Political commentary is but one form of evidence used to substantiate the issues that are relevant versus irrelevant, to the governed. After weeks of critically reviewing commentary coming from both politically biased and politically independent quarters, there is evidence that the most important people in Ghana are not really the focus of a majority of the 2008 presidential aspirants. Again, the evidence lies in the political commentary: preoccupation with matters of person versus relevant performance. The commentary and write-ups rarely tell us how a candidate has tangibly served to create a sense of national purpose, or has inspired creativity and domestic productivity that has actually led Ghana to meet its own needs. Here are some examples:
"I am the best representative of the party and I promise to lead an agenda to empower the people especially the youth to enable them contribute meaningfully to the advancement of the country?My leadership will represent hope for the future of the country and my vision is to improve the quality of life of the people" (?Ankomah urges NPP delegates to give him the nod.? Ghana News Agency report, Oct. 23, 2007).
?My commitment to the principles and ideals of the party made me procure its first National Head Office at Kokomlemle in Accra, purchased the first car for our General Secretary and sold my house at Ashaley Botwe a suburb of Accra to support the party" (?I am the largest investor in NPP ? Hackman.? Ghana News Agency report, Oct. 23, 2007).
"I am the first credible candidate from beyond the traditional strongholds of the NPP, namely the Ashanti and Eastern regions...am going to be Ghana's first president born immediately after independence, and as such carry a very keen understanding of our national history? (?NPP GS commends a Presidential Aspirant.? Ghana News Agency report, Oct. 19, 2007).
?I want to be the people?s President to continue the good work our forefathers started by creating jobs, to provide free education, etc. Our great President Kufuor has set a good foundation with the practice of true democracy in Ghana, which I fought and was prepared to die for so I am ready to continue. As a member of President Kufuor?s Cabinet, I have helped him get the highest marks for Ghana?s reputation on the international scene and so I stand ready to take that even higher to a level that will translate into more education, jobs and business opportunities for Ghanaians? (Agyemang-Prempeh, Kwasi. ?Akufo Addo: Best Man to lead NPP & Ghana.? Ghanaweb Feature Article. Oct. 27, 2007).
Consider that after two terms of New Patriotic Party (NPP) policies, Ghana has seen the literal destruction of its textile industry among others. Indiscriminate borrowing from foreign sources remains the order of the day with the borrowing Ghanaian Republic becoming a full-blooded servant to the western lender. And as the west pays Ghana?s politicians, Europe continues to call the tune to which adowa among other traditional rhythms are being danced. I could go on but you know the story all too well. And who are the most important people in Ghana?s governance equation you ask? The youth of course. To them is bequeathed Ghana?s monument of leadership void, debt and heaps of go-nowhere political rhetoric. As always, the problems are clear. Tackling them remains the issue. In this piece I will present some spiritual truths about leadership and how it impacts the state of future generations. Just maybe the republic can learn a lesson or two about the crucial factor of foreign policy in Election 2008.
The Servant Leader
The idea of the servant leader permeates most cultures that have been influenced by Torah scripture. The idea of the servant leader essentially says this: a leader?s greatness is demonstrated in his or her commitment to meet the needs of the community they serve. Of course, the servant leader recognises that good service means that you take good care of the master?s possessions. Therefore the master?s needs come first; the master?s needs come before that of the servant. I quote the words of the Jewish Messiah: ?And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve? (Luke 22:25-26). Yeshua?s experience on earth also gives us this account: ?But they [Yeshua?s disciples] held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest. And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all? (Mark 9:34-35).
Two things can be gleaned from this Hebrew perspective on leadership if we compare it with the spirit of Ghanaian democracy. The first is that there is a strong absence of demonstrated service?I mean the kind that really benefits Ghana socially and economically in the long run?as the real prerequisite for aspiring to the presidency. The second is that party politics may not be the place where Ghana will find servant leaders. So here is the comparison. Just think, party codes rarely put the focus on the youth as the real benefactors of political will. Much of the time in party politics, politicians speak about youth as the future but their policies exemplify ?speaking with forked tongues?. Youth therefore become an agenda for scoring political points.
In the tradition of non-Hebrew peoples?referred to as Gentiles in the preceding gospel quotes?there is a focus on ?lordship? or the exercising of control not necessarily in service to or for the principal benefit of the group under authority. This reminds me of the current crop of Ghanaian politicians. How can Ghanaian presidential aspirants perceive any greatness in themselves when their political will (as exercised) clearly points to a sovereignty-eroding, economy-bulldozing state of affairs? Did I mention that foreigners are the principal benefactors of the erosion of Ghanaian sovereignty and destruction of the economy? Call it undemocratic speech, but party politics and political pluralism in Ghana seems to defy the basic understanding that some policies can be just pure wrong for a nation. Why? Party politics allows the choice of questionable persons as heirs to exercise political authority despite a demonstrated history of bad decision making?all in the name of democraZY.
In the Hebrew tradition of leadership, the leader exercises authority on three levels with each level signifying a sort of ?promotion?. First there is leadership at the family level (few persons), then the business level (usually a few more persons) and then at the national level (significantly more people). There is some inherent wisdom in this. Consider this question for a moment. Would you enjoy marriage to a man who has to constantly borrow money in order to support you and the children? I didn?t think so. So here is another one. Would you work for someone whose business is always in the red and has to borrow in order to pay your wages? Again I didn?t think so. You can see where I am going with this. Oh yes! The preacher went there and hit real hard?below the belt. Ghana?s government borrows. Yes, but was it really to support you? And does this demonstrate proof that they cannot really take care of you? In the 21st century Ghana?s citizens must come to terms with the fact that borrowing to run a nation is tangible proof of leadership failure, period! Indiscriminate national borrowing demonstrates no real service but rather a real disservice. The critical factor in the 2008 election is therefore foreign policy.
What is Foreign Policy?
Although often articulated in conjunction with America?s self-absorbed global posturing, foreign policy is fundamental to human relations. In truth, all human beings (to some extent) hold dear to a pattern of dealing with those who enter into their personal space. This is foreign relations. Individuals may be guided by their personal biases: tribalism, religious tradition, ethnocentrism, and even racism in deciding what or who they let into their personal space and simultaneously, what they give out. Our individual ?foreign policy? is shaped by the information we imbibe and the experiences we endure. In 21st century Ghana, experience from a collective national consciousness tells me that the 2007 election is not about the future of the Republic of Ghana: the youth. Experience tells me that this election will be about egos and icons. National interest will be submerged under the weight of egos and icons. Ghana must judge its leaders in view of their articulated foreign policy.
Effective National Foreign Policies should?
A national foreign policy should secure the political, economic and social interests of a nation. Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia articulate a foreign policy that is rooted in Islamic political, economic and religious beliefs. Saudi Arabia makes decisions that are in league with its Islamic belief system and the preservation of Islamic interests; for years Saudi Arabia has been supporting the position that the Republic of Israel withdraw from territory it occupied in 1967. Saudi Arabia still supports a similar position because it is committed to the substance of its foreign policy: Islam.
Unfortunately, in much of modern Africa, foreign policy is devised to address the dome fiadudu?Evhe for stomach rulership or economic interests?of a generation of unproductive political elders and preserving the same interests of their offspring into successive generations. National decisions dealing with technology production, energy and the sale of national resources are therefore submerged underneath the interests of nepotistic clicks; today we see that foreign relationships developed during the era of the likes of Mobutu Sese Seko of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Gnassingbe Eyadema of Togo, have found their way into the economic comfort their offspring enjoy. Nzanga Mobutu and Faure Gnassingbe serve as two examples of how wrongly-framed foreign policies submerge national interests underneath the personal interests of selfish or non servant-like leaders. These foreign policies fund the interests of a selective few at the expense of an entire nation. The situation says that in countries like the ones mentioned there is an absence of the ethics factor in devising foreign policy.
Ghana?s Foreign Policy Past: a Leader?s Personal Touch
Prior to the formal creation of the Republic of Ghana on July 1st 1960 (Republic Day), for most West African nationalities (pre-European occupation), the idea of foreign policy varied according to creed. Peoples that now collectively account for what the world knows as Ghana carried out their respective foreign policies as such. Asante foreign policy articulated the core values that flowed from the paramount and subordinate leaders of its people: trade without hindrance and by any means necessary. Likewise, the foreign policy of leaders of various Evhe-speaking peoples placed a higher value on facilitating foreign knowledge transfer and preserving traditions of the people.
Today most modern African nations have had to struggle to produce a m?lange: a culture-based foreign policy that is workable and sophisticated. African countries like Ghana struggle to exercise a mature modern governmental attitude towards other nations whose interests compete with their domestic interests. Since Ghana?s independence, the Nkrumah-led government stands out as the most ?committed? to having articulated and exercised a foreign policy that made Ghana?s youth center stage in matters of governance. After all, Nkrumah sought to free an entire generation from adverse European influences permanently. The spirit of Nkrumah?s foreign policy was no news to the average Ghanaian of the 60s period. It was clear. It was concise. Ghanaians of the post-independence generation heard his government?s foreign policy echoed in his political actions; they also heard it regularly in his words: ?We face neither East nor West; we face Forward.? Kwame Nkrumah is also laurelled with the quote, ?We prefer self-government with danger to servitude in tranquility.? For Nkrumah, foreign policy was a means to an end. That end was realizing the dignity of Ghana and other African peoples on various fronts to the extent that young people of the burgeoning republics would have a future free of servitude to racists.
Following the demise of the Nkrumah-led government, a series of military and civilian governments articulated various foreign policies. Lieutenant-General Joseph Arthur Ankrah became the second head of state of Ghana (after a 1966 coup). Ankrah?s foreign policy was built out of a past steeped in military service to European interests. He served willingly in the Royal West African Frontier Force (RWAFF) of the British Colonial Office. It is no wonder then that Ankrah among others, goes down in history as one of Ghana?s ?selfish? and not servant-like leaders. His selflessness was demonstrated to the English monarchy but denied Ghanaian people as a whole. Ankrah exited Ghanaian politics in connection with a bribery scandal.
Akwasi Amankwa Afrifa was Ghana?s head of state between 1969 and 1970. His brief stint as head of state with Kofi Busia later as prime minister saw the projection of Asante foreign policy onto the Ghanaian republic. As Chairman of the Presidential Commission which oversaw parliamentary elections, Afrifa?s support for a fellow Asante on the basis of origin was evident to Ghanaians of the time. The fact that Nii Amaa Ollennu, an in-law of Kofi Busia?he was married to Busia?s sister?succeeded Afrifa as chairman of the Presidential Commission consolidated the nepotism factor in Ghana?s political affairs and its influence in determining Ghanaian foreign policy. Afrifa goes down in history with the title ?Okatakyie?. The title which means ?hero? in Akan is said to have been conferred by Kofi Busia.
Foreign policy as relates to Kofi Busia?s Progress Party (PP) is a story best told from the angles of Busia?s academic pursuits, his commitment to his Asante roots and a dislike for what we now call Nkrumaism. Busia?s D.Phil thesis articulated ?The position of the chief in the modern political system of Ashanti: a study of the influence of contemporary social changes on Ashanti political institutions.? This academic pursuit would serve as his mental exercise and informal blueprint for keeping Asante national interests ahead of Ghana.
The truth is Kofi ?Abrefa? Busia is a very important figure in the shaping of Ghanaian foreign policy. Like many who hold dear to the Danquah-Busia political tradition, Busia was instrumental in superimposing Asante foreign policy onto the vision of a united Ghana. Busia first served in a political capacity representing the Asante Confederacy on the Legislative Council of the occupying British government. He flaunted both an academic and democratic sanctity. However, Busia goes down in history as one who accepted political appointments from a political council that overthrew a popularly elected government. Before becoming prime minister of the second republic and following his return to Ghana after the 1966 coup d??tat, Busia accepted an appointment as Chairman of the National Advisory Committee of the Ankrah-led National Liberation Council (NLC). Then, as if by careful pre-orchestration, Busia?s PP rose to popularity following the NLC?s reinstatement of party politics in Ghana. His government?s foreign policy was characterized by a liberalized economic situation that placed little to no emphasis on local production except in the Asante context mainly. Under this scheme of affairs, national resources meant for Ghana ended up working more for Asante than for the republic.
Busia and his PP at the helm of Ghana?s leadership led to hundreds of thousands of Nigerians and other West African nationals (Beninois and Togolese) being repatriated. Finally, Busia?s government ended in the same spirit as Nkrumah?s: while away in Britain for a medical check-up, General (then Colonel) Ignatius Acheampong overthrew Ghana?s PP government. Some have characterized the occurrence with the words of the Jewish Messiah: ?with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.?
There is another figure that is central to the Danquah-Busia political tradition. Busia?s foreign policy could not have been complete without the prior judicial influences of another man: Edward Akuffo-Addo. Akuffo-Addo served as Chief Justice from 1966 to 1970 following the demise of the Nkrumah government. In order to make Ghana?s foreign policy better serve Asante political and economic interests, the PP?s inner circle made effective use of functionaries such as Akuffo-Addo. Akuffo-Addo goes down in history as a founding member of the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC). Kwame Nkrumah broke away from the UGCC because of sharp ideological differences in the area of European relations. Akuffo-Addo is often referred to as a member of Ghana?s ?big six?. This is the group credited for agitating in favour of independence. Five of the big six agitated in relatively lukewarm degrees when compared to Ghana?s independence champion Nkrumah (also of the big six).
After a period which saw Asante foreign policy superimposed upon Ghanaian foreign policy, successive Ghanaian governments have either been lax or unclear where they stand on issues of foreign policy. This is by virtue of the discrepancy between their foreign policy actions and words. The Rawlings-led governments of 1981 to 1993 and then 1993 to 2001 saw a shift in Ghana?s foreign policy. Rawlings began with a somewhat socialist perspective aiming to preserve some of the political and economic legacies of Kwame Nkrumah. This socialist perspective sought to put foreign influences in check. It later gave way to a carefully checked form of partnership between Ghana and foreign industry. The purpose of the alliance was technology and knowledge transfer to resuscitate Ghana?s state-owned enterprises. International Monetary Fund influences also found their way into the policies of successive Rawlings-led governments via the policy advice of Dr. Kwesi Botchway. On the whole though, because Rawlings himself came into Ghana?s political scene as a young man, his government?s policies translated into creating policies relevant to Ghana?s youth. In particular, Rawlings goes down in history as one who devolved both significant levels of political and electrical power to local or municipal governments. Rawlings also left office having put in place a very important kitty known as the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GET Fund).
Return to Danqua-Busia Foreign Policy Traditions
John Kufuor?s ascension to national politics in 2001 signaled Ghana?s return to the Danquah-Busia tradition of foreign policy with its roots of Asante foreign policy. John Kufuor was a founding member of Kofi Busia?s Progress Party. Danquah-Busia foreign policy is characterized by an emphasis on strengthening foreign trade relations at the expense of both national sovereignty and a sound view to local production. The spirit of Danquah-Busia rule is therefore characterized by lip service to the rule of law. In fact, rule of law mainly becomes relevant when the economic interests of Asante are at stake. Laws are therefore altered to favour Danquah-Busia political and business interests.
Some Spiritual Truth on Alliances
Foreign policy ultimately implies the acceptance or rejection of alliances between the ?domestic? government and a foreign one. So there is something to be said about spiritual truths in relation to alliances. The ancient Hebrews expressed firm beliefs in three areas of human alliance. They let their national spiritual truths guide them in making political, economic and marital alliances with foreign nations. The significance of the ancient Hebrew understandings of alliance making boils down to an interest in preserving the moral integrity of a nation as opposed to elevating a mundane sense of ethnic superiority or consciousness. Simply put, if the alliance could not create a win-win type of situation that did not violate Judaic law, it was considered a ?no go? according to the ancient Hebrew belief system.
So can 21st century Ghana learn anything from the ancient Hebrews or even its own foreign policy history? Hopefully it can glean some lessons and register them in terms of Ghana?s collective national consciousness. At different points in history Ghana?s collective national consciousness has been cohesive and was even celebrated by non-nationals of African descent across the globe. Occasionally this collective consciousness has been submerged by foreign interests originating with the superimposition of Asante foreign policy onto Ghana as a whole. As Ghanaians head to the polls in the upcoming elections, a relevant question for political candidates aspiring to the presidency is whether or not they are up to sincerely matching actions and words to secure future Ghanaian interests using an effective foreign policy. Interestingly, unlike past elections in Ghana, this election may see the presence of a very interesting figure in Ghanaian politics. His name is Nana Akuffo-Addo and he once held the Foreign Affairs portfolio under the current NPP-led administration. What makes Akuffo-Addo such an interesting figure in the about-to-be-contested election is the fact that he is the son of the late Chief Justice Edward Akuffo-Addo. ?Tis a case of old political scores to settle versus national interest some say. There is some certainty that Akuffo-Addo will be dancing adowa I hear.
Concluding my service
I started this piece out referring to the fact that ?maybe the republic can learn a lesson or two about the crucial factor of foreign policy in Election 2008.? The lessons I am referring to are about servant leadership. Remember that the servant leader actually has a sincere desire to serve in the interest of the people he or she leads. In the servant leader?s family, the welfare of a wife and children are a priority. The servant leader therefore governs family accordingly. In the business setting the servant leader actually has the employee?s interests at heart. Why? Well this is ultimately the substance of the company?s productivity. So then what about the servant leader at the national level you ask? My comments: to see another president from the Danquah-Busia tradition or any other party that does not articulate a relevant foreign policy that sets Ghana?s interests straight, will ultimately equate with poor service to the youths of the republic of Ghana and the ?egos and icons? status quo of political rhetoric. The same statement can be echoed throughout the continent of Africa. As always, we are watching.
Copyright © 1994 - 2024 GhanaWeb. All rights reserved.
