Lagos — The greatest threat to the nation's democracy, and its twin-sister, the rule of law, is surprisingly coming from the same organs that are supposed to be its bulwark - the political parties.

This is because of their tendency to disrespect the sterling role of the judiciary in the growth of democracy in the country. And this should be a thing of great concern to all lovers of this system of government that is based on the principle of majority decision-making as opposed to autocracy.

It is why we view the recent threat by Nigeria's ruling party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to sanction any of its members that resorts to the courts to settle party disputes as not only inconsistent with democratic ethos but also as an attempt to abridge the fundamental human rights of the affected people.

Apparently overwhelmed by a plethora of court cases trailing the selection of former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Chukuma Soludo as its flag-bearer for the February 6, 2010 governorship election in Anambra State, the party read the riot act to its members.

Its Publicity Secretary, Prof Ahmed Alkali ordered all party men who have taken the party to court to withdraw such cases immediately or face "decisive disciplinary action", which may include expulsion.

It is understandable that no human organisation, not the least a political party whose ultimate objective is to win elections, would condone any action that tends to distract it from its avowed goals. Obviously the party has not been happy with developments that made it difficult to elect a candidate in good time. However, care must be taken that in trying to safeguard that organisational cohesion and maintain internal discipline, nothing is done to pitch the party's rule against the nation's constitution.

Ideally, a political party should be the congregation of like-minded, ideologically united politicians in pursuit of a common goal of winning elections. But the Nigerian case is far from this ideal. Here, most political parties are peopled by ideologically strange bedfellows who often work at cross-purposes. This is perhaps why most of the political parties are crisis-ridden. But even if the parties' internal mechanism for seeking redress fails in most cases to calm frayed nerves, the court becomes a generally acceptable last resort. So, to now seek to foreclose this option, as the PDP's threat intends to do, amounts to an infringement on the party members' fundamental rights and an abridgement of the democratic ideals the country is yearning to attain.

We do not by this seek to condone indiscipline among political party members. Indeed, we fervently believe that party discipline is one of the prerequisites for good governance, as a disciplined political party will most likely run an efficient government whenever it wins election. But it should be noted that indiscipline begets indiscipline.

So, do you now blame any aggrieved member in that situation who, rather than resorting to thuggery, chooses the constitutional option of litigation to stop what he rightly perceives as grave injustice? Oftentimes, blocking acceptable conflict resolution options only succeeds in breeding crime.

We strongly feel that it will amount to double jeopardy to deny aggrieved party members, who sufficiently feel they cannot get a redress within the party structure, access to justice outside the party organ.

So, political parties in the country should put their houses in order and stop resorting to high-handedness. They should strive to strengthen their internal mechanisms for settling grievances among members dispassionately and without fear or favour. Only this can guarantee the much-sought after internal cohesion that will foster the much-needed party discipline.