There have been two important developments regarding the use of the delegate system in political party primaries.
First, one of the recommendations emerging from the work of the Constitution Review Committee (CRC) is that “all registered political parties shall afford their members in good standing as of a specified cut-off date an equal opportunity to exercise their right to vote to elect their party’s candidate for parliamentary and presidential elections”.
This, in the view of the committee, is to ensure that “internal party organisation conforms with democratic principles.”
Second, this week, it was reported that Prof. Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng, Dr Nyaho Nyaho-Tamakloe and Dr Christine Amoako-Nuamah filed a suit at the Supreme Court asking, among other reliefs, that “the delegate system be declared unconstitutional.”
As per news reports, the plaintiffs argue that “the delegate-based Electoral College system… which confines or restricts voting to specified executives… to the exclusion or material disenfranchisement of members in good standing of the party, contravenes the Preamble and Articles 1, 17, 33(5), 35(6)(d), 42 and 55(5) of the 1992 Constitution.”
After 30-plus years of uninterrupted multiparty democracy, I believe it is time to rethink the use of the delegate system in political party primaries.
Confronting the delegate system
I am not sure why our political parties chose to use a delegate system for selecting candidates for parliamentary and presidential elections when the country returned to multiparty democracy in 1992.
Perhaps it was the more convenient and probably less costly way of organising internal party elections across the length and breadth of all the constituencies in Ghana.
Thus, instead of full participation, these delegates are by design the decision makers on behalf of all registered members of the political party.
But are they really? And if they are, what mechanisms do they deploy to ensure that their decision is reflective of the people they represent?
For example, when the constituency chairman casts a vote as a delegate, is it because it reflects the preference of his constituency, or is it a personal preference?
These are the questions that, without satisfactory answers, require a serious rethinking of the delegate system.
Over the years, the delegate system has also come to present one of the worst manifestations, in my opinion, of the monetisation of our politics.
Party primaries are now openly described as the “cocoa season” of delegates, with stories of candidates using monetary and non-monetary methods as incentives to secure votes. Images of goods branded with candidates’ photos regularly make the rounds on social media during the primary season.
Again, if the vote of a delegate is designed to be representative, then the practices associated with the “cocoa season” undermine this principle and corrupt the entire process and system.
And how is it fair that, in a party consisting of several members coming from diverse backgrounds, a critical decision such as who becomes their presidential candidate is left to a select number of members designated as delegates?
As my mother often argues, how do you select a candidate without my input (vote) during the primary and expect my input (vote) when it is time for the general election?
These are some of the issues bedevilling the delegate system, which we must confront and change course if possible.
Undoing the delegate system – The challenges
Let me first give credit to our political parties for engaging in reforms over the years in response to the issues that have been raised about the delegate system. The reforms have resulted in an expansion of the number of delegates who vote in internal party elections.
The National Democratic Congress (NDC) abandoned the delegate system for parliamentary primaries in the 2020 election but has since changed course.
But it is time to take the bold move and undo the entire delegate system.
I am a firm believer in the use of open primaries (all registered members of the party in good standing participate in internal party elections) and strongly oppose the delegate system. I, therefore, support both the recommendation of the CRC and the lawsuit.
I have had conversations with friends who are active in party politics and their main worry is that an open primary makes the party vulnerable to infiltration by their political opponents.
I, however, believe the introduction of biometric voter registration and the verification mechanism can help address this fear.
But as the adage goes, “Turkeys do not vote for dinner,” which means I am not sure the political parties will willingly cede this system.
I, therefore, doubt if they will wholeheartedly support the CRC’s recommendation.
That leaves the Supreme Court as the other avenue for undoing the delegate system.
But the plaintiffs will first have to convince a court majority that the delegate system is truly undemocratic. I hope they can!
The writer is a Director, Democracy Project.
Source:
www.graphic.com.gh
