Q & A

‘Political Parties’ Bill will promote accountability’

Q

What do you deem as strengths and weaknesses in the draft Political Parties’ Bill?

A

Let me start by saying that this Bill is long overdue as it should have been enacted more than two decades ago. But as the saying goes, better late than never. I just hope that Parliament will prioritise this Bill and get it passed as soon as possible, certainly before the country gets into full campaign mode for the 2019 general elections. While no law can be perfect, there are several strengths in this proposed legislation that make it far superior to the 1993 Political Parties [Registration and Regulation] Act that it seeks to replace.

Our failure to have a comprehensive piece of legislation governing the registration and regulation of political parties, in my view, has contributed to the problems of many briefcase parties that we have currently. For example, in the previous Act, the bar for registering a political party was too low and did not make any provision for requiring any party to have national support so long as an individual could demonstrate he or she had 100 supporters. The proposed law changes this by setting a relatively higher threshold of requiring any party to have at least 100 supporters in each of the country’s districts to get registered. The new law, if enacted, also gives more powers to the Registrar of Political Parties to enforce transparency and accountability and intraparty democracy, by, among others, cancelling the registration of political parties that fail to hold regular conventions or those that fail to provide evidence of prudent use of party resources. In terms of weaknesses, there are always bound to be loopholes in any legislation, no matter to what length one goes to ensure a watertight legislation. I have already alluded to the fact that the new threshold of 100 supporters per district for registering a party is rather low in my view. While the new law has built in mechanisms to promote intra-party democracy, I also feel it does not go far enough especially with regard to promoting constitutionalism in political parties as well as regulating personalisation of parties. Once we get fully acclimatised to the new bill and debate its contents more, I am sure we will also identify new weaknesses that hopefully can get fixed before it is passed and signed into law.

Q

If the Bill is eventually passed, among new developments, it will fine parties which do not declare donations to, and from, it. How significant is this development to Malawi’s democracy?

A

This is very significant and will bring our law to comparable international standards. I have always held the view that we cannot expect to have a strong and robust democracy that subscribes to the tenets of accountable and transparent governance if our political parties are lacking in similar levels of democracy, transparency and accountability.

Q

Some of your fellow academics and political experts argue that the Bill needs much recasting and refining, particularly because it has undemocratic tenets–including the move to deregister parties that do not win in elections or are inactive at a certain time. The commentators say this will force people to belong to the ‘big’ parties represented in Parliament. What is your take?

A

One of the defining characteristics of a political party is that it is a group that seeks to secure government power, among others, by participating and contesting in elections. I therefore see no problem with the provision that would empower the Registrar of Political Parties to de-register dormant parties because, by definition, they already cease to qualify as parties if they do not contest in elections.

Deregistration under such circumstances is simply a legal enforcement of what is already a de-facto reality. Where I agree with my fellow critics is on the part of deregistering political parties on account of failure to win seats in an election. Within the context of our first-past-the-post electoral system, failure to win a seat does not mean a party does not have support. Indeed, the lower threshold of 100 party supporters in every district that the law proposes for registering a party could be contributing to the emergence of parties that would fail to win a seat in national elections simply because their support is dispersed nationally.

Q

The pattern emerging in political parties is that party leadership tends to be a ‘family affair,’ whereby the party founders and their children, wives or relatives have virtual automatic rights to the top leadership. Is this good or bad for democracy?  

A

I have always believed very strongly that no single family or household has a monopoly of leadership qualities. When political party leadership becomes a family affair, this is in my view not only an indication of nepotism, but also a clear demonstration of failed leadership on the part of those who currently hold office.

Q

  What can be done to stop the tendency by political parties in this country to remain in the divisive campaign mode?

A

This question is premised on the assumption that political parties need to unite after election and that national development is dependent on unified political posture. It is a premise that I disagree with. Development and democracy thrive on constant competition of ideas, even after elections.  This helps to hold government accountable and it infuses the political arena with new ideas that, if acted upon, can potentially transform the country’s development trajectory and benefit ordinary Malawians. n

 

Related Articles

Check Also
Close
Back to top button