Parties should set own rules
Oct 10, 2005
BY VINCENT KALIMIRE<br><br>ONE of the most fundamental proposals in the Political Parties and Organisations Bill is the development of a code of conduct for political parties. I support this idea but I am opposed to government’s proposal that the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs s
BY VINCENT KALIMIRE
ONE of the most fundamental proposals in the Political Parties and Organisations Bill is the development of a code of conduct for political parties. I support this idea but I am opposed to government’s proposal that the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs should be the one to prescribe the Code.
My objection to this proposal is based on the fact that binding codes are voluntarily developed and not prescribed by government.
I am also at pains to understand why some politicians are opposed to the establishment of a code of conduct. Those who are opposed to government’s proposal to develop a code of conduct argue that the Political Parties and Organisations Bill and the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections Bill, if enacted into law, should be enough to provide guidelines and controls to the parties. They also fear that government might conspire with briefcase political parties to stifle legitimate opposition through the code of conduct.
Codes of conduct for political parties are developed to regulate the conduct of political parties, candidates and their supporters during elections. They can be voluntary, non-binding agreements that result from consensus among the parties or they can be part of the legislative and regulative framework.
In old democracies, where campaign financing is a big issue, ethical codes include detailed instructions on what is, and what is not, allowed in campaign financing. In countries undergoing transition like Uganda, the focus of the code is usually aimed at renouncing the use of violence and agreeing to accept election results. Some electoral systems include a mandatory code of conduct that parties and candidates must abide by if they are competing in elections.
For integrity purposes, mandatory codes must be clearly written with the obligations and the sanctions for breaking the code should be reasonable and detailed within the code.
In 1995 for example, South Africa established its South African Electoral Code of Conduct for political parties which is binding to all parties and candidates or their representatives participating in elections. The party is held accountable for violations of the code by any of their representatives or agents.
A code of conduct may be developed as part of the electoral law, determined by the sovereign authority even though the provisions are not prescribed as codes, may be agreed upon by political parties as an outcome of negotiations entirely among themselves or as a result of negotiations involving a third party.
A code may also be agreed upon by the parties and then embodied in law or it may be determined by a third party such as an electoral body. In most cases, codes that are mutually developed by political parties have stood the test of time than those developed by third parties or imposed by constitutions and by-laws.
For this reason, both opposition parties and government should work towards a mutually agreed upon code of conduct than imposing electoral and party laws.
Parties are more likely to feel bound by commitments into which they have freely entered than ministerial deterrents. This is true in all elections but more specifically in transitions.
A voluntary code of conduct largely depends on good faith, which is more likely to happen when all parties are involved in formulating their own code of conduct.
Codes of conduct agreed between the parties are increasingly accepted in potentially tense situations as a practical basis for contributing to a peaceful election, In the long term, such codes may also help to develop confidence in the democratic process as a mechanism for implementing representative government and effecting peaceful change.
A crucial problem in transitions is often the failure of competing parties to communicate with each other, together with a lack of confidence in the ability of the system to produce a free and fair result.
Codes of conduct in which the parties agree on the basic ground rules and to meet regularly during the campaign period clearly contribute not only to the avoidance of potentially dangerous confrontation but also to popular support for the democratic process.
The Commonwealth secretariat in its Good Commonwealth Electoral Practice refers to “…the development, together with representatives of political parties, of a written code of conduct to which all of the parties, their candidates and agents as well as all independent candidates and their agents subscribe by formally undertaking to abide by its terms." The code is also a valuable tool in promoting public atmosphere for tolerance-a scarce commodity in Uganda.
The writer is Administrator, Foundation for African Development
ONE of the most fundamental proposals in the Political Parties and Organisations Bill is the development of a code of conduct for political parties. I support this idea but I am opposed to government’s proposal that the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs should be the one to prescribe the Code.
My objection to this proposal is based on the fact that binding codes are voluntarily developed and not prescribed by government.
I am also at pains to understand why some politicians are opposed to the establishment of a code of conduct. Those who are opposed to government’s proposal to develop a code of conduct argue that the Political Parties and Organisations Bill and the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections Bill, if enacted into law, should be enough to provide guidelines and controls to the parties. They also fear that government might conspire with briefcase political parties to stifle legitimate opposition through the code of conduct.
Codes of conduct for political parties are developed to regulate the conduct of political parties, candidates and their supporters during elections. They can be voluntary, non-binding agreements that result from consensus among the parties or they can be part of the legislative and regulative framework.
In old democracies, where campaign financing is a big issue, ethical codes include detailed instructions on what is, and what is not, allowed in campaign financing. In countries undergoing transition like Uganda, the focus of the code is usually aimed at renouncing the use of violence and agreeing to accept election results. Some electoral systems include a mandatory code of conduct that parties and candidates must abide by if they are competing in elections.
For integrity purposes, mandatory codes must be clearly written with the obligations and the sanctions for breaking the code should be reasonable and detailed within the code.
In 1995 for example, South Africa established its South African Electoral Code of Conduct for political parties which is binding to all parties and candidates or their representatives participating in elections. The party is held accountable for violations of the code by any of their representatives or agents.
A code of conduct may be developed as part of the electoral law, determined by the sovereign authority even though the provisions are not prescribed as codes, may be agreed upon by political parties as an outcome of negotiations entirely among themselves or as a result of negotiations involving a third party.
A code may also be agreed upon by the parties and then embodied in law or it may be determined by a third party such as an electoral body. In most cases, codes that are mutually developed by political parties have stood the test of time than those developed by third parties or imposed by constitutions and by-laws.
For this reason, both opposition parties and government should work towards a mutually agreed upon code of conduct than imposing electoral and party laws.
Parties are more likely to feel bound by commitments into which they have freely entered than ministerial deterrents. This is true in all elections but more specifically in transitions.
A voluntary code of conduct largely depends on good faith, which is more likely to happen when all parties are involved in formulating their own code of conduct.
Codes of conduct agreed between the parties are increasingly accepted in potentially tense situations as a practical basis for contributing to a peaceful election, In the long term, such codes may also help to develop confidence in the democratic process as a mechanism for implementing representative government and effecting peaceful change.
A crucial problem in transitions is often the failure of competing parties to communicate with each other, together with a lack of confidence in the ability of the system to produce a free and fair result.
Codes of conduct in which the parties agree on the basic ground rules and to meet regularly during the campaign period clearly contribute not only to the avoidance of potentially dangerous confrontation but also to popular support for the democratic process.
The Commonwealth secretariat in its Good Commonwealth Electoral Practice refers to “…the development, together with representatives of political parties, of a written code of conduct to which all of the parties, their candidates and agents as well as all independent candidates and their agents subscribe by formally undertaking to abide by its terms." The code is also a valuable tool in promoting public atmosphere for tolerance-a scarce commodity in Uganda.
The writer is Administrator, Foundation for African Development