Don’t Denigrate Women In Politics

Otiko Afisah Djaba’s feature article, July 2, 2010, in the Daily Graphic, would have passed without a reaction if she had not sought to create the unfortunate impression that Mr Abu Jinpor’s response to Ms Ursula Owusu’s sweeping allegation on Metro TV’s newspaper review programme, Good Morning Ghana, and the subsequent ones against Ursula, were attacks on the ‘advancement of women in Ghana’.

Perhaps Otiko did not watch the scene on the TV but was told by Ursula, who pitifully and unsuccessfully tried to rally support from Ghanaian women, who’re more discerning. If she had taken time to analyse Ursula’s behaviour on the programme, her article would have demanded of her to unconditionally apologise publicly to all female politicians, the NDC party, Mr Abu Jinapor, the Vice President, Mr John Mahama, President Mills, and Ghanaians in general. For her information, Ursula was the one who cast the first stone at all NDC appointees. She told Mr Jinapor and all Metro TV viewers that morning that some NDC members had been able to use six months to complete a house under the regime of President Mills ‘who claims to be an anti-corruption crusader’? When asked by Mr Jinapor to substantiate the allegation, Ursula said the issue was in public domain as a rumour. She added brazenly: ‘whoever the cap fits must wear it’. Charitably, Mr Jinapor replied that though he had recently completed his house, he had made his money genuinely long before the NDC party came into power. And as a matter of clarification, Mr Jinapor added that he did not practise prostitution to build his house, neither did he sit on the laps of male politicians to make his money.

Ursula took offence at this statement, flared up, as she drew several inferences from Abu’s apt reaction as having been called a whore and prostitute among others. She went ahead to mention names of some respectable Ghanaian women as some of those who at one time or the other have been described as prostitute (I won’t mention those names). By that statement, Ursula was seeking support of those women whose names she kept mentioning on air as victims of denigration ‘because they are politicians’. I have never heard of those women being talked about in the manner Ursula wanted the whole world to believe. Because of the vast influences of those women in our society, Ursula thought by roping them in, they would rally other women round to her aid, but she failed woefully. By linking President Mills to the unsubstantiated allegation, was Ursula not imputing corrupt motives to the President, whose honesty many, including NPP kingpin Kwame Mpianin, have attested t. What did Ursula mean by ‘whoever the cap fits must wear it?’ And what did Abu say in defence that should not have been said, that he is not a prostitute? If Otiko and her ilk are not aware that there are male prostitutes in Ghana, they should find out. Is it not public knowledge that prostitution is rife in this country and elsewhere? What then is their problem if Abu said he didn’t engage in prostitution to make his money? Or is it the statement of sitting on male politicians’ laps that is their heartache? Ursula teaches us to say that whoever the cap fits must wear it.

You see, Otiko, if you live in a glass house, you are warned not to throw stones. Similarly, the one carrying combustive material like petrol should not get close to fire. Ursula said she was basing her statement on a rumour. As a lawyer, she disappointed some of us by echoing unsubstantiated allegation on air. Does she have to be educated on the law of slander? And when her comments condignly elicited a rather less proportionate reaction based on her principle that it’s okay to trumpet a rumour, she held her head in both hands, shouting that all women had been debased and they should take up arms and ‘defend themselves’, ridiculous! Does Ursula think that she is the only intelligent woman in Ghana? She does not have to tell them how to react to their instincts. The way she felt was the same way those NDC appointees whom she accused of corruption also felt. The Bible says we should do unto others as we want them to do unto us. Is she more human than those in the NDC? If Ursula’s logic is that because she did not specifically mention Abu as having stolen state money to put up his house so it was wrong for him to have cast an aspersion that suggested that she practised prostitution to own her property, she should not forget that ‘the huge cap she wove and cast around fits’ all NDC appointees including Abu. It was, therefore, in order for him and for that matter any NDC appointee to clear their names.

In Otiko’s assessment, because two Ministers of State, Hon Dr Hannah Bissiw and Hon Ama Benyiwa Doe ‘in their comments and languages’ supported Mr Abu Jinapor, the notion that women are their own enemies was given proof. Otiko further said that the incident that sparked this gross altercation between Abu and Ursula ‘is not an NDC or NPP matter’, but ‘it’s about the ‘dignity and respect of the Ghanaian woman, especially women in politics’. I hope Otiko will critically analyse Ursula’s words, which provoked Abu’s reaction, and come back to withdraw these portions of her article.

I don’t see how the reaction to an insulting woman’s behaviour should rather win her sympathy, for what? If anything, women, without political differentiation, should not give Ursula and others of her calibre a breathing space for debasing womanhood, and for putting up attitudes that do not inspire interest in prospective female politicians. Women, as mothers, are supposed to uphold truth and honesty so their children will not depart from it. But if a woman like Ursula can mount a TV programme and all that she is interested in is to churn out falsehood born out of rumour, then this should spark a wave of condemnations from all women. What would Otiko have said if it was an NDC lady who had featured on the Metro TV programme that morning, and had reacted the same way? If it were a lady representing the NDC that morning, would that have stopped Ursula from making the allegation? Would that lady say because Ursula is a female politician and in order not seem to be discouraging female participation in politics, she would keep silent and allow Ursula to continue spewing that wild allegation? Otiko, what would you have done if you were in Abu’s shoes?

Otiko and Ursula should remember that if you throw a pelt at someone, you call for a stone in return. But what came back from Abu was a pelt of equal size, which, for me, was too lenient. Otiko and other women have represented the NPP on several news paper discussion programmes, yet their comments did not compel any NDC male panellist to defend himself the way Ursula forced Abu to do. Was Ursula the first NPP female activist to have featured on such a programme with an NDC man? Ursula pushed Abu into a tight corner and he had to free himself. Otiko went ahead to say: ‘my reminder to Ministers of State is that it is required of them at all times to speak with decorum and sensitivity as well as conduct themselves with dignity befitting the high office they hold in this country’.

Otiko was referring to reactionary comments from Hon Benyiwa Doe and Hon Hannah Bissiw to Ursula’s unrestricted allegation. But do you deliberately paint someone black and expect that person to keep quiet because he/she is holding a public office? Every NDC appointee has the right to take Ursula on to any height and length the way she conducted herself, accusing all NDC appointees as thieves. These two NDC lady appointees were right to come on Ursula. Otiko should go back and listen to all the tapes on her description of Christine Churchil ahead of their congress and put herself in Christine’s shoes and see if she did not go beyond bounds. Otiko based her appeal to the delegates on age differences between her and Churchil. Going by her argument, would it have been wrong for ‘aged’ women in the NPP taking her on for denigrating them? I will leave that issue for now. On ‘Good Morning’ programme of Tuesday, 6 July, this year, Otiko heavily criticised Mr Kofi Wafo for making a sweeping statement against all MPs. She was of the view that Mr Wayo should have singled out those MPs whose behaviour he didn’t like instead of generalising his statement. Otiko, why not be consistent? If the sweeping statement made by Ursula against NDC appointees was fine with you, why should you not give Mr Wayo thumbs up for his statement about MPs? Otiko, I will advise you not to follow the others anyhow and damage your reputation. Your article would have won you thumbs up but for going off-track trying to achieve what was impossible for Ursula; appealing to all women for support. You wrote: ‘People have high expectations of the government to improve upon their living conditions rather than deepen their woes. Ministers of State must appreciate the fact that it’s a privilege to serve the citizens of Ghana with some level of humility and sensitivity rather than exhibiting arrogance, throwing tantrums, using filthy and foul language on public platform’. In Otiko’s judgment, it’s right for activists of opposition parties to use public platforms to denigrate their opponents without reaction. And if you react to clear your image, then of course you’re deepening citizens’ woes, how? By the way, which citizens’ image is deepened by the reaction to Ursula’s outburst? Only Ursula’s and her like. And because it’s a privilege to serve in a public office, you shouldn’t react when opponents close their eyes and throw mud at you, and when you react to erase the political stain, it amounts to exhibiting arrogance, insensitivity, and filth throwing. Otiko, I agree that when a madman runs for your cloth, you do not chase him up, for people might not see the difference, Chinu Achebe appeals to us. But what do we do the madman? Do you not think that it’s your client, Ursula, who rather threw the tantrums and deserves your counselling? Did you hear her ultimatum to the Vice President that if he failed to reprimand Abu publicly, then ‘birds of a feather fly together?’ It means Ursula was going to conclude that there is/was no difference between Abu and our Vice President in terms of social conduct. Has she not already come to that conclusion? Has our culture not taught us to be courteous towards our elders? In your assessment has Ursula Owusu lived in line with that teaching?

What can we say about the demeanor of the NPP, particularly Nana Addo’s camp where Ursula belongs, considering the fact that there was no condemnation from either Nana Addo or NPP? Whom was Ursula speaking for on the TV programme? Her aim was to portray the NDC as a corrupt party and President Mills’ administration as weak leadership so as to pave the way for NPP’s come-back. If Ursula Owusu succeeds in throwing mud at the NDC by convincing the public that the party is a bunch of corrupt people, who will be the grand beneficiary of this campaign? It’s the NPP. And going by her logic in the ultimatum to the Vice President, can it not be inferred that her comment received the blessing of the NPP who’s failed to raise a finger at her? I hope Otiko Afisah Djaba has now realised that the issue generated by Ursula is an NDC-NPP matter. Otiko, did you hear Ursula’s foul comments about President Evans Mills following the confrontation she had with Mr Abu? What can you say about them? I cannot recall those comments over here. What role did President Mills play in the altercation that she should extend her vituperation against the Vice President and the President? I guess your article was just to escape an uncomplimentary tag and attack from Ursula if you as the NPP Women’s Organiser, the party she speaks for, should fail to express solidarity with her considering the fact that she was marooned by those progressive women she had sent an SOS to.

But you did not have to play to her whims and caprices. Whatever is wrong is wrong and should not be projected otherwise. Tell Ursula that what she did was wrong and as a lawyer, it was professionally and morally wrong for her to propel rumours, especially on the media. And if others react in a similar fashion, she must face it and not take offence. If you do this, Otiko, I bet you, Ursula will turn a new leaf, take you as her role model and respect you for being a candid colleague. Remember that when Adu Gyamfi, the Kumasi-based teacher, described President Mills as a chimpanzee on air (may God forgive him), the NPP commendably came out to condemn him, saying that they would not encourage the use of foul words against the presidency, where they are aspiring to occupy. That is the kind of thing we would like to hear. When an activist is wrong, leaders must admit it. Otiko, your ideas as contained in the paper were brilliant. But you do not have to wait for an ugly opportunity like the one manufactured by Ursula to put them out in public domain to think that you’re inspiring others. Ursula received the bashing not because she is a female politician but because she is a bad politician. Those activists your party took disciplinary action against, did the party do so because they were female politicians or male politicians? They were wrong and deserved punishment, period.

The Abu-Ursula issue had nothing to do with womanhood, no! We have good and bad mothers. When a mother ill-treats her children and the act is reported by the media and it is condemned, is the condemnation done because she is a woman? It is because she is a very bad mother. Ursula deserved the bashing she received and if she has not reformed, all women should follow her deep into the gutter and teach her how to talk. She is not the only female politician from an opposition side. She is simply a bad politician. She calls herself a role model. But we do not say we are role models. It’s those who admire you for some reason who will mention your name as a role model; you do not sit on TV and pontificate it.

KWAMI BRIGHT, BATTOR.

bkwamii@yahoo.com