Monday,
May 12, 2014
Folks,
I have insisted all this while that the kind of democracy that Ghana has been
practising since January 7, 1993, isn’t designed to solve the problems of our
under-development. It is a camouflaged dictatorship that allows those with
political connections to hold sway for their own good. And as the Asantehene
has rightly put it, the kind of politics motivated by this democracy has made
Ghanaians lazy. And they have become the victims of this kind of democracy!
If
you doubt it, tell me what specifically this democracy has offered the ordinary
Ghanaian whose toil, blood, and sweat sustains it. Apart from being roused out
of justifiable apathy or induced by power-hungry politicians to stand in inclement
weather to vote, what exactly has this democracy done to prove that it is
serving the interests of the people?
On
a larger scale, what has changed in Ghana since the adoption of this democracy?
Don’t tell me about freedom of speech or enfranchising of the citizens. These
are mere ideals that don’t add anything to lives.
The
democracy itself has its own internal weaknesses that incapacitate it at
several levels. Just consider the institutions of state on which it depends to
find out whether in their existing state they have been able to solve any
problem. Don’t even wonder why none of the governments that have been ruling all
these years have bothered to retool these institutions to make them more
functional. In their weak state, they serve the purposes of those with
political connections.
From
the judiciary to the vehicle licensing institution, there is nothing new. Turn
to other institutions all over the country to find out what changes they have
undergone to perform satisfactorily. Nothing has changed and won’t change for
as long as those abusing the status quo resist change! The only visible change
is the sophistication with which bribery and corruption are perpetrated (a la
judgement debts, etc.).
It
is all designed for the good of those with political connections. And, indeed,
they reap the windfall for doing nothing concrete to improve governance for the
good of the people. The people remain as victims of their own docility and
gullibility. They are too pliant and allow these politicians to exploit the
situation.
Within
this context, it is more than disgusting to learn that executives of the
political party in power have been attending Cabinet meetings. Madness Number
One!!
We
are told that under the NPP administration, the party’s National Chairman and
General Secretary regularly attended Cabinet meetings. There is nothing
on what happened under Rawlings.
I
condemn this practice and urge an end to it because it is not in the country’s
interest. It is a constitutional violation that must be fought with all the
power at our disposal.
On
the contrary, Johnson Asiedu Nketia (General Secretary of the NDC) “has
rubbished calls” for that practice to cease. Madness Number Two!!
(See:
http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=309068)
No
justification supports the practice. A Cabinet meeting is strictly reserved for
high-ranking government officials who have sworn the relevant oaths (of state
and office) and been enjoined to keep their mouths shut on official secrets.
The executives of the political party in power haven’t sworn any oath of the
sort nor have they been recognized by our constitution as such to participate
in Cabinet meetings.
Asiedu Nketiah’s
premise or reasons for taking such a stance are flawed. There is always a
separation between the government of the day and the political party on whose
ticket it is in power. In civilized democracies, the party structures are
clearly established, defined, and upheld to eliminate any collision course.
That is why in the
United States, for instance, the party has its National Chairman (or whatever
designation it is) who cannot stand elections while still holding that
position. There is no talk of founder and father of any political party. Those
doing the party’s work know their limits and end where the red line shows up.
Our democratic
experiment is fashioned on that of the US, which is why references must be made
to it. Asiedu Nketiah’s use of the United Kingdom and South Africa to justify
his objection is skewed; it is inadmissible and contemptuous.
There is need for vigilance
to ensure that the political party’s purview doesn’t overlap with that of the
state (where the government comes in). Indeed, although the winner of the
Presidential elections might have stood on the ticket of a political party, it
doesn’t mean that the government he forms is necessarily an extension of the
party. Our problem in Ghana is that we cannot separate the trees from the
forest.
We must be bold
enough to tell those thinking like Asiedu Nketiah what will deflate them as “lazy
thinkers”. In his sloppy justification for the error of judgement by allowing
executives of the political party to attend Cabinet sessions, he sought to
create the impression that without the party, the government couldn’t have been
formed.
Of course, a
political party exists because it wants to win elections and form a government
to rule the country. But common sense alone should tell Asiedu Nketiah that
there are bounds. A political party remains what it is. A government may evolve
from the party’s efforts but it doesn’t mean that the government cannot be
separated from the party.
When the political
parties have clear structures for their internal political work, they will have
a pecking order and a system for self-sustenance. Clearly, if the parties can
conduct primaries (to allow any qualified member to participate) and a clear Presidential
Candidate chosen for the elections, there will be no need for anybody to confuse
leadership positions. The executives of the party will definitely know their
limits and leave the winner of the elections to form a government which won’t
be seen as an appendage of the party.
Our problem is that
our parties’ structures are not clear nor do the parties even have any system to
groom members for leadership positions. Truth be told, the party cannot be the
same as the government, regardless of the fact that the latter owes a lot to the
former. The party only provides a platform and should not be confused with the
product.
The problem that
people who think and behave like Asiedu Nketiah have is that they find it
difficult to let the “gravy train” pass them by. They cling on to every
opportunity they see to be part of government business. Some are even known for
arrogating to themselves powers that nobody gave them but which they could wear
on their sleeves just because they know how to walk in the corridors of power.
Most of the governance
problems facing us in Ghana are caused by such characters who muddy the waters
and create the impression that without them and the political party they lead,
the President will lose support. It is a way to blackmail the President, which
may account for why certain appointments are made under duress. What we see
happening is that the President faces so much “bullying” that he is virtually
powerless.
We have often heard
comments that Kufuor was really malleable and served the interests of those who
could pull strings as so-called “power brokers”. The same is being said of President
Mahama (even to the extent that a hitherto unknown Dr. Godwin Etse Sikanku, a political analyst, could describe him as"
weak, reactionary" and "complains too much") (See: http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=309050).
We
need to take bold steps to clean the stables. The political party must be kept
to its turf and the government encouraged to rule in the interest of Ghana and
not be bullied by the dictates of any particular political party. Of course,
the government may turn to its base for ideas (including the party’s
manifesto); but the government must be a separate entity to act in accordance
with constitutional provisions.
The
political parties must also act as mandated by the Constitution. In this case,
though, the Constitution doesn’t provide that executives of political parties
should attend Cabinet meetings.
I am perturbed by
the lousiness that propelled Asiedu Nketiah’s claims which, if not properly
confronted, will give credence to this practice. Party officials are party
officials but can be co-opted into government for the good of the country and
not the party. They may still be imbued with the “party fervour” but should
know how to do things in the interest of the country.
On this score, I
strongly agree with Professor Emmanuel
Gyimah-Boadi (Executive Director of the Centre for Democratic Development) that
the practice is wrong.
Until we separate
the party from the government, we will continue to mislead the people and
create distortions to impede good governance. Government business is no party
business!
I shall return…
·
E-mail:
mjbokor@yahoo.com
·
Join
me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor to continue
the conversation.
No comments:
Post a Comment