Fixin` what ain`t broken: the NPP's

The NPP has plans to hold a national conference in July to review and possibly make changes to its Constitution or by-laws. What is the impetus for these changes? If one assumes that the objective of a political party is to win political power, then one can deduce that the purpose of these changes must be, ipso facto, to improve the NPP's electoral chances against the NDC, its principal rival.

The proposed amendments are many, and most of these are in order. Proposals such as the following should be considered:

• Regional executives should ensure that Constituencies hold mandatory general meetings, at least quarterly. There should be a measurable program of activities for executives at all levels. Such activities should include meetings, attendance at funerals, membership drives, dues collection and fund raising.

• Parliamentary candidates should be selected at least two years before the General election.

• When a Constituency, regional or national executive vacancy occurs, such as by death, a by-election should be held to fill the vacancy. This is better than the current practice of moving everybody (including the incompetent and clueless) up by one rung and leaving some positions vacant. This is what happened when Regional Chairmen in the Upper East and Northern regions died.

• A parliamentary candidate should be a known and active member of the constituency (for at least two years). The current acceptance of the retroactive payment of dues to meet dues payment requirements should be strictly prohibited.

There are, however, others that I wish us to reflect on; we must be careful not to propose a cure that is worse than the disease. Let us examine these proposed changes, starting from the less to the more serious. Change the name of the party from New to National Patriotic Party. My understanding is that it was old BJ who struck off 'National' and wrote in 'New' in the party's name.

Electoral Commission
The story is that when he arrived at the Electoral Commission to register the National Patriotic Party, he was incensed by the number of parties with the word 'National' in their name, that he was particularly irked by the 'National' in NDC's name. This change has not hurt our party; we have won two elections and almost won a third. Old man da Rocha is a genius who deserves a larger-than-life statue. Changing our party's name will impose much cost on us: think of all the billboards that will have to be uprooted and repainted, the stationery that will be changed, the T-shirts of past campaigns that cannot be reworn, etc, etc. Moreover, we will be burdened with explaining to a large illiterate population that the party with the new name is the same as the old party. And how many more votes will a National PP bring than a New PP? The correct answer is 'Not much.' It ain't broke, don't fix it.

The General Secretary should be appointed, not elected. The reason for this proposed change, I understand, is that past and current General Secretaries and National Chairmen have had a cat and mouse relationship. A wise friend of mine once told me that if you see two adults quarrelling, it must be over either a woman or over something that has not been shared equitably. It sounds better in Dagbani. A conflict with its genesis in resource allocation is not going to be avoided by the appointment of some and the election of others.

Appointment is not a magic pill that will cure the ailment of conflict among party officers. And what is going to be the appointing authority? What is the guarantee that such an authority will not be riven by calculations about the allocation of the prospective resources? I believe that political party positions should be elected because the incumbents need to be passionate and committed to the party.

Party positions are demanding and often thankless; only a committed officer who is elected will forsake family and leisure to do the business of the party in the day and in the night, in rain and in sunshine, in sickness and in health. Have we done so badly in past elections that we need to fix something that ain't broke? The present system has served us well. Changing it is risky, and the change has no relationship with victory at the polls. The reasons why we lost the last election are legion, but they do not include the absence of appointed party officers. What successful political party is providing us best practice guidance on this proposed change? It ain't broke, don't fix it. appointments

The President should make appointments in consultation with the NEC; MMDCEs and Regional Ministers should be appointed based on the recommendation of party executives. This sounds good, but it is not an enforceable 'contract' between the party and the President. It is not the solution to a whoring president who is determined not to dance with the date who brought him to the party. The Presidential Candidate is a supplicant while the election has yet to be won. But once he rides on the back of the party to the Castle, the whole game changes. He is now the Chief Executive of 'corporate' Ghana.

There are now no practical limits to his power. He has at his disposal a vast array of sticks and carrots to satisfy his whims and caprices. Good luck trying to rein in this monster. But there is no harm in trying; who knows, we may get lucky! And as to the proposal that MMDCEs and Regional Ministers be selected from the bosom of Constituency and Regional executives, this will only create a 'cocoa season' for these executives. MMDCEs and Regional Ministers who thus 'purchase' their positions will not be in a mood to listen to the beseeching of party foot soldiers. Constituency and Regional executives should be consulted in such appointments, as is the custom now, but these should not be the de facto appointing authorities.

Members of Parliament must endorse a slate of Presidential Aspirants. The idea is that our parliamentarians should be given the power to weed out 'unqualified' candidates and leave a small number of Presidential aspirants (not more than five), who will then compete for selection by the party. I acknowledge that our Parliamentarians represent the will of our people. But how many of us can swear that Parliamentarians are more immune to the influence of money than the delegates who assembled in Legon in 2007? How well did our parliamentarians pass their ESB test? This proposal is a solution looking for a problem.

One man one vote (OMO) should be used in the selection of Parliamentary and Presidential candidates and for the election of party executive positions. This proposal seems to emanate from a widely-held view that the current electoral colleges for the selection of Parliamentary and Presidential candidates are subject to monetary influence.

But there is no democracy where the influence of money has been eliminated. The Americans have tried for years in vain to reduce the rule of those who have the gold.

I subscribe to the principle of an enlarged electoral college. But to jump from this principle to the deep-end of letting every card-bearing member vote is fraught with danger and unintended consequences. Card-bearing members should vote only in the election of Polling Station executives, as was proposed in 1998. This will encourage membership drives within constituencies.

An OMO electoral college will further advantage the regions of the country with large populations and those regions where the party is well-organized. Presidential and national executive aspirants, being rational, will focus their efforts (including building huge rosters of card-bearing members) in Greater Accra and Ashanti. They will not dissipate their resources in remote and mostly rural constituencies with small numbers of card-bearing members. The influence of the party will wane in those regions with small populations and/or where the party is poorly organized. The regions that will be disadvantaged by an OMO electoral college are the three northern regions and the Volta region. Moreover, such an electoral college could be infiltrated by a party determined to influence the selection of our Presidential and other candidates.

An OMO electoral college will most likely produce a Parliamentary and Presidential candidate selected by a geographic faction that does not reflect the entire constituency or the nation.

My humble suggestion is that the electoral college could be significantly expanded, by a factor of say two hundred. So instead of having ten delegates per Constituency as is the case now, we could require two thousand delegates per Constituency.

National primaries
These delegates will have been selected at the Polling Stations using OMO. National primaries will then be held on a regional or zonal basis over a period of several weeks. This process will also eliminate weak candidates as the primary weeks go by. Eliminating aspirants using either parliamentarians or some other national body (however constituted), will risk splintering our party. Moreover, it will not reduce the influence of money, it will only create a 'cocoa season' for those wielding the stamp of approval, thus aggravating rancor within our ranks.

The present system, flawed as it is, did not result in the selection of a 'bad' Presidential candidate for the NPP in the last election. The candidate did remarkably well for a first-timer. In other words, money did not trump quality. To what extent is our candidate selection process really broken, that it should be fixed? If surgery must be performed on our candidate selection process, then let it be done with a scalpel, not a meat cleaver.

So, as we ponder these constitutional changes, we must always ask ourselves what is broken that needs to be fixed? Are there any cost implications? How will this change contribute to our electoral success?

   Comments0