… Why we should debate our internal election procedures and widen our Electoral College

The New Patriotic Party as a political party is often described as a party with no owners but has collective stake holders made up of people who believe in freedom and democratic values as captured by the words of Dr. JB Danquah that [our party’s] policy is to liberate the energies of the people for the growth of a property owning democracy in this land, with right to life, freedom and justice, as principles to which Government and laws of the land should be dedicated in order specifically to enrich life, property and liberty of each and every citizen” In that sense the NPP belongs to all the people who hold the values of freedom, justice, democracy, liberal economy and respect for other peoples’ lives. The NPP therefore takes its strength from its roots – the ordinary member – its foot soldiers, the over four million men and women who in the just ended elections gave the NPP 49.87% of the electoral votes.

However when it comes to the election of its national officers suddenly the NPP gets owners and gate keepers made up of an electoral college with constitutes less than 0.5% of the 4 million people I have just mentioned above. The result of our lopsided internal electoral system is such that our men and women do not feel they belong. They do not feel a sense of authorship of NPP decisions and choices. They do not refer to NPP with the collective pronoun “we”. Instead they use the second plural pronoun “you”. As a result you cannot blame these great numbers of men and women who do not take part in the electoral process, when they reject the party’s choices of leaders. We saw this at Bekwai, Nkawkaw and Bosome-Freho and many places where we threw away golden opportunities.

Out of power but thankfully not with a humiliating election defeat, and under the strong and open-minded leadership of Nana Akufo-Addo, we as a party have a great opportunity to start a debate about how the NPP should be led and managed as a Party to prepare us for the battle for the next four years and beyond. As many of us continue to play the unnecessary blame game, one of the issues that I would like the Party to think seriously about is the way it elects its leaders, especially its parliamentary candidates and the flag bearer. There has been an ongoing debate in the Party including research and think tank deliberations since we got into power in 2001 to rethink our constitution and especially bring it in line with some of the current viewpoints being articulated by some members of the Party at home and in the diaspora. In 2005 the NPP UK and Ireland threw in a challenge to the Party for this debate to start. We started our presentation with these very stark and chilling prophetic words:

“The UK & EIRE branch of our Party have a strong sense of foreboding vis-à-vis the NPP Presidential Candidate contest in 2008, bearing in mind the financial inducements and the electoral college tapping by certain aspiring candidates in the last Parliamentary primaries to manipulate the democratic process, thereby, not only gaining an undue advantage but more ominously, contorting the political landscape in our party. Judging from the self inflicted wound in the selection of parliamentary candidates in 2004 and the concomitant effect on our party’s performance in elections 2004, one must concede that there are certain inherent limitations in our Party’s constitution and we are quite certain that if we do not have an open attitude towards the review of the NPP’s constitution vis-à-vis the 2008 Presidential contest, the present constitution could become the greatest obstacle to our future progress”.

These were telling words indeed but at the time the National Executives did not se the need to recommend the debate or indeed put it on the agenda for the 2005 or the 2006 Party Conferences.

Our Constitution was drawn in 1992 when, in fairness to our founding fathers, power and authority seemed distant aspirations. When we won power in 2001 we soon realised that our party constitution could not stand the test of time. The roles for sitting and past presidents are completely missing, thus making President Kufuor a jigsaw piece that is out of place

At the present moment the Party elects its flag bearer through an electoral college which is made up of members of parliament, national officers, foundation members, regional and constituency level delegates in one straight ballot after a long drawn out campaign by as many presidential aspirants as possible. To secure the votes needed to win in this one straight fight, which is often fraught with sound bites and very little policies, some times it becomes necessary to solicit for votes with all forms of pecuniary incentives. Again many of the delegates come to the congress not even fully aware of what candidates really stand for but nevertheless will be their die hard supporters because of some affiliation. The present system of one straight forward voting through an electoral college was put to the test during our last Congress in 2007 elections. Many party members were not happy with the part presenting 18 candidates and some of the excesses candidates had to get through to secure them the ticket to represent the Party at the general elections. There were great lessons from that experience and we do not want a repetition of that during our next presidential primaries and the election of our flag bearer for 2012

There is now a strong voice in the Party, both home and abroad calling for a debate in the way we elect our flag bearer and parliamentary candidates in future. For the presidential candidate, the viewpoint is for the creation of a two-stage and a short listing system before presenting the candidates to an electoral college. For parliamentary candidates, the viewpoint is a situation where all card bearing members of the party in each constituency get a chance to be part of the Electoral College that selects candidates. These viewpoints are certainly worth a debate and consideration for the future if we are to avoid an election defeat while we are in the lead.

There is a proposal for the presidential aspirants to initially sell their ideas and policies to the parliamentary party and the elected regional officers where their ideas and policies will be put to test in a tough elimination chamber exercise. The members of parliament and the elected regional officer will undertake a first round secret ballot to select the first three candidates. The reason for the choice of this body is clear. The members of parliament clearly hold the mandate from our constituencies and can speak initially for their constituents. The regional officers bring in the regional balance and hence give the whole process a national outlook. The need to balance the members of parliament with the regional officers will be an insurance against areas where we are not heavily represented. The aim of this first hurdle is to establish a short list of three candidates, whose policies and ideas would have by now been sharpened and well fleshed out in the open. The whole nation would be keen albeit passive in the process, to know what these candidates clearly stand for. In UK both the Labour Party and the Conservatives have adopted this ‘first hurdle’ process. The three short-listed candidates are then put to the test before the full Electoral College for the eventual winner. At this point the candidates would have rehearsed and revisited their policies so much that is becomes the foundations of the party’s new manifesto direction. In the present system there very little room for their ideas to be put to the test. They are not quizzed by the party and made to ensure that their sums add up before going to the congress. Often times it has been trading of insults which become counter productive. This procedure should be given careful consideration as it is a double insurance for democracy and a good way of weeding off the chaffs and the journeymen as we saw in 2007. This idea being mooted here has not got any particular origin. It is brewed both at home and abroad and it has blossomed out of the lessons from the last primaries. It is not about probity or the corruptibility or incorruptibility of one body or the other. It is about making the candidates work hard on ideas and not rhetoric or sound-bites which often signify nothing. This might not sound pleasant to the ears of many of our presidential hopefuls because they may have started to invest in the present system but all I am suggesting is let us keep debating and find a better way of making our leaders accountable for what they say they stand for and ways of giving our foot soldiers more say in the choice of our leaders..

The other viewpoint which without doubt is ideal is for all card bearing members of the Party who are of good standing in each constituency to be given the chance to elect the parliamentary candidate. This may be costly but no doubt will be a full reflection of our democratic values. For start, it will encourage people to join the party and encourage card bearing and payment of dues which should not be exorbitant. It will avoid a situation where the “head” decides for the “heart” and the “heart” rejects it or vice versa. It will also give members the choice of being part of the electoral process by registering and acquiring cards. What may not be work about this system is the fact that card bearing has not fully permeated our system. Again there may be the situation where the opposition may sponsor some of their own members to pay up and carry card. This system is fraught with its weaknesses yet it has better advantages than the present “easy to buy” delegate system. For example Subin Constituency in Kumasi has over 50,000 NPP voters; Manhyia has over 80,000 and Bantama a similar number yet out of these only just over 100 delegates get to elect the parliamentary candidates. This is neither fair nor just. The result is that the party’ rank and file are rejecting candidates in droves. If we are going to rely on the foot soldiers for the eventual power, why not then involve them at the very beginning of the process so that we all own the decisions? Bekwai, Nkawkaw, Suhum and Bosome-Freho have taught us great lessons. As a party we lost favour with our foot soldiers the moment we presented 17 presidential candidates and foisted parliamentary candidates on them with edicts from our national executives without a say from them. On December 7th, the chicken came home to roost.

These two proposals need careful consideration and debate if our constitution is to stand the test of time and our party is to retain its position as pace setters in democracy in Ghana. There are other scientific debates going on about how to make our card system fool-proof so that there are fewer incidences of fraudulent and fake cards emerging during the party’s internal elections. I hope that the leadership of our great party would give serious attention and consideration to these suggestions to avoid having our own constitution becoming the greatest obstacle to our future progress.

Long live the Danquah-Busia tradition; Long live the NPP; Long live Ghana

Kwesi Atta-Krufi, Hayford