A respected but unconvincing outcome
The Constitutional Court has decided: it has not accepted my request to challenge Francisco Carvalho's candidacy for the presidency of the PAICV. I welcome this decision with the serenity and respect of someone who believes in institutions and the importance of the rule of law. But I can't - and shouldn't - hide the fact that I remain unconvinced by the reasoning behind the decision.
The appeal I filed had no personal motivations, nor was it the result of situational political differences. It was, above all, an act of loyalty to the PAICV Statutes, an appeal to internal legality and political coherence. Running for the leadership of a party without fulfilling, in a regular and transparent manner, such elementary duties as paying membership fees is not just an administrative failure: it is a sign of non-commitment.
This was about more than an application. It was respect for the rules that guarantee equal treatment for militants. It was the responsibility of party bodies to monitor and apply these rules impartially. Ultimately, it was the integrity of an electoral process that should be exemplary - especially for a party with the history and responsibility of the PAICV.
I regret that, even in the face of documentary evidence and formal warnings, the party's internal bodies preferred silence or omission. I also regret that the Court considered that there was no "serious" violation of the essential rules, when what was objectively verified was the validation of an irregular act that did not meet the formal and competence requirements demanded by the Statutes themselves.
I do not dispute the decision, although I disagree with it. And I leave an appeal - not to the courts, which have already ruled, but to the conscience of the PAICV's militants: we cannot normalize jack-of-all-trades. We can't accept that internal legality is optional, or that the rules only apply when it's convenient.
2. Dues: more than a duty, a sign of commitment
In a serious party, paying dues is more than a statutory obligation: it is a tangible sign of commitment, belonging and political coherence. Dues ensure the party's financial autonomy, allow it to plan activities independently and, above all, act as a thermometer of the involvement of its members.
It's not just about "paying a fee". It's about regularly acknowledging that we belong to an organization that has collective duties and demands individual responsibility. Dues distinguish militants who accompany, build and sustain the party over time from those who only reappear in electoral cycles.
Allowing someone who has neglected this duty for years to try to appear to regularize it at the last minute just to meet a formal candidacy requirement - without transparency, without receipts, without rigorous control - is a way of distorting militancy and trivializing principles.
The issue was not just whether 3, 6 or 12 months' dues had been paid. It was about whether it is acceptable for the rules to be ignored, circumvented or adapted at the convenience of the candidates or those who support them. And whether the bodies that are supposed to look after internal legality can abdicate that role in the name of occasional interests.
3. For the ethics of militancy and the future of the Party
My appeal to the Constitutional Court therefore had a single objective: to protect the spirit of internal rules, not just their letter. Internal democracy is defended with actions, not just proclamations.
If we want a party that is stronger, more respected and more faithful to its founding principles, we have to start by respecting its rules and setting an example. Internal democracy cannot be defended with slogans. It is defended with coherence, ethics and courage.
You can't build a solid future in a building where everyone interprets the rules as they see fit. You can't lead a party without setting an example. And you can't regain the trust of militants by ignoring the fundamentals of active and responsible militancy.
Time will judge. And so will the militants.
Jorge Lopes
