Malanding,

             You made some very interesting observations. And this is the crux of the matter. When PDOIS came into existence, it was faced with two fundamental choices: either to follow the politics of patronage or use an entirely different method to build its mass base of support. And for the underlining reasons quoted below, it decided to pursue a completely different route.

 

             "We discovered that the mass base of the ruling party may have reflected a popular will at the beginning but at the time of PDOIS’ birth the support was based on patronage. The Commissioners, Chiefs, Village heads, and all those in position of authority in government or private sector had the primary aim of sustaining the Government in power. The masses were generally controlled by their social groups and the heads of those groups were mobilised by the ruling party to build its own political base. Our review of the system of patronage also revealed that the existing opposition parties were just mimicking the system of patronage of the ruling party. They would look at all the government and private structures and then promise the rivals of those who occupy different positions that they would replace the substantive holder of any office once change comes about. These promises often motivate those who aspire to be ministers, heads of departments and para-statals, ambassadors, commissioners, chiefs  and  Village heads to utilise their energy, time, resources and connections to campaign for the opposition party. This created a two party system based on patronage."

 

            Your argument that had PDOIS decided to pursue the politics of patronage, their political capital would have increased tremendously or even make them to be voted into office, is not supported by the substantial evidence that when two political forces, one oppositional and the other governing, and both relying on patronage for electoral votes contest, the outcome is always predisposed that the governing party would win. This happened to the NCP in its years of struggle to unseat the P.P.P. It happened to the G.P.P. It also happened to other parties that were formed but had to die a natural death because they could not gain any traction. So this is not the exception, it is the norm. This is where the concept of politically leveling the field comes into play, and it requires a complete overhaul of our governing and electoral systems.

 

         You also said: " My point is why did the followers of the disbanded PPP decide to create UDP instead of joining the PDOIS bandwagon?" This is an interesting observation, and I believe has not been lost to PDOIS either.

 

           "By the way votes are the only metrics that count in parliamentary democracy." And we all know where and to whom all the votes are going to. 

           Rene