What should the approach of the UF be on electoral politics? What should the UFs stance be on 2016 and 2019 elections?
5.1 This is a question for ongoing debate.
To frame this debate, the Commissions explored various options as follows:
5.1.1 No participation by the UF in 2016 and 2019 elections;
5.1.2 Endorsement of independent candidates and/or political parties that may advance UF goals;
5.1.3 Direct UF contestation of elections;
5.1.4 Developing principles and commitments for UF and community-endorsed candidates to abide by;
5.1.5 Using elections to take forward struggles, certain demands to deepen democracy and to build people’s power – examples:
220.127.116.11 Critical audits of party manifestoes;
18.104.22.168 Raising people’s demands during elections;
22.214.171.124 Democratic nomination of people’s candidates;
126.96.36.199 Constituency-based systems;
188.8.131.52 Direct election of the President;
184.108.40.206 The right to recall; and
220.127.116.11 Public control over the perks and wages of elected representatives, etc.
5.1.6 Critique of narrow and exclusive focus on electoral politics and political institutions as the main avenue for struggles for social justice at the expense of popular self-organisation, struggles, solutions and alternatives; options that go beyond party political contestation of elections.
5.1.7 Whether UF contestation of elections may not change the envisaged and evolving character, content and form of the UF;
5.1.8 Whether the UF would be ready for the 2016 elections;
5.1.9 The need to protect the political integrity and autonomy of the UF;
5.1.10 The implications of the possibility of the emergence of the Movement for Socialism and/or a Workers’ Party;
5.1.11 To take forward the debate, the Assembly agreed on the need to document, debate and learn from different approaches to and experiences of elections as part of elaborating the UF’s approach to elections.