NPP, peace pacts, and electoral integrity

In less than 10 days, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and its search for a candidate to lead it into the 2028 general elections will be over.

As D-Day gets closer, I don’t expect the intense rivalry and sharpened rhetoric to change.

In fact, I worry it may take a turn for the worse. In observing the cringeworthy moments of this primary season, I sometimes wonder if my judgements of the conduct of rival supporters are too harsh. 

Perhaps since the advent of the Fourth Republic, all contests for party flag bearer have been this intense and sometimes the descent into unchartered waters using unfortunate rhetoric is just the nature of the game.

Maybe the era of the smartphone and its twin social media, where every word uttered and action taken goes viral within seconds, is only amplifying it.

Who knows, political observers may be worrying about inconsequential things. 

I have been saying to myself that once a winner is declared come January 31, “who said what to who, when, and how” will all be forgotten. I hope so.

Before then, just as we witnessed during general elections where presidential candidates sign peace pacts, on January 22nd, the party convened a meeting at which all the flagbearer aspirants signed a peace pact. 

The purpose of peace pacts during elections

Elections produce difficult moments and intense rivalry.

Candidates have a strong desire to win, and their supporters commit to ensuring that victory does not elude their preferred person.

However, our political passions can sometimes overtake the angels in us, leading to not just verbal altercations but also physical ones, including the use of violence.

When such incidents occur, it taints the contest and raises questions about its integrity.

This is where peace pacts prior to an election come in.

In my view, it serves four purposes.

First, it is a symbolic act for each aspirant to commit to the highest level of peace possible as an election draws closer.

It may come across as irony when the very contestants pledging to peace have sometimes engaged in rhetoric that is not necessarily peace advancing in nature.

However, to witness each contestant sign the pact forces them to publicly acknowledge that what is at stake is bigger than each of their own political ambitions and aspirations.

Second, it is an instrument of accountability.

The peace pact becomes the lens through which the actions of each candidate between now and January 31 will be evaluated.

Whatever a candidate says or does must be weighed against the dictates of the peace pact which they signed.

It should be easy to say to candidates, “This statement or action of yours betrays your commitment to the peace pact which you just signed.”  

Adhering to peace pacts may not yield political dividends in terms of votes.

Alternatively, violating peace pacts may not hurt the political dividends of an aspirant.

However, it is my fervent hope that the extent to which a candidate upholds or violates the pact will have some political impact when delegates are weighing the crucial decision of which candidate best embodies the leadership values of the party.

But peace pacts are not for candidates alone. It places responsibilities on others in the political space too, which leads me to my third and final point.

Third, the signing of these peace pacts places a responsibility on the teeming supporters of candidates to make the same commitment.

Although they are not direct signatories of the peace pact, their preferred candidate’s commitment indirectly commits them too.

God forbid, but any acts that may mar the peace of election day will not be carried out by the candidate but by supporters on their behalf. I therefore hope their actions and inactions are shaped by this knowledge that they have also made a commitment to peace.

Finally, peace pacts are not only for candidates.

They are also for the institution, asking candidates to sign and commit to the terms of the pact.

In essence, the New Patriotic Party as a political organisation, through its leadership, has two critical responsibilities – a) if the terms of the pact are to be enforced, then it must be done without fear or favour to any of the candidates; and b) all decisions and actions between now and especially election day must reflect fairness, impartiality, and transparency.

The peace being demanded of the candidates is not a one-way street.

It equally demands that the party leadership take steps to ensure that candidates remain committed to peace. 

Electoral integrity

When all is said and done, a free and fair election without any disturbances is what everyone hopes for.

And this is what I hope happens on January 31.

In the end, only one candidate can and will win this race.

The writer is Project Director, Democracy Project