When the Regional Political Commissions cease to count, transformed into inert bodies
In the statutes of the African Party for the Independence of Cape Verde (PAICV), the Regional Political Commissions (CPR) occupy a clear and important place in the party's internal architecture. These structures are responsible, among other things, for proposing and taking part in drawing up the lists of parliamentary candidates, including the nomination of the head of the list in each constituency. This is an important principle: ensuring that candidates come from the grassroots and reflect the political and social reality of each region.
On paper, therefore, the process seems simple and democratic. The regions analyze the names, debate internally, evaluate the profiles and present proposals. Then the national bodies make the final assessment and take the final decision. It's a model that combines regional participation with national coordination.
The problem is that, increasingly, what's in the statutes doesn't correspond to what happens in practice.
In recent times, it has become clear among activists and local leaders that the role of the Regional Political Commissions in the process of choosing list leaders has been progressively emptied. In several constituencies, the names are practically defined by the national leadership, often associated with the leadership of Francisco Carvalho, and only communicated to the regional structures.
The consequence is simple: what should be a process of proposal from the regions becomes a process of silent ratification.
In some cases, when asked about the choice of certain candidates, regional leaders prefer silence or vague answers. This silence says a lot. It says that sometimes decisions come ready-made, leaving little or no room for internal debate. It also says that many CPRs end up in an uncomfortable position: either they accept the decision made on top or they run the risk of exposing internal divisions.
This phenomenon is not just an organizational detail. It touches the heart of the party's internal democracy.
Political parties live off their militant base. It is the militants who mobilize, who campaign, who defend the party in the communities and who keep the connection with the electorate alive. When these same activists realize that the most important decisions - such as the choice of parliamentary candidates - are made far away from the local structures, a feeling of detachment and frustration inevitably sets in.
More seriously, when the regional structures no longer have any real influence, the party runs the risk of becoming an excessively centralized organization, where decisions flow from the top down, without the debate that characterizes healthy political organizations.
It is true that the national leadership has strategic responsibilities. It is also true that, at times, it may be necessary to intervene to avoid internal deadlocks or local rivalries. But this must not become the permanent rule. Otherwise, the Regional Political Commissions will only exist on paper.
A party that maintains structures only to fulfill statutory formalities is, in practice, emptying its own internal democracy.
The challenge for the PAICV is clear. Either it reaffirms the role of its regional structures - giving them a real say in the definition of candidacies - or it runs the risk of deepening an excessively centralized model, which could weaken the link between the party and its grassroots.
Because, at the end of the day, statutes don't exist to decorate party documents. They exist to guide political practice.
And when practice begins to stray too far from the rules, it's not just the internal organization that is at stake. It's the confidence of the militants themselves in the functioning of the party.
