IN 2004, after the terrible Tsunami which devastated the coastline of some parts of south-east Asia, resulting in the death of more than 230,000 people, three prominent Americans sat in one aircraft and visited the area to show sympathy and offer support to the victims.
These three personalities were George W. Bush Snr and Bill Clinton, both former US Presidents, and George W. Bush Jnr, the then President of the US.
Former Presidents Bush Snr and Clinton belonged to the Republican and the Democratic parties, respectively, but when it came to US interest, party affiliation or interest became secondary.
In the same way, when, in 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck and wreaked havoc on parts of the southern coast of the US, including New Orleans, Americans were unanimous in condemning the Bush administration for not reacting with urgency to the disaster.
There were some racial and political undertones, though, because New Orleans has a huge Black population and it was generally observed that if the federal government was a bit slow in its response to the tragedy, then the racial issue could have been a factor.
Since the 1967 Arab/Israeli War, there has not been any major shift in US foreign policy in that region. Even after the October 1973 war when oil-producing Arab countries resorted to oil as a weapon to fight their cause, the position did not change much and it was rather poor countries in Africa which absorbed the shocks of that policy.
Every US administration comes to office with the pledge to solve the Palestinian/Israeli conflict but leaves without even condemning Israeli attacks on Palestinian settlements. That is why it is commonly said that Americans have permanent interests and not permanent friends. It is only when it affects them directly that Americans react to press home their feelings to the political leadership.
That was why when Americans were lured into a useless war in Iraq which earned them a bad image abroad and economic hardships at home, their reaction was the rejection of the Republican Party, which George Bush Snr and Jnr represented, paving the way for the first Black-American to occupy the Oval Office in the White House.
That is the American story.
The most important thing is that the Americans know their national interest or their interests as citizens and these two can never be subjugated or compromised in anyway for the interest of a few people in the name of party interest. After all the parties are there to serve the national interest, so what is party interest if the interest of the vast majority of the people is being ignored?
Since the return to multi-party constitutional rule in 1993, we in Ghana have been developing a culture which is gradually eroding in large measure, the benefits of multi-party democracy. We are now very quick to go to the defence of political parties when we should be pursuing a national agenda for development.
Tune in to any radio or television discussion and the subject matter will be either on a party justifying an action by its officials or condemning another by a different party. It is always they against US. We never try to build consensus on national issues which will propel this country forward.
Some well-meaning and respected citizens have condemned this approach to important national issues but it seems our political parties, goaded on by a media which are fast losing focus, are not tired of launching verbal assaults on one another. We do not rationalise issues again and even purely criminal cases had to be politicised one way or the other.
For instance, a former public office holder is called upon to render account for his stewardship and then a group surfaces from nowhere, chanting intimidation and persecution.
A public office holder exhibits incompetence and arbitrariness in his tenure but the moment a fresh person is put there, he/she jumps to his political party that is too eager to sing the all-too-well-known song of victimisation.
Try criticising a national policy and bringing out what may be a better alternative, then there will be cries of sabotage. The national interest is lost in the process.
Let us all agree that selling on the pavements has become a social menace in Accra and other big towns. Let the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA) set in motion measures to restore order on the streets and, suddenly, the subject becomes heavily politicised to the extent that no solution can be found for the problem.
Our capital city is gradually becoming a giant slum, but any attempt to bring some semblance of sanity will see the people marshalling forces against the government in order to score cheap political points, to the detriment of the societal good.
Try removing unauthorised structures on water courses and strategic installations and those who have been complaining all along become human rights activists overnight to condemn the operation. In the end, all our governments come and go without solving most of our problems because of politics.
One of the latest to draw attention to this rather negative phenomenon is Dr Francis Appiah, the Executive Secretary of the National African Peer Review Mechanism Governing Council (NAPRM-GC), who observed that the politicisation of national issues was affecting the country’s development.
Dr Appiah, who was speaking at a validation workshop on the Asante Akim North Municipal APRM Monitoring and Evaluation Report at Konongo last week, called for a stop to the practice whereby people supported national policies based on which political party was in government.
“It is a drawback to the nation’s quest for accelerated development,” he said.
The media, especially the electronic ones, have not helped in engendering this type of healthy debate on national affairs. Panellists are invited to make contributions on serious national issues not based on their competence and their grasp of the subject matter but based on their political affiliation.
Naturally, these people come on radio or television to spew out insults and add to an already tense atmosphere without serving the national interest. Why should newspaper reviews on radio and television be by representatives of political parties and not opinion leaders very conversant with the issues under discussion?
After 52 years as an independent nation, Ghana is confronted with serious challenges that should be the focus of our national debates and the way forward.
The majority of our children are still taking their lessons in mud houses with thatch roofs. The less fortunate ones squat under trees. We are having more illiterates in our population today than immediately before and after independence.
More than 52 years into nationhood, we still find it prudent to invite foreigners to collect water bills for us. This cannot be defended by any party fanatic unless he/she does not value our sovereignty and national pride.
It is not out of place for a country that is always beating its chest proclaiming itself as the first Black nation south of the Sahara to gain political independence to go to another sovereign country for support to build a presidential palace. This is not politics. This is national pride, security and sovereignty at stake.
We are engulfed in filth everywhere. Our schools are overcrowded, with limited facilities which make mockery some of the courses pursued by the students. Traffic lights which constitute a basic necessity in our cities do not function most of the time.
We are importing everything, including junk, from all over the globe and food from even Sahelian countries. Our roads are not the best, while our health facilities are overstretched, with inadequate human and material resources.
We are more or less a colony which goes through the motion of electing our leaders seasonally. That is the freedom we enjoy.
We can change things if we begin to see every government as our government that must be supported, advised and criticised to deliver and whose officers must at the same time be held accountable to us.
When we drive on our pothole-filled roads, there is no special lane for those who supported the government’s party and another, a more-terrible one, for opposition people. When school re-opens every parent determined to get a good school for his/her child must hit the road searching and pleading.
If the medical facilities are not functioning properly, there is no hope of survival whether you belong to a winning party or a losing one. In exceptional cases, a few people in government may be sent outside for treatment at our expense.
But the rest of us will either survive or die here. If the taps don’t flow there is no way a party chairman will have a private pipeline. If the electricity system collapses, it affects everyone. The list goes on.
In short, our survival is tied to the fortunes of this country, that is why we should not allow a few people to whom we have ceded our authority so that they will pursue our interests to exploit us and plunder our resources and when called upon to account for them, come back to us screaming that they are being persecuted or witch-hunted
Former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, is standing trial on corruption charges. In fact, he was forced out of office because of allegations of corruption and bribery.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is to cough out cash he illegally used to water his garden. So are other members of the British Parliament.
The immediate past Taiwanese President, Chen Shu-bian, was in September sentenced to life imprisonment for money laundering, bribery and embezzlement of government funds.
These are not witch-hunting. Public officers must hold office in trust and do what is expected of them. That is the only way countries will not be short-changed and kept in perpetual poverty and under-development.
If ministers are questioned for their stewardship, one could not fathom why some people calling themselves party supporters should jump to the side of such ministers. Yes, due process must be followed, not just making wild allegations. In the same way, a public officer who is doing well must be given all the necessary encouragement to deliver in the interest of the people. A policy or programme which has everything good about it should be supported by all to bring about the positive change we are all clamouring for.
Multi-party democracy is good. It guarantees our individual rights and the freedoms and freedom to choose. It is better than even the best of benevolent dictatorships.
It keeps governments on their toes, since the possibility of change is always apparent. That is the power we wield as an electorate and which must be well exercised for the national or common good.
It will be dangerous and counter-productive to allow multi-partyism to polarise us into them and us and into the winners and losers. It will not help in our national development drive.
That is why the suggestion by Mr David A. Kanga, a Deputy Commissioner of the Electoral Commission, that in order to reduce the tension and acrimony associated with the current system of ‘winner-takes-all’ the system should give way to a blend of the winner-takes-all and proportional representation should be taken seriously.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment