Ghanaian Professionals in the Boston Area Write: Political Parties are not Inherent to Democracy, MPs Must Choose their Own Leaders

Picture a journey where a fellow traveler joins you in your car, promising to split the fuel costs. Initially, their presence adds warmth to the trip as the road unfolds ahead. However, subtly, this individual starts to take control, adjusting the speed and direction, despite not owning the reins of the vehicle. With each turn, their influence grows, sowing seeds of confusion among other passengers. Eventually, they boldly assert ownership of the vehicle, relegating you, the true driver and rightful owner, to a mere chauffeur. This parallels the plight of Members of Parliament (MPs) in Ghana, as political parties reach into parliament to alter the leadership within it.

Despite playing a crucial functional role, political parties are not inherent components of democracy; instead, they function as accessories. They emerge within democratic systems to fulfill the role of coordinating and advocating for various societal interests. It's noteworthy that they were neither present in ancient Athenian democracy nor a prominent feature of early modern (Madisonian) democracy.

In ancient Athens, often considered the birthplace of democracy, political decision-making occurred through direct democracy, where eligible citizens participated directly in decision- making processes, such as voting on laws and policies. Similarly, during the early years of the United States, political parties as we know them today did not exist. Instead, political factions and informal coalitions emerged around specific issues or individuals, such as the Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the debate over the ratification of the Constitution. It wasn't until the late 18th and early 19th centuries that modern political parties began to take shape, with the formation of the Federalist Party and its opposition, the Democratic-Republican Party.

So, properly speaking, parties operate as interest groups seeking to promote their agendas. To establish themselves as influential entities within the political landscape, they align (hitch a ride) with Members of Parliament (MPs) to gain leverage in the legislative branch and with the president or executive branch to wield influence over government policy and decisions. This symbiotic relationship between political parties and elected officials allows parties to advance their interests and solidify their presence in governance.

While a political parties hold significant influence, they neither constitute a formal organ of government nor do they have official authority within the arms of government, such as the executive, legislative, or judicial branches. Therefore, if a political party desires a change in leadership within parliament, they will typically implement this through their parliamentary caucus.

It is not only odd but absurd that the General Secretary of a political party, who has no official capacity in the arms of government, would write directly to the Speaker of Parliament ordering a change in leadership in parliament. The party may play a role in coordinating these decisions or communicating them internally within the party, but they do not have the authority to directly instruct the Speaker of Parliament regarding changes in parliamentary leadership. Instead, any communication to the Speaker of Parliament regarding a reshuffle in leadership would typically come from the parliamentary caucus itself. This communication would adhere to parliamentary protocols and procedures, reflecting the collective decision of the caucus.

MPs may rely on Parties for crucial support and resources, including funding for campaigns and access to party infrastructure. As a result, they may be expected to serve as loyal allies, advancing the party's agenda. However, akin to the individual who solicits a ride and contributes to the fuel costs, this crucial contribution does not mean that ownership of the legislative arm of government has been transferred to them (the political parties). The foremost and ultimate accountability of MPs is to their constituents, who have entrusted them with the responsibility of representing their interests.

It's important to bear in mind that political parties often serve interests outside the broader interests of the populace. These interests, which may include those of wealthy donors, special interest groups, or party elites, can diverge from the broader concerns of the populace and compromise the democratic principle of representing the will of the people.

Political parties in a democracy serve an instrumental role rather than constituting its foundation. In times of conflict between any governmental branch and political parties, the bedrock principle of democracy, which is giving voice to the people, should take precedence. When considering who best represents the voice of the people between political parties and Members of Parliament (MPs), MPs hold the mandate directly from the people and are the ones who most closely approximate their voice.

The Writers are Ghanaian Professionals in the Boston, Massachusetts, Area

Ayure-inga Mark Agana
[email protected]