DUPLICITY AND DISHONESTY IN POLITICS (Editorial Daily Graphic)

Yesterday, we took pains to debunk the attempt by Vice- President Arkaah to consign VAT to the same fate that befell Britain's Poll Tax.

We sought to establish that the greater lesson to be learnt from British politics is that wen members of a government disagree with the policies of the government, they do the decent thing and resign.

We focused on the example of Michael Hesseltine who resigned from the Thatcher government but joined the successor government of Prime Minister John Major.

Michael Hesseltine was not the first or the last to resign from Thatcher's long administration. Chancellor Nigel Lawson quit in disagreement over the direction of economic policy.

Geoffrey Howe, who, incidentally bore the title of Deputy Prime Minister, the only person who has served in all the Thatcher cabinets and held the key portfolios of Chancellor and Foreign Secretary, in a memorable speech tot he House of Commons, spoke of the tragic conflict of loyalties with which he had perhaps wrestled for far too long - the conflict of loyalty to the leader and government of which he was a part and loyalty to what he perceived to be the wider national interest.

He had finally decided to resolve that conflict in the only honourable way by resigning from the government.

In all the resignations, those former members of government always made the point that resigning was the only way of lifting from them the burden of bearing collective responsibility for government policies.

Only this year, a junior minister in the Home Office with responsibility for immigration surprised his colleagues with his resignation. He has been concerned about the effect of European Community policies on immigration with which he disagreed and he felt the only way for him was to resign in order to be free to speak his mind. He knew he could not remain a member of the government, even as a junior minister, and publicly dissent from government policies.

That is the way of honour and the lesson from British politics which Vice-President Arkaah conveniently ignored.

But he should not be allowed to get away with it. Nor should Owuraku Amofa take his own path without explanation.

IN addition to the public repudiation of a policy which he himself had helped to introduce, the Vice-President went to the extent of inciting workers to greater militancy as the only way to ensure their triumph.

IN the climate of industrial relations today, that is a call to arms, a call that must even undermine the mature stance of the leadership of the TUC who have tried to have the problems facing organised labour addressed in an atmosphere of peace.

At best, this is as bad an example of deviousness, duplicity and dishonesty in politics as one can find. At worst, it is plainly subversive. Either way, it makes the position of the Vice-President clearly untenable.

And we think Owuraku too must have some explanation to do for his deviance, even if on a less than major scale.

Indeed we think that if the Vice-President has any modicum of honour in him, he should resign. If he will not, he should be got rid of.