The Disqualified and the Disenfranchised: Implications for our Democracy

On October 10, 2016 at a press conference accompanied by an undated press release, the Electoral Commission (EC) of Ghana announced the disqualification of 13 presidential aspirants for the 2016 election. Most noteworthy was that of the Dr. P.K. Nduom, leader of the PPP, whose party placed a distant third in the 2012 election. There are a number of systemic, organizational, legal and human dynamic factors at play in the whole debacle. Seemingly, the new Commissioner is signaling a significant change in the business culture of the organization. The good old boy "Ahenfie" approach of Mrs. Osei's predecessor is out the door. There is something to be said for sticking to rules, especially in Ghana where they seem symbolic and are often inappropriately negotiable. It is also important to remember that the EC collects filing fees for which services must be delivered. This fact is often lost on our institutions who provide services to paying clients with an attitude suggesting that paying clients should consider themselves lucky to receive the contracted services.

However, my read of the EC's announcement, raises a number of questions. I am not qualified to interpret the constitution of Ghana upon which said actions were tacitly based but there are broader issues outside of the legality of the EC's actions which are equally important. The rule of law is essential in a civilized society, has limitations and serves the society. We all know that not all people found not guilty in a court of law are innocent of crimes they are accused of. Many are likewise adjudicated guilty of offences after due process and later exonerated. The law is useful but not perfect by any means. It is however, the best tool we have for maintaining civil order and growth.

I have observed in previous posts that our state institutions are very often self-serving and not citizen oriented enough in their procedures and operations. Often, actions are taken by institutions of state, which defeat the very reason for their existence and they end up failing to meet their own stated missions to serve the public good. This institutional culture is likely a confounding issue in this case, as the EC transforms its culture to a more rule based one. Most importantly, institutions like the EC are starved of funds but are magically expected to perform wonders.

Ours is a multi- party democracy, not a two party state, even though the current state of political polarization begs the question. This development is therefore quite troubling.

The official statement of the EC, left a few questions unanswered. The critical ones were related to timelines guiding the processes involved in vetting the applications of the aspiring presidential candidates. It was unclear exactly how many days were given to candidates to correct the identified errors. Even more troubling was the absence of finite dates defining a specific window within which the errors were to be corrected. The tone of the statement with its judgmental entreaties was also somewhat patronizing. It is unclear how candidates were informed and if all parties were informed of the status of their applications in the same way. Was this an equitable system?

Even if the law is clear, it must be administered to serve democracy in Ghana. That is the core mission of the EC. Were the laws cited, implemented in a fair and transparent manner for all parties involved? I found the press release quite opaque in its attempt to describe the processes used to arrive at the determinations that were announced. Reasons for disqualifying candidates must be grave and significant. Also, it was difficult to assess how much support applicants had from the EC in identifying unqualified subscribers who may have committed offences during the process, completely on the blind side of candidates. These individuals must of course face the appropriate legal outcomes of their actions.

I found the EC's statement fell short where complete transparency was required for both applicants and the voting public at whose behest the EC functions. The EC is supposed to work for the voters and must be accountable to them. Philosophically, the EC’s relationship with its stakeholders should be more collaborative than adversarial. In an attempt to bring order to a system seen as lacking it, voters may have been disenfranchised. Every party is equally important in a multi-party democracy. I was witness to a perennial third party the New Democratic Party (NDP) suddenly winning an election in Ontario, Canada on September 6, 1990 and forming a government to the surprise of the party itself but certainly not the voters. Democracy is full of surprises. We cannot assume anything because the process is driven by individual votes.

The fact that four candidates were successful in completing the process is no vindication for the commission. This is not evidence that the process was fair or adequate. There are many factors including pure chance, which could have helped some and hurt others, given the state of the voters register, as evidenced by the number of doubly registered voters that have been identified over time. If a process is effective, most of its users have the desired experience. If a teacher sets an exam and most of the students fail, then the teacher has failed somewhere in the process of assisting the learners to get it right.

Both adherence to the law and service to the electorate must guide the processes of the EC. Those who have been disqualified for the reasons given and by apparent failures in the administration of the law and its implementation, have a right to seek intervention from the courts. This can only strengthen our democracy. They should not be viewed as spoilers. The law should support the aspirations of all voters and its application should not disenfranchise any of them. The responsiveness of the Chief Justice in preparing the judiciary for these cases is a service in support of the preservation of the rights of the voting public at large and serves as an indication that the Judiciary under her leadership is responsibly engaging the a reality that confronts the nation. The EC's statement in support of the legal process and its declared willingness to be guided by the outcome of the legal proceedings underway, is equally appropriate. We shall benefit as a nation from more divergent thinking about issues that confront us, as we nurture our democracy. There is often more than one correct answer to a complex problem.

“Vox populi, vox Dei”
T. P. Manus Ulzen is Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine at the University of Alabama and Author of Java Hill: An African Journey – A historiography of Ghana

[email protected]
www.javahillelmina.wordpress.com
Twitter: @thaddeusulzen
www.javahillelmina.com
10/25/2016