He woke up at half past six and, as was his custom, said a little prayer before he moved to the lavatory for his morning ablutions. Re-energised by the warm shower, he returned to the bedroom to prepare for the new day; it promised to be as hectic as any other in this most frantic of weeks. Picking up his desktop diary which also doubled as his appointments and ?daily schedule? logbook from the bedside locker, he sighted, partially covered by an Anthony Giddens monograph, the draft congratulatory letter he had written in anticipation of a John Kerry victory. He sighed. Perhaps it was not always wise to second guess the gods. Well, it couldn?t be helped. One thing was at least clear: social democracy had an uphill struggle ahead in its battle to claim the world?s last remaining superpower. Sigh, sigh. He turned to more pressing matters. In assessing the tasks that will occupy his time for the rest of the day, he laid particular emphasis on the details as much as on their role in the overall strategy of his political agenda. He was as meticulous as he was brilliant, our man ? the man who will not be president.
One can be forgiven for choosing to regard Professor John Evans Atta Mills? bid for President with a certain degree of pity and not too illiberal a measure of sympathy. The dispassionate observer senses hubris and is struck by the overtones of Greek tragedy that imbues the whole drama: the good and honourable man thrown against the unyielding will of the Gods for daring to rise above his destiny. It is cruel of us that while we empathise with the victim, we still save our accord for the gods. We share their commitment to the tyranny of the Fates, and are loathed to propose an overthrow of those forces of providence which decree that some men (or women for that matter), irrespective of personal ability or achievement, must still not scale the heights of greatness beyond an agreed fixed point.
We must recall, in any attempt to assess the role of this natural hierarchical system in the particular context of Ghanaian politics, that the good Prof. was enticed from the subtle glamour of Academia into the less refined yet more intoxicating splendour of political life on, what can arguably be described as, the whim of one man, former President Jerry John Rawlings. Which is absolutely not the same thing as asserting that he was not suitable for the position or that it was an error of judgement on the part of the former president.
The point I am seeking to make is that political power is not bestowed upon the ?deserving? simply by virtue of brilliance of mind, integrity of character, assertiveness of purpose or on the basis of any other stellar personal, professional or intellectual qualities that may come to mind. A meritocracy of this nature will, of course, not only be plagued by complications of perceptual disparities, uneven scales of preferences and the irritating lack of a common framework for balancing the varying merits of different qualities, but is also likely to degenerate into a farcical bonfire of the vanities after the fashion of that laughable Florentine tradition in which the momentary display of glory was deemed enough to secure one?s claim to lasting influence in high society. In that estimation, we must subscribe to the universally held notion that Power, ultimately, begets Power. And therein is the crux of the matter.
Over the years, and particularly in the course of the last few months, we have witnessed an arduous campaign by the main opposition National Democratic Congress to define an image for Professor Mills that while seeking to defy the stereotypes forced on him by a Sceptical media establishment also attempts to set the criteria by which he is to be judged. In fact so much reference has been made to his sterling academic background that it risks creating the impression that he is aspiring to the Vice Chancellorship of Legon and not the Presidency of Ghana. He has been portrayed in the relatively narrow but extremely vociferous section of the Press which maintains an editorial position generally favourable to the NDC and its affiliates as the visionary scholar turned political genius. He is described as possessed of an intellect deep enough to better appreciate the complexities of the problems that affront the Nation in its quest for economic prosperity and social regeneration.
Above all, he has been christened a ?man of the season?, as one fully in tune with the rhythm of hopes and fears that marks the tempo of life amidst the poor and dispossessed classes across the length and breadth of Ghana. He, not Aggudey, is the new Osagyefo, who will redeem the destitute, emancipate the burdened, re-unite the Nation and proclaim, with prophetic gallantry, to the Pharaohs of oppression and tyranny in the guise of multinational lending institutions, elitist kleptocrats, tribalistic bureaucrats, and oligarchs undeserving of their stature and influence: ??LET MY PEOPLE GO!??. And when the cynics sneer and demand to know ?by which authority?? he alone, it is claimed, possesses the moral insight and standing to declare: ??For thus saith the Lord, the Lord God of Social Democracy??. LET MY PEOPLE GO (that they may worship me in the desert)!
The problem however is: to most Ghanaians a messianic approach to partisan politics, even if it is couched in the modest language of technocratic competence, strikes them a tall order.
Professor Mills, all the wonderful PR strategies notwithstanding, has an image problem. The prevalent perception holds that he lacks a power base of his own. He is considered as a merely providential member of a major faction - but still only one of a number- within a party that many contend is competing against its own formidable alter ego. It is not too difficult to appreciate the essence of the argument that the Party is incapable at this stage in its metamorphosis of matching its past glory. Two decades of rule has ensured that for every set of ardent admirers devoted to its cause and cardinal figures, there also exists a set of fanatical adversaries. This illustrates a feature of the law of unintended consequences related to the observation that in any attempt to please one segment of society there is always the risk that another segment will be alienated. Hence, too many years on the throne evokes sentiments from among the ruled which lends credence to the aphorism: ?uneasy lies the head that wears the crown ? but uneasier still the head stuck to the crown?. The simple inference is that there are many more militantly opposed to NDC rule than there are militantly opposed to NPP rule. In spite of the analytical crudity, a simple calculus of ?time in power? in respect of ?popularity rating? suffices to affirm that conclusion. The only way to circumvent this salient aspect of the natural order of politics is for the entity seeking perpetual political domination to continually reinvent itself in a manner that will also take into account the overriding necessity of not isolating core supporters in the bid to reach out to the suspicious and the indifferent. The more firmly the political muscle of a leader is entwined around the tendons of his Party?s anatomical frame, the more flexible his acrobatics in the arena of public courtship can be. The good Prof. is too beholden to a faction within the NDC for their continued support to fortify his unsteady footing within the party commune to indulge in the luxury of advancing any personal philosophy geared towards electoral pragmatism. He simply is in no position to remake the NDC in his own image. His fortunes are therefore necessarily tied to the track record of the party, which in all sincerity, is not the most enviable in the world. True, it must be admitted, the PNDC (which later transformed itself into the NDC) found itself, upon assuming the reins of power, saddled with a dilapidated socio-economic machinery designed according to an outmoded blueprint and sorely in need of a total overhaul. But they had only themselves to blame. For the Government they removed from office was not the universally discredited Acheampong Regime, with its crass ineptitude and embarrassing awkwardness, but the Limann Administration, a Government founded on the principles of democratic socialism of which, today, the NDC claims to be the only credible champion. To deny such a conviction-filled bunch of people time to find their bearings is to express an impatience borne of vastly superior aptitude. To fail to deliver in a manner consistent with that same degree of exactness and contempt for mediocrity invites disesteem and ignominy. The categorical imperative can not be any more categorical: Professor Mills political success hinges on the ability to espouse his own philosophy independent of the political establishment which spawned him. But to do this, his credentials must first be established within the very political lineage he seeks to remould before he can be perceived as being endowed with the necessary political machismo to implement a political vision unique to his personal ideology.
Unless?unless of course he is at home with the present situation. Let us, with as much academic detachment as we can muster, therefore, assess the orientation of the NDC in the schema of Ghana?s modern political history. Despite an unwavering attachment to a sense of self that portrays the party as avowedly socialist, a cursory analysis of all the policies pursued by the NDC in its first phase of existence (all eight years of it) betrays a certain lack of ideological purity in that not a single one among the major policies of true socio-economic import it pursued can be described as veering even slightly away from a stark market-based liberal track. It confirms the belief shared by many socially aware economic commentators of the sheer implausibility of building a social-democratic superstructure on a sprawl of peasant shacks. Only a statist-centralist formula of Stalinism can even remotely aspire to that level of mechanical idealism. Which is why the NDC begun as a network of cadres and apparatchiks, and ?citizen vetting committees?, and student/worker brigades, and literal-minded Marxist ideologues of every shade and hue, all under the gigantic banner of ?immediate equality? without recourse to any conventional apparatus of reform. This dichotomy between this true ?psychology? of Ghana?s official Opposition and its apparent ?behavioural? manifestations when concrete conditions compelled it to subscribe to a Westminster-government model within a so-called democratic dispensation is the source of what strikes some as a ?schizophrenic? obsession with ?self-image?. In announcing a reversion to ?social democracy? as the prime motivational force in the shaping of the new NDC identity, the Professor is eager (or desperate, or both) to underline his allegiance to the body of thought within the NDC which never really gave up on its purist roots. To him, it is in fact a question of intellectual honesty. Unfortunately, for huge sections of the Electorate, it smacks of unresolved ambivalence.
And that brings us to the focal point of our discussion. Four years of ambiguous reform-minded rule by the NPP should have inspired a truly fertile debate about the appropriateness of system-based governance in the peculiar realities of Ghana?s unindustrialised socio-economic setting. The stage should have appeared to the dispassionate observer as decked with the necessary props for a show of ideological strength. The market place of ideas should at this moment be strewn with products well past their prototypical stages. But that is leaping ahead of the debate.
The fact of the matter is that Ghana like virtually all the economically advanced nations on Earth is blessed with two massive competing political systems and for this compactness to begin yielding spatio-economic advantage, it behoves on their operators to fine-tune the frequencies of their information-transmission bands. The long-term socio-political trends each political system advocates should by now have become evident. Remarkably, something of this sort has happened. But not in the direction one may have surmised.
Neither the NDC nor the NPP has been na?ve enough to suppose that the issue of Tribe, demographics or ethno-specific historiographies can be submerged under wider notions of ideology and national identity or purpose, and their posturing offers substantial evidence in support of this. This poses a bigger challenge to the NDC than many in its ranks are prepared to admit. Slowly, an ethno-demographic shift of tectonic proportions is unfolding and we are the silent, sometimes oblivious, witnesses to a trend in which the various Twi-speaking sub-tribes are aggregating into one giant Akan meta-tribe, with cultural, and ultimately political, aspirations that are Ashanti-driven and, perhaps, dominated. The corollary of this effect is the enlargement of the NPP?s traditional base and a reduction in significance of NDC efforts to similarly entrench itself within the Ewe ethnic centres of the Volta region. The sheer size of the Akan meta-tribe alone demonstrates the disproportionate advantage enjoyed by the Kuffuor-led Administration. A fusion of Ewe and Ga sentiment is hardly imminent, hence the attempts by the NDC to promote a rival process of ethnic aggregation in Northern Ghana in a bid to synthesise another supertribe to counteract the Akan numerical supremacy. Unfortunately, the inter-clan bonds among the myriads of ethnic groups composing this prospective alliance lack the historical, cultural and geopolitical strands to render the cohesion as resilient as that possible among the Akans. This is by far the most potent analytic in Ghana?s contemporary politics. For the NDC to emerge triumphant in any poll held within the diagnostic limits imposed above, it will have to break the NPP hold over the Akan vote. Its presidential candidate will have to find a way to convince the many Ashantis who feel passionately that the Rawlings regime was dedicated to a cultural genocide in Asanteman to view the new political situation in a more sophisticated manner devoid of histrionics. Unfortunately for the Professor, to do that risks upsetting the purists in his own Party who, in the main, are his major backers and Sponsors, and who, also, are least likely to agree to any attempt at pacifying specific tribes and ethnic groupings. For they cling to the ideological position that this engenders, or at least tolerate, the rise of tribal hegemony, a major feature, in their view, of the decadent Pre-Rawlings status quo. It is sad that the good professor lacks the clout to override the opinions of these ideologues, but that of course is the underpinning factor of his courageous but bound-to-fail endeavour. Perhaps his loss is Ghana?s loss ? we have no way of knowing. What is manifestly clear is that the Oracle has not spoken in his favour and that, for now and the foreseeable future, closes the matter. He was simply not destined for the Presidency (it recalls Harold Wilson, the former Labour Prime Minister of Great Britain?s, famous quip in response to the sacked Minister?s pestering that he provides him with a reason: ?not cut for it, mate, not cut for it.?)
Political divination is not my metier, and I certainly do not count it as one of my potential hobbies, but the clarity of vision the above discussion allows is too poignant for me to let the temptation of attempting a prophecy pass. So, here goes: come December the 7th?.the scoreboard shall read: J.A. Kuffuor ? 51.5 %, John Atta Mills: 38.5 %, Aggudey, Mahama, etc. etc. etc ? 10 %..
(The author rejects any accusations of prejudicing the electoral outcome)
Copyright © 1994 - 2024 GhanaWeb. All rights reserved.
