Saturday,
July 7, 2012
Many voices have been heard
saying that President Mills will set a record as the first incumbent to serve
only one term in office. There is nothing strange about this wish; and if that
is the decision of the electorate, it must be respected. Even before Election
Day, it shouldn’t be difficult to tell how the wind blows.
I strongly believe that if he
proves unworthy of a second term, he should be voted down. He must be
responsible for his own Fate. There is nothing binding for him to be treated as
was done to his predecessors (Rawlings, January 1993–2001; and Kufuor, January 2001–2009).
Nothing but a credible record of performance should be the yardstick.
The 1992 Constitution provides
for a maximum of two terms in office, but we must not make a fetish of that
concession to create the wrong impression that anybody put in office as the
President must necessarily run the full course. Retention in office must not be
reduced to a predictable equation. In our kind of politics where sycophancy
predominates in the affairs of politicians, their cronies, all manner of
hangers-on, and lackeys in the media and other outlets designed for propaganda
purposes, we shouldn’t jeopardize our democracy by leaving anything to chance.
If we insist on automatically renewing the mandate of the President, we can’t
get out of the woods. But get out of the woods we must!
In our situation, where
development projects have become the main bait being dangled by the political office
holders, it is obvious that performance will be primarily based on how much infrastructural
development the President and his government provide. That is why President
Mills is suffering the negative backlash of his government’s inability to
fulfill the 2008 electioneering campaign promises that the NDC activists had
made while stunting for votes, although evidence abounds on its provision of
development projects all over the country.
Development projects provide the
congenial means for an improved socio-economic lifestyle and allow the
beneficiaries to live their lives in some kind of measured decency provided
they can pay for the services. But development projects shouldn’t be the
be-it-all-and-end-it-all in the political considerations.
Considering the pervasive
corruption that has characterized anything concerning development projects, I
am tempted to guess that development projects are the root cause of corruption in
the public sector, which defies solution because those in charge of affairs
profit from them. Development projects engender vice. Contract manipulation or
award of contracts to dubious characters (mostly on political party or ethnic
lines) and the inflation of contract costs are too common. Thus, the more
attention is paid to development projects, the more likely the tendency for
fleecing of the national coffers.
That is why we are hesitant to
praise the President or government for its attention to development projects.
If the President can put in place measures to curb the corrupt practices
associated with development projects, he will deserve our praise and support.
Until then, we remain skeptical about this over-emphasis on development
projects as a confirmation of the President or government’s performance and,
therefore, the justification for their being retained in power.
Other performance indicators
should be factored into the electoral decision. And there are many of such
performance indicators such as:
·
the
President’s leadership skills (especially the ability to galvanize the people
for national development);
·
the
government’s policies and programmes aimed at ensuring long-lasting development
in all sectors of national life, not just anything transient or based on spur-of-the-moment
politically motivated whims and caprices;
·
ability
to ensure national security and public safety;
·
ability
to fight bribery and corruption, moral decadence, economic stagnation, and
political instability;
·
ability
to project a positive image of Ghana on the international scene;
·
ability
to unite the country and shun narrow-minded ethnic politics and nepotism; and
many others.
Such performance indicators should
be used to determine the extent to which the President and his government have
contributed toward national progress and not compounded whatever problems they
might have inherited from their predecessors. In this vein, then, the paramount
issue becomes: What has the President done to raise hopes in Ghanaians for a
brighter future, based on the solid foundation that his government has built
for the long-awaited economic take-off?
Mind you, everything is
influenced by economics, and the ability of the President to provide the
leadership skills needed to use the vast natural and human resources of the
country should be on top of the list of factors constituting the yardstick by
which the incumbent’s desire for retention in office must be measured.
The question to ask in the case
of President Mills is: Has he given enough account of his stewardship as far as
those performance indicators are concerned to warrant his re-election bid?
No matter what the answer is, I hold
the opinion that the move for retention in office must be made by the President
himself. From what President Mills has given us to know of him so far, what is
the initiative that he is taking to make himself re-electable? A very serious
question with very serious implications!
A President who really wants to
remain in office will be more visible on the political landscape than what
President Mills has portrayed so far. Forget about the public attention to his
health issues or what he says when interacting with foreign or local dignitaries
when he interacts with them at the seat of government. That won’t endear him to
any voter’s heart.
A President who is desirous of
remaining in office will take every step to connect with the people where they
matter most. Is that what President Mills is doing? Not at all.
We note that he is more confined
to the Osu Castle and doing the routine assignments while his influence on the
political landscape wanes either because not much is seen of him or because the
political opponents’ propaganda is effectively undercutting him.
President Mills seems not to be
cognizant of the fact that his popularity will be judged more by what the
people hear about him than from him. And what is said about him from his
detractors won’t pave the way for him to win an election. What haven’t these
opponents already said to damage his interests? Yet, he remains glued to his
comfort zone at the Osu Castle, leaving his aspirations in limbo.
While the NPP’s Akufo-Addo and his
running mate are up-and-doing, touring the country and damaging his interests,
he seems to have left the political work to his subordinates (government
appointees in the regions, constituencies, nooks and crannies). Unfortunately, most
of these subordinates are part of the President and his government’s credibility
problem that worsens day-by-day.
The forces arrayed against
President Mills are enormous. Even in his own political camp, there are many
voices singing cacophonous tunes for him to be a one-term President. Added to
this internal evil wish is the propaganda work by his political opponents whose
daily machinations and public pronouncements have dire negative consequences
for his re-election bid.
Probably, already counting his
blessings and hoping that the development projects initiated by his government
will do the trick for him, he is complacent. But he will curse himself if he
doesn’t get up to gird his loins.
Having already told Ghanaians
after his medical check-up in the United States that he was back with vigour
and vibrancy, what is the need for him to return to his coop at the Castle,
shut off from the public sphere?
One expects that by now, he would
have begun the move to re-activate his campaign machinery to ensure that he is
not overtaken by events. But he isn’t doing so. And if he isn’t, who should?
More troubling is the spate of
judgement debts that have dominated public discourse on the performance of his
government. Everything points to impropriety, which an up-and-doing President
will be expected to react to and use to re-sate his own perspectives on
national issues. But President Mills isn’t doing or saying anything reassuring.
It seems he doesn’t know the extent to which this Woyome scandal and many
others in the same guise are quickly eroding public confidence in him. Will
this negative impression help him realize his re-election goal? I don’t think
so.
I want to say at this point that
the decision to retain an incumbent President/government in office lies with
the electorate. No one should create the mistaken impression that once elected into
office, such a person must necessarily be pushed on to the mandatory second
term as such.
If the electorate are dissatisfied
with President Mills’ performance at the various levels, they should get rid of
him without any undue influence from the corridors of power. Those who think
that providing essential commodities, roofing materials, or corn mills to buy
the conscience of the electorate so as to win the day for such a President must
be routed.
At this point in our democratic
march, we should be using better methods to put in office our leaders. We want
those who know what our problems are and will work with us to solve them.
Nothing but a creditable performance in office should determine the electoral
decision to be made at Election 2012.
Thus, if President Mills will be
the first to serve only a term in this 4th Republic, it should be
so. It shouldn’t be anything to haggle or bargain over. His own attitude to
matters of such an office should tell us what to do with and to him on Election
Day. If he really wants to be retained in office, he should get off his butt
and be counted. Otherwise, he will be consigned to the political wilderness.
That should be it.
·
E-mail:
mjbokor@yahoo.com
·
Join
me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor
No comments:
Post a Comment