PERISCOPE DEPTH
…With Our Publisher
“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”- Eleanor Roosevelt
29/09/2021
It has been the observation of many Ghanaians that the politics that we pursue in Ghana has more to do with narrow, partisan interests, than an objective exercise towards the wellbeing of the people.
Even putting aside the issue of the well-being of Ghanaians, it seems that the politics that we pursue in our country is more about point-scoring and grandstanding, than about the implementation of an objective standard.
Like lemmings, therefore, our politicians react on instinct, as against any objective brainwork. They react instinctually. Once any proposition is championed by one side of the political divide, then it must necessarily be an evil agenda and every effort must be made to reduce that effort to ruin.
This is typical of the politics we do in this country, and it is ruinous. Indeed, nothing typifies the ruinous nature of the political difference and debate in this country, than the recent debate on whether we should allow Ghanaians at the local level to vote for their metropolitan, municipal and district chief executives, and whether this election should be conducted along partisan lines.
When the issues for debate where finally settled on this matter, it was generally accepted that all parties were unanimous in their support for allowing the people to select their leaders at the local level. What the two main political parties disagreed on, was whether the vote should be based on partisan lines, or to be specific, whether political parties should be allowed to sponsor candidates.
The opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC), took a strong opposing view to the idea, whilst the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) supported the idea that people sponsored by political parties should be allowed to contest for positions at the local level.
What were the reasons for the NDC opposing political party participation in elections at the local level? They said that first, they were opposed to elections being conducted on partisan basis at the district level because the elections were likely to be, well, partisan, and that was wrong.
To begin with, this excuse is ab initio, spurious. Already, Ghana is conducting elections at the local level on partisan lines. When we vote for our members of parliament, we do so based on partisan lines. Political parties sponsor candidates, and even where people attempt the elections as independent candidates, it is generally possible to discern where they belong, politically. That being the case, that excuse that bringing partisanship to the local level would be ruinous, cannot wash. It was clearly an on the spur of them moment contravention to find an excuse oppose the concept.
Secondly, the NDC stated that it was opposed to partisan elections at the local level because it has the potential of fostering violence in the districts.
Well, again, the fact is that every four years, Ghanaians very comfortably proceed to vote for candidates on partisan lines to become members of parliament. These elections are conducted in rural areas, in districts. It is true that in some cases, these elections can turn out to be violent. However, it is also true that we cannot cite a single constituency in Ghana where violence arising out of the elections has been so persistent and debilitating that it is persisted for years, or months, or even days. Generally, such violence constitute flash incidents, that come and go within minutes. Yet the NDC would seek to employ this spurious excuse as a reason why people should not be given the power to vote at the district level.
Another reason that the NDC, which has won ultimate political power in Ghana before, suggested was that making the electoral process partisan, would stall development. Now, NDC, on three previous occasions, managed to win the presidency of Ghana. Those elections were conducted and won by the NDC on partisan basis. If we accept the logic of the NDC, then, in the times that the NDC was in power, it was so immolated by partisanship that it was unable to pursue any developmental agenda. By implication, that is what the NDC was saying, and I hope that at some point in the future, that party would have the opportunity to say different. Otherwise, that party should not be given the opportunity to govern again.
Another palpable excuse the NDC drummed up, was that politics is destructive and this destructive nature cannot be allowed to permeate to the rural areas.
For one, as I have stated before, the very bedrock of Ghana’s democracy is based on the fact of political activism. Therefore, if politics is destructive, then we might as well throw the entire democratic experiment overboard, and start again. I am however sure, that the NDC would not accept such a radical proposition. If it would not, then the next, and obvious position, is that the democracy should be deepened, by taking it to the rural areas, where people can fully participate in the decision-making process at the local level.
And for me, this is the saddest aspect of the success that the NDC achieved in managing to cause the government to withdraw the proposal, because that withdrawal effectively denied the generality of the people access to a very crucial part of the governance process, the right to decide who manages their day to day affairs at the local level.
One hopes, that in our lifetime, the people would have this opportunity again. And that if ever such an opportunity is presented, they people would jump at it with both hands.
(You can follow stories in the Daily Searchlight on www.thedailysearchlight.com or Daily Searchlight on our Facebook home page. Write to us on searchlightnews@yahoo.co.uk).
