By Kofi Akordor
For nearly five weeks teachers in the polytechnics withdrew their services from the classrooms to press home their demand for better service conditions. That was at the beginning of a fresh academic year when parents had paid the full-term fees of their children (a precondition for admission), hostel fees paid, after a long search for what, under normal circumstances, should have been a basic facility in the polytechnics, and made other investments such as the procurement of cooking utensils, kitchen cabinets and the food items needed to prepare meals.
A friend told me (and it did not take me long to appreciate his point) that these days an admission to a tertiary institution for a child is like sending him or her on his/her first employment — you have to look for accommodation, buy a cooker and all other kitchen appliances and stock the cabinet with food items that will last at least for a month when the supply process begins again.
Parents did all these, after which the polytechnic teachers saw the iron red hot and decided to strike hardest. Of course, you cannot fault them for fighting for their survival. Even pastors these days think first of their worldly salvation before the life hereafter, and politicians who were down on their knees pleading for votes so that they could straighten our national problems demand first their accommodation, vehicles and allowances. So why not teachers and all other categories of workers?
In the case of the polytechnic teachers and the university teachers who also withdrew their services in solidarity with their bank accounts, in the final analysis, they will receive all their salaries, both the old and the new and the arrears accruing as a result of enhanced salaries.
What about parents? There will be no refund of fees as a result of the withdrawal of services by the teachers. For the food consumed during the period of the strike, it had nourished the students any way, so what is the fuss about?
The teachers will console the rest of us that no lives were lost during their strike, as would have been in the case of doctors, who also periodically embark on industrial actions to back their demand for better salaries and other service conditions.
During the period of the strike by the polytechnic teachers, just as in the case of the university teachers, there was very little in the form of condemnation of the action from the public and, conversely, any sympathy for the government. The affected students felt it more prudent to side with their teachers in their just fight for better service conditions and threatened to embark on demonstrations to compel the government to listen to the striking teachers.
Those more inclined politically, either for expediency or opportunism, used the strike to go for the jugular by blaming the Mills administration for inaction, even though it was obvious that the actions of the university and polytechnic teachers could, in the main, be blamed on the leftovers of the previous administration whose feet-dragging on the issues brought them into the present.
It is not too difficult why people are hesitant to condemn strikes these days. Our politicians have set a standard which can only be matched by demands, no matter how outrageous or unrealistic some may seem.
First, they allow simple problems to fester before taking desperate measures. Second, and more seriously, their lifestyles can never be said to be true reflections of the situation on the ground. Therefore, it is not easy convincing workers that there is very little in the national kitty when political office holders, their allies in the public service and business and those very close to them, with no defined job descriptions, are well catered for by the State and are far away from the word modesty.
As we gradually emerge from the side effects of the strike by the University Teachers Association of Ghana (UTAG) and the Polytechnic Teachers Association of Ghana (POTAG), other formidable forces on the labour front have arrayed their arsenal for possible strike and have made their intentions very clear. These include the National Association of Graduate Teachers (NAGRAT) and the Ghana Medical Association (GMA). The exploits of these two organisations, when it comes to the resoluteness with which they approach their demands and threats, are well known.
While UTAG, POTAG, the GMA and others win our unflinching solidarity in their strikes because theirs is a fight for a just cause, have we, for a moment, pondered over the conditions of our men and women in uniform who work under very perilous and strenuous conditions but have very little compensation in terms of remuneration and other service conditions?
On September 15, 2010, a group of warders at the Kumasi Central Prison demonstrated in front of the prison to press home their demand for better service conditions. The following day, some of the aggrieved warders marched to OTEC 102 FM to challenge a radio presenter who was reported to have made derogatory remarks about the warders. There were some physical contacts and these were rightly condemned as uncalled for, no matter the degree of provocation.
There were similar demonstrations by warders in other prison facilities. All those actions have been condemned, not because warders are among the best paid public servants in the country. The reason is that by their service conditions, prison officers and others working for the other security organisations are not entitled to industrial actions, no matter how critical their situation is.
Already, there are unconfirmed reports that some senior officers are suffering punitive transfers as a fallout from those demonstrations.
There is an old Ibo proverb which says: “If you see a toad in the day time, it means something is after its life”. It will surely take something very critical to bring out warders from their prison walls to demonstrate in public. But do we care? We are quick to pick the order book and read out the rules when prison officers and policemen, under circumstances beyond their control, come out publicly to demand what they consider their fair share of the national cake.
We are quick to declare that such acts on their part will undermine state security and are, in some jurisdictions, tantamount to mutiny. So should they be held hostage by the rules and suffer unnecessary agonising pain in silence?
What about those who, with impunity and some element of arrogance, can avoid working for as long as they wish because they want an improvement in their service conditions? Should they be allowed to blackmail the nation, including those whose strikes are a clear contradiction of their own sworn oaths to serve humanity with selfless devotion, even at the peril of their lives?
The teachers will tell you that they can teach overtime to cover lost time. What about doctors? After getting the fat salaries and the accruing arrears they relentlessly fought for, how do they compensate for the gruelling pain patients went through in the absence of health workers or those who, in the extreme of cases, lost their lives because those who swore an oath to heal them were busy chasing money and other worldly things?
Those who care may find out why prison officers are described as glorified prisoners. Sometimes only a thin line separates them from the prisoners under their charge. The conditions in which our policemen live and work are nothing to write home about. But they are not to withdraw their services in protest because the country will descend into chaos and anarchy.
Why should others be allowed to collect their salaries and sit at home without working because they want more and end up collecting back-pay or salary arrears? Why should people suffer pain or die miserably because one category of workers wants more money and better working conditions?
All categories of workers have the right to fight for higher wages and other service conditions that will enable them to lead dignified lives and take good care of their families. But as we are carried away by an air of indispensability and adopt strikes as powerful weapons to demand our pound of flesh, let us ponder, in our sober moments, over an hour without the services of the police, the fire brigade or engineers and technicians of the Electricity Company of Ghana.
It will dawn on us that no matter how important we consider ourselves or our services, at the end of the day we are a team and our individual survival hinges perilously on others we may not factor at all in our scheme of things.
If we consider the hazards of controlling crime and keeping criminals out of circulation, we will appreciate how the contribution of others have made some of us feel safer and more secure to live our lives. These are the men and women who cannot afford the luxury of staying away from their duty posts for even an hour so that the rest of us will be free.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Is AU up to the task?
By Kofi Akordor
When the African Union (AU) was outdoored in 2002 to replace the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), it was welcomed by many Africans with great expectation.It was felt by many and rightly so, that the continent needs a continental body that would spearhead its development agenda in the 21st century and beyond.
The predecessor of the AU, the OAU, was seen as having outlived its usefulness, having become more or less a club for African dictators who met regularly for their annual ritual of wining and dining, only to disperse to meet another day.
There was that strong feeling that with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Communist Empire, pivoted around the Soviet Union, and in the absence of any more territories to be decolonised, there was the need for Africa to reappraise its priorities and strategise to overcome poverty, disease, illiteracy, ignorance and political marginalisation.
One cardinal objective which never featured on the agenda of the previous OAU was the democratisation of political governance on the continent. There are many who believe that the continent had lagged behind the rest of the world over the past five decades or so, mainly because of dictatorship and the quality of political leadership which emerged after the immediate post-independent era.
As part of this mandate, the AU set about to isolate all forms of dictatorships on the continent and to nurture a vibrant democratic culture, which will in turn push the agenda of economic emancipation forward.
Eight years into its existence, the question may be asked whether the AU, which is modelled along the lines of the European Union (EU), is on course and shown remarkable evidence of attaining its set goals. On the economic front Africa's impoverishment continues to baffle many, having regard to the continent's vast resources.
At the recent meeting of the Group of 20, only South Africa was represented on the high table as a member. The rest of the African delegations were there as observers and as usual to push for economic and financial support for the distressed continent.
But as had been stressed on numerous occasions economic emancipation will remain a mirage if the political leadership on the continent is not restructured to embrace democracy, the rule of law, respect for individual rights and freedoms and the acceptance of the ballot box as the only legitimate means of attaining political power. And this is where the AU seems to be making very slow progress.
A lot of the old guards who constituted the political leadership of the past are gone, either dead or out of power. They include General Gnansigbe Eyadema of Togo, Omar Bongo of Gabon who died in office and Daniel arap Moi of Kenya and Sam Nujuma of Namibia who are out of office. However, a few others are still in the system and are calling the shots. They include Paul Biya of Cameroun, Col. Muamar Gaddafi of Libya, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Yoweri Museveni of Uganda and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt.
While the AU may still be grappling with how to deal with the old foxes that are still in the system, it has to contend with an emerging phenomenon - the modern-day dynasty- which is a mockery of any semblance of democracy on the continent.
Mr Laurent Kabila who shot into power in the Democratic Republic of Congo was succeeded by his son, Joseph Kabila, when the former was assassinated. Mr Faure Gnansigbe is effectively the President of Togo, after the death of his father, Gnansigbe Eyadema.The latest in the son-succeeds-father syndrome is Ali-Ben Bongo who succeeded his father, former President Omar Bongo of Gabon.
Unconfirmed reports indicate that President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal are also grooming their sons to take over from them.
The greatest challenge confronting the AU in this political drama is the stream of electoral frauds and conflicts that are becoming characteristic of every electoral process on the continent.
In 2007, General Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria was accused of presiding over one of the most controversial elections on the continent and virtually handed over power to his surrogate, Alhaji Shehu Yar'dua. The AU, the under the Presidency of President J.A. Kufuor of Ghana, maintained a stony silence over the irregularities.
On January 1, 2008, Kenya exploded into violent and bloody confrontations, following an election which was suspected to have been won by the opposition led by Riley Odinga but which was declared in favour of incumbent Mwai Kibaki. Many lives were lost and properties destroyed.
Presently, there is a contentious electoral result in Guinea, while waiting on the sidelines is that of Cote d'Ivoire, where a run-off is expected between President Laurent Gbagbo and Allassane Ouattara.
The AU has failed to exhibit resoluteness in all these cases giving rise to doubts among some political analysts as to whether the new continental body is up to the task it set out for itself.
If really the AU has made good governance and democracy one of its cornerstones, then it must be up and doing and confront the problems boldly than it is doing now.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
When the African Union (AU) was outdoored in 2002 to replace the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), it was welcomed by many Africans with great expectation.It was felt by many and rightly so, that the continent needs a continental body that would spearhead its development agenda in the 21st century and beyond.
The predecessor of the AU, the OAU, was seen as having outlived its usefulness, having become more or less a club for African dictators who met regularly for their annual ritual of wining and dining, only to disperse to meet another day.
There was that strong feeling that with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Communist Empire, pivoted around the Soviet Union, and in the absence of any more territories to be decolonised, there was the need for Africa to reappraise its priorities and strategise to overcome poverty, disease, illiteracy, ignorance and political marginalisation.
One cardinal objective which never featured on the agenda of the previous OAU was the democratisation of political governance on the continent. There are many who believe that the continent had lagged behind the rest of the world over the past five decades or so, mainly because of dictatorship and the quality of political leadership which emerged after the immediate post-independent era.
As part of this mandate, the AU set about to isolate all forms of dictatorships on the continent and to nurture a vibrant democratic culture, which will in turn push the agenda of economic emancipation forward.
Eight years into its existence, the question may be asked whether the AU, which is modelled along the lines of the European Union (EU), is on course and shown remarkable evidence of attaining its set goals. On the economic front Africa's impoverishment continues to baffle many, having regard to the continent's vast resources.
At the recent meeting of the Group of 20, only South Africa was represented on the high table as a member. The rest of the African delegations were there as observers and as usual to push for economic and financial support for the distressed continent.
But as had been stressed on numerous occasions economic emancipation will remain a mirage if the political leadership on the continent is not restructured to embrace democracy, the rule of law, respect for individual rights and freedoms and the acceptance of the ballot box as the only legitimate means of attaining political power. And this is where the AU seems to be making very slow progress.
A lot of the old guards who constituted the political leadership of the past are gone, either dead or out of power. They include General Gnansigbe Eyadema of Togo, Omar Bongo of Gabon who died in office and Daniel arap Moi of Kenya and Sam Nujuma of Namibia who are out of office. However, a few others are still in the system and are calling the shots. They include Paul Biya of Cameroun, Col. Muamar Gaddafi of Libya, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Yoweri Museveni of Uganda and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt.
While the AU may still be grappling with how to deal with the old foxes that are still in the system, it has to contend with an emerging phenomenon - the modern-day dynasty- which is a mockery of any semblance of democracy on the continent.
Mr Laurent Kabila who shot into power in the Democratic Republic of Congo was succeeded by his son, Joseph Kabila, when the former was assassinated. Mr Faure Gnansigbe is effectively the President of Togo, after the death of his father, Gnansigbe Eyadema.The latest in the son-succeeds-father syndrome is Ali-Ben Bongo who succeeded his father, former President Omar Bongo of Gabon.
Unconfirmed reports indicate that President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal are also grooming their sons to take over from them.
The greatest challenge confronting the AU in this political drama is the stream of electoral frauds and conflicts that are becoming characteristic of every electoral process on the continent.
In 2007, General Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria was accused of presiding over one of the most controversial elections on the continent and virtually handed over power to his surrogate, Alhaji Shehu Yar'dua. The AU, the under the Presidency of President J.A. Kufuor of Ghana, maintained a stony silence over the irregularities.
On January 1, 2008, Kenya exploded into violent and bloody confrontations, following an election which was suspected to have been won by the opposition led by Riley Odinga but which was declared in favour of incumbent Mwai Kibaki. Many lives were lost and properties destroyed.
Presently, there is a contentious electoral result in Guinea, while waiting on the sidelines is that of Cote d'Ivoire, where a run-off is expected between President Laurent Gbagbo and Allassane Ouattara.
The AU has failed to exhibit resoluteness in all these cases giving rise to doubts among some political analysts as to whether the new continental body is up to the task it set out for itself.
If really the AU has made good governance and democracy one of its cornerstones, then it must be up and doing and confront the problems boldly than it is doing now.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Democracy, our curse
By Kofi Akordor
But for the Republic of South Africa, the meeting of the Group of 20, which comprises 19 developed and emerging economies and the European Union, which took place in Seoul, the South Korean capital, would have been without the presence of Africa, the continent with perhaps the largest concentration of natural resources.
South Africa certainly is not the most endowed African country. Its advancement could, therefore, be attributed to other factors, the most obvious being the presence of a sizeable white population which, for a very long time, controlled its political and economic administration. Even after the end of apartheid or White minority rule, South Africa’s economy is by and large under White control, thereby giving it the necessary leverage it commands on the international market.
We were all witnesses to the successful hosting of the 2010 World Cup by South Africa, to the amazement of the sceptics and the pride of the continent. However, we will be the first to admit, difficult it may be, though, that but for that White minority element, perhaps things would have been different.
For a very long time we have blamed the problems of Africa, especially its underdevelopment, variously on slavery, colonialism and over-exploitation of its natural resources by foreign powers. We have not failed to mention the new world economic order and the unfair trade between the industrialised countries and the less-developed countries mostly in Africa, Asia and Latin America as a source of our economic and development problems.
Another important factor which was considered a major contributor to the continent's impoverishment was political dictatorship which dominated the continent during the immediate post-independent era until the end of the Cold War.
Dictators are answerable to no one and can easily be manipulated in their efforts to gain recognition. Therefore, during the Cold War era, the so-called democratic world was not interested in the culture of democratic governance flourishing on the continent. In fact, the Western powers were ready to sponsor and they really sponsored and propped up dictators in the name of fighting the spread of communism, even though in most cases they allowed the free plunder of their countries' natural resources.
The end of the Cold War gave us an indication that the time has come to remove the last obstacle to development — dictatorship — from the continent. That was how Ghana and many other countries on the continent embarked on another mission to cultivate the democratic culture which entails multi-partysm and adherence to the rule of law.
We in Ghana set off with the promulgation of the 1992 Constitution and the conduct of the first multi-party elections after years of military dictatorship which scuttled previous attempts at multi-party democracy.
We are all happy with the political freedom that constitutional rule brings to the people. Apart from the individual freedoms every citizen enjoys and the right to freedom of expression, there is also a check on the arbitrary use of state power. Multi-party democracy also envisages the involvement of more and more people in the governance process.
Even though the 1992 Constitution does not demarcate clear boundaries between the Executive and the Legislature, and even though the Judiciary is subordinated in a way to the Executive by way of the appointment of the Chief Justice, there is still room for these arms of government to operate as independently as possible to keep the machinery of state functioning, to the advantage of all.
After five elections and alternating between two parties — the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the New Patriotic Party (NPP) — we can say with pride and some conviction that we are gradually mastering the art of democratic governance and, therefore, are on the path of national development.
As we look back, can we say with certainty that apart from individual liberties and the right to express ourselves on national issues, democracy has been able to build bridges of national cohesion and brought about consensus on national affairs that can move this country forward?
What about those ethnic and tribal sentiments that are creeping back into our politics? What about factionalism which is threatening to tear the same political parties apart? Can we explain why people have become so desperate for political power that they could go to any length to influence the voting process?
After the 2000 elections, we were joined by the international community to celebrate our success, having been able to switch from one political party to another in an election. We forgot all the tension that characterised the electoral process.
In 2008, we moved closer to the brink. In fact, one false step could have sent us tumbling down the abyss. We seem not to have learnt any lessons. Today, the conflicts and disagreements are not just about one party against another but within the same parties.
It may not sound logical, but if we compare what happened in 2000 to what happened in 2008, and if we consider the polluted atmosphere prevailing today, we can easily predict that 2012 is not going to be better than 2008. And that could be very dangerous to our survival as a nation.
We have survived vicious dictatorships in the past. We have squandered revenue from the sale of our natural resources in the past. Today, we are being given another chance. We have in place what we ourselves consider our own democratic government. We have another opportunity to tap into one of our natural resources — oil and gas. Are we not ready to be part of the Group of 21 when the next roll is called?
We have come a long way from the days of slavery and colonialism. We have effectively pushed dictatorship away from our political landscape. What is going to be our next excuse for failure? Disunity? Intolerance? Ethnocentrism? Factionalism? Greed or what? Is democratic freedom becoming too much for us to bear?
It seems we have savoured and overstretched our individual freedoms, especially the right to freedom of expression to such an extent that we have effectively ignored the national interest.
For some of us, we have made very little out of our much-touted democracy and political stability. We should not have been where we are today. Our situation will become more precarious if we allow complacency, intrigues and factionalism to set in.
Cote d'Ivoire, our western neighbour, is emerging out of seven years of political instability. We all know that that country can be a formidable force if it builds bridges and puts its past behind it.
The way we are going about things, we may not be able to hold on to our cherished dream of stability and unity for long. Should the worse happen, let it not be said that we fought for and won democracy and lost our national life.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
But for the Republic of South Africa, the meeting of the Group of 20, which comprises 19 developed and emerging economies and the European Union, which took place in Seoul, the South Korean capital, would have been without the presence of Africa, the continent with perhaps the largest concentration of natural resources.
South Africa certainly is not the most endowed African country. Its advancement could, therefore, be attributed to other factors, the most obvious being the presence of a sizeable white population which, for a very long time, controlled its political and economic administration. Even after the end of apartheid or White minority rule, South Africa’s economy is by and large under White control, thereby giving it the necessary leverage it commands on the international market.
We were all witnesses to the successful hosting of the 2010 World Cup by South Africa, to the amazement of the sceptics and the pride of the continent. However, we will be the first to admit, difficult it may be, though, that but for that White minority element, perhaps things would have been different.
For a very long time we have blamed the problems of Africa, especially its underdevelopment, variously on slavery, colonialism and over-exploitation of its natural resources by foreign powers. We have not failed to mention the new world economic order and the unfair trade between the industrialised countries and the less-developed countries mostly in Africa, Asia and Latin America as a source of our economic and development problems.
Another important factor which was considered a major contributor to the continent's impoverishment was political dictatorship which dominated the continent during the immediate post-independent era until the end of the Cold War.
Dictators are answerable to no one and can easily be manipulated in their efforts to gain recognition. Therefore, during the Cold War era, the so-called democratic world was not interested in the culture of democratic governance flourishing on the continent. In fact, the Western powers were ready to sponsor and they really sponsored and propped up dictators in the name of fighting the spread of communism, even though in most cases they allowed the free plunder of their countries' natural resources.
The end of the Cold War gave us an indication that the time has come to remove the last obstacle to development — dictatorship — from the continent. That was how Ghana and many other countries on the continent embarked on another mission to cultivate the democratic culture which entails multi-partysm and adherence to the rule of law.
We in Ghana set off with the promulgation of the 1992 Constitution and the conduct of the first multi-party elections after years of military dictatorship which scuttled previous attempts at multi-party democracy.
We are all happy with the political freedom that constitutional rule brings to the people. Apart from the individual freedoms every citizen enjoys and the right to freedom of expression, there is also a check on the arbitrary use of state power. Multi-party democracy also envisages the involvement of more and more people in the governance process.
Even though the 1992 Constitution does not demarcate clear boundaries between the Executive and the Legislature, and even though the Judiciary is subordinated in a way to the Executive by way of the appointment of the Chief Justice, there is still room for these arms of government to operate as independently as possible to keep the machinery of state functioning, to the advantage of all.
After five elections and alternating between two parties — the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the New Patriotic Party (NPP) — we can say with pride and some conviction that we are gradually mastering the art of democratic governance and, therefore, are on the path of national development.
As we look back, can we say with certainty that apart from individual liberties and the right to express ourselves on national issues, democracy has been able to build bridges of national cohesion and brought about consensus on national affairs that can move this country forward?
What about those ethnic and tribal sentiments that are creeping back into our politics? What about factionalism which is threatening to tear the same political parties apart? Can we explain why people have become so desperate for political power that they could go to any length to influence the voting process?
After the 2000 elections, we were joined by the international community to celebrate our success, having been able to switch from one political party to another in an election. We forgot all the tension that characterised the electoral process.
In 2008, we moved closer to the brink. In fact, one false step could have sent us tumbling down the abyss. We seem not to have learnt any lessons. Today, the conflicts and disagreements are not just about one party against another but within the same parties.
It may not sound logical, but if we compare what happened in 2000 to what happened in 2008, and if we consider the polluted atmosphere prevailing today, we can easily predict that 2012 is not going to be better than 2008. And that could be very dangerous to our survival as a nation.
We have survived vicious dictatorships in the past. We have squandered revenue from the sale of our natural resources in the past. Today, we are being given another chance. We have in place what we ourselves consider our own democratic government. We have another opportunity to tap into one of our natural resources — oil and gas. Are we not ready to be part of the Group of 21 when the next roll is called?
We have come a long way from the days of slavery and colonialism. We have effectively pushed dictatorship away from our political landscape. What is going to be our next excuse for failure? Disunity? Intolerance? Ethnocentrism? Factionalism? Greed or what? Is democratic freedom becoming too much for us to bear?
It seems we have savoured and overstretched our individual freedoms, especially the right to freedom of expression to such an extent that we have effectively ignored the national interest.
For some of us, we have made very little out of our much-touted democracy and political stability. We should not have been where we are today. Our situation will become more precarious if we allow complacency, intrigues and factionalism to set in.
Cote d'Ivoire, our western neighbour, is emerging out of seven years of political instability. We all know that that country can be a formidable force if it builds bridges and puts its past behind it.
The way we are going about things, we may not be able to hold on to our cherished dream of stability and unity for long. Should the worse happen, let it not be said that we fought for and won democracy and lost our national life.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Saturday, November 13, 2010
CRAWLING SLOWLY OUT OF DUNGEONS (NOV 9, 2010)
Politics everywhere virtually operates on the same rules. See nothing good about your opponent; Blame your opponent for every misfortune, including natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, drought and floods; Hammer the sore parts when it matters most; and Hang your mistakes like a noose around the neck of your opponents.
President Barrack Obama of the US did not escape the intrigues of politics when he came to power and occupied the Oval Office in the White House.
Americans, especially the hard core conservatives, did not take long to blame him for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though former President George W. Bush, in his memoirs, has expressed regrets for not seeing any weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, a pretext used to invade Iraq.
The recession and its credit crunch was at its peak in 2008, when Obama was campaigning for the White House but the collapse of business on Wall Street and unemployment have been attributed to his bad policies.
When there was an explosion on an oil rig belonging to British Petroleum (BP) in the Gulf of Mexico causing the leakage of millions of barrels into the ocean, President Obama took the blame for not acting fast enough to protect the coastal environment and for not acting hard against the oil giant. That is politics.
But politics can have a human face, especially for those who believe that the bottom line of the game is to make sure that the people get what they want. That was why Obama, while musing over the abysmal performance of the Democrats in the mid-term congressional elections, could not but acknowledge that he had not been able to successfully promote his economic rescue message to anxious Americans and, therefore, appreciate their frustrations.
In an interview with the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), Obama admitted that he had stopped paying attention “to the leadership style he displayed during his run for the presidency, and pledged to find common ground with the Republicans on many issues”.
Apparently in furtherance of this objective, has invited both Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders to meet at the White House on November 18, 2010 to discuss, among other things, economic measures, tax cuts, unemployment benefits and stimulus packages, issues which dominated the recent elections.
“I want us to talk substantively about how we can move the American people’s agenda forward,” President Obama said of that intended meeting.
In Ghana, our politics is not lacking in the earlier ingredients mentioned. Our incumbent governments hardly give credit to previous ones but are quick to blame them for their own failures. We even do worse. We do not follow any national development agenda and that is why we have a lot of uncompleted projects scattered all over the country while at the same time initiating new ones.
However, that is nothing compared to insults — crude and vulgar insults — that have become part and parcel of our politics. At first, we could tolerate a few irresponsible and very often fabricated words thrown at political opponents on campaign platforms, knowing very well that politicians are always carried away by the charged atmosphere characteristic of political rallies to “talk by heart”.
We all would have wished that after the campaigns and a new government is in place, things would return to normalcy and ensure that decency and decorum light the path for all our actions and expressions.
Unfortunately, we are descending deeper into the gutters and one can hardly tune in to a radio station on a normal day without encountering insults from one politician on another.
The habit has become so entrenched that those who could not oil their lips with abusive words in the political domain are seen as the odd ones. Thank God, it seems we are getting to the saturating point now and voices of dissent are beginning to sound the alarms — we are heading closer to the brink, if we do not mend our political ways.
The President of the Republic, Prof John Evans Atta Mills, publicly expressed his abhorrence for foul words on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 while inaugurating the rehabilitated rail link between Tema and Accra.
Charity, they say, begins at home and we are expectantly waiting for the reaction of the President when any member of his government oversteps the bounds of decency and flings insulting words at others.
The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) also drew attention to the canker in a communiqué the legal body issued at the end of its conference, which called for respect for the dignity of our national leadership.
The Catholic Bishops of Ghana, at their meeting at Sefwi Wiawso, joined the chorus against what they described as the culture of insults, which has dominated our politics in recent times.
Just last week, on Wednesday, November 3, 2010, Members of Parliament brought the subject to the floor of the House.
While some of the honourable members of the House were pointing accusing fingers at others, especially the media, others did a thorough soul-searching and came to the conclusion that whatever was carried in the media was their handiwork.
All these groups of prominent and respectable citizens have spoken. It means the problem is real and requires immediate solution.
What about the group which acts like the conveyor belt sending the final product to millions of Ghanaians in their homes, workplaces, drinking spots, eating places and on the streets? I am referring to those who work in the media houses and who have become conduits of foul language in our country?
Have those noisy social commentators, political analysts and the phone-in contractors also reflected soberly on the harm they are causing this country by the way they are exercising their media freedom and freedom of expression? The politicians can be irresponsible but it takes an equally irresponsible media to bring their utterances to the public domain. That is why the media, like the MPs, must also do their own soul-searching.
Sometimes when people, including very knowledgeable professionals, appeal to the National Media Commission (NMC) to step in and bring wayward media practitioners to order, I wonder if they are aware of the limitations of the NMC. Beyond public condemnation and an order for retraction, the NMC can do very little to curb abuse of media freedom. The solution lies in individual media professionals, who should be able to predict the consequences of what, to some of them, is their freedom to practise their profession.
There is no way we can think alike and there is no way we cannot have disagreements. But whether we like it or not, our interests converge – good schools, good roads, adequate health facilities, employment for all and money in everybody’s pocket, regular and cheaper electric power, etc. We may differ on how to reach these targets but if we mean well, we shall be able to accommodate one another’s views and work towards the common goal.
The Americans have proved that while playing all the games associated with politics they still have the American dream to pursue. That was why their political leaders are meeting at the White House on November 18, 2010. And that was why Republican John Boehner of Ohio, who is heading for the post of Speaker in Congress, in his victory speech, promised to work with President Obama to turn the economy round.
The insults, at best, can only polarise us and divert precious attention from the real issues. It is better we begin to extricate ourselves from the dungeons into which we have thrown ourselves in the desperate attempt to discredit our political opponents.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
President Barrack Obama of the US did not escape the intrigues of politics when he came to power and occupied the Oval Office in the White House.
Americans, especially the hard core conservatives, did not take long to blame him for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though former President George W. Bush, in his memoirs, has expressed regrets for not seeing any weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, a pretext used to invade Iraq.
The recession and its credit crunch was at its peak in 2008, when Obama was campaigning for the White House but the collapse of business on Wall Street and unemployment have been attributed to his bad policies.
When there was an explosion on an oil rig belonging to British Petroleum (BP) in the Gulf of Mexico causing the leakage of millions of barrels into the ocean, President Obama took the blame for not acting fast enough to protect the coastal environment and for not acting hard against the oil giant. That is politics.
But politics can have a human face, especially for those who believe that the bottom line of the game is to make sure that the people get what they want. That was why Obama, while musing over the abysmal performance of the Democrats in the mid-term congressional elections, could not but acknowledge that he had not been able to successfully promote his economic rescue message to anxious Americans and, therefore, appreciate their frustrations.
In an interview with the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), Obama admitted that he had stopped paying attention “to the leadership style he displayed during his run for the presidency, and pledged to find common ground with the Republicans on many issues”.
Apparently in furtherance of this objective, has invited both Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders to meet at the White House on November 18, 2010 to discuss, among other things, economic measures, tax cuts, unemployment benefits and stimulus packages, issues which dominated the recent elections.
“I want us to talk substantively about how we can move the American people’s agenda forward,” President Obama said of that intended meeting.
In Ghana, our politics is not lacking in the earlier ingredients mentioned. Our incumbent governments hardly give credit to previous ones but are quick to blame them for their own failures. We even do worse. We do not follow any national development agenda and that is why we have a lot of uncompleted projects scattered all over the country while at the same time initiating new ones.
However, that is nothing compared to insults — crude and vulgar insults — that have become part and parcel of our politics. At first, we could tolerate a few irresponsible and very often fabricated words thrown at political opponents on campaign platforms, knowing very well that politicians are always carried away by the charged atmosphere characteristic of political rallies to “talk by heart”.
We all would have wished that after the campaigns and a new government is in place, things would return to normalcy and ensure that decency and decorum light the path for all our actions and expressions.
Unfortunately, we are descending deeper into the gutters and one can hardly tune in to a radio station on a normal day without encountering insults from one politician on another.
The habit has become so entrenched that those who could not oil their lips with abusive words in the political domain are seen as the odd ones. Thank God, it seems we are getting to the saturating point now and voices of dissent are beginning to sound the alarms — we are heading closer to the brink, if we do not mend our political ways.
The President of the Republic, Prof John Evans Atta Mills, publicly expressed his abhorrence for foul words on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 while inaugurating the rehabilitated rail link between Tema and Accra.
Charity, they say, begins at home and we are expectantly waiting for the reaction of the President when any member of his government oversteps the bounds of decency and flings insulting words at others.
The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) also drew attention to the canker in a communiqué the legal body issued at the end of its conference, which called for respect for the dignity of our national leadership.
The Catholic Bishops of Ghana, at their meeting at Sefwi Wiawso, joined the chorus against what they described as the culture of insults, which has dominated our politics in recent times.
Just last week, on Wednesday, November 3, 2010, Members of Parliament brought the subject to the floor of the House.
While some of the honourable members of the House were pointing accusing fingers at others, especially the media, others did a thorough soul-searching and came to the conclusion that whatever was carried in the media was their handiwork.
All these groups of prominent and respectable citizens have spoken. It means the problem is real and requires immediate solution.
What about the group which acts like the conveyor belt sending the final product to millions of Ghanaians in their homes, workplaces, drinking spots, eating places and on the streets? I am referring to those who work in the media houses and who have become conduits of foul language in our country?
Have those noisy social commentators, political analysts and the phone-in contractors also reflected soberly on the harm they are causing this country by the way they are exercising their media freedom and freedom of expression? The politicians can be irresponsible but it takes an equally irresponsible media to bring their utterances to the public domain. That is why the media, like the MPs, must also do their own soul-searching.
Sometimes when people, including very knowledgeable professionals, appeal to the National Media Commission (NMC) to step in and bring wayward media practitioners to order, I wonder if they are aware of the limitations of the NMC. Beyond public condemnation and an order for retraction, the NMC can do very little to curb abuse of media freedom. The solution lies in individual media professionals, who should be able to predict the consequences of what, to some of them, is their freedom to practise their profession.
There is no way we can think alike and there is no way we cannot have disagreements. But whether we like it or not, our interests converge – good schools, good roads, adequate health facilities, employment for all and money in everybody’s pocket, regular and cheaper electric power, etc. We may differ on how to reach these targets but if we mean well, we shall be able to accommodate one another’s views and work towards the common goal.
The Americans have proved that while playing all the games associated with politics they still have the American dream to pursue. That was why their political leaders are meeting at the White House on November 18, 2010. And that was why Republican John Boehner of Ohio, who is heading for the post of Speaker in Congress, in his victory speech, promised to work with President Obama to turn the economy round.
The insults, at best, can only polarise us and divert precious attention from the real issues. It is better we begin to extricate ourselves from the dungeons into which we have thrown ourselves in the desperate attempt to discredit our political opponents.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Crawling slowly out of the dungeons
By Kofi Akordor
Politics everywhere virtually operates on the same rules. See nothing good about your opponent; Blame your opponent for every misfortune, including natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, drought and floods; Hammer the sore parts when it matters most; and Hang your mistakes like a noose around the neck of your opponents.
President Barrack Obama of the US did not escape the intrigues of politics when he came to power and occupied the Oval Office in the White House. Americans, especially the hard core conservatives, did not take long to blame him for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though former President George W. Bush, in his memoirs, has expressed regrets for not seeing any weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, a pretext used to invade Iraq. The recession and its credit crunch was at its peak in 2008, when Obama was campaigning for the White House but the collapse of business on Wall Street and unemployment have been attributed to his bad policies.
When there was an explosion on an oil rig belonging to British Petroleum (BP) in the Gulf of Mexico causing the leakage of millions of barrels into the ocean, President Obama took the blame for not acting fast enough to protect the coastal environment and for not acting hard against the oil giant. That is politics.
But politics can have a human face, especially for those who believe that the bottom line of the game is to make sure that the people get what they want. That was why Obama, while musing over the abysmal performance of the Democrats in the mid-term congressional elections, could not but acknowledge that he had not been able to successfully promote his economic rescue message to anxious Americans and, therefore, appreciate their frustrations.
In an interview with the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), Obama admitted that he had stopped paying attention “to the leadership style he displayed during his run for the presidency, and pledged to find common ground with the Republicans on many issues”.
Apparently in furtherance of this objective, has invited both Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders to meet at the White House on November 18, 2010 to discuss, among other things, economic measures, tax cuts, unemployment benefits and stimulus packages, issues which dominated the recent elections.
“I want us to talk substantively about how we can move the American people’s agenda forward,” President Obama said of that intended meeting.
In Ghana, our politics is not lacking in the earlier ingredients mentioned. Our incumbent governments hardly give credit to previous ones but are quick to blame them for their own failures. We even do worse. We do not follow any national development agenda and that is why we have a lot of uncompleted projects scattered all over the country while at the same time initiating new ones.
However, that is nothing compared to insults — crude and vulgar insults — that have become part and parcel of our politics. At first, we could tolerate a few irresponsible and very often fabricated words thrown at political opponents on campaign platforms, knowing very well that politicians are always carried away by the charged atmosphere characteristic of political rallies to “talk by heart”.
We all would have wished that after the campaigns and a new government is in place, things would return to normalcy and ensure that decency and decorum light the path for all our actions and expressions. Unfortunately, we are descending deeper into the gutters and one can hardly tune in to a radio station on a normal day without encountering insults from one politician on another.
The habit has become so entrenched that those who could not oil their lips with abusive words in the political domain are seen as the odd ones. Thank God, it seems we are getting to the saturating point now and voices of dissent are beginning to sound the alarms — we are heading closer to the brink if we do not mend our political ways.
The President of the Republic, Prof John Evans Atta Mills, publicly expressed his abhorrence for foul words on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 while inaugurating the rehabilitated rail link between Tema and Accra. Charity, they say, begins at home and we are expectantly waiting for the reaction of the President when any member of his government oversteps the bounds of decency and flings insulting words at others.
The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) also drew attention to the canker in a communiqué the legal body issued at the end of its conference, which called for respect for the dignity of our national leadership.
The Catholic Bishops of Ghana, at their meeting at Sefwi Wiawso, joined the chorus against what they described as the culture of insults, which has dominated our politics in recent times.
Just last week, on Wednesday, November 3, 2010, Members of Parliament brought the subject to the floor of the House. While some of the honourable members of the House were pointing accusing fingers at others, especially the media, others did a thorough soul-searching and came to the conclusion that whatever was carried in the media was their handiwork.
All these groups of prominent and respectable citizens have spoken. It means the problem is real and requires immediate solution. What about the group which acts like the conveyor belt sending the final product to millions of Ghanaians in their homes, workplaces, drinking spots, eating places and on the streets? I am referring to those who work in the media houses and who have become conduits of foul language in our country?
Have those noisy social commentators, political analysts and the phone-in contractors also reflected soberly on the harm they are causing this country by the way they are exercising their media freedom and freedom of expression? The politicians can be irresponsible but it takes an equally irresponsible media to bring their utterances to the public domain. That is why the media, like the MPs, must also do their own soul-searching.
Sometimes when people, including very knowledgeable professionals, appeal to the National Media Commission (NMC) to step in and bring wayward media practitioners to order, I wonder if they are aware of the limitations of the NMC. Beyond public condemnation and an order for retraction, the NMC can do very little to curb abuse of media freedom. The solution lies in individual media professionals, who should be able to predict the consequences of what, to some of them, is their freedom to practise their profession.
There is no way we can think alike and there is no way we cannot have disagreements. But whether we like it or not, our interests converge – good schools, good roads, adequate health facilities, employment for all and money in everybody’s pocket, regular and cheaper electric power, etc. We may differ on how to reach these targets but if we mean well, we shall be able to accommodate one another’s views and work towards the common goal.
The Americans have proved that while playing all the games associated with politics they still have the American dream to pursue. That was why their political leaders are meeting at the White House on November 18, 2010. And that was why Republican John Boehner of Ohio, who is heading for the post of Speaker in Congress, in his victory speech, promised to work with President Obama to turn the economy round.
The insults, at best, can only polarise us and divert precious attention from the real issues. It is better we begin to extricate ourselves from the dungeons into which we have thrown ourselves in the desperate attempt to discredit our political opponents.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Politics everywhere virtually operates on the same rules. See nothing good about your opponent; Blame your opponent for every misfortune, including natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, drought and floods; Hammer the sore parts when it matters most; and Hang your mistakes like a noose around the neck of your opponents.
President Barrack Obama of the US did not escape the intrigues of politics when he came to power and occupied the Oval Office in the White House. Americans, especially the hard core conservatives, did not take long to blame him for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though former President George W. Bush, in his memoirs, has expressed regrets for not seeing any weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, a pretext used to invade Iraq. The recession and its credit crunch was at its peak in 2008, when Obama was campaigning for the White House but the collapse of business on Wall Street and unemployment have been attributed to his bad policies.
When there was an explosion on an oil rig belonging to British Petroleum (BP) in the Gulf of Mexico causing the leakage of millions of barrels into the ocean, President Obama took the blame for not acting fast enough to protect the coastal environment and for not acting hard against the oil giant. That is politics.
But politics can have a human face, especially for those who believe that the bottom line of the game is to make sure that the people get what they want. That was why Obama, while musing over the abysmal performance of the Democrats in the mid-term congressional elections, could not but acknowledge that he had not been able to successfully promote his economic rescue message to anxious Americans and, therefore, appreciate their frustrations.
In an interview with the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), Obama admitted that he had stopped paying attention “to the leadership style he displayed during his run for the presidency, and pledged to find common ground with the Republicans on many issues”.
Apparently in furtherance of this objective, has invited both Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders to meet at the White House on November 18, 2010 to discuss, among other things, economic measures, tax cuts, unemployment benefits and stimulus packages, issues which dominated the recent elections.
“I want us to talk substantively about how we can move the American people’s agenda forward,” President Obama said of that intended meeting.
In Ghana, our politics is not lacking in the earlier ingredients mentioned. Our incumbent governments hardly give credit to previous ones but are quick to blame them for their own failures. We even do worse. We do not follow any national development agenda and that is why we have a lot of uncompleted projects scattered all over the country while at the same time initiating new ones.
However, that is nothing compared to insults — crude and vulgar insults — that have become part and parcel of our politics. At first, we could tolerate a few irresponsible and very often fabricated words thrown at political opponents on campaign platforms, knowing very well that politicians are always carried away by the charged atmosphere characteristic of political rallies to “talk by heart”.
We all would have wished that after the campaigns and a new government is in place, things would return to normalcy and ensure that decency and decorum light the path for all our actions and expressions. Unfortunately, we are descending deeper into the gutters and one can hardly tune in to a radio station on a normal day without encountering insults from one politician on another.
The habit has become so entrenched that those who could not oil their lips with abusive words in the political domain are seen as the odd ones. Thank God, it seems we are getting to the saturating point now and voices of dissent are beginning to sound the alarms — we are heading closer to the brink if we do not mend our political ways.
The President of the Republic, Prof John Evans Atta Mills, publicly expressed his abhorrence for foul words on Wednesday, October 27, 2010 while inaugurating the rehabilitated rail link between Tema and Accra. Charity, they say, begins at home and we are expectantly waiting for the reaction of the President when any member of his government oversteps the bounds of decency and flings insulting words at others.
The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) also drew attention to the canker in a communiqué the legal body issued at the end of its conference, which called for respect for the dignity of our national leadership.
The Catholic Bishops of Ghana, at their meeting at Sefwi Wiawso, joined the chorus against what they described as the culture of insults, which has dominated our politics in recent times.
Just last week, on Wednesday, November 3, 2010, Members of Parliament brought the subject to the floor of the House. While some of the honourable members of the House were pointing accusing fingers at others, especially the media, others did a thorough soul-searching and came to the conclusion that whatever was carried in the media was their handiwork.
All these groups of prominent and respectable citizens have spoken. It means the problem is real and requires immediate solution. What about the group which acts like the conveyor belt sending the final product to millions of Ghanaians in their homes, workplaces, drinking spots, eating places and on the streets? I am referring to those who work in the media houses and who have become conduits of foul language in our country?
Have those noisy social commentators, political analysts and the phone-in contractors also reflected soberly on the harm they are causing this country by the way they are exercising their media freedom and freedom of expression? The politicians can be irresponsible but it takes an equally irresponsible media to bring their utterances to the public domain. That is why the media, like the MPs, must also do their own soul-searching.
Sometimes when people, including very knowledgeable professionals, appeal to the National Media Commission (NMC) to step in and bring wayward media practitioners to order, I wonder if they are aware of the limitations of the NMC. Beyond public condemnation and an order for retraction, the NMC can do very little to curb abuse of media freedom. The solution lies in individual media professionals, who should be able to predict the consequences of what, to some of them, is their freedom to practise their profession.
There is no way we can think alike and there is no way we cannot have disagreements. But whether we like it or not, our interests converge – good schools, good roads, adequate health facilities, employment for all and money in everybody’s pocket, regular and cheaper electric power, etc. We may differ on how to reach these targets but if we mean well, we shall be able to accommodate one another’s views and work towards the common goal.
The Americans have proved that while playing all the games associated with politics they still have the American dream to pursue. That was why their political leaders are meeting at the White House on November 18, 2010. And that was why Republican John Boehner of Ohio, who is heading for the post of Speaker in Congress, in his victory speech, promised to work with President Obama to turn the economy round.
The insults, at best, can only polarise us and divert precious attention from the real issues. It is better we begin to extricate ourselves from the dungeons into which we have thrown ourselves in the desperate attempt to discredit our political opponents.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Saturday, November 6, 2010
THE STORM IN THE HOUSE (NOV 2, 2010)
Last week, our elected representatives in Parliament went into a frenzy over a survey sponsored and its result published by Africawatch, a US-based news magazine with focus on Africa.
The beef of the parliamentarians was that the survey, christened Political Performance Index (PPI) and conducted by the magazine, was not fair to them in relation to their ratings ranging from Grade F (0%-49%), which is Failure, to Grade A (95%-100%), representing Exceptional Performance.
In between these two extremes are other grades: D(50%-54%); D+ (55%-59%); C- (60%-64%); C (65%-69%); C+ (70%-74%); B-(75%-79%); B (80%-84%); B+(85%-89%) and A- (90%-94%), representing Poor Performance, Minimum Performance, Moderate Performance, Average Performance, Satisfactory Performance, Good Performance, Very Good Performance, High Performance and Excellent Performance in that ascending order.
It is very important to make it clear that the survey was not only about Members of Parliament. The survey also took into account the performance of the President and Ministers of State. It is also important to emphasise the point that Africawatch as a magazine or Steve Mallory, its Editor, did not constitute the source of the conclusions of the survey.
According to the Editor, the President was assessed by a group of Ghanaian experts in various fields and from different professional backgrounds and political persuasions based on performance in five categories. These are Foreign Policy, Economic Development, Social Interventions, Political Development and National Security.
The Ministers, according to the Editor, were assessed by another group of experts based on their performance in Policy Articulation and Implementation; Managerial and Supervision Effectiveness; Human Relations and Ethics.
For the Speaker of Parliament and Members of Parliament, the magazine chose a group of senior journalists with experience in parliamentary coverage and former members of Parliament for the assessment.
For the Speaker, they looked at her impartiality, her firmness and fairness and general performance. In the case of members of Parliament, they were assessed based on their knowledge in lawmaking and the Constitution; Active participation in legislative business; Contribution to parliamentary debates and how their ideas and suggestions reflect society's needs and interests; tolerance of divergent views and ethics.
According to the Editor; the survey did not take into account the performance or non-performance of the MPs at the constituency level, an aspect, he said, would be taken into consideration in future surveys. Again he said in all cases, the questionnaire was administered at random and that each member of a group operated independently and no member was aware of others in the group. This might be a determination to ensure that responses are as independent and impartial as possible.
If these are the true state of affairs, then it can be concluded that the Africawatch magazine only did the collation and used the percentage marks to strike an average for The President and each of the Ministers and Members of Parliament.
Results of surveys of this nature, including those conducted by recognised and world-renowned institutions and think-tanks, have always come under criticism for political bias or for the choice of wrong indices for the research. Amnesty International (AI), an international human rights watch group and Transparency International, which monitors levels of corruption in sovereign states, have always had their reports challenged.
Even powerful and credible lending institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) have not always endeared themselves to certain countries which suspect the two institutions to be biased in favour of the US and its powerful allies of the West.
So unless a survey is overwhelmingly favourable to a group or to a country, one should expect resistance to its credibility. It is in this light that the reaction of the Members of Parliament, especially those who scored very low rating, should be understood and appreciated. Nobody would want to be graded as a non-performer or a failure, no matter how academic or scientific the exercise is. Therefore, the MPs have every right to protest and fight to redeem their lost image if they feel strongly about it.
However, if we begin from the premise that Africawatch PPI had no ill-motive and as explained by the Editor, the survey was to help enhance democracy in Ghana, then we need to revisit the outrage by the Members of Parliament, and determine whether they are flowing with the current democratic tide on the continent or they are just there to replace one form of dictatorship with another.
In the first place, Parliament, as a body, was not the subject of the survey; second, the MPs were not assessed alone, even though in our case, we could say that our Ministers are also MPs; and third, the MPs were not ranked the same and so cannot apply the notion of collective victimisation to fight their case. Are those with high grades also complaining that anything below Grade A is demeaning to them?
As stated earlier, it is generally the norm that results of surveys such as the type conducted by Africawatch are contentious and victims at its vicious end have every right to register their protest. But unless one could establish ill-motives, mischief or deliberate sabotage behind the survey, such protestations can be understood if expressed within acceptable norms. One needs not be sophisticated to realise that the Africawatch PPI cannot be absolute and there would always be room for improvement for it to come closer to its objectives. In any case the magazine has admitted this and promised to do better in their next survey.
That was why some of us were amazed at the amount of venom the MPs spewed out when the matter came for discussion on the floor of the House last week. In the first place, some of us do not see why the results of a survey conducted by a magazine based in the US should be such an attraction to our MPs as to consume a whole day's business time.
We could tolerate it if at most, a few minutes are allowed for members to express their opinions on the results, while at the same time admitting their weaknesses as human beings, knowing very well that their performance is being observed by others, including their own peers, and, therefore, there is the need to step up their performance.
To invoke Article 122 of the 1992 Constitution as well as Order 30 (2) of the Standing Orders of the House, and come to the conclusion that the Africawatch publication had brought the reputation of the House into disrepute is totally out of place.
To help readers, Article 122 of the 1992 Constitution says: “An act or omission which obstructs or impedes Parliament in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes a member or officer of Parliament in the discharge of his duties, or affronts the dignity of Parliament or which intends either directly or indirectly to produce that result is contempt of Parliament”.
It was on the strength of this provision that the Editor of Africawatch was referred to the Privileges Committee of Parliament to appear to answer contempt charges.
At this juncture, a few questions would do. In what way has a performance survey become an impediment to the work of Parliament? What would have been the reaction of the MPs if they were all rated Grade A? Again how would they have reacted if the survey with similar results were conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)? Or would they have called for the blood of Ted Turner, if it were the Cable News Network (CNN) which conducted the survey and came to worse conclusions?
By citing the Editor for contempt, is Parliament trying to claim infallibility and, therefore, its performance is beyond public scrutiny?
Of the three arms of government — The Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislature — only the Legislature comes closest to be representative of the sovereign will of the people. So if the President and his ministers could be criticised, and if even the judiciary, which has a more solid amour of independent cloak surrounding it, could be criticised, how come our elected representatives, our true representatives, want to stand out as a special breed whose performance should not be subject of public debate?
A few months ago, some members of Parliament boycotted the business of the house in solidarity with an individual who made a careless statement on radio and compelled the police to also react carelessly by arresting the man when they did not know which offence had been committed. On that day, the boycotting MPs claimed they were defending freedom of expression, which was represented by that careless statement made on radio that Flt. Lt. J.J. Rawlings, the former President, set his own house on fire.
Where are their democratic credentials when an Editor, exercising his right to freedom of expression, sponsored a survey on The President, Ministers and Members of Parliament? Is Parliament going to gag the media or subvert freedom of expression contrary to what is enshrined in the Constitution by invoking Article 122 at the least opportunity when the interest of its members is at stake? What about the interest of the mass of the people who, under very cruel weather conditions, spent the whole day in long queues just to make sure that they would elect their representatives who would fight for their interests?
Members of Parliament, like all other public office holders, deserve respect from the public for the dignity of their office not to be undermined, so they could serve the people very well. They will need the support and co-operation of all if they are to deliver their mandate as the true representatives of the people.
They must, in reciprocity, be humble enough to submit to public assessment no matter how flawed the criteria may be. At the end of the day, the truth shall remain the truth and those who are the ultimate judges would prevail.
Africawatch has started something which it claimed was motivated by the desire to strengthen our democracy and keep our political players on their toes. Like anything new, it would have its limitations, weaknesses and flaws. But if it is a venture conceived out of sincerity, it will purge itself of all the imperfections with time. That is what we should all pray for and offer the necessary suggestions that would make subsequent surveys better to meet our aspirations.
The torrent of words which conveyed the protestations of the MPs could only be likened to a storm in a teacup. We would wish to prevail upon our elected representatives not to make Article 122 hang ominously like the Sword of Damocles over our heads. If our representatives, our last bastion against the excesses and inaction of the other arms of government turn against us, what shall be our fate? They better sit up.
fokofi@yahoo.couk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
The beef of the parliamentarians was that the survey, christened Political Performance Index (PPI) and conducted by the magazine, was not fair to them in relation to their ratings ranging from Grade F (0%-49%), which is Failure, to Grade A (95%-100%), representing Exceptional Performance.
In between these two extremes are other grades: D(50%-54%); D+ (55%-59%); C- (60%-64%); C (65%-69%); C+ (70%-74%); B-(75%-79%); B (80%-84%); B+(85%-89%) and A- (90%-94%), representing Poor Performance, Minimum Performance, Moderate Performance, Average Performance, Satisfactory Performance, Good Performance, Very Good Performance, High Performance and Excellent Performance in that ascending order.
It is very important to make it clear that the survey was not only about Members of Parliament. The survey also took into account the performance of the President and Ministers of State. It is also important to emphasise the point that Africawatch as a magazine or Steve Mallory, its Editor, did not constitute the source of the conclusions of the survey.
According to the Editor, the President was assessed by a group of Ghanaian experts in various fields and from different professional backgrounds and political persuasions based on performance in five categories. These are Foreign Policy, Economic Development, Social Interventions, Political Development and National Security.
The Ministers, according to the Editor, were assessed by another group of experts based on their performance in Policy Articulation and Implementation; Managerial and Supervision Effectiveness; Human Relations and Ethics.
For the Speaker of Parliament and Members of Parliament, the magazine chose a group of senior journalists with experience in parliamentary coverage and former members of Parliament for the assessment.
For the Speaker, they looked at her impartiality, her firmness and fairness and general performance. In the case of members of Parliament, they were assessed based on their knowledge in lawmaking and the Constitution; Active participation in legislative business; Contribution to parliamentary debates and how their ideas and suggestions reflect society's needs and interests; tolerance of divergent views and ethics.
According to the Editor; the survey did not take into account the performance or non-performance of the MPs at the constituency level, an aspect, he said, would be taken into consideration in future surveys. Again he said in all cases, the questionnaire was administered at random and that each member of a group operated independently and no member was aware of others in the group. This might be a determination to ensure that responses are as independent and impartial as possible.
If these are the true state of affairs, then it can be concluded that the Africawatch magazine only did the collation and used the percentage marks to strike an average for The President and each of the Ministers and Members of Parliament.
Results of surveys of this nature, including those conducted by recognised and world-renowned institutions and think-tanks, have always come under criticism for political bias or for the choice of wrong indices for the research. Amnesty International (AI), an international human rights watch group and Transparency International, which monitors levels of corruption in sovereign states, have always had their reports challenged.
Even powerful and credible lending institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) have not always endeared themselves to certain countries which suspect the two institutions to be biased in favour of the US and its powerful allies of the West.
So unless a survey is overwhelmingly favourable to a group or to a country, one should expect resistance to its credibility. It is in this light that the reaction of the Members of Parliament, especially those who scored very low rating, should be understood and appreciated. Nobody would want to be graded as a non-performer or a failure, no matter how academic or scientific the exercise is. Therefore, the MPs have every right to protest and fight to redeem their lost image if they feel strongly about it.
However, if we begin from the premise that Africawatch PPI had no ill-motive and as explained by the Editor, the survey was to help enhance democracy in Ghana, then we need to revisit the outrage by the Members of Parliament, and determine whether they are flowing with the current democratic tide on the continent or they are just there to replace one form of dictatorship with another.
In the first place, Parliament, as a body, was not the subject of the survey; second, the MPs were not assessed alone, even though in our case, we could say that our Ministers are also MPs; and third, the MPs were not ranked the same and so cannot apply the notion of collective victimisation to fight their case. Are those with high grades also complaining that anything below Grade A is demeaning to them?
As stated earlier, it is generally the norm that results of surveys such as the type conducted by Africawatch are contentious and victims at its vicious end have every right to register their protest. But unless one could establish ill-motives, mischief or deliberate sabotage behind the survey, such protestations can be understood if expressed within acceptable norms. One needs not be sophisticated to realise that the Africawatch PPI cannot be absolute and there would always be room for improvement for it to come closer to its objectives. In any case the magazine has admitted this and promised to do better in their next survey.
That was why some of us were amazed at the amount of venom the MPs spewed out when the matter came for discussion on the floor of the House last week. In the first place, some of us do not see why the results of a survey conducted by a magazine based in the US should be such an attraction to our MPs as to consume a whole day's business time.
We could tolerate it if at most, a few minutes are allowed for members to express their opinions on the results, while at the same time admitting their weaknesses as human beings, knowing very well that their performance is being observed by others, including their own peers, and, therefore, there is the need to step up their performance.
To invoke Article 122 of the 1992 Constitution as well as Order 30 (2) of the Standing Orders of the House, and come to the conclusion that the Africawatch publication had brought the reputation of the House into disrepute is totally out of place.
To help readers, Article 122 of the 1992 Constitution says: “An act or omission which obstructs or impedes Parliament in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes a member or officer of Parliament in the discharge of his duties, or affronts the dignity of Parliament or which intends either directly or indirectly to produce that result is contempt of Parliament”.
It was on the strength of this provision that the Editor of Africawatch was referred to the Privileges Committee of Parliament to appear to answer contempt charges.
At this juncture, a few questions would do. In what way has a performance survey become an impediment to the work of Parliament? What would have been the reaction of the MPs if they were all rated Grade A? Again how would they have reacted if the survey with similar results were conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)? Or would they have called for the blood of Ted Turner, if it were the Cable News Network (CNN) which conducted the survey and came to worse conclusions?
By citing the Editor for contempt, is Parliament trying to claim infallibility and, therefore, its performance is beyond public scrutiny?
Of the three arms of government — The Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislature — only the Legislature comes closest to be representative of the sovereign will of the people. So if the President and his ministers could be criticised, and if even the judiciary, which has a more solid amour of independent cloak surrounding it, could be criticised, how come our elected representatives, our true representatives, want to stand out as a special breed whose performance should not be subject of public debate?
A few months ago, some members of Parliament boycotted the business of the house in solidarity with an individual who made a careless statement on radio and compelled the police to also react carelessly by arresting the man when they did not know which offence had been committed. On that day, the boycotting MPs claimed they were defending freedom of expression, which was represented by that careless statement made on radio that Flt. Lt. J.J. Rawlings, the former President, set his own house on fire.
Where are their democratic credentials when an Editor, exercising his right to freedom of expression, sponsored a survey on The President, Ministers and Members of Parliament? Is Parliament going to gag the media or subvert freedom of expression contrary to what is enshrined in the Constitution by invoking Article 122 at the least opportunity when the interest of its members is at stake? What about the interest of the mass of the people who, under very cruel weather conditions, spent the whole day in long queues just to make sure that they would elect their representatives who would fight for their interests?
Members of Parliament, like all other public office holders, deserve respect from the public for the dignity of their office not to be undermined, so they could serve the people very well. They will need the support and co-operation of all if they are to deliver their mandate as the true representatives of the people.
They must, in reciprocity, be humble enough to submit to public assessment no matter how flawed the criteria may be. At the end of the day, the truth shall remain the truth and those who are the ultimate judges would prevail.
Africawatch has started something which it claimed was motivated by the desire to strengthen our democracy and keep our political players on their toes. Like anything new, it would have its limitations, weaknesses and flaws. But if it is a venture conceived out of sincerity, it will purge itself of all the imperfections with time. That is what we should all pray for and offer the necessary suggestions that would make subsequent surveys better to meet our aspirations.
The torrent of words which conveyed the protestations of the MPs could only be likened to a storm in a teacup. We would wish to prevail upon our elected representatives not to make Article 122 hang ominously like the Sword of Damocles over our heads. If our representatives, our last bastion against the excesses and inaction of the other arms of government turn against us, what shall be our fate? They better sit up.
fokofi@yahoo.couk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
The storm in a tea cup
By Kofi Akordor
Last week, our elected representatives in Parliament went into a frenzy over a survey sponsored and its result published by Africawatch, a US-based news magazine with focus on Africa. The beef of the parliamentarians was that the survey, christened Political Performance Index (PPI) and conducted by the magazine, was not fair to them in relation to their ratings ranging from Grade F (0%-49%), which is Failure, to Grade A (95%-100%), representing Exceptional Performance.
In between these two extremes are other grades: D(50%-54%); D+ (55%-59%); C- (60%-64%); C (65%-69%); C+ (70%-74%); B-(75%-79%); B (80%-84%); B+(85%-89%) and A- (90%-94%), representing Poor Performance, Minimum Performance, Moderate Performance, Average Performance, Satisfactory Performance, Good Performance, Very Good Performance, High Performance and Excellent Performance in that ascending order.
It is very important to make it clear that the survey was not only about Members of Parliament. The survey also took into account the performance of The President and Ministers of State. It is also important to emphasise the point that Africawatch as a magazine or Steve Mallory, its Editor, did not constitute the source of the conclusions of the survey.
According to the Editor, the President was assessed by a group of Ghanaian experts in various fields and from different professional backgrounds and political persuasions based on performance in five categories. These are Foreign Policy, Economic Development, Social Interventions, Political Development and National Security.
The Ministers, according to the Editor, were assessed by another group of experts based on their performance in Policy Articulation and Implementation; Managerial and Supervision Effectiveness; Human Relations and Ethics.
For the Speaker of Parliament and Members of Parliament, the magazine chose a group of senior journalists with experience in parliamentary coverage and former members of Parliament for the assessment.
For the Speaker, they looked at her impartiality, her firmness and fairness and general performance. In the case of members of Parliament, they were assessed based on their knowledge in lawmaking and the Constitution; Active participation in legislative business; Contribution to parliamentary debates and how their ideas and suggestions reflect society's needs and interests; Tolerance of divergent views and Ethics.
According to the Editor the survey did not take into account the performance or non-performance of the MPs at the constituency level, an aspect, he said, would be taken into consideration in future surveys. Again he said in all cases, the questionnaire was administered at random and that each member of a group operated independently and no member was aware of others in the group. This might be a determination to ensure that responses are as independent and impartial as possible.
If these are the true of state of affairs, then it can be concluded that the Africawatch magazine only did the collation and used the percentage marks to strike an average for The President and each of the Ministers and Members of Parliament.
Results of surveys of this nature, including those conducted by recognised and world-renowned institutions and think-tanks, have always come under criticism for political bias or for the choice of wrong indices for the research. Amnesty International (AI), an international human rights watch group and Transparency International, which monitors levels of corruption in sovereign states, have always had their reports challenged.
Even powerful and credible lending institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) have not always endeared themselves to certain countries which suspect the two institutions to be biased in favour of the US and its powerful allies of the West.
So unless a survey is overwhelmingly favourable to a group or to a country, one should expect resistance to its credibility. It is in this light that the reaction of the Members of Parliament, especially those who scored very low rating, should be understood and appreciated. Nobody would want to be graded as a non-performer or a failure, no matter how academic or scientific the exercise is. Therefore, the MPs have every right to protest and fight to redeem their lost image if they feel strongly about it.
However, if we begin from the premise that Africawatch PPI had no ill-motive and as explained by the Editor, the survey was to help enhance democracy in Ghana, then we need to revisit the outrage by the Members of Parliament, and determine whether they are flowing with the current democratic tide on the continent or they are just there to replace one form of dictatorship with another.
In the first place, Parliament, as a body, was not the subject of the survey; second, the MPs were not assessed alone, even though in our case, we could say that our Ministers are also MPs; and third, the MPs were not ranked the same and so cannot apply the notion of collective victimisation to fight their case. Are those with high grades also complaining that anything below Grade A is demeaning to them?
As stated earlier, it is generally the norm that results of surveys such as the type conducted by Africawatch are contentious and victims at its vicious end have every right to register their protest. But unless one could establish ill-motives, mischief or deliberate sabotage behind the survey, such protestations can be understood if expressed within acceptable norms. One needs not be sophisticated to realise that the Africawatch PPI cannot be absolute and there would always be room for improvement for it to come closer to its objectives. In any case the magazine has admitted this and promised to do better in their next survey.
That was why some of us were amazed at the amount of venom the MPs spewed out when the matter came for discussion on the floor of the House last week. In the first place, some of us do not see why the results of a survey conducted by a magazine based in the US should be such an attraction to our MPs as to consume a whole day's business time.
We could tolerate it if at most, a few minutes are allowed for members to express their opinions on the results, while at the same time admitting their weaknesses as human beings, knowing very well that their performance is being observed by others, including their own peers, and, therefore, there is the need to step up their performance.
To invoke Article 122 of the 1992 Constitution as well as Order 30 (2) of the Standing Orders of the House, and come to the conclusion that the Africawatch publication had brought the reputation of the House into disrepute is totally out of place.
To help readers, Article 122 of the 1992 Constitution says: “An act or omission which obstructs or impedes Parliament in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes a member or officer of Parliament in the discharge of his duties, or affronts the dignity of Parliament or which intends either directly or indirectly to produce that result is contempt of Parliament”.
It was on the strength of this provision that the Editor of Africawatch was referred to the Privileges Committee of Parliament to appear to answer contempt charges.
At this juncture, a few questions would do. In what way has a performance survey become an impediment to the work of Parliament? What would have been the reaction of the MPs if they were all rated Grade A? Again how would they have reacted if the survey with similar results were conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)? Or would they have called for the blood of Ted Turner, if it were the Cable News Network (CNN) which conducted the survey and came to worse conclusions?
By citing the Editor for contempt, is Parliament trying to claim infallibility and, therefore, its performance is beyond public scrutiny?
Of the three arms of government — The Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislature — only the Legislature comes closest to be representative of the sovereign will of the people. So if the President and his ministers could be criticised, and if even the judiciary, which has a more solid amour of independent cloak surrounding it, could be criticised, how come our elected representatives, our true representatives, want to stand out as a special breed whose performance should not be subject of public debate?
A few months ago, some members of Parliament boycotted the business of the house in solidarity with an individual who made a careless statement on radio and compelled the police to also react carelessly by arresting the man when they did not know which offence had been committed. On that day, the boycotting MPs claimed they were defending freedom of expression, which was represented by that careless statement made on radio that Flt. Lt. J.J. Rawlings, the former President, set his own house on fire.
Where are their democratic credentials when an Editor, exercising his right to freedom of expression, sponsored a survey on The President, Ministers and Members of Parliament? Is Parliament going to gag the media or subvert freedom of expression contrary to what is enshrined in the Constitution by invoking Article 122 at the least opportunity when the interest of its members is at stake? What about the interest of the mass of the people who, under very cruel weather conditions, spent the whole day in long queues just to make sure that they would elect their representatives who would fight for their interests?
Members of Parliament, like all other public office holders, deserve respect from the public for the dignity of their office not to be undermined, so they could serve the people very well. They will need the support and co-operation of all if they are to deliver their mandate as the true representatives of the people.
They must, in reciprocity, be humble enough to submit to public assessment no matter how flawed the criteria may be. At the end of the day, the truth shall remain the truth and those who are the ultimate judges would prevail.
Africawatch has started something which it claimed was motivated by the desire to strengthen our democracy and keep our political players on their toes. Like anything new, it would have its limitations, weaknesses and flaws. But if it is a venture conceived out of sincerity, it will purge itself of all the imperfections with time. That is what we should all pray for and offer the necessary suggestions that would make subsequent surveys better to meet our aspirations.
The torrent of words which conveyed the protestations of the MPs could only be likened to a storm in teacup. We would wish to prevail upon our elected representatives not to make Article 122 hang ominously like the Sword of Damocles over our heads. If our representatives, our last bastion against the excesses and inaction of the other arms of government turn against us, what shall be our fate? They better sit up.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Last week, our elected representatives in Parliament went into a frenzy over a survey sponsored and its result published by Africawatch, a US-based news magazine with focus on Africa. The beef of the parliamentarians was that the survey, christened Political Performance Index (PPI) and conducted by the magazine, was not fair to them in relation to their ratings ranging from Grade F (0%-49%), which is Failure, to Grade A (95%-100%), representing Exceptional Performance.
In between these two extremes are other grades: D(50%-54%); D+ (55%-59%); C- (60%-64%); C (65%-69%); C+ (70%-74%); B-(75%-79%); B (80%-84%); B+(85%-89%) and A- (90%-94%), representing Poor Performance, Minimum Performance, Moderate Performance, Average Performance, Satisfactory Performance, Good Performance, Very Good Performance, High Performance and Excellent Performance in that ascending order.
It is very important to make it clear that the survey was not only about Members of Parliament. The survey also took into account the performance of The President and Ministers of State. It is also important to emphasise the point that Africawatch as a magazine or Steve Mallory, its Editor, did not constitute the source of the conclusions of the survey.
According to the Editor, the President was assessed by a group of Ghanaian experts in various fields and from different professional backgrounds and political persuasions based on performance in five categories. These are Foreign Policy, Economic Development, Social Interventions, Political Development and National Security.
The Ministers, according to the Editor, were assessed by another group of experts based on their performance in Policy Articulation and Implementation; Managerial and Supervision Effectiveness; Human Relations and Ethics.
For the Speaker of Parliament and Members of Parliament, the magazine chose a group of senior journalists with experience in parliamentary coverage and former members of Parliament for the assessment.
For the Speaker, they looked at her impartiality, her firmness and fairness and general performance. In the case of members of Parliament, they were assessed based on their knowledge in lawmaking and the Constitution; Active participation in legislative business; Contribution to parliamentary debates and how their ideas and suggestions reflect society's needs and interests; Tolerance of divergent views and Ethics.
According to the Editor the survey did not take into account the performance or non-performance of the MPs at the constituency level, an aspect, he said, would be taken into consideration in future surveys. Again he said in all cases, the questionnaire was administered at random and that each member of a group operated independently and no member was aware of others in the group. This might be a determination to ensure that responses are as independent and impartial as possible.
If these are the true of state of affairs, then it can be concluded that the Africawatch magazine only did the collation and used the percentage marks to strike an average for The President and each of the Ministers and Members of Parliament.
Results of surveys of this nature, including those conducted by recognised and world-renowned institutions and think-tanks, have always come under criticism for political bias or for the choice of wrong indices for the research. Amnesty International (AI), an international human rights watch group and Transparency International, which monitors levels of corruption in sovereign states, have always had their reports challenged.
Even powerful and credible lending institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) have not always endeared themselves to certain countries which suspect the two institutions to be biased in favour of the US and its powerful allies of the West.
So unless a survey is overwhelmingly favourable to a group or to a country, one should expect resistance to its credibility. It is in this light that the reaction of the Members of Parliament, especially those who scored very low rating, should be understood and appreciated. Nobody would want to be graded as a non-performer or a failure, no matter how academic or scientific the exercise is. Therefore, the MPs have every right to protest and fight to redeem their lost image if they feel strongly about it.
However, if we begin from the premise that Africawatch PPI had no ill-motive and as explained by the Editor, the survey was to help enhance democracy in Ghana, then we need to revisit the outrage by the Members of Parliament, and determine whether they are flowing with the current democratic tide on the continent or they are just there to replace one form of dictatorship with another.
In the first place, Parliament, as a body, was not the subject of the survey; second, the MPs were not assessed alone, even though in our case, we could say that our Ministers are also MPs; and third, the MPs were not ranked the same and so cannot apply the notion of collective victimisation to fight their case. Are those with high grades also complaining that anything below Grade A is demeaning to them?
As stated earlier, it is generally the norm that results of surveys such as the type conducted by Africawatch are contentious and victims at its vicious end have every right to register their protest. But unless one could establish ill-motives, mischief or deliberate sabotage behind the survey, such protestations can be understood if expressed within acceptable norms. One needs not be sophisticated to realise that the Africawatch PPI cannot be absolute and there would always be room for improvement for it to come closer to its objectives. In any case the magazine has admitted this and promised to do better in their next survey.
That was why some of us were amazed at the amount of venom the MPs spewed out when the matter came for discussion on the floor of the House last week. In the first place, some of us do not see why the results of a survey conducted by a magazine based in the US should be such an attraction to our MPs as to consume a whole day's business time.
We could tolerate it if at most, a few minutes are allowed for members to express their opinions on the results, while at the same time admitting their weaknesses as human beings, knowing very well that their performance is being observed by others, including their own peers, and, therefore, there is the need to step up their performance.
To invoke Article 122 of the 1992 Constitution as well as Order 30 (2) of the Standing Orders of the House, and come to the conclusion that the Africawatch publication had brought the reputation of the House into disrepute is totally out of place.
To help readers, Article 122 of the 1992 Constitution says: “An act or omission which obstructs or impedes Parliament in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes a member or officer of Parliament in the discharge of his duties, or affronts the dignity of Parliament or which intends either directly or indirectly to produce that result is contempt of Parliament”.
It was on the strength of this provision that the Editor of Africawatch was referred to the Privileges Committee of Parliament to appear to answer contempt charges.
At this juncture, a few questions would do. In what way has a performance survey become an impediment to the work of Parliament? What would have been the reaction of the MPs if they were all rated Grade A? Again how would they have reacted if the survey with similar results were conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)? Or would they have called for the blood of Ted Turner, if it were the Cable News Network (CNN) which conducted the survey and came to worse conclusions?
By citing the Editor for contempt, is Parliament trying to claim infallibility and, therefore, its performance is beyond public scrutiny?
Of the three arms of government — The Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislature — only the Legislature comes closest to be representative of the sovereign will of the people. So if the President and his ministers could be criticised, and if even the judiciary, which has a more solid amour of independent cloak surrounding it, could be criticised, how come our elected representatives, our true representatives, want to stand out as a special breed whose performance should not be subject of public debate?
A few months ago, some members of Parliament boycotted the business of the house in solidarity with an individual who made a careless statement on radio and compelled the police to also react carelessly by arresting the man when they did not know which offence had been committed. On that day, the boycotting MPs claimed they were defending freedom of expression, which was represented by that careless statement made on radio that Flt. Lt. J.J. Rawlings, the former President, set his own house on fire.
Where are their democratic credentials when an Editor, exercising his right to freedom of expression, sponsored a survey on The President, Ministers and Members of Parliament? Is Parliament going to gag the media or subvert freedom of expression contrary to what is enshrined in the Constitution by invoking Article 122 at the least opportunity when the interest of its members is at stake? What about the interest of the mass of the people who, under very cruel weather conditions, spent the whole day in long queues just to make sure that they would elect their representatives who would fight for their interests?
Members of Parliament, like all other public office holders, deserve respect from the public for the dignity of their office not to be undermined, so they could serve the people very well. They will need the support and co-operation of all if they are to deliver their mandate as the true representatives of the people.
They must, in reciprocity, be humble enough to submit to public assessment no matter how flawed the criteria may be. At the end of the day, the truth shall remain the truth and those who are the ultimate judges would prevail.
Africawatch has started something which it claimed was motivated by the desire to strengthen our democracy and keep our political players on their toes. Like anything new, it would have its limitations, weaknesses and flaws. But if it is a venture conceived out of sincerity, it will purge itself of all the imperfections with time. That is what we should all pray for and offer the necessary suggestions that would make subsequent surveys better to meet our aspirations.
The torrent of words which conveyed the protestations of the MPs could only be likened to a storm in teacup. We would wish to prevail upon our elected representatives not to make Article 122 hang ominously like the Sword of Damocles over our heads. If our representatives, our last bastion against the excesses and inaction of the other arms of government turn against us, what shall be our fate? They better sit up.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)