Football administration: Monkey business for a few?
By Kofi Akordor
THE euphoria created by the 26th MTN Africa Cup of Nations tournament has virtually died down and discussions on the performance of the Black Stars have reached their sunset level. It is now time for us to switch the searchlight on how football is being administered in the country. In other words, now is the time to take a closer look at how those noble men tasked with the responsibility of managing our football affairs to ensure a successful local league and raise winsome national teams are doing their work.
Whether we like it or not, the type of football administrators we have has a direct bearing on the outcome of any national assignment we undertake. This is because by their decisions, actions, inaction and judgements we shall reap rich laurels or come home vanquished and disgraced.
We know that in the past those who offered to run the various football teams or serve on the governing board, that is, the Ghana Football Association (GFA), did so voluntarily for their love for the game. That was why players of yesteryears deemed it personal achievements and pride to wear the national jersey in major competitions without a second thought about monetary gains.
Everything has changed. Football, like many other sporting events, has become serious business and all those who indulge in it, one way or another, have their eyes glued first and foremost to the financial benefits that will accrue from their efforts. So whether as a player, a coach, a sponsor or an administrator, the words ‘patriotism’, ‘nationalism’ and ‘voluntarism’ have very little meaning. Even those who claim to be ardent supporters of the national teams have been proved to have gone for the monetary gains.
It is, therefore, not a big deal if those who run the affairs of our football make sure that they do not go home empty-handed. But that should be after a good job has been done and the client decides to give a good handshake to show appreciation. After all, you can’t feed a hungry child without licking your fingers!
However, after a closer look, it appears that the nation is being led on a kind of monkey business lane. You want to know why? Take a good look at our FA and its members. It is more or less like a club of team owners or managers coming together for the common purpose of serving their interests under the guise of helping the country called Ghana. And these are people who are supposed to ensure a fair and impartial league so that at the end of the day only the best could be good for Ghana. These are people who, directly or indirectly, have a hand in the selection of players to constitute the national teams and who must make sure that only the best find their way into the teams.
Let us take a critical look at the membership of the FA and see whether we are in normal times or people are just playing absurd games with the Ghanaian public. The first name that comes to mind is Mr Kwasi Nyantakyi, the President of the FA and at the same time Chairman of Wa All Stars, a Premier Division club.
The second person, Mr Fred Pappoe, is the Vice-President of the FA and Chairman of the Black Stars Management Committee. As if Mr Pappoe’s hands are not full enough, he is also the Board Chairman of Midjland Football Club, a Division One team.
Mr Randy Abbey is an Executive Committee Member of the FA, Chairman of the Management Committee of the Black Meteors and Director of Communications of the FA. Outside the FA, Mr Abbey is the Chief Executive of Kessben Football Club, a Premier Division football team.
Mr Fred Crentsil is an Executive Council Member of the FA and Board Chairman of St Mirren, a Division One football club.
So, one may ask, are these people on the FA serving the interest of Ghana football or as representatives of their clubs? Incidentally, these are people who would want the players of their teams to get international exposure so that they can go on to win lucrative contracts with foreign clubs. You see where the conflict of interest lies? Are we going to get a fair bargain as a nation if it comes to player selection for the national teams with the people with so much personal ambition in charge of affairs?
Where is the guarantee that there will be transparency, fairness and competitiveness in the national league if key personalities on the FA are themselves interested parties as club owners/managers?
By all means those who want to do business should be allowed to do so, as long as they operate within the laws of the land. I, however, do not consider it a fair deal for people to hide behind the national interest to do private business.
I do not believe in indispensability and those on the FA must make a choice — to run their own football clubs or serve with unalloyed loyalty. There should be no divided attention.
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
Friday, February 22, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Ghana 2008: The gains and the drains
Ghana 2008: The gains and the drains
By Kofi Akordor
THE Ghana 2008 soccer fiesta is now history. While it lasted, Ghana came under the international spotlight. It also fired nationalism and patriotism among Ghanaians and, for good reasons, pushed politics into the background.
Organising a tournament of such magnitude was not an easy task and the organisers, spearheaded by the Local Organising Committee (LOC), need to be commended. That does not take away their inadequacies when we come to that.
As should be expected, the victorious Egyptian team, The Pharaohs, will be counting their blessings, while the rest will be licking their wounds in agonising silence.
As in any human endeavour, there were gains, just as there were drains. For the gains, it is easy to point at the two new stadia in Tamale and Sekondi and the renovation of the two in Kumasi and Accra to bring them to international standards. Surely, Ghana did not disgrace itself before the international community when it came to the physical structures which hosted the 26th MTN Africa Cup of Nations, even though there were complaints that the layers of grass on the various turfs were too high or took thick for player comfort.
The tournament also inspired entrepreneurs to put up new hotels and eating joints, while others renovated existing ones. The nation also gained a lot from international media exposure. For more than two weeks, Ghana featured prominently on every major international television network, including the giants in the field, Cable News Network (CNN) and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). This is something we should exploit further as a nation to attain greater international recognition as a good destination for foreign business entrepreneurs.
There were a few drawbacks, however. First, we overestimated that number of foreign visitors. Organisers gave an initial estimated figure of over one million visitors. Based on that, hotel accommodation was increased and improved in some cases. In the end, many hotel rooms remained unoccupied, while food vendors who were counting on bonanza sales took home unsold food. At the end of the day, official figures did not go beyond 10,000 visitors.
Where were those hordes of international prostitutes determined to invade the country and drown us in uncontrollable sexual orgies? What happened to the condoms the HIV/AIDS campaigners were desperately distributing all over the place?
Ironically, while people were struggling to get tickets for the various matches, most of the stands were empty during matches, except those involving the Black Stars. It was argued that the situation was due to ticket racketeering.
The greatest lesson, which was also a big source of drain on the tournament, was the glaring inequality in our national development programme. Before the tournament, there had been rumours that some of the teams were not satisfied with hotel facilities at match venues, especially those in Tamale and Sekondi/Takoradi. There was also the question of how to put the modern stadium facilities in Tamale and Sekondi/Takoradi to profitable use after the tournament.
First, it is true that development strategies in the country have been skewed in favour of Accra, the national capital, and to a limited extent Kumasi. In other words, almost all the development projects have been sited in Accra, leaving little room for other towns to develop.
As a result, the rest of the country lacks the infrastructure and facilities to support large numbers of international visitors.
Apart from a few hotels which were hurriedly put up to receive the expected foreign visitors, almost all our towns and cities, except Accra and Kumasi, lack modern first-class hotels, the type that could accommodate celebrities and those who have big money to spare.
Take estate development, for example. Under the excuse of providing more accommodation for public servants, large tracts of land are acquired to put up estate houses in Accra, while the regional capitals and other urban centres are not given equal attention for similar facilities. It is just natural that many public servants are reluctant to accept posting to certain parts of the country. Incidentally, the more estates we build in Accra, the more people prefer to come to Accra to enjoy the benefits of our national resources where it appears everything good belongs.
We should not expect our regional and district capitals to grow to attract investors and public service workers, which will ultimately ease the population burden on Accra, if we do not put in place a national development strategy to spread the national cake to all parts of the country.
For instance, why should we site a cocoa processing and chocolate factory in Tema when that factory could have served a more useful purpose in a better national strategic development plan if it had been sited in a cocoa-growing area? Where do we expect our school leavers to go for jobs, after a factory best suited for their locality has been sent to the city?
The Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Centre was originally designated for an abandoned military base near Ho, the Volta Regional capital. That project, if it had been sited at its original place, would have breathed some life into the social and economic activities of the regional capital, given employment to the local youth and transformed the fortunes of the surrounding communities. But those who take decisions on our behalf decided to relocate the centre in Accra, which is already over-populated and whose resources are already overstretched.
There are examples of such decisions in which projects of national importance have been located in Accra, just because in their narrow-mindedness public officials have come to that sad conclusion that anything beyond Accra has no national relevance.
We have always complained about the rural-urban drift without taking steps to stem it. We think appeals to young school leavers and all the unskilled youth to remain in the rural areas will achieve results when we do not put in place the appropriate measures that will serve as a disincentive for them to travel to the cities.
As a result of this imbalance and unplanned development agenda, our cities, except Accra and Kumasi, were not ready to receive our guests.
Another area where we were exposed was transportation. Ghana is a very small country and after 50 years we should be in a position to have a good transportation network in rail, road and air to open up the country. In which case it should have been possible for fans to sleep in Accra and go to Tamale to watch football matches and return the same day without worrying about sleeping accommodation.
Some have started talking about relocating the national capital, as if that is the answer to a bad development policy. We can start decongesting Accra now by changing our attitude towards national development. Our regional and district capitals can start hosting industries and absorbing many public servants if the right infrastructure will be put in place and entrepreneurs and investors encouraged to locate in those places.
As it is now, it is a real challenge how we are going to utilise the modern stadia we have built in Tamale and Sekondi/Takoradi when we do not have the type of teams that can draw crowds to fill the stands during matches.
May be the 26th MTN football tournament should reawaken our national consciousness to the realisation that Ghana will not attain real growth while we continue to pour all our national wealth into Accra and a few other places.
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
By Kofi Akordor
THE Ghana 2008 soccer fiesta is now history. While it lasted, Ghana came under the international spotlight. It also fired nationalism and patriotism among Ghanaians and, for good reasons, pushed politics into the background.
Organising a tournament of such magnitude was not an easy task and the organisers, spearheaded by the Local Organising Committee (LOC), need to be commended. That does not take away their inadequacies when we come to that.
As should be expected, the victorious Egyptian team, The Pharaohs, will be counting their blessings, while the rest will be licking their wounds in agonising silence.
As in any human endeavour, there were gains, just as there were drains. For the gains, it is easy to point at the two new stadia in Tamale and Sekondi and the renovation of the two in Kumasi and Accra to bring them to international standards. Surely, Ghana did not disgrace itself before the international community when it came to the physical structures which hosted the 26th MTN Africa Cup of Nations, even though there were complaints that the layers of grass on the various turfs were too high or took thick for player comfort.
The tournament also inspired entrepreneurs to put up new hotels and eating joints, while others renovated existing ones. The nation also gained a lot from international media exposure. For more than two weeks, Ghana featured prominently on every major international television network, including the giants in the field, Cable News Network (CNN) and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). This is something we should exploit further as a nation to attain greater international recognition as a good destination for foreign business entrepreneurs.
There were a few drawbacks, however. First, we overestimated that number of foreign visitors. Organisers gave an initial estimated figure of over one million visitors. Based on that, hotel accommodation was increased and improved in some cases. In the end, many hotel rooms remained unoccupied, while food vendors who were counting on bonanza sales took home unsold food. At the end of the day, official figures did not go beyond 10,000 visitors.
Where were those hordes of international prostitutes determined to invade the country and drown us in uncontrollable sexual orgies? What happened to the condoms the HIV/AIDS campaigners were desperately distributing all over the place?
Ironically, while people were struggling to get tickets for the various matches, most of the stands were empty during matches, except those involving the Black Stars. It was argued that the situation was due to ticket racketeering.
The greatest lesson, which was also a big source of drain on the tournament, was the glaring inequality in our national development programme. Before the tournament, there had been rumours that some of the teams were not satisfied with hotel facilities at match venues, especially those in Tamale and Sekondi/Takoradi. There was also the question of how to put the modern stadium facilities in Tamale and Sekondi/Takoradi to profitable use after the tournament.
First, it is true that development strategies in the country have been skewed in favour of Accra, the national capital, and to a limited extent Kumasi. In other words, almost all the development projects have been sited in Accra, leaving little room for other towns to develop.
As a result, the rest of the country lacks the infrastructure and facilities to support large numbers of international visitors.
Apart from a few hotels which were hurriedly put up to receive the expected foreign visitors, almost all our towns and cities, except Accra and Kumasi, lack modern first-class hotels, the type that could accommodate celebrities and those who have big money to spare.
Take estate development, for example. Under the excuse of providing more accommodation for public servants, large tracts of land are acquired to put up estate houses in Accra, while the regional capitals and other urban centres are not given equal attention for similar facilities. It is just natural that many public servants are reluctant to accept posting to certain parts of the country. Incidentally, the more estates we build in Accra, the more people prefer to come to Accra to enjoy the benefits of our national resources where it appears everything good belongs.
We should not expect our regional and district capitals to grow to attract investors and public service workers, which will ultimately ease the population burden on Accra, if we do not put in place a national development strategy to spread the national cake to all parts of the country.
For instance, why should we site a cocoa processing and chocolate factory in Tema when that factory could have served a more useful purpose in a better national strategic development plan if it had been sited in a cocoa-growing area? Where do we expect our school leavers to go for jobs, after a factory best suited for their locality has been sent to the city?
The Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Centre was originally designated for an abandoned military base near Ho, the Volta Regional capital. That project, if it had been sited at its original place, would have breathed some life into the social and economic activities of the regional capital, given employment to the local youth and transformed the fortunes of the surrounding communities. But those who take decisions on our behalf decided to relocate the centre in Accra, which is already over-populated and whose resources are already overstretched.
There are examples of such decisions in which projects of national importance have been located in Accra, just because in their narrow-mindedness public officials have come to that sad conclusion that anything beyond Accra has no national relevance.
We have always complained about the rural-urban drift without taking steps to stem it. We think appeals to young school leavers and all the unskilled youth to remain in the rural areas will achieve results when we do not put in place the appropriate measures that will serve as a disincentive for them to travel to the cities.
As a result of this imbalance and unplanned development agenda, our cities, except Accra and Kumasi, were not ready to receive our guests.
Another area where we were exposed was transportation. Ghana is a very small country and after 50 years we should be in a position to have a good transportation network in rail, road and air to open up the country. In which case it should have been possible for fans to sleep in Accra and go to Tamale to watch football matches and return the same day without worrying about sleeping accommodation.
Some have started talking about relocating the national capital, as if that is the answer to a bad development policy. We can start decongesting Accra now by changing our attitude towards national development. Our regional and district capitals can start hosting industries and absorbing many public servants if the right infrastructure will be put in place and entrepreneurs and investors encouraged to locate in those places.
As it is now, it is a real challenge how we are going to utilise the modern stadia we have built in Tamale and Sekondi/Takoradi when we do not have the type of teams that can draw crowds to fill the stands during matches.
May be the 26th MTN football tournament should reawaken our national consciousness to the realisation that Ghana will not attain real growth while we continue to pour all our national wealth into Accra and a few other places.
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
Monday, February 11, 2008
A plea from the cemetery
By Kofi Akordor
I watched Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama respond to questions from a respectable audience as part of their campaign to win the Democratic presidential nomination which is due in August 2008. Each candidate addressed issues of national interest, ranging from recession, health to the war in Iraq. They both tried to convince the American public why they felt qualified to occupy the White House next January. In all these, they were polite, civil and straight to the point. At the end of it all, Mrs Clinton and Obama went into a warm embrace which will be the envy of their spouses, amidst a thunderous ovation from the audience.
Then my mind turned to the home front and I knew why we are like this and they are like that. The picture became clearer — why we are marking time or drifting backwards while others are always marching forward — our understanding of politics.
Elsewhere, politics is a dream to offer service and change things for the better, while here it is an opportunity to run down perceived opponents or enemies and amass wealth at the expense of the progress of the state. That is why, when others are seriously addressing issues of how to tackle unemployment, provide health care for the people and bridge the yawning gap between the poor and the rich, we here dwell on trivialities and reduce the exercise to who is stronger or more handsome, who is taller or shorter or who is older and richer than the other.
Senator Obama is barely 42, with mixed parentage. His father is Kenyan and his mother an American. Even if he does not get the presidential nomination at the end of August, he has already entered the record books for being the first African-American to have stirred such massive excitement in American politics.
The truth is that Obama is the most sensational name in America today because of what he stands for — change and racial equality. He is a bridge between the younger generation and the old, a man who represents a new America which is not only seen as strong and a bully but an America which must play its father-figure role more responsibly and humanely.
Obama did not rise to this level in so short a time just playing on the emotions of the people, throwing words about irresponsibly and making promises he knew deep down his heart that he was incapable of fulfilling. For him to have received endorsements from public and renowned figures such as Senator Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, the former Democratic presidential candidate, and Oprah Winfrey, the popular talk show hostess, means that Obama did not reach here by accident.
An enlightened and discerning public will not expect anything less from those who offer themselves to take care of their destiny and so you do not toy with them when you mount the political platform to address them.
Here at home, we do politics the crab style, with each candidate trying to bring down the other through fair or foul means. Serious issues are lost in the melee and gullible members of the public who should demand responsible politicking from those aspiring to lead them join the fray and add to the drama. At the end of the day, the country remains rudderless and its numerous problems remain unsolved.
Simply put, our politics is very dirty and primitive. We think we are more impressive when we heap insults on our opponents and tell lies about them. There is something called psychological warfare when we try to weaken our opponents with certain types of information which will deflate their ego and plant doubts of their own strengths in their minds. It is a good battle strategy to hammer on the weaknesses of the opponent while being silent on his strengths. But, in all things, there must be decorum and in trying to gain ground we do not tell outright lies or dwell on matters that have little or no relevance to the issues at stake.
Sometimes, in our desperation, we lose control and begin to see campaign for political office as a battle for survival in which anything is allowed. This is seen even within the same party during campaigns for executive offices and presidential and parliamentary nominations.
I quite remember during the recent election to pick the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP’s) presidential candidate, all the aspirants, especially the two front-runners, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and Mr Alan Kyerematen, received a lot of bashing from the supporters of the various candidates. All of them had their fair share of the insults and lies.
I was, therefore, surprised that those aspirants who just yesterday were saying Nana Akufo-Addo was not fit to lead the NPP to victory in the presidential election could suddenly see him as the best person with the strongest credentials that could defend the flag of the party and give credible and effective leadership to this country.
So Nana Akufo-Addo is no longer trying to establish a Kyebi dynasty in the party; he is no longer arrogant and his English accent is now tolerable and even an asset to the presidency. The question is, why should 16 people line up against one person if they knew he was the most suitable person under the circumstances to lead the party? Or why should it take their defeat at the polls to come to that realisation? How do we retract all those scandalous and slanderous words said about Nana Akufo-Addo during the campaign?
Some may argue that the sudden turn around by those now supporting Nana Akufo-Addo is a sign of unity in the party. That may be so, but to some of us that smacks of opportunism or downright hypocrisy. Soon, there will be posts to be shared and contracts to be awarded so everyone is suddenly one another’s keeper.
America is big enough with a lot of rich people to have over a million people vying for the presidency. But the big race is for only a few, for obvious reasons. The White House is not a theatre for concerts and beauty contests.
As for the internal bickering of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), sometimes igniting into violence, the less said about it, the better.
Apart from internal discipline and harmony which are important in building stable political parties, the parties owe it as an obligation to the electorate to address national issues in a fair and objective manner, devoid of insults, lies and mudslinging.
It is interesting that suddenly people are more interested in the health status of presidential candidates than the myriad of problems confronting this nation of ours.
The physical and mental health of every citizen is important. It even becomes very important to know the health status of someone who is aspiring for public office. It is not for nothing that employers demand to know the health status of new employees. This is because the state of mind and physical condition of the employee has a close relationship with his job performance.
Granted that we want our next President to be physically strong and mentally alert. But should the subject be turned into a kind of national joke? There have been several instances when people woke up hale and hearty, took breakfast with their families, shared lunch with friends but never returned home for dinner. That is the bitter truth of life — that we have very little control over sickness and death, no matter how hard we try.
It is, therefore, unfortunate when some people begin to sound as if they have entered into some kind of pact with sickness and its more dreadful and remorseless partners and can, therefore, afford to play games with these two.
First, we were told that Prof John Evans Atta Mills, the NDC presidential candidate, was in coma. Then, on Friday, February 1, 2008, news went round that the man was dead. And this story was on the Internet. Before that display of recklessness on the part of politicians and their collaborators in the media, several stories had gone round that Prof. Mills was too sick to run for the office of the President.
May be out of frustration and to play the game to the letter, news started filtering in that Nana Akufo-Addo, the NPP presidential candidate, was being treated for HIV/AIDS. Who can claim absolute health and who can claim immortality? Can we not start to focus on serious national development challenges confronting us and stop this cheap and primitive game?
Fifty years after our political independence, a lot of our children do not have decent classrooms conducive for teaching and learning. Many more squat on the bare floor for their lessons. Others simply do not have any educational facility at all. So right from the word go, their fate and that of their children have been defined as hewers of wood and drawers of water.
Our health facilities, where they exist, are a far cry from the conditions they are supposed to be. If you doubt it, go to the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital, the nation’s biggest and best hospital, to visit a relative who is an accident victim. The Korle-Bu situation will give you a fair picture of what to expect as you descend the health facility ladder until you get to the point where there is nothing for people in the rural areas.
Our school dormitories are choked to the extent that there is very little difference between them and police or prison cells. Our roads are still not the best and potable water is a luxury for many communities.
Fifty years on, our independent status is seen only in terms of the national pledge, the national flag and the anthem. We are importing everything, from toothpicks to discarded junk. When we reflect and cast our eyes over the horizon and see the strides those who were in the same trench with us at independence have made, we will begin to realise that we have greater issues to confront than who is sick and who is not.
We are importing vehicles from Malaysia, China, Brazil, South Africa, South Korea and Iran, all the so-called Third World countries, and we think this is less worrying than to dwell on one person’s health status? Almost all the traffic lights in Accra, our national capital, are not working and we do not find it strange and disturbing?
We should be more interested in knowing how come people who could not afford to buy wheelbarrows could buy a fleet of vehicles months after entering political office. We should be more interested in knowing why so much is spent on projects which are neither completed nor executed well. The issue of corruption in high places is real and that should engage our attention at all times.
We should begin to hold our politicians and other public officials more accountable. We should be engaging them in fruitful debates. Given the resources Nature has bestowed on us, this country should not be like this, 50 years after the colonialists left. That is the challenge confronting us and those who offer themselves to serve us must assure us that they are capable and equal to the task. That is a better battle the media can wage on behalf of the people of this country, not whether a presidential candidate’s dentures have fallen or not.
Prof Mills has said it already — those who want him dead should wait for his death before proclaiming it to the world. That was the man talking from South Africa at the time the news was on air that he was dead. Maybe it was his ghost talking to us from the cemetery. But it is a humble plea that should be seriously addressed by all those who want to see this country move from the begging syndrome to become a confident and proud developing one.
I watched Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama respond to questions from a respectable audience as part of their campaign to win the Democratic presidential nomination which is due in August 2008. Each candidate addressed issues of national interest, ranging from recession, health to the war in Iraq. They both tried to convince the American public why they felt qualified to occupy the White House next January. In all these, they were polite, civil and straight to the point. At the end of it all, Mrs Clinton and Obama went into a warm embrace which will be the envy of their spouses, amidst a thunderous ovation from the audience.
Then my mind turned to the home front and I knew why we are like this and they are like that. The picture became clearer — why we are marking time or drifting backwards while others are always marching forward — our understanding of politics.
Elsewhere, politics is a dream to offer service and change things for the better, while here it is an opportunity to run down perceived opponents or enemies and amass wealth at the expense of the progress of the state. That is why, when others are seriously addressing issues of how to tackle unemployment, provide health care for the people and bridge the yawning gap between the poor and the rich, we here dwell on trivialities and reduce the exercise to who is stronger or more handsome, who is taller or shorter or who is older and richer than the other.
Senator Obama is barely 42, with mixed parentage. His father is Kenyan and his mother an American. Even if he does not get the presidential nomination at the end of August, he has already entered the record books for being the first African-American to have stirred such massive excitement in American politics.
The truth is that Obama is the most sensational name in America today because of what he stands for — change and racial equality. He is a bridge between the younger generation and the old, a man who represents a new America which is not only seen as strong and a bully but an America which must play its father-figure role more responsibly and humanely.
Obama did not rise to this level in so short a time just playing on the emotions of the people, throwing words about irresponsibly and making promises he knew deep down his heart that he was incapable of fulfilling. For him to have received endorsements from public and renowned figures such as Senator Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, the former Democratic presidential candidate, and Oprah Winfrey, the popular talk show hostess, means that Obama did not reach here by accident.
An enlightened and discerning public will not expect anything less from those who offer themselves to take care of their destiny and so you do not toy with them when you mount the political platform to address them.
Here at home, we do politics the crab style, with each candidate trying to bring down the other through fair or foul means. Serious issues are lost in the melee and gullible members of the public who should demand responsible politicking from those aspiring to lead them join the fray and add to the drama. At the end of the day, the country remains rudderless and its numerous problems remain unsolved.
Simply put, our politics is very dirty and primitive. We think we are more impressive when we heap insults on our opponents and tell lies about them. There is something called psychological warfare when we try to weaken our opponents with certain types of information which will deflate their ego and plant doubts of their own strengths in their minds. It is a good battle strategy to hammer on the weaknesses of the opponent while being silent on his strengths. But, in all things, there must be decorum and in trying to gain ground we do not tell outright lies or dwell on matters that have little or no relevance to the issues at stake.
Sometimes, in our desperation, we lose control and begin to see campaign for political office as a battle for survival in which anything is allowed. This is seen even within the same party during campaigns for executive offices and presidential and parliamentary nominations.
I quite remember during the recent election to pick the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP’s) presidential candidate, all the aspirants, especially the two front-runners, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and Mr Alan Kyerematen, received a lot of bashing from the supporters of the various candidates. All of them had their fair share of the insults and lies.
I was, therefore, surprised that those aspirants who just yesterday were saying Nana Akufo-Addo was not fit to lead the NPP to victory in the presidential election could suddenly see him as the best person with the strongest credentials that could defend the flag of the party and give credible and effective leadership to this country.
So Nana Akufo-Addo is no longer trying to establish a Kyebi dynasty in the party; he is no longer arrogant and his English accent is now tolerable and even an asset to the presidency. The question is, why should 16 people line up against one person if they knew he was the most suitable person under the circumstances to lead the party? Or why should it take their defeat at the polls to come to that realisation? How do we retract all those scandalous and slanderous words said about Nana Akufo-Addo during the campaign?
Some may argue that the sudden turn around by those now supporting Nana Akufo-Addo is a sign of unity in the party. That may be so, but to some of us that smacks of opportunism or downright hypocrisy. Soon, there will be posts to be shared and contracts to be awarded so everyone is suddenly one another’s keeper.
America is big enough with a lot of rich people to have over a million people vying for the presidency. But the big race is for only a few, for obvious reasons. The White House is not a theatre for concerts and beauty contests.
As for the internal bickering of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), sometimes igniting into violence, the less said about it, the better.
Apart from internal discipline and harmony which are important in building stable political parties, the parties owe it as an obligation to the electorate to address national issues in a fair and objective manner, devoid of insults, lies and mudslinging.
It is interesting that suddenly people are more interested in the health status of presidential candidates than the myriad of problems confronting this nation of ours.
The physical and mental health of every citizen is important. It even becomes very important to know the health status of someone who is aspiring for public office. It is not for nothing that employers demand to know the health status of new employees. This is because the state of mind and physical condition of the employee has a close relationship with his job performance.
Granted that we want our next President to be physically strong and mentally alert. But should the subject be turned into a kind of national joke? There have been several instances when people woke up hale and hearty, took breakfast with their families, shared lunch with friends but never returned home for dinner. That is the bitter truth of life — that we have very little control over sickness and death, no matter how hard we try.
It is, therefore, unfortunate when some people begin to sound as if they have entered into some kind of pact with sickness and its more dreadful and remorseless partners and can, therefore, afford to play games with these two.
First, we were told that Prof John Evans Atta Mills, the NDC presidential candidate, was in coma. Then, on Friday, February 1, 2008, news went round that the man was dead. And this story was on the Internet. Before that display of recklessness on the part of politicians and their collaborators in the media, several stories had gone round that Prof. Mills was too sick to run for the office of the President.
May be out of frustration and to play the game to the letter, news started filtering in that Nana Akufo-Addo, the NPP presidential candidate, was being treated for HIV/AIDS. Who can claim absolute health and who can claim immortality? Can we not start to focus on serious national development challenges confronting us and stop this cheap and primitive game?
Fifty years after our political independence, a lot of our children do not have decent classrooms conducive for teaching and learning. Many more squat on the bare floor for their lessons. Others simply do not have any educational facility at all. So right from the word go, their fate and that of their children have been defined as hewers of wood and drawers of water.
Our health facilities, where they exist, are a far cry from the conditions they are supposed to be. If you doubt it, go to the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital, the nation’s biggest and best hospital, to visit a relative who is an accident victim. The Korle-Bu situation will give you a fair picture of what to expect as you descend the health facility ladder until you get to the point where there is nothing for people in the rural areas.
Our school dormitories are choked to the extent that there is very little difference between them and police or prison cells. Our roads are still not the best and potable water is a luxury for many communities.
Fifty years on, our independent status is seen only in terms of the national pledge, the national flag and the anthem. We are importing everything, from toothpicks to discarded junk. When we reflect and cast our eyes over the horizon and see the strides those who were in the same trench with us at independence have made, we will begin to realise that we have greater issues to confront than who is sick and who is not.
We are importing vehicles from Malaysia, China, Brazil, South Africa, South Korea and Iran, all the so-called Third World countries, and we think this is less worrying than to dwell on one person’s health status? Almost all the traffic lights in Accra, our national capital, are not working and we do not find it strange and disturbing?
We should be more interested in knowing how come people who could not afford to buy wheelbarrows could buy a fleet of vehicles months after entering political office. We should be more interested in knowing why so much is spent on projects which are neither completed nor executed well. The issue of corruption in high places is real and that should engage our attention at all times.
We should begin to hold our politicians and other public officials more accountable. We should be engaging them in fruitful debates. Given the resources Nature has bestowed on us, this country should not be like this, 50 years after the colonialists left. That is the challenge confronting us and those who offer themselves to serve us must assure us that they are capable and equal to the task. That is a better battle the media can wage on behalf of the people of this country, not whether a presidential candidate’s dentures have fallen or not.
Prof Mills has said it already — those who want him dead should wait for his death before proclaiming it to the world. That was the man talking from South Africa at the time the news was on air that he was dead. Maybe it was his ghost talking to us from the cemetery. But it is a humble plea that should be seriously addressed by all those who want to see this country move from the begging syndrome to become a confident and proud developing one.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Is the AU another toothless bulldog?
By Kofi Akordor
Hopes were raised and many Africans jubilated at the birth of the African Union (AU) in Durban, South Africa, in July 2002. There were good reasons the AU was welcomed with hope and anticipation. Its predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), was seen to have outlived its usefulness and had become more or less a club for African dictators who met annually to wine and dine and go home to wait for another year. Former Tanzanian President, Julius Nyerere, himself a founding member, described the OAU as a “trade union of African Heads of State”. The situation has not changed much though, as we still have leaders who belonged to the Nyerere era such as Paul Biya, Omar Bongo, Robert Mugabe, Muamar Al-Qathafi and Hosni Mubarak in power.
With the OAU’s mandate of ridding the continent of the last vestiges of colonialism and dismantling apartheid in South Africa accomplished, there was a general opinion that Africa needed a more vibrant and proactive continental body to spearhead its development agenda and give a new hope to a continent known to be home to the world’s poorest, most illiterate, ignorant, diseased and socially and politically marginalised.
The AU, it was also envisaged, would shy away from one of the weaknesses of its predecessor; that is, the non-interference in the affairs of other member states. This was seen as having undermined the promotion of democracy and made the continent a fertile ground for dictatorship and corrupt leadership to flourish.
But what sets the AU apart from the defunct OAU is that the former has been modelled along the lines of the European Union (EU), with various structures which will enable it to ultimately blossom into a Union Government of Africa.
The AU also has, as one of its pillars, the promotion of democratic principles and institutions, popular participation and good governance in member countries. There are many who believe that the continent has lagged behind others over the past five decades mainly because of the quality of political leadership which managed affairs in the various countries during the post-independent era.
Any continental body which makes it, as a priority, the development, promotion and sustenance of democratic principles must be starting on a good note. This is where the AU’s biggest challenge lies.
The truth is that many leaders in Africa are yet to come to terms with new developments on the political landscape world-wide and are bent on using fair or foul means to win power or entrench themselves in office. Apart from electoral fraud or rigging, which has become the hallmark of most elections in Africa, a lot of the leaders, especially those belonging to the old generation, use constitutional amendments to prolong their stay in power.
General Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, who was a core member of the AU and who himself had been a respected peace broker on the continent, could not escape this canker. He tried unsuccessfully to overstay his constitutional mandate by trying to force through some amendments that would have allowed him a third term in office.
Having failed in that effort, General Obasanjo presided over one of the most controversial elections on the continent and virtually handed over to his surrogate, Umar Yar’dua, in an election described by all fair-minded persons as flawed and short of any democratic pretensions.
Before Obasanjo, other African leaders, including Sam Nujoma of Namibia, Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, Omar Bongo of Gabon, the late Gnassingbe Eyadema of Togo and Paul Biya of Cameroon, had all pushed through several constitutional changes to facilitate their continued stay in power.
Notwithstanding these constitutional manoeuvres, the AU is currently confronted with numerous cases of rigged elections and the better it is able to resolve these issues in a more decisive manner, the greater the chances of stemming the continent from conflicts with potentially dangerous consequences.
When, in May, 2007, Nigerians went to the polls and elected Yar’dua as President, the AU was silent on what was perceived by many as a fraudulent poll. The then AU President, Ghana’s President Kufuor, a known close friend of Obasanjo’s, was mute over the illegalities. That was the first major test case for the AU. That inaction on the part of the continental body which promised so much hope for the people of Africa paved the way for more of such things to happen on the continent. That is what is happening in Kenya in East Africa right now.
On January 1, 2008, while the rest of the world exploded under bright fireworks to welcome the New Year, Africa entered the New Year on a bloody note, thanks to a 71-year-old man, Mwai Kibaki, whose determination to remain in power has plunged an otherwise peaceful and prosperous country into chaos and bloodshed. Most African leaders were unable to raise their voices to condemn the fraud in Kenya because what Kibaki did was not new to them. A lot of them came to power through the back door or retained power through rigging and, therefore, they felt uncomfortable to condemn Kibaki, who, more or less, belonged to their club of corrupt and disgruntled leaders. As some people may say, they all have cobwebs and skeletons in their wardrobes. It is, therefore, difficult for any of them to point accusing fingers at another.
The former AU President’s initial shuttle diplomacy failed to stop the bloodshed because of the entrenched positions of the two factions. As you read this, the former Secretary-General of the UN, Mr Kofi Annan, is pushing hard some peace-making initiatives which, we hope, will resolve the conflict and bring back peace to Kenya. However, whatever the outcome of Annan’s peace moves, the hundreds of lives lost will never come back to life and the property lost will never be regained.
What happened in Togo in 2005, in Nigeria in 2007 and in Kenya last year have raised doubts as to whether the AU is up to the task it has set out for itself. Many political analysts believe that the AU is, like the less functional OAU, shying away from clear cases of arbitrariness and electoral frauds which have the potential, as happened in Kenya, to plunge this continent into bigger and resource-wasting conflicts.
If really the AU has made good governance and democracy and one of its cornerstones, then it must be up and doing and face the challenge boldly where there are clear cases of poll rigging and place offending countries under sanctions and isolation.
The AU must also do well to address other trouble spots on the continent, including Darfur in The Sudan, Ethiopia, DR Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Zimbabwe and Eritrea, otherwise the difference between it and the OAU may not be clear.
Hopes were raised and many Africans jubilated at the birth of the African Union (AU) in Durban, South Africa, in July 2002. There were good reasons the AU was welcomed with hope and anticipation. Its predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), was seen to have outlived its usefulness and had become more or less a club for African dictators who met annually to wine and dine and go home to wait for another year. Former Tanzanian President, Julius Nyerere, himself a founding member, described the OAU as a “trade union of African Heads of State”. The situation has not changed much though, as we still have leaders who belonged to the Nyerere era such as Paul Biya, Omar Bongo, Robert Mugabe, Muamar Al-Qathafi and Hosni Mubarak in power.
With the OAU’s mandate of ridding the continent of the last vestiges of colonialism and dismantling apartheid in South Africa accomplished, there was a general opinion that Africa needed a more vibrant and proactive continental body to spearhead its development agenda and give a new hope to a continent known to be home to the world’s poorest, most illiterate, ignorant, diseased and socially and politically marginalised.
The AU, it was also envisaged, would shy away from one of the weaknesses of its predecessor; that is, the non-interference in the affairs of other member states. This was seen as having undermined the promotion of democracy and made the continent a fertile ground for dictatorship and corrupt leadership to flourish.
But what sets the AU apart from the defunct OAU is that the former has been modelled along the lines of the European Union (EU), with various structures which will enable it to ultimately blossom into a Union Government of Africa.
The AU also has, as one of its pillars, the promotion of democratic principles and institutions, popular participation and good governance in member countries. There are many who believe that the continent has lagged behind others over the past five decades mainly because of the quality of political leadership which managed affairs in the various countries during the post-independent era.
Any continental body which makes it, as a priority, the development, promotion and sustenance of democratic principles must be starting on a good note. This is where the AU’s biggest challenge lies.
The truth is that many leaders in Africa are yet to come to terms with new developments on the political landscape world-wide and are bent on using fair or foul means to win power or entrench themselves in office. Apart from electoral fraud or rigging, which has become the hallmark of most elections in Africa, a lot of the leaders, especially those belonging to the old generation, use constitutional amendments to prolong their stay in power.
General Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, who was a core member of the AU and who himself had been a respected peace broker on the continent, could not escape this canker. He tried unsuccessfully to overstay his constitutional mandate by trying to force through some amendments that would have allowed him a third term in office.
Having failed in that effort, General Obasanjo presided over one of the most controversial elections on the continent and virtually handed over to his surrogate, Umar Yar’dua, in an election described by all fair-minded persons as flawed and short of any democratic pretensions.
Before Obasanjo, other African leaders, including Sam Nujoma of Namibia, Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, Omar Bongo of Gabon, the late Gnassingbe Eyadema of Togo and Paul Biya of Cameroon, had all pushed through several constitutional changes to facilitate their continued stay in power.
Notwithstanding these constitutional manoeuvres, the AU is currently confronted with numerous cases of rigged elections and the better it is able to resolve these issues in a more decisive manner, the greater the chances of stemming the continent from conflicts with potentially dangerous consequences.
When, in May, 2007, Nigerians went to the polls and elected Yar’dua as President, the AU was silent on what was perceived by many as a fraudulent poll. The then AU President, Ghana’s President Kufuor, a known close friend of Obasanjo’s, was mute over the illegalities. That was the first major test case for the AU. That inaction on the part of the continental body which promised so much hope for the people of Africa paved the way for more of such things to happen on the continent. That is what is happening in Kenya in East Africa right now.
On January 1, 2008, while the rest of the world exploded under bright fireworks to welcome the New Year, Africa entered the New Year on a bloody note, thanks to a 71-year-old man, Mwai Kibaki, whose determination to remain in power has plunged an otherwise peaceful and prosperous country into chaos and bloodshed. Most African leaders were unable to raise their voices to condemn the fraud in Kenya because what Kibaki did was not new to them. A lot of them came to power through the back door or retained power through rigging and, therefore, they felt uncomfortable to condemn Kibaki, who, more or less, belonged to their club of corrupt and disgruntled leaders. As some people may say, they all have cobwebs and skeletons in their wardrobes. It is, therefore, difficult for any of them to point accusing fingers at another.
The former AU President’s initial shuttle diplomacy failed to stop the bloodshed because of the entrenched positions of the two factions. As you read this, the former Secretary-General of the UN, Mr Kofi Annan, is pushing hard some peace-making initiatives which, we hope, will resolve the conflict and bring back peace to Kenya. However, whatever the outcome of Annan’s peace moves, the hundreds of lives lost will never come back to life and the property lost will never be regained.
What happened in Togo in 2005, in Nigeria in 2007 and in Kenya last year have raised doubts as to whether the AU is up to the task it has set out for itself. Many political analysts believe that the AU is, like the less functional OAU, shying away from clear cases of arbitrariness and electoral frauds which have the potential, as happened in Kenya, to plunge this continent into bigger and resource-wasting conflicts.
If really the AU has made good governance and democracy and one of its cornerstones, then it must be up and doing and face the challenge boldly where there are clear cases of poll rigging and place offending countries under sanctions and isolation.
The AU must also do well to address other trouble spots on the continent, including Darfur in The Sudan, Ethiopia, DR Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Zimbabwe and Eritrea, otherwise the difference between it and the OAU may not be clear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)