals. So also is modern China which has insisted on
democracy Chinese style. Wholesale importation of foreign ideas and values will
always create a disconnect that causes the type of problems we see with our
parties.
Political party leaders in the region and indeed the continent cannot
pretend that our cultures do not provide deep reservoirs from which we can
answer the questions that were posed above? By aligning the answers to
questions such as how to appoint our leaders, manage funds, discipline
recalcitrant members e.g. to our traditional context, we will be ensuring that
our democratic practice is in tune with our natural setting. For example many Nigerian
communities, have applied the traditional concept of “chop and give your
brother” (or principles of rotation) to reduce considerably the contest for power
especially at the local level.
In addition to using aspects of our culture as a tool for
strengthening our democracy, we also advocate greater involvement of women in
politics and political office. It is increasingly becoming clear to political
elites across the continent that our women are probably better managers of
resources than men. This should come as no surprise because the African woman
is a versatile, hardworking, dedicated and committed member of her household and
community. More importantly she has had to bear (and still bear) the brunt of
the excesses of the men folk.
Thus when given leadership positions he tendency for most African
women to perform better than her male counterparts is high. The male
chauvinists views which pervade on how we see our women re being broken down by
empirical evidence from the performance of women in public and community
service. Indeed psychologists argue that while the male ego has the capacity to
distort rational thinking in men, women have a stronger will and instinct to
survive.
As a man myself I believe that this is true.
Thirdly is the use of impartial arbiters. Again we make recourse to
our traditions. In most African cultures impartial arbiters (who are more often
than not external to the community) exists across the board. When disputes arise
the actors seek them and usually agree to abide by their decisions. Our modern
day political actors (or gladiators depending on your view of them) would
rather use brawn or underhand tactics to resolve internal issues. This is
hardly surprising as opportunism and self interest is often behind the cause of
the crisis in the first instance. We counsel that political parties should consider
resolving internal differences through the court of public opinion rather than
engage in bloody struggles for control and or domination.
A fourth intervention is the regular audit of parties. Here we refer
to a democratic audit that checks the health and performance of the party, its leadership,
organizational and membership structure, appeal to the electorate, relevance of
its core vision and directing policies and its electoral fortunes. By engaging
experts from the academia, NGO’s and professional groups such audit will
provide as a sort of “well man test result” which the party can use to either
maintain or improve its leadership position within the polity.
An American President once noted that politicians do not lie but only
say things that are not true. Here we must confront ourselves with the truth.
The political leadership of any party must be very disciplined and continuously
engaged with its electorate. Tolerance, cooperation, commitment and above all a
strong political will are critical components of politics. The culture of sustainable
politics must permeate the political landscape unlike the culture of
subsistence politics that we have today.
A clear vision backed by a strong legal framework and implemented by a
disciplined and strong willed leadership that continuously consults its people
on its policies, will most certainly produce tangible and long lasting
developmental results that are people desperately need.
Prof. Ochefu is National President, Historical Society of Nigeria.
No comments:
Post a Comment