Sunday,
December 2, 2012
Although I have already commented
on the signing of the Kumasi Peace Pact by the leaders of the parties contesting
next Friday’s Presidential and Parliamentary elections, there are still some
loose ends to tie up.
The real meaning to be given the Kumasi
Peace Pact has not yet emerged; hence, my return to pick up this issue for
further analysis.
Is it not surprising that the
very venue at which that Peace Pact was signed has turned out to be the hotbed
from where political violence has erupted not long after the Pact came into
effect? The Kumasi Ash Town incident is just one of the many that indicate that
the Peace Pact can’t solve any problem.
I have read it in full and seen
it as nothing but a ceremonial document. It lacks bite, which is why the signatories
haven’t even deemed it necessary to do anything to control their followers. In
effect, we can’t expect anything but a worsening of the situation as we inch
toward Election Day and muscles continue to be flexed at will.
I have already said that the
letter of the Pact alone can’t help us make peace. Even as tension heightens
because of the intransigence of the political rivals and the kind of harmful
politicking being done, no concrete effort is being made by the Presidential
Candidates who signed that Peace Pact to ensure that their followers don’t do
anything to disturb the peace.
Probably, the Peace Pact itself might
have been rushed through without the appropriate homework being done to plant
it on a solid foundation. What is more, the personalities behind the Pact
themselves have questions to answer. They are not “innocent” or disinterested.
The main issue being missed is
that much emphasis has been placed on only the hardcore political aspects of
the problems threatening the peace of the country. Indeed, the countless cases
of chieftaincy and land disputes all over the country, socio-economic vices
such as bribery and corruption, and plain criminal activities like armed
robbery, murder, and rape have already created favourable conditions for the
peace of the country to be disturbed.
Added to the political rivalry
tearing apart segments of the society, these problems are formidable enough to
warrant a more critical approach to the matter. On the whole, the hardcore
political issues are the immediate cause for any election-related national
crisis.
I have a good cause to raise some
fundamental concerns about the philosophical underpinnings of that Pact so that
we can understand why I am skeptical at this point that the signatories are not
really committed to the spirit of the Pact.
First, let’s take the main individuals
who gathered at the event to ensure that the Pact was signed by the various
party leaders.
The
Asantehene
The posture of the Asantehene
prior to the 2008 elections betrayed him as a supporter of the NPP, especially
when in an interaction with the party’s Presidential Candidate (Akufo-Addo),
the Otumfuo openly declared himself the head of the Oyoko clan to which he
claimed Akufo-Addo also belonged. That was not what betrayed the political
leanings of the Asantehene.
Most of us were disgusted by his
additional comments that as the head of the Oyoko clan, he knew how to tread
and that wherever he went, his subjects would go too. Indeed, many commentators
took him on and condemned this veiled political grandstanding.
Some did say that the Asantehene
would wake up by the end of the polls in 2008 to realize his mistake. And he
did so because Akufo-Addo lost the elections.
The manner in which Kufuor had elevated
the Asantehene and the preferential treatment given him left no one in doubt
that he was in bed with the NPP. We haven’t seen him displaying any membership
card of the NPP nor have we found his name in the NPP’s membership register to
establish him categorically as an NPP member. But enough gossip exists to
suggest that he harbours better feelings for the NPP than any other party.
So, for him to spearhead this
Peace Pact efforts in itself provides enough grounds for skepticism. Is
anything really being done with a clean conscience? Or, are there ulterior
motives?
Former
Presidents Rawlings and Kufuor
At another level, the two former
Presidents come up for scrutiny. There is so much acrimony between both that
seeing them together on the occasion of the signing of the Peace Pact provoked
prolonged hiccups.
Have they patched up their
differences to merit the frontline role given them to establish a Peace Pact?
Both Rawlings and Kufuor have
made uncomplimentary and scathing comments about each other to the point as to
portray themselves as a disgrace. Rawlings’ comparison of Kufuor to the
notorious armed robber, Nii Ayi, and Kufuor’s labeling of Rawlings as “patapaa”
and “Obonsam” can’t be forgotten all too soon.
Beyond that mutual wordy warfare,
both former Presidents have been at each other’s throat over the spoils of
politics—Kufuor withdrawing the protocol services granted Rawlings only to be
paid back in an almost humiliating coin by the Mills government that succeeded
him. Some might claim it was all at the instigation of Rawlings, especially
when viewed against Rawlings’ insistence that Kufuor and members of his
government be prosecuted for corruption.
Many instances proved beyond all
reasonable doubts that the bad-blood relationship between Rawlings and Kufuor
couldn’t just be tackled with a mere handshake or rubbing of shoulders at
public gatherings. We recall how both met and shook hands during the visit of
US President Barack Obama in 2009 only for Rawlings to turn round to say that
he only warmed up to Kufuor on the occasion for purposes of diplomacy.
Since then, both haven’t been
close nor given any indication that they had behaved as mature public figures
would be expected to behave. Although the Asantehene had indicated his
readiness to resolve the impasse between them, we haven’t heard of anything concrete
being done to that effect.
So, seeing both standing on
either side of the Otumfuo on the occasion of the KNUST ceremony for the
signing of the Peace Pact, we knew that the stony hearts in them belied the
public display of camaraderie that characterized the day’s events.
If Rawlings and Kufuor aren’t
warm toward each other to date, what moral justification do they have to
superintend over a ceremony seeking to lay the foundation for peace?
No doubt, the (mis)conduct of
these two former Presidents has had a ripple effect on large segments of the
Ghanaian citizenry: those supporting Rawlings share his sentiments and treat
Kufuor with contempt while Kufuor’s own admirers see Rawlings through his eyes—a
“patapaa” and “obonsam.” On either side of the political equation, these
followers are infected with the mutual hatred.
Yet, these were the people behind
the Peace Pact. Are Ghanaians really serious at all?
Any
faith in the Peace Pact, then?
To assume that the mere signing
of that Pact will neutralize the tension in the country or establish a cordial
relationship between the political rivals will be the height of foolishness.
I repeat that the real issues on
which peace is contingent at this time are either missing or distorted. By
deceiving ourselves that signing that piece of paper is a guarantee for peace,
we are only positioning ourselves for self-destruction as the time-bomb ticks
toward December 7.
Peace is not ensured or sustained
through such cosmetic measures.
Elsewhere, concrete action is
taken by the main actors to demonstrate the genuine desire for peace. They work
for peace and publicly demonstrate that spirit. Here is one clear example,
reported today by the BBC:
“US President Barack Obama has met defeated Republican presidential
candidate Mitt Romney for a private lunch at the White House.
Thursday's face-to-face will be
their first meeting since Mr. Obama overcame Mr. Romney in the 6 November election.
The pair had sparred in a bitter campaign and are said to have little rapport.
The two men
discussed “America's leadership in the world” and how to preserve it, the White
House said.
The former Massachusetts
governor left after just over an hour and the two said they would stay in
touch.”
Do you see any
useful lesson here that our political leaders need to learn?
We don’t need any divine touch to
do what we have to do as human beings seeking safety and security on earth. Just
like redemption, peace is a rare commodity to be worked for with fear and
trembling.
Let those who want to spearhead
the peace-making efforts demonstrate enough goodwill and commitment so that the
vast majority of Ghanaians will emulate their example. Anything else will add
cinder to the fire. We are pushing ourselves too far; and need to take caution.
Why should anybody cause mayhem
in an election that will put in office politicians more interested in serving
their own interests than those of the country and its citizens?
·
E-mail:
mjbokor@yahoo.com
·
Join
me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor
No comments:
Post a Comment