Titus Boye-Thompson, London
Politics is no longer a game of two halves since the introduction of electoral justice as a condition of political participation. There was a time when political parties would agree a selected list of executives in a room amongst some individuals and that list is then sold to the rest as the official list that would go forward for election. In many cases, things would go on smoothly because it is said that such an arrangement is for the good of the party. There are those who would bring up all sorts of arguments about those who have held the terrain, toed the line and worked in various capacities throughout the years and whose turn it is now to be chosen to fill certain positions. Never was there a question about capacities, capabilities and constraints. The official party list would be taken as a true reflection of the team best suited to take its affairs forwards. So as simple as this system is, what is wrong with it and why do we now question its existence in the first place?
Elections must be fair from the onset
For some reason, not many people believe that elections can be fair throughout. It is quite often said that “it is those who count that decide the outcome of an election and not those who vote.” That statement underlines the very essence of an unjust electoral system. Votes are expected to be placed by persons who are acting on their conscience and hence are making a choice that would best reflect their own positions on issues that would come up for determination. For example, if you are opposed to slavery, you would not want your votes to go towards a party that openly supports slavery. In such situations, what is expected is that you would look for the party that supports your views and advocates for the abolition of slavery and it is to that party that your votes would go. So it is important that your votes against slavery are not converted to support a party that intends to raise more opportunities for slavery to exist and grow. The conversion of your votes in such instances can only happen where electoral systems are not designed to provide a fair and transparent outcome for all to see.
Electoral justice may not necessarily be fair
From the concept of fairness in elections, comes suspicions created in the minds of voters on the conduct and systems that are established to provide a just electoral outcome. In the aim to achieve fairness on a range of issues such as gender balance, regional integration etc, policies or frameworks may have to be put in place to secure results that may be quite opposed to the wishes of the voting public but they may all the same achieve a social objective for equality in representation. Such instances do not equate with electoral malpractices, gerrymandering or voter manipulation tactics. Many view the buying of votes or the bribery associated with electoral promises to be a slight digression from fairness but these acts in fact result in the contamination of electoral systems and the entrenchment of corruption and injustice. Justice in electoral systems may not just mean the existence of a level playing field, it goes well beyond that. A level playing field may well result in an all-male list of candidates or a list of elected officials from the same region of district. To avoid such incidences, electoral regimes have quite often devised methods of selection or pre-qualification that would square the need to be fair across a range of factors as opposed to the first past the post system embedded on the concept of numbers in elections management. However, while fairness is in itself not immune to corruption, its results require that the system for obtaining fairness must in itself be open to independent query and probing. In the event, we can only aim to obtain a just electoral system when we introduce rules that secure or guarantee fairness across the board.
The APC must become a fair and just electoral entity
The All Peoples Congress seeks to take over the mantle of government through electoral success but in itself, the question is now being asked of how genuinely fair or just are its own internal electoral systems to secure universal agreement on its electoral outcomes. The lawyers among us often mention that “those who come to equity must do so with clean hands.” With this in mind, the question can then legitimately be put as to whether a politician can genuinely come to equity or better still can equity be of benefit to him who cannot approach it? Political engagement in the society reflects certain values of the society itself. The context that politics is full of horse trading and compromises turns the arguments about fairness against itself. Political parties cannot guarantee within themselves the very same electoral justice that they seek in the national arena because of the nature of their structure – politics invariably becomes a game of influence trading rather than a competition of wits and calibre. It is not true that in politics the best man wins, no, that happens in sports, and even at that, it is a wish! Given that the prospect for securing fairness and justice in politics is fraught with such impropriety, how then can we aim to secure a reasonable outcome for those who desire the best outcomes in politics? The answer will have to lie in technocracy – the management of systems with a reasonable predictive value as to reaching the desired outcomes. As a political party, the APC need to turn to itself to examine its own internal strategy to ensure that it starts planning to win, rather than being subjective in predicting a value attraction of personalities. The APC should begin to look at itself as an embodiment of component parts and not as a composition made up of many parts. In effect, togetherness is where the strength lies and not in the individual capacities of desolate influences.
How strong is our unity
This is the pretext that creates the entitlement culture that is obscuring the vision of many of our politicians. That the APC is united is so untrue that it is in itself a non-starter. The APC is a rainbow coalition but having said that, it has always been its diversity and melting pot culture that had made it attractive to newcomers. To say the least, this strength to easily reach every part of the country with some adherence that creates the inherent looseness that has become its main fault. Unlike the SLPP whose strength is in its makeup as a tribal cohort, the APPC’s internecine battles for supremacy and partisan dominance creates the more elusive pedestal for internal growth. To secure its internal growth, the APC requires a leader who can make amends by his own self-determination, charisma and character traits that attract the populace to his cause. Without a doubt, these are qualities that Dr Samura Kamara brings to the Party. Dr Samura Kamara embodies that self-evasive strength of the quintessential APC leader, yet to meet the man in person is to be in awe of that unique human quality that makes other people see themselves in him. While there may be others with a claim to leadership in the APC, what is indisputable at this present time is the fact that in Dr Samura Kamara, his presence in the political arena reminds everybody of the singular abuse of power that in 2023, caused the Electoral Commissioner to invoke such injustice to the voters of Sierra Leone and with such impunity. Unless the APC comes round to view this injustice for what it is and work to ensure that it does not stand as a legitimate claim to power, then no amount of preparation could win any elections for the APC under this dispensation of electoral fraud. Unity should be our strength.
