Thursday,
June 28, 2012
The controversy surrounding the
creation of 45 new constituencies by the Electoral Commission is troubling. So
also is the anger that the government’s creation and hasty inauguration of 46 new
districts and choice of their capital towns.
While the EC’s action may be
justified with precedent and supported with evidence of population figures and
the need to make the electoral process less cumbersome, the manner in which the
government approached the case of the new districts and their capital towns is
not.
Otherwise, will there be any need
for security personnel to be mobilized to guard against any physical acts of
the aggrieved people in protest? Or, would the government have created
unnecessary enmity for itself with this issue?
I have insisted that for as long
as the old negative bureaucratic measures continue to be taken to undermine the
integrity of governance, our democracy risks being endangered.
Were the government to be more
disciplined and mindful of the sentiments of the people for whom the new
districts have been created, it would have found better ways to approach the
issue instead of doing what has definitely led to its losing face.
It is pathetic that the
government won’t factor the expectations of the people into its governance
scheme and do things to win their hearts, not antagonize and alienate them. Our
democracy will grow better if the local-level structures serving as its support
base are strengthened with the goodwill of the people.
What has been happening over the
past 20 years that this 4th Republic has been in existence is nothing but a gross
disrespect for the people at all levels.
It seems once some people in
authority make up their minds on issues, they set themselves and their
preferences in stone and don’t allow for any dissension. That is not how a
democracy should function.
In this matter of the new
district assemblies and their inauguration against the background of protests
from sections of the population in those affected areas, the government should
be blamed for not respecting the interests of those with genuine complaints.
Instead of inaugurating these
district assemblies in the teeth of bitter opposition and flexing all muscles
to that effect, the government could have hastened slowly to hurdle all the
barriers. But it didn’t do so, and has certainly succeeded in creating new
pockets of opponents for itself.
How does the government expect to
gain votes if it continues to alienate segments of the electorate on a daily basis
as has been happening for some time now? Or how does it expect to be judged in
terms of respect for its attitude to the laws of the country?
A former Attorney-General and
Minister of Justice, Mr. Ayikoi Otoo hit the nail right on the head when he said
that the conduct of the government in inaugurating newly created districts is a
clear indication that “it holds the rule of law in contempt.”
He said for the government to
proceed to inaugurate the assemblies in spite of a case pending at the Supreme
Court challenging the creation of the districts is a clear demonstration that
it had no respect for the rule of law (Ghanaweb, June 28, 2012).
I agree with him and add that it
is also politically suicidal for the government to do so. Shame unto it!
Furthermore, I consider the
reaction of a Deputy Minister for Local Government, Elvis Afriyie Ankrah, to
the charge against government as hollow and immature. Maintaining that the
government was acting according to law is bull-crap because once a suit is
pending in court against the creation of the new districts, no one expected the
government to side-step that suit to do as it wishes.
The Deputy Minister’s contention
that “the Ministry could not wait for a court ruling challenging the creation
of the Assemblies” smacks of arrogance and a premeditated disposition to flout
the authority of the judiciary.
Here is the foolish question he
asked: “If somebody has gone to
court and the court hasn’t given a ruling, then we should stop the inauguration
of new assemblies?”
When a case is pending in court,
none of the parties affected by that suit can take a unilateral action and
expect to be respected. In this case, the government has only succeeded in
complicating matters to its own disadvantage.
In a more worrisome sense, it has
set itself on a collision course with the judiciary, which will deepen its
credibility problems in the long run. Should the case proceed to its logical
conclusion for the court to nullify the creation of the new districts, what
will the government do?
By rushing to inaugurate these
districts, the government has pre-empted the suit and jeopardized or prejudiced
its outcome. That is not good for our democracy.
What is the need for rushing to
inaugurate these district assemblies? I don’t see it and won’t be surprised if
funds are quickly mobilized to support infrastructural development in these new
districts only for them to be abandoned. If the creation and inauguration of
these assemblies is for political expediency, the tension this measure has
created overshadows any capital expected from it. Poor judgement!!
The cloud of anger and suspicion
hanging over the creation of these new districts and the choice of the capital
towns of some in places that aroused anger among some residents of those new
districts is a clear indication that something went wrong. Why couldn’t any
prior consultation be done for consensus before the creation of the new
districts, choice of their capital towns, and eventual inauguration?
After all, if the re-demarcation
of old districts and the carving out of new ones from them is meant to solve
problems and improve rural development for the benefit of the people, why weren’t
those people included in the exercise right from scratch for them to proffer
views to avoid all the brouhaha that has characterized this process?
The people for whom the new
district-level administration has been created should have had a say in the
matter. What sort of consultation did the government do to ensure that the
process could move on smoothly?
Some of those aggrieved people in
places such as Ningo, Sene East, Aflao, Vakpo, and Binduri made their voices
heard on the wrongfulness of the government’s actions long before the new
districts were established and the Legislative Instrument passed to concretize
their existence.
Those of Ningo, for instance, had
gone a step further to write to the government, urging it not to do the wrong
thing by siting the district capital at Prampram. And they adduced enough sound
arguments, backed with historical evidence, to strengthen their plea. They
eventually saw their MP, E.T. Mensah, as not doing enough to fight their cause
and expressed no confidence in him. The government didn’t even bother to
respond to their petition.
The same applies to Aflao and the
other areas. But the government disregarded the sentiments of the petitioners.
Truth be told, this wanton disrespect
for the people is one of the major weaknesses of this Atta Mills-led
government. As the situation stands now, the people of Ningo and those areas
challenging the status of their new districts and capital towns will have no
use for the government. They have already been pushed to the wall and shouldn’t
be expected to support the government.
Unfortunately, the anger that this
issue has provoked will not subside soon. It will influence the people’s
electoral decisions.
It is not to say that those in
the towns invested with responsibility as the capital of the new districts aren’t
happy enough to support the government. They may welcome the fact that such
areas will now see an improved development; but the price that the government
will pay is high.
Couldn’t the creation of these
new districts and the choice of their capital towns be done devoid of this
acrimony?
Is this how our democracy is
designed to function? Without regard for the sentiments of the very people for
whom it is being implemented? I don’t think so.
·
E-mail:
mjbokor@yahoo.com
·
Join
me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor
No comments:
Post a Comment