Should we vote for political parties?

 By NEMO YALO

THE Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates Commission (hereafter IPPCC) has announced a proposal to introduce new voting system whereby citizens will vote for political parties instead of individual candidates. This is intended to prohibit a citizen who is qualified to stand for public office from contesting in an election as an independent candidate. IPPCC offers three primary justifications. Firstly, that this is intended to strengthen political party system in Papua New Guinea. Secondly, that it is political parties that form governments and not individuals. Thirdly, the proposed system is used in New Zealand and Fiji, (Post Courier, 18.03.16). The proposal is by no measure simple and less significant. It proposes to turn one of the most fundamental constitutional rights on its head so it deserves a proper constructive and intellectual public debate. 

Right to vote and stand for public office

The proposal when enacted as law will impact on one of the most fundamental Constitutional rights guaranteed by our Constitution under Section 50. That is, the right to vote and stand for public office. It reads: “(1) Subject to the express limitations imposed by this Constitution, every citizen who is of full capacity and has reached voting age, other than a person who – (a) is under sentence of death or imprisonment for a period of more than nine months; or (b) has been convicted, within the period of three years next preceding the first day of the polling period for the election concerned, of an offence relating to elections that is prescribed by an Organic Law or an Act of the Parliament for the purposes of this paragraph, has the right, and shall be given a reasonable opportunity– (c) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, either directly or through freely chosen representatives; and (d) to vote for, and to be elected to, elective public office at genuine, periodic, free elections; and (e) to hold public office and to exercise public functions. (2) The exercise of those rights may be regulated by a law that is reasonably justifiable for the purpose in a democratic society that has a proper regard for the rights and dignity of mankind”.

What nature of rights is granted to citizens by Section 50?

Section 50 grants a number of rights. Firstly, a citizen has a right to conduct public affairs either directly or through freely chosen representatives. Secondly, it guarantees the right to vote. Thirdly, it guarantees the right to stand for public office. Fourthly, it guarantees the right to be elected (provided one secures the majority of votes prescribed by law to be declared duly elected) to public office at genuine periodic free elections. Next, once elected to public office one has the right to exercise public functions associated with that given office. Finally, for the proper and genuine exercise of these rights, there is guaranteed a further mandatory right “to be given a reasonable opportunity” to exercise the foregoing rights. There is no use been granted those rights but be denied the reasonable opportunity to exercise them. The Constitution is deliberate, eloquent and leaves nothing to chance. 

These rights can be limited by the Constitution

The exercise of these rights can be restricted or limited by the Constitution. Firstly, a citizen must have reached the voting age of 18 in order to vote. Secondly, a citizen must be 25 years of age in order to stand for public office, see Section 103(1) Constitution. Thirdly, a citizen who intends to stand for public office must possess full capacity. He or she must not be mentally affected person or must not be of an unsound mind. Fourthly, a citizen who stands for public office must not be a person who is under sentence of death or who is imprisoned for a period of more than nine (9) months. Next, a citizen must not have been convicted of an offence relating to elections, within the period of three years leading up to the first day of the polling period for the election which he or she stands for. Finally, the rights to vote and to stand for public office may be further restricted by law. But such limitation or regulation or restriction must be reasonably justifiable for the purpose in a democratic society that has a proper regard for the rights and dignity of mankind. 

Who is granted and guaranteed the right to vote and stand for public office?

Section 50 grants rights to “a citizen”. A citizen must be a natural person, not some abstract legal entity such as a political party. The use of the words and phrases such as “full capacity”; “has reached voting age”; “person who is under sentence of death or imprisonment”; “has been convicted”; “take part in the conduct of public affairs”; “rights and dignity of mankind”; etc., are attributable to natural persons and not to abstract legal entities like the political parties. 

To amplify the point, our style of democracy is a representative Constitutional democracy. Why so? Because natural persons stand for public offices and citizens vote for them. Once elected to public offices they occupy such offices and exercise public functions in representative capacities. It is not political parties that stand for public offices. It is not political parties that occupy public offices and exercise public functions. It is not political parties that walk into Parliament Chamber and debate issues, raise grievances for the electorate and pass laws. It is men and women who do so in their respective representative capacities. The rights guaranteed to citizens cannot be removed from persons and granted instead to political parties. It is simply unconstitutional unless Section 50 suffers drastic amendment to accommodate the ludicrous proposal.  

The flaws in the proposal

The IPPCC’s proposal is premised on the unproven theory that voting for political parties and not individual candidates and prohibiting independent candidates is the panacea for achieving maturity in political party system. The assumption is misguided because the office fails to put forward a convincing argument that once implemented, hey presto, the desired outcome will be achieved. Secondly, it is misguided because it places the importance of strengthening of political parties over the most primary constitutional rights of citizens. For there to be true democracy as deeply entrenched in our