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
No comments:
Post a Comment