A political party is thus an institution with the agenda to involve membership at grass root level and ready to serve the common interest of the majority mutually by the beneficiaries of a country and select individuals.
This country is not short of good examples. Competition between political parties is an indicator of progress and a healthy presence of democracy (rule, control by the people). Unlike company business existence of a political party is not for personal gains or profitability for family use.
As an elementary example, let us consider the setting up of a group to build a village shelter for example near a school perhaps for children or neighbours in case of bad weather. Whoever takes up this challenge needs a plan and a reputation to be resourceful and have passion to work for charitable causes.
With such scale and type of construction work roles by other people including well wishers are welcome. Contribution by others is a characteristic of social or community projects.
In principle this does not mean that a project like the completed shelter will be privy to those who made contributions. Equal access for intended beneficiary should be the rule without restrictions. Compromises in such business have ramifications least of which is the possibility of curtailment of good intentions in any future role wishes. But of direct impending effect would be risks exposing or endangering the beneficiary to injury even loss of life a scenario to be avoided!
All possible benefits would need some form of protection from exploitation. Under normal circumstances by keeping in mind public interest, any plan for such a project would not be expected to allow construction to happen in anybody’s backyard.
People’s lives and therefore public interest are and should be at the center of party affairs. Operational zing such businesses whether at management level should not unnecessarily expose peoples’ welfare to exploitations.
Particular care should be made in matters involving implementations. Founder’s syndrome is not the only inherent sin. Denial of such factual consequences from under rating members concerns is like refutation of fossil evidence or scientific fact. Red flag to Party mishaps is also in the failure to recognize equality of rights amongst members.
Any one member even in a controlling position like at executive level is in such a position by mandate through a consensus from the others all of whom are ‘ free ‘. For everybody else, freedom of expression which must be safeguarded, affords him/her some channel of input to be heard.
There is risk of loss of political capital for neglect of cornerstones or principles of progressive democracy namely accountability for action or decision taken on behalf of others, transparency to include disclosure mechanism, and compliance, including satisfying legality.
This implies that taking action or making a decision beyond call of normal duty cannot be done until reference or consultation with the stake holder or grass root members has happened.
In the event that the office bearer has engaged or involved the party in business of unspecified terms or conditions, members are owed disclosures and all relevant information.
Subsequent treatment of such issues needs legal counsel and a process of ratification. By extension, modalities to recognize majority sentiments must be taken into account. Financial dealings are sensitive matters including interests of financiers with financial muscle.
These might involve funding problems in subtle areas needing screening as they might come with threat to future reason for Party’s existence.
The issue of conflict of interest needs no sugar coating due to risks of loss of public trust which arises under circumstances where undue influence leads to flawed judgment.