Tuesday,
November 13, 2012
The West Africa Network for Peace
(WANEP) has expressed grave concern that politicization of chieftaincy and ethnicity (especially in
Northern Ghana) is “a potential source of destabilization.”
In a statement at the opening of a two-day workshop for
security agencies in Tamale on Thursday, the WANEP’s Chukwuemeka B. Eze, Programmes Director
of WANEP-West Africa, advised
politicians to desist from politicization of chieftaincy.
I welcome this statement and will
add my voice to that of the WANEP. But the overarching question is: Who is politicizing chieftaincy but the chiefs
themselves?
Despite being banned from
participating in partisan politics, our traditional rulers continue to ruffle
feathers as they take sides and actively display their political bias, which violates
the constitutional ban imposed on them. This brazen display of political bias
by our traditional rulers is part of the controversy surrounding politicking in
this 4th Republic.
They are quick to find ways to
circumvent this official restraint aimed at insulating them against
politicization. But they can’t afford to be left out. Because politics in our
contemporary times has become the goldmine to be exploited, none wants to stand
aloof and lose out.
Our chiefs have refused to lie
low at the fringes. They can’t bear being left behind by the gravy train and
will find justifications for flouting the constitution ban, damn the
consequences. And they can be crafty.
Take this cunning approach by Osagyefo Oseadeeyo Agyemang Badu I,
the Dormaahene, as a clear instance. When the Running Mate of the CPP (Nana
Akosua Frimpomaa II, the Dwantoahemaa of Dormaa Traditional Area) was
introduced to him and his elders at Dormaa about two weeks ago, he called on
the electorate to vote for the CPP.
Justifying his call, he noted
that anybody using his call to conclude that he was flouting the Constitution
by indulging in partisan politics was wrong. His explanation? The Constitutional
provision is against “active partisan politics,” and not the “partisan politics”
that he might be labelled as doing.
Here is what the Constitution
says in section 1 of Article
276 (Chapter 22, entitled
“Chieftaincy”): “A chief
shall not take part in active party politics.”
The key issue is “active party politics,” which is simple and straight-forward.
And politics is always active, meaning that the constitutional ban is for all
times and all occasions that involve politicking on the basis of political
parties!
Certainly, Osagyefo Oseadeeyo Agyemang Badu
was seeking refuge in semantics. You see how a crafty chief will indulge in a
futile game of semantics to muddy the political waters?
He has had his say but we will
cut him to size to say that he wasn’t really being smart enough. What he
considered to be “active partisan politics” that the Constitution bans chiefs (including
him) from doing is clearly demonstrated in his conduct.
By asking the electorate to vote
for the CPP, was he not being “active” in doing partisan politics, betraying
his political bias? Didn’t he display partisanship at that time that the CPP
was actively campaigning for votes, even using that ceremony as a springboard?
You see, by isolating the CPP and
projecting it as the favourite for which the electorate must vote, Nana displayed
gross bias, which is exactly what underlies active partisan politics.
In this case, though, there is
more to the issue.
The Dormaahene’s partisanship is
influenced by selfish interests because he made the call to favour the CPP
whose running mate is a native of his traditional area who, hitherto being
elevated to that status, had been the Dwantoahemaa of the Dormaa Traditional
Area.
Invariably, an electoral victory
for the CPP will make her the Vice President. We know what such a juicy appointment
entails, especially in terms of the national cake and the likelihood of such a
high-ranking government official slicing some for the Traditional Area from
where she hails.
He is definitely looking for an
opportunity to get his bread buttered THICK. That explains his vehement
insiste3nce that the Constitutional provision doesn’t frown on the kind of
politicking that he is doing.
He is not alone. There are many
others who are behaving the way he has done—or who may be more brazen in
orchestrating to favour the political party of their choice. They do so because
they know what the rewards are.
Now, back to the main problem—the
politicization of chieftaincy and why it is worrisome but insoluble.
By hook or crook, chiefs fall
prey to the wily ways of the politicians and get roped into the partisan
politics that Article 276 of the Constitution stipulates.
The politicians are persistent—and
reckless or feckless in most cases—as they target prominent chiefs to “recruit”
for their partisan political game. These chiefs wittingly or unwittingly become
willing pawns in the game that these politicians hatch and play with stated
self-interests.
If they are lucky to have these
patronizing chiefs are lucky to have their preferred party in power, they reap
the windfall. Otherwise, they either quickly turn coat or find adroit means to
pander to the new King ruling with new laws. They know how to hop onto the
gravy train. That’s human nature. Life must go on, right?
Of course, the politicians know full
well how to play it fast and definitely knock on the doors of these chiefs,
making their residence/palaces the first point of call whenever they visit
traditional areas on their campaign trail.
They use such courtesy calls to seek
audience with the chiefs, to declare their intentions, and to seek their favour
and blessing to be in power. A quid pro quo arrangement often ensues and is
kept under wraps; but a careful observer of the political scene can’t miss the
reality.
Some of those interactions between
the chiefs and the favour-seeking politicians occur in the open during the day
and utterances made with the sense of “political correctness” guiding the
speakers. Only those who get carried away fail to control their tongues and
blurt out what they shouldn’t.
We know what happens under the
cover of darkness when the interactions turn into exchange of vows: the
politician promising all kinds of assistance (especially development projects
and contract awards) while the chiefs effusively pledge to garner support for
the politicians’ cause. It is not difficult to know. Even walls have ears.
To be continued…
·
E-mail:
mjbokor@yahoo.com
·
Join
me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor
No comments:
Post a Comment