By Lamino Lang Komma
The debate surrounding whether political parties should form a unified coalition for the upcoming presidential elections requires a very realistic approach. A clear model should be formulated that is quantifiable and not based on a string of vague qualitative characteristics that can be spurious and subject to various subjective interpretations.
Registering a political organisation is only the first step in the process of contesting elections. It is well-known that securing official party status attracts funding and even international recognition. But within our political framework, it can also create an unintended incentive structure by allowing individuals to chase financial benefits and state positions without maintaining a genuine constituency or political platform.
Thus, allowing an undefined and specific participation threshold reduces a coalition from a vehicle of political conviction and ideological commitment to national development to a mere scramble for government positions.
The flexibility of democracy should not be overstretched just to accommodate passive players who only surface during election cycles and coalition negotiations. The threshold of participation should be based on a system of numbers, experience or past performance.
Any job opening requires a verifiable CV. Right? Thus, the choice of leadership from a group of parties that wishes to coalesce to present a candidate for the national presidency demands a political CV of such a party. The content of such a CV should be derived from two sources.
The constitution gives qualitative criteria defining what organisation can register as a political party and the character of those who want to be president.
The other tangible and verifiable criterion is the credence of the party among voters derived from its historic participation in past elections and its documented share of the vote.
It is indeed easy to subjectively construct unverifiable metrics and elusive approaches to try to justify a party’s influence or standing in the arena, but the bottom line rests on tangible electoral results – a physical viability through electoral experience and tangible and verifiable results.
While recent statistics and opinion polls seemingly show the current or “contemporary” status, they often include temporary anomalies, seasonal spikes, or short-lived trends. Every realistic consideration needs the full historical context to accurately predict future outcomes and measure true, sustainable results – whether in business or in politics.
Any recent or so-called contemporary data is no more than a capture of short-term clamour and temporal spikes of superficial influence. Such data are mostly statistically derived. Even professional statisticians agree that samples, naturally, have their limitations and are very much grounded in assumptions. Thus, one must look beyond opinion polls, which are vulnerable to skewed forecasting.
Using actual historical data is, traditionally, in every circumstance in life, more realistic because it reveals long-term trends and cyclical patterns that short-term data and opinion polls don’t capture.
Why take that risk when the most reliable data under all circumstances of viability is the historic data, because it filters out all temporary anomalies and truly reflects tangible performance?
Opinion:
If a unified front is to successfully contest the upcoming election, it must be led by a major opposition force selected based on past verifiable and quantifiable performance and possibly flanked by smaller but disciplined parties driven by a conviction for system change rather than cabinet positions.
Based on the above, the primary stakeholders capable of seriously impacting the national vote are clearly UDP and GDC. Other marginal movements should either accept a supporting role as auxiliary allies or choose to run independently at the polls in order to establish historical data of their progress in the arena for future use.
This is the more realistic way to define sustainable electoral partnerships.
Just Thinking Aloud
