Perhaps Gabby Otchere-Darko captured the paradox of the Rawlings phenomenon better than any other commentator, when he said on Joy FM’s News File programme that Rawlings is the kind of person you could get into trouble with even when you quote him correctly. You would think you would get into even greater trouble if you quote him incorrectly, but you would not, because often what he said and what he was only purported to have said or meant blend into a verbal tattoo. It, therefore, becomes more expensive to do a post-mortem of his words than to wish that he hadn’t said anything. In the end, the essentials of what he actually means to say become a subject of political gamble. And, often, nobody wins because we spend so much time commenting on our own commentaries on the remarks of the ex-president, instead of dealing with other important national issues that didn’t make the news.
Recently, Dr Rawlings was said to have attributed the rampant cases of armed robbery in Ghana to the machinations of the opposition parties in the country. The former president believes that the opposition is using this diabolic tactic to discredit the ruling NDC party, and eventually bring it down. These are serious allegation that usually should be investigated thoroughly, especially coming from somebody who once had total autonomy over the security of the country. Instead, we are struggling, as always, with the motive behind the accusations. On last week’s edition of News File, commentators spent about 1hour 20 minutes to discuss the ex president’s statement. While Malik Kwaku Baako described the statement as ‘rubbish, infantile, callous, irresponsible, hugely disgusting and unbecoming of a statesman, MP Nana Akomeah, said they were ‘sad and comical’. Nana continued: “It is a terribly unfortunate development in our political history that a lot of the time when the ex-president speaks, the subject of what he says becomes a subject for discussion in beer bars…” He cited the instance in 2001, when Dr Rawlings accused the NPP of being behind the serial murders of women in the country. The ex-president said 15 members within the NPP’s cabinet were responsible for the murders. When security agencies visited his residence to get some insight into the allegations, he challenged them to arrange to inject members of the cabinet with a chemical that would prevent them from lying before he would give details.
In subsequent submissions, the commentators made references to the murder of the late Yaa Naa, which the former president said was also the handiwork of the opposition NPP. Presently, armed robbery is our axis of evil, but the mysterious killing of the 34 women years ago and the politicisation of the Yaa Naa’s death, are serious issues that the country is still struggling to find answers to. Just one person has been prosecuted for the murders of the 34 women, but he was charged for the murder of just one of them. So, we never know the killers of the remaining 33. Then the Yaa Naa’ death, which still hangs on our conscience. So, if somebody has intelligence information on these issues, then it would serve a good purpose to assist security agencies to solve the problems.
On their part, the NDC members on the panel moved that being a former president, it is possible that Dr Rawlings would be privy to information that the ordinary Ghanaian would not have. Palaver Features editor Ametor Kwame rationalised the ex-president’s comments that before 2001 when the NPP was in opposition, former NPP Chairman Odoi-Sykes publicly declared that the serial killings of women would stop if the NPP came to power. The murders ‘abated’ when the NPP won in 2001. David Annan also defended the ex-president’s statement by stating that the source that provided the intelligence was credible. He also suggested that former president Kufour released prisoners, including armed robbers, before he left office. So if Ghana is still battling with the armed robbery menace, then those who were released may have joined the trade.
I borrowed the title of this piece from Uzor Maxim Uzoatu, a Soyinka protégé, who did an elaborate work on The Essential Soyinka, a good biographical commentary on the Nigerian Nobel Laureate. Rawlings is an ‘essential’ person in our political history, as chequered as it appears to be. You cannot wish him away. For many people, he singularly defined the political pictogram of post-military Ghana, as inept as he sometimes appears to be. He is one of the few statesmen that Ghana has, by virtue of his role as one of only two surviving heads of state and the founder of the ruling NDC party. His words carry considerable weight, because he still has a massive following, having led Ghana for nearly 20 years. It is not unusual for newsmen to call on him to seek his comment on important issues of national discourse. And when he makes a contribution, it must inform and educate the public, and give suggestions to solutions to problems. What is unusual is why everything he says becomes the subject of intense debate, attracting cynical interpretations and sometimes plain insults. It is not particularly heart-warming to hear a former head of state of a republic described as infantile, comical and callous.
When An African Business publication described ex-president Rawlings as a man whose statements are plenty of sizzle but no beef, they, perhaps, meant to understand the man’s nature beyond the bombastic vituperations that we are always quick to associate him with. Does he ever say a good thing? Why does nobody ever hear the often laudable suggestions he offers. For instance, on the same day he made the controversial comments about the armed robbery menace and the opposition party’s involvement, he also advised the Volta Regional delegation of the NDC party that had called on him, that it is important that the new ministers appointed by Prof Mills consult and learn from former ministers. He also called for the unity of the National Democratic Congress. That wisdom was subsumed in the inflammatory nature of the comments on the politically-motivated armed robbery in the country. Does anybody ever take J.J Rawlings seriously anymore?
A few weeks ago, an American journalist wrote to request an interview with me regarding a documentary he was developing on the life of former president J.J Rawlings. I was wondering why anybody would think I have anything to say about Rawlings. Malik Kwaku Baako is an expert on anything Rawlings: From his military life through his two presidential terms, to his life as ex president. I was quick to write back that I would not be a good subject for the interview, because I don’t understand the Rawlings phenomenon better than the semi-literate Ghanaian. And this shows in my writings. Since 2005, I have done an article nearly every week, discussing various social and cultural issues. Over this period, I have written just one article about the ex-president, and have mentioned him not more than two times in my writings. I simply do not understand him but I can categorise him, and maybe appreciate his frustration with the main opposition political organisation. That is just about how far I can go with the ex-president. If the American journalist were to seek my opinion on the ex-president’s recent remarks on the armed robbery menace in Ghana, I would probably be willing to say a thing or two. Over the past few days, we have read about the activities of armed robbers in the country. In one instance, the male passengers were forced to have sex with the females. Large amounts of cash are stolen from market women who have struggled over a life time to save for their capital. Property is destroyed, women are raped before their husbands, leaving victims traumatised forever. The explanation any armed robbery victim wants to hear from a responsible quarter is how we can find solutions to the problems, so that Ghanaians can go to work hoping to come back to find their property intact and their children safe. If a political motive is employed to explain away the problem, we only make a joke of a very serious social problem. How credible are the ex-president’s statements? An opposition political grouping decides to discredit an incumbent for political advantage, and the most effective way to do that is to infiltrate armed robbery gangs, or perhaps sponsor a few gangs to terrorise Ghanaians. It is a theory that needs some deep thinking to digest. Yet, armed robbery victims are meant to use it to soothe their pains.
Wishing that Rawlings put it as concise and statesmanlike as Kofi Annan, or as erudite and profound as P.V Obeng, does not provide a solution to the problem. That is opposed to the very nature of the man. Revolutionaries do not behave like diplomats: They are not schooled in the art of protocols and diplomacy; they carry their nature with them, like guns. Even so, you would expect that after going through protocols for a 20 year period as president, his bombastic nature would have been tamed by the very chores of the job. Or, maybe, an ex-president should not speak very often, preferring to leave commentary to commentators and politics to politicians. His role could be as simple as a ceremonial village chief: he is only seen during durbars and consulted rarely. That way, he saves his followers and indeed himself any embarrassment his actions may cause.
Can we ever put J.J Rawlings in the bedroom when he is still front page news nine years after going out of office? And whose fault is it that he is still front page news? The media. Maybe he should never be on the front pages. How often do we hear of Tony Blair after Gordon Brown took over as PM? So, George Bush is nearly forgotten months after his party lost to the Democrats. When in 2000 ex-president Kufour, then as flagbearer of the NPP, was asked how he intended to contain Rawlings if he became president, he was quite gentlemanly in his answer. Mr Kufour said something like this: He would be given the respect he deserves as former head of state but if he ‘throws his weight about’ then the proper measures will be taken. Today, we are still talking about the weight of his words and his influence while the rains continue to destroy lives and property of the poor.
What do we intend to advise regarding the ex-president’s comments and utterances? Should we adopt the Kwaku Baako bitter-never-let-him-be approach, and drown everything the ex-president says in a sea of adjectives, or digest his words with a Nana Akomeah gentle but biting castigation. Whatever approach we adopt, we should not forget that this is a president who created 110 districts, passed the Value Added Tax (VAT) and the GET Fund, and also expanded electricity to parts of Northern Ghana. We should also remember who benefited from his Hunger Award. If only he talked less…..
Benjamin Tawiah
Email: btawiah@hotmail.com
