Calus Von Brazi
Who says the concept of One Man, One Vote (OMOV) would be too difficult to implement? The great MPP is at it again, trying desperately to miss a unique opportunity to demonstrably demonstrate its credentials as a true bastion of democracy and liberalism in Ghana’s political history. One may ask why resistance is growing against ideas and opinions that spring from the very people in whose bosom lies the determination of which person, what party, or ideology underpins the organizing principles of Ghanaian socio-political-economic development.
The great MPP goes for its long awaited congress in the coming weeks. Among the many ideas that are flying around is the idea of OMOV, which this writer unrepentantly subscribes to and supports. As expected, there are those who support other ideas, such as a compromise that expands the MPP electorate; some prefer a two-tier system, some are pushing for expansion of the franchise for interest groups such as the ‘Old Men’s Association’ and the ‘Gidigidi Student’s Confederation’ etc. Very interesting arguments are made to support these and the many other ideas not mentioned herein. There are even some who want a retention of the existing status quo; the corrupt, ineffective, futile and degenerative albatross that in the opinion of yours truly has been the cornerstone of the defeat of the great MPP in the 2008 “who is who”. Before delving into the complexities and idiosyncrasies of the various interest groups kindly indulge me in a minor but important digression. What is this business of a so-called separate youth congress that clearly is designed to promote a certain interest within the great MPP over and above our collective success as a political party seeking the mandate of the people to serve as the custodians of good governance? By what indices did those loud-mouths come to the conclusion that by gathering known activists of the Calamari group and mixing them up with a few lawyer-politician-flagbearer types, they have achieved a fait accompli? I have bad news for them: the change that is being called for is not a cosmetic exercise, neither are we going to close our eyes as a few deviants erect a superficial veneer over a politically problematic structure. We are going to radically transform the way the entire youth body (which is a microcosm within the party structure) and by extension the party as a whole operates. On this, there shall be no compromise and the earlier the status quo shenanigans get this into their constipated minds, the better it would be for our collective progress. As for fighting our way through, well some of us believe in the machete theory and will not hesitate one minute to unleash the full arsenal of our surprises for any feet-dragging that can only negate our future progress. Having gotten this off my mind, let me explain presently why and what the whole belief in the OMOV system is about.
The old system of Polling Station officials contributed in no small measure in undoing the good works of the great MPP in government. These people, most of whom were either not elected properly (because some smart Constituency Chairman ensured that he kept the election date, time and venue closer to his chest than his bedmate) or were in classic mafia style appointed in the absence of the possibility of holding a real election did not deem themselves obliged to uphold tenets they did not strive to institutionalize. Put differently, how do you place such an enormous responsibility on persons who owed their office not to the constituents with whom they reside but to some so-called Godfather or interest group that saw to their position as Polling Station Executives? This weakness in our system, ensured that the constituents did not feel any real and true connection to people they did not (i) elect, (ii) did not share true close affinity and affiliations with, (iii) did not believe were working in the interest of the great MPP but rather seeking their personal/selfish interests and (iv) saw as uninfluential as far as local politics within their immediate Polling Station area was concerned. Take for instance, a well known brawler doubling as a Polling Station Executive. How on earth, can such a person go on an outreach to inspire and solicit votes from constituents? The likelihood is that at the very first catcall flung at him, away will go the possibility of retaining even the votes of his core party supporters. If he is known to be a chronic defaulter vis-à-vis his debt and related financial obligations, then constituents would tell you that any monies due them have been “sat on” by this executive to defray his debts to the detriment of the progress of work for the entire party. The result of this is to sit at party headquarters and expect that your message is going to the nooks and crannies of constituencies while in reality, constituents are examining alternatives from the plethora of big and small parties for a respite.
Given the above, it stands to reason that the basic unit of organization of the great MPP must be thoroughly reorganized to ensure that it serves the function and purposes for which such an entity is established. Never again should Mafioso style appointments be made by allowing Constituency Chairpersons to appoint their lackeys and cronies to head the executive wing of polling stations. This makes for a cross-section of ardent party sympathizers to remain apathetic to the programmes and activities of the party. Furthermore, it is true that if the sub-structure or basic unit of the party is warped from the onset, it stands to reason that the whole superstructure would be defective. This “do me I do you” syndrome appears to be what is driving the ideas of those who want to maintain the status quo: the reason is not far to ascertain. They are unrepentant beneficiaries of that self-defeating scheme. But will that scheme inure to the benefit of the great MPP?
Compare this to a process that allows everybody (taken here to be card-bearing fully paid up member of good standing) to be active participants in the election of officials for the great MPP. Who can have any argument that the official is not representative of their aspirations after such a person has been duly elected by full membership? Besides, would this not make elected officials fully accountable to the entirety of the electorate knowing fully well that long tenure lies with the electorate and therefore responsibility must be discharged with alacrity, effectiveness and dispatch? Would this not make it impossible for any ‘leading member’ to hoodwink the whole constituency either through coercive mechanisms or monetary inducements? Who can dispute the benefits to democracy if such in-built anti-‘moneycracy’ checks and balances are made the order of the day? But far more significant if not equally important in weight to the argument for OMOV is the simplified simple reality of contemporary times: if the whole of Ghana can elect the chief occupant of the presidency and the swearer of the Presidential Oath, what debars the great MPP from allowing the whole of its membership from choosing its officials? Unless of course the argument is that when it comes to the great MPP, only few are capable, I fail to see why we cannot be the first to implement this idea. Perhaps, as the great MPP is wont to do, we are waiting for another sound thrashing before we do what we know we must do NOW.
To be fair to all the interest groups within the great MPP, there are those who dread this whole OMOV business. For them, to accept OMOV is to sign their own death warrants; what they have closed their eyes to is the reality that to accept and implement OMOV is to make each and every member, sympathizer and activists of the great MPP a bona fide custodian of the party and its fortune. OMOV confers true and verifiable ownership of the party on the people who are given the right to choose their leaders directly and not through so-called arm-twisting ‘highest-bidder’ delegates. Finally, OMOV is the surest guarantee against apathy, the kind that makes people say “well, if they have refused to listen to us, they can come and vote themselves to power”. The best way of granting audience to those who feel left out is to give them the right to choose. If we can perfect OMOV gradually beginning from now, how would the great MPP ever have difficulty in choosing agents for elections who have a direct interest in ensuring that the party is not done in during mandatory December 7 activities? It would be practically impossible to compromise anybody because the constituents will themselves provide the most trustworthy agents to protect, promote and guarantee the interest of the great MPP in any given national assignment. There are those who also argue that OMOV would be a “logistical nightmare”. In all truth, it is the most unintelligent argument that has passed through my earlobes since the whole debate begun. What is more of a logistical nightmare than 17 people and their surrogates chasing themselves around the Land of Our Death to influence 2500 people to make one of them flag bearer? Or the cost of traversing all of Ghana reduces or becomes less of a logistical nightmare when it is 17 people? The logistical requirement of OMOV is not more than GHC 200,000 if the “logistical nightmare” apologists care to know. In anycase, would we rather pander to fears of a logistical nightmare than the stark reality that the people who believe in the great MPP have resolved that if they are not allowed to have a say in the way the party is run, they would continue to stay aloof to its interests? I think good sense and reason must prevail. The days of Mafioso tactics must be truly over. This is not a matter of compromise. We either shape up or ship out. We have a unique opportunity to (a) make it impossible for us to gain 11 seats and lose 31, (b) minimize or eliminate the tendency of lawsuits and disaffection from acrimonious primaries such as what happened very irritatingly in Suhum or Bekwai, (c) obliterate name-calling and casting of aspersions on National Officers upon suspicion that they have unduly influenced the outcome of primaries (Tain and Okere), (d) confer undeniable and incontrovertible legitimacy to anybody who calls himself “leader” or “leading member” of the great MPP and finally, (e) eliminate “moneycracy” in Ghanaian politics. I am in no doubt, that if the great MPP goes through these painful birth pangs of breaking away with the decrepit modus operandi that has characterized its activities, culminating in its painful loss of governmental authority in December 2008, the good people of Ghana would keep faith with it, if for nothing at all, for taking real practical measures to eliminate any trace or semblance of corruption within its ranks; that way, the Ghanaian electorate can be sure that when in office, profligate profligacy would become a faint memory in Ghana’s political life.
Jehovah Adonai be your lot till next week!
