To Debate Or To Demonstrate

SUBSTITUTING POLITICAL DEBATES AND DIALOGUES WITH PUBLIC DEMONSTRATIONS.

Ghanaians are experiencing a political culture in which extraction of political vengeance has supplanted well-informed, thoughtful, and non-partisan debates. We are experiencing a political system where public demonstrations, political insinuations, and diatribes have replaced political dialogue, negotiation, collaboration, and accommodation. This political environment does not augur well for our fragile democracy. The aim of this article is not to apportion blame to any particular party, but first, to remind parliamentarians of their responsibilities to the people they promise to represent. Second, to point out the vital roles and limits of opposition party in modern democracy irrespective of which party is in power, or is in opposition.

The role of representatives (MPs) among other things in democratic government is to provide representation for the community on all matters about their collective welfare, and to scrutinize the activities of the public service. MPs who boycott parliamentary debates or proceedings clearly break their promises to the people they represent. The recent demonstrations by opposition MPs were not about the immediate needs of the people they represent, but were about the parties they represent.

For while the voters were experiencing disruptions in water and electricity supply, the representatives were demonstrating in the streets of Accra about a bill that many Ghanaians consider inconsequential to their survival. Instead of calling the executive branch to question them about these important issues (water and electricity) that affect the daily lives of the people, the opposition MPs chose to demonstrate about a bill that affects their political power. Instead of conducting the people?s business in parliament, the opposition was conducting its own business in the streets.

Members of parliament must consider their parliamentary role as more than just an extension of partisan conflict where opponents are undermined. The logic of two wrongs make a right as espoused by many opposition party members to justify their position is not a plausible one: For two wrongs don?t make a right. The argument that NPP parliamentarians did the same thing when they were in opposition is not convincing: For the idea of ?an eye for an eye? is an unpatriotic position to take. Mahatma Ghandhi once said, ?An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.? While the opposition party might find it easier to demonstrate in the streets than to sit down to brainstorm about new ideas to challenge the ruling party agenda, they have to understand that we elect them to debate cogently about important national issues in parliament, and not in the streets.

While many Ghanaians can demonstrate in the streets, there are not many Ghanaians who can engage in economic and legal debates. It is because of this that voters elect people who understand these technical issues, and can argue, deliberate, and form consensus on important national issues. We do not elect demonstrators but people who can do what the average Ghanaian can?t do in parliament. In democracy, debates and dissents are essential parts of deliberation. The idea is that the best and the most just outcome is achieved through free and open discussions in which different views and interests are expressed.

Even though democracy encourages pluralism and diversity, one can?t exploit the freedom granted by democracy as a platform for destroying that freedom. It must be noted that incitement to violence, and any activity that threatens the stability of the state are often considered non-democratic and unacceptable oppositional behavior. We have to understand that if political parties are the main actors in modern democracy, then the winning party has the right and the responsibility to rule and form the majority in parliament to represent the interests of voters. Likewise, the second most popular party, the loser of the elections, has the right to oppose the ruling party agenda responsibly in the market place of ideas, while representing the interest of its own voters. Some argue that it is the minority MPs? democratic rights to protest in the form of demonstrations. That is true, and no one denies them their democratic rights to demonstrate or to protest, but they shouldn?t do so while drawing on public funds for salaries and other benefits. The MPs action can?t be described as anything but strike action against their employers (the voters): Boycotting work to engage in public demonstrations tantamount to strike action. It is only in Ghana that employees can embark on industrial action and still get paid for not working. I think that the MPs should be denied all remunerations the next time they boycott parliamentary proceedings. They shouldn?t receive any salary or use any public resource until they resume work.

The minority party can help itself by responding responsibly to the ruling party agenda and policies. First, the opposition must know that they are responsible to the voters and the political system as a whole. Second, the opposition must have its own agenda which is clear and includes a reference to the main governmental policies and activities. It must form its own agenda and present it to the public. It must offer alternative ideas on important matters and highlight the distinctive marks of its policies. Only if the party has a clear policy, can the voters decide whether to vote them in or out. It can take its message to the people through the press and town hall meetings: reminding the people of the weaknesses in the government policies, and the strengths of opposition party?s policy proposals. They need to give voters something to think about instead of always demonstrating in the streets to cause commotion. We should strive for decency, reason, responsibility, sincerity and tolerance in our public debates. We must act decently, reasonably, responsibly, sincerely and tolerantly. And we should expect that in public debates our ideas will be challenged, and our claims will be rebutted. Notwithstanding, conflicts of ideas should be considered as an opportunity for discussion, exploration, and discovery. The violent fulminations, declamations, and political wrangling in our body politics are detrimental to our new democracy. We need to construct a new paradigm of politics that goes beyond party affiliations. Without a doubt, a political paradigm based on interactive dialogues will produce new ideas and rational decisions necessary for nation building.