FLASH
Shkruar nga Ardi Stefa
Without the party logo, many candidates would never have entered Parliament. But without the candidate's personal votes, the party could have one fewer MP.
The debate over ownership of the parliamentary mandate returns every time a member of parliament leaves the party, votes differently from the parliamentary group, or claims to represent only his conscience or the will of his constituents.
This question is not simply legal. It is, first and foremost, political and moral.
The answer is not the same for all cases, but depends on how the mandate was obtained and on the real relationship between the MP, the party and the citizen.
When a deputy is elected through closed lists, without real competition and without meritocracy, it is difficult to argue whether the mandate belongs primarily to him. In this case, the argument that the mandate belongs to the deputy is very weak, because the voter did not vote for the individual, but for the party logo. The name of the deputy was placed on the list by the president or by the leadership structures and the citizen had no opportunity to accept or reject it separately. In many cases, the voter does not even know the candidate he is putting into Parliament. He votes for the program, the logo and the political leader. In fact, if the candidate's name were removed from the list and replaced with another person from the same party, the election result would change very little. The mandate, in essence, is a product of the party and not of the individual merit of the deputy. The deputy is the beneficiary, not its owner.
The situation is different with open lists. Here, the mandate is the result of a political collaboration between the party and the candidate. The party gives the candidate its logo, structure and political identity. The candidate, on the other hand, brings personal votes, reputation and the trust he has built among the citizens.
Therefore, in the case of open lists, the mandate cannot be considered the exclusive property of anyone. It belongs partly to the MP and partly to the party. Without the party logo, many candidates would never have entered Parliament. But without the candidate's personal votes, the party could have one less MP. Personal votes have real weight. However, even in this case it would be wrong to say that the mandate belongs only to the MP. If the candidate were to run as an independent, would he receive the same number of votes?
Therefore, when an MP from the open lists leaves the party claiming that the mandate is his alone, he often forgets that a portion of the voters supported him precisely because he represented that political force and not another.
This is why the absolute claim that, “The mandate belongs only to the MP” or “The mandate belongs only to the party” is wrong. The truth depends on how that mandate was obtained.
However, the mandate is not the private property of either the MP or the party, but a matter of conscience and meritocracy. It is a temporary trust given by the citizens. But the less role the citizen has in choosing the individual, the closer the mandate comes to the party. And the more role personal votes have, the closer the mandate comes to the MP.
Lini një Përgjigje