Judging by their actions, sometimes Ghanaian politicians don’t behave much different from children in the sense that the next moment after accusing the other of not playing fair, the complainant goes ahead and do exactly what he was complaining about. Naturally while we would have been happier to be spared such complaints because no one was attempting to cheat, we may also decide to see it as part of the rules of the game and therefore be indifferent about it. After all, it is normal for politicians to criticise and oppose themselves. Therefore straying a little bit off course is no such big deal. What is rather worrying is the speed at which pettiness is gradually becoming more of the norm rather than the exception, in political discussions and statements lately. It began with the election of the President as Chairman of the African Union and it’s still on-going. Isn’t it sad to hear how people who would make sure to indicate on their CVs that they were once school prefects make every attempt to prove that the chairmanship of the AU doesn’t mean anything? Just wait till the end of this Parliament and find out if the leaders of the various select committees will not include on their CVs that they were the chairpersons of this or that committee in Parliament. Again I would want any of the Journalists to tell me whether they think it doesn’t mean a thing to be elected Chairman of Ghana Journalists Association. So what do they mean by screaming that the Chairmanship of the AU is of no significance? It’s pettiness!
But while you might conveniently ignore any comments on the issue made by young men playing ‘oware’ or draught at ‘nkwankwaanuase’ or women on their way to the market or their farms or at hairdressing saloons it becomes a different matter when they come from respectable politicians and journalists who, in their desire to score political points, make comments which at the very best can only be described as so petty. It is for this reason that I find some comments made by an Honourable Member of Parliament on a popular morning programme on an Accra FM station as particularly appalling.
Reacting to the various theories and speculations coming from all quarters (except the official source, of course) about why the President wore what he did for the parade the MP questioned what sense it would make for the President to wear a bullet-proof vest (i.e. if that was the reason he didn’t wear kente) when after all whatever protection it offered didn’t cover the head. In an even more serious attempt to score political points at the expense of decency the MP went further to question why, if the President was not scared because of his unpopularity, he would need a bullet-proof vest. And to prove his point he even quoted an Akan saying that “wo we wo kwakutire a no woso ho adae” (meaning: it’s when you eat the head of a monkey that you get haunted by it in your dreams). So one may ask: apart from being the elected President of Ghana who, like all other Heads of State the world over, requires special security, what ‘kwakutire’ could this MP, if not being politically petty, accuse President Kufuor of having eaten and which none of our former Heads of State ever ate?
To the best of my knowledge – and I’m very sure the MP would agree with me on this – a bullet-proof vest is not the invention of Ghana’s security services. Secondly, this MP knows very well that if indeed President Kufuor wore one at the parade, in all probability, that would not make him the first Ghanaian Head of State to have done so. Thirdly, I do not believe that this MP, no matter how many ‘kwakutires’ he thinks the President has eaten, expected him to have worn a steel helmet which is the only protective gear for the head. Meanwhile, I’m sure the Honourable and learned MP knows that Heads of State the world over, and even in their retired life, use armoured vehicles and body guards. After all, even Pope John Paul II was shot at, and thereafter he and later his successor, Pope Benedict XVI has also been using the specially designed (and of course bullet-proof) ‘popemobile’. And I’m quite sure that had it not been for his pettiness it would have occurred to the MP that it is even our past military Heads of State – i.e those who would normally be expected to know how to ‘take cover’ in the event of an attack on them – who moved with more armed bodyguards than we see now. All over the world not only Heads of State and Government, but also members of their family are given 24-hour security and he very well knows it.
We have every reason to be thankful to God that in the 50-year old Ghana we are free to openly speak our mind; it has not always been so. At the same time, however, we should also remember that freedom of speech is good for us only when it can be utilised as a tool for nursing the divergent views of each and every one of us for our national development. It would be nothing if all we do with it is to find non-existing faults with the sole purpose of discrediting each other. And I gladly offer this advice to members of both sides of the political divide for the benefit of all of us.