All are equal, but some are more significant than others

Jul 18, 2014 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Most political parties would like us to believe that every member is equal under the rules or laws of their parties. They would have us believe that what goes for one should also go for all.
Generally, this is true. All members are subject to the same rules and are no less equal when it comes to their obligation to comply with those rules. The procedure for exacting discipline when these rules are alleged to be violated is also usually the same for all categories of members. Every member, big or small, should be subject to a fair and unbiased disciplinary hearing, and entitled to legal representation at that hearing.
But when it comes to the significance of disciplinary proceedings, some members are more equal than others. It is, for example, one thing to suspend an ordinary member. It is another thing to suspend a leader of a party.
A leader within a political party is not your ordinary member. That leader occupies an important position of trust. He or she is someone to be looked up to. He or she is often the only point of contact between a supporter and a party, and in some instances, between a member and his party’s executive.
Any action against a leader of a party is bound to affect the ability of that leader to represent his or her constituents. It is also likely to impact negatively on the reputation of that leader, and therefore, on the relationship between the leader and his or her constituents. To therefore suspend a leader of a party carries a different significance to suspending an ordinary member.
Suspension can of course be a form of disciplinary action, just as it can be a means of ensuring the integrity of a disciplinary process. For certain offences, the punishment after an offence has been determined can range from a warning letter to suspension to a fine to expulsion. In this regard, suspension is seen as a sanction after a charge has been determined.
But suspension is also part of the process of justice. It is a means employed to preserve the integrity of the disciplinary process.
This does not mean that someone should be automatically suspended because a charge has been formally levelled against him or her. Indeed, it is only when that person’s continued position as either a member or officer is likely to affect the integrity of the disciplinary process that the person should be suspended.
For example, if the continued presence of a leader within a party is likely to compromise, influence or interfere with a disciplinary procedure, only then should the person be suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings.  The act of suspension is not one to be employed arbitrarily.
Indeed, the only times that a leader of a political party should be suspended are, in one instance, if that person’s continued role as a member is likely to interfere, compromise or adversely influence an investigation involving that person. Secondly, suspension is usually the case if the alleged offence is of a very grave nature and if strong prima facie evidence has been provided to substantiate any allegation made.
I would want to suggest that a mere exchange of words, however dramatic, however vigorous, however abusive, should not necessarily lead to suspension pending a disciplinary hearing. These are simple charges that can usually be handled without resort to suspending a member.
However, if the charge includes insubordination, this puts a completely different complexion on the matter. A charge of insubordination need not in all instances lead to suspension, but often does, because of the possible effects that continued insubordination during the course of any investigation can have on internal unity of a party.
In other words, it is hard not to justify suspension when the alleged offence is, or includes, acts of insubordination. Voluntary organizations rely on the trust amongst members, and their unity is to a great extent determined by compliance with rules and legitimate orders.
Should any member run afoul of these rules and orders, and be accused of so doing, that member is likely to be suspended pending formal disciplinary proceedings.
Disciplinary proceedings involving insubordination by leaders are of a far more serious nature than disciplining an ordinary member. They are far more serious because if established, would involve a grave breach of trust, which is essential to internal unity of a party.
As such, when it comes to insubordination, it is one thing for an ordinary member to be insubordinate, but it is another thing for a leader to be found guilty of such a charge. The ordinary member may face suspension or be warned for insubordination. But if a leader is found guilty by a disciplinary tribunal of insubordination, expulsion usually follows.

---

---