By Solomon Demba
Democracy can be seen as the only political system compatible with liberal democracies. In a proper functioning democracy, political parties tend to embrace both internal and external democracy in order to attain full political participation of all citizens.
In this sense, practice of democracy takes place at two levels, at one level; there is a fierce competition between political parties in pursuit of political power; at another level, party members partake in key decisions such as leadership selection and policy formulation. The leadership selection of the Gambia’s political parties seems to have eschewed rigorous public scrutiny, as there are hardly publicized leadership contests for party members to seek the high office.
This raises the question whether the Gambia political parties have effective internal democracy mechanisms necessary to promote the political participation of the citizenry. It is a striking fact the leaders of the main political parties have been in post for decades, without a prospect of leadership challenge. Judging by this fact, can it be said the Gambia political parties are more dictatorial than the dictatorship they claimed to have replaced?
It is often the case, external democracy is overly publicised to provide the political master with at the least a chance of securing power, while the internal democracy is relegated in the background of internal power struggle within oligarchy circle. Nevertheless, we must not disregard the importance of internal democracy if we are serious about preserving a proper functioning democracy. As there can be no democracy without consensual agreements of citizens, the legitimacy of party leaders can only depend on the informed consent of party members. Of course, that seems undesirable from the view point of the ruling oligarchy, but it is necessary so to preserve the autonomy of the membership. Such proposition seems in line with John Locke’s political philosophy of liberalism. It follows that legitimacy derives its authority from the informed consent of citizens.
While external democracy has been instrumental in empowering citizens to hold their representative accountable through the ballot box, internal democracy is equally important as it balances power structure within political parties. Political parties are vital institutions that allow full realization of democratic values such as political participation, representation competition. Their presumed permanence makes them the guarantors of political stability as they can build consensus on divergent views to protect national interest. Indeed, they are constituted as private entities, but given the vital role they play in our democracy, they are public utilities accountable to the citizenry.
Clearly, the Coalition ‘agreement on the term of the presidency does not have a strong legal base, because party rules that contradict the constitution may be declared void to preserve the supremacy of the constitution. The European Court of Human Rights has been decisive on this point by allowing dissolution of political parties on similar ground. While I accept the point that states are the ultimate guarantors of constitutional rights, and mostly held accountable for the breach of the fundamental rights.
From formalistic standpoint, it could be argued that is only government act that can violate the constitution. This seems plausible if one ignores the public duty imposed on political parties thought constitutional mean. Political parties are quasi agents of states given their interconnection with governments and constitutional relevance. From a realist standpoint, the law is not only a set of mechanical rules, law evolves with practice, it embodies various assumptions, ‘‘values and conceptual understandings.’’. Surely the relevant provisions of the constitution should be read to produce reasonable result. In my view, five year term seems reasonable and constitutional. So this a settled matter
The contemporary human rights jurisprudence suggests a shift towards a progressive interpretation of the law to give horizontal effect to certain core rights. This implies that private and public entities, including political parties whether in government or not may be liable if they breached individual constitutional rights. Law is not a static creature, but a living instrument; it must be enlarged to protect fundamental rights. Undoubtedly, in the West courts have been more receptive of purposive interpretation in order to accord better protection to individuals. That marks the decline of formalism and the rise of realism. Such stance is not only coherent in jurisprudential and political terms, but also coherent in legal terms.
While the external democracy is mostly codified in states’ constitution, the internal democracy is usually set out in parties’ constitutions. Indeed, there is a tendency for political parties to profess external democracy, at the same time function internally as a dictatorship by controlling the membership. Such approach is not only inimical to internal democracy but also to external democracy. As power becomes concentrated in the party leadership, there is a danger that leadership may adopt an oligarchic structure to bolster its grip on power, while denies membership of reasonable political participation.
This may well justify the need to impose obligation on political parties to adopt policies that preserve democratic values. For example, German, Finland and other democracies had enacted laws to improve internal democracy in political parties in order to improve minorities’ representation including women. What is also objectionable to the principle to transparency is limited access to parties’ constitutions. A seminal document with a character of social contract, there can hardly be a justifiable reason for its limited accessibility.
It seems imperative for all political parties to conduct an open election that allows the full participation of parties’ members. Notably, the leaders of the main political parties have been in office since the inception of their respective parties. Their tenure in office seems relatively long if one consider the average term served by their counterparts in other established democracies. From another perspective, it could be argued the parties’ members were unwilling to take the risks and sacrifices associated with taking a divergent political position in a dictatorship. This is explicable in the light of sufferings and pain the party leaders had endured in the Second Republic. Their determination to cling to power seems to have paid off resulting in the rebirth of our new democracy. Let’s all hope the government keeps the ball running toward the right direction!!
In conclusion, the Gambia political sphere has been through turbulent times, the political parties are yet to develop effective internal democracy mechanisms. It is also the case that, most political parties act as social groupings with varying membership models. As a consequence, the memberships seem to lack the ability and the capacity to act collectively, to bring out any meaningful change as to the direction of the political parties.
Going forward, the political parties must be compelled to employ measures necessary for effective internal democracy. Such measure will enable all Gambians, particularly the minorities and women to fully realize democratic values of a functioning democracy. Failing to do so, the political parties are likely to be more dictatorial than the dictatorship. We cannot be selective about democracy.
Forward with the Gambia!
