By: Kwame Twumasi-Fofie
If former President Kufuor will forever be remembered for is his ‘zero tolerance for corruption’ statement on his Inauguration Day, I believe President Mills should also be remembered for his ‘I’ll be a father to all Ghanaians’ promise. As the saying goes, indeed, it’s always easier said than done, and whether or not either of them has succeeded in delivering on his promise is for all of us to judge. It may be argued though that since one completed eight working years while the other has just completed six months the playing field for a fair assessment of their performance on their promises may not be all that level. But frankly, it must be said that it’s a much easier job for a President to project himself as a father to all his countrymen than to eliminate corruption altogether. As a matter of fact it doesn’t require any effort at all for any President to project him as the father of all citizens of his country; that’s the way it’s supposed to be since after all, it is the taxes of all citizens of the country that he is going to use to run affairs of the country. In short, therefore, a declaration by President Mills to be President for all Ghanaians shouldn’t have made any headlines at all.
And the President’s Children Are...
Unfortunately, what you see after a change of government in Ghana is a clear manifestation of the saying that ‘Oheneba ne dee ne papa te ase’ which loosely translated means: ‘you may see yourself a prince/princess only so long as your father remains on the throne’. Since the last change of government the real princes and princesses of the country have undoubtedly been members of the NDC since it is their father who is on the throne. Were it not so, how come that immediately after he was ‘enthroned’ a particular group of his supposed ‘children’ went on rampage seizing public toilets, public transport terminals and state vehicles from their own brothers and sisters? Remember the violence that occurred at Ashaiman Transport Terminal? Which other group of Ghanaians, other than members of the NDC, could be so confident of themselves to take over a station (that did not belong to the party in the first place), simply because they haven’t benefited from the NDC campaign promise of providing jobs for them? And sadly, this state of affairs isn’t much different than it was some eight years ago.
I believe President Mills publicly declared to present himself as the father of all Ghanaians (and received a warm applause for it) because somehow, he didn’t believe his predecessor conducted himself as such. But for the first time in our political history, a President has been publicly condemned by prominent personalities within his party, for not acting fast enough to replace non-party member public office holders with party members. And the sad thing is that so far the President has not been heard reminding his party people that the fact that he came to power on their ticket does not mean he’s President for them only.
Politicisation of The Security Services
I thought ‘national security’ meant exactly that – clearly distinct from, and taking precedence over party security. It would appear from the look of what goes on after every change of government that in Ghana ‘party security’ is more important than national security. This can be the only reason why security heads who had efficiently ensured the security of the nation under a previous administration are suddenly seen as security risks to the in-coming administration and must therefore be replaced immediately. And strangely we seem to think that by so doing we make them more ‘professional’ and neutral.
Is the Country No Longer Politically and Ethnically Divided?
One statement the then Candidate Mills made several times on the campaign trail was how far the country had been ‘polarised’ along political and ethnic lines. The next General Elections are more than three years away and naturally this is the time political tension should be at its lowest. So far, however, we’re yet to see any steps the President has taken to bring Ghanaians together from their ‘polarised’ and ‘divided’ positions before he came to power.
I do not recall any time an ethnic group in Ghana has had the audacity to openly declare no less a personality than a former President a virtual ‘prohibited immigrant’ on their territory for whatever reason there might be. In Ghana today, traditional authorities do not find anything wrong telling the government that they do not like a particular Police Officer as their Regional Commander for the simple reason that he’s not an indigene of their region! The furore that erupted over the President’s nomination for DCE for Atebubu-Amanten in particular is too significant to ignore. So who can say that the country is any less politically and ethnically divided now than it understandably was in the days immediately before the last Elections?
Lean & Efficient Government?
I recall a comment the then presidential running mate John Mahama once made that judging governments by comparing their performance to previous ones amounted to using mediocrity as a standard. In other words, going by this culture it means that no matter how bad a government may be it can claim to have performed well only because its predecessor may have performed worse. But as always, they say one thing in opposition and do something else once in power.
A case in point is the number of ministers. Do we sincerely say that just because a particular government had 100 ministers the one with 95 is a lean one as we seem to believe? Why not rather compare the size of our governments with those of countries which are not only larger and more populous but also much richer than us?
I wonder why we cannot, and should not, as a national policy, put a ceiling on the size of our government or even establish the ministries we need as a nation instead of leaving this to the pleasure of individual governments? After all, the Constitution has already done part of this job for us by pegging the number of Cabinet Ministers to 19. Some of us do recall that at various periods in our history we’ve had Ministries for Cocoa Affairs, Consumer Affairs, Chieftaincy Affairs, Aviation, National Orientation, and Beautification of the Capital City among others. Some particular ministries have had their names modified one way or the other with every change of government. One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that in the very near future we’re going to have a separate Ministry for Oil. And maybe depending on a campaign promise a future government may come out with all the good reasons out there for the establishment of a Ministry for Men & Boys’ Affairs. I’ve already heard a call for one for Pensioners’ Affairs. And don’t be surprised if calls for a Ministry for Shear Butter Affairs come up later and receive positive consideration in line with an NDC campaign promise to give shear butter the same attention cocoa has enjoyed over the years.
Not only do I think there is the need for an upper ceiling to the number of ministries; there should also be a ceiling for the number of ministers. That may be the only sure way to prevent one government from appointing four deputy ministers for a particular ministry while its successor appoints four for another. On this issue, perhaps we could take useful lessons from a country like Switzerland which has only seven (7) ministries headed by a seven-member Federal Council one of whom is the Federal President. And to the best of my knowledge, there are no deputies. In our case, to know exactly how many ministers, ministers of state and deputy ministers and the correct name of their ministries we have at any given time one needs to do some serious research.
Lawlessness and Impunity
Before becoming President the then Candidate Mills spoke passionately about the culture of impunity in the country. Almost everybody, that is, with the exception of NDC members, were doing everything with impunity. Yes, it is indeed, and sadly, a fact that lawlessness prevails all over. But who says this is a phenomenon that developed only during the eight years of the previous government, and stopped with the coming into power of the present government?
Drivers are still driving through red lights and parking under ‘No Stopping’ signs; the Police are still extorting, and drivers paying monies to the Police in full public glare; traders are selling where they’re not supposed to sell; kiosks and metal containers are being erected everywhere even as structures are being pulled down in other parts of the country; churches situated within residential areas continue to blare out excessively loud noises late into the night with impunity but the President is not doing or saying anything about them. In short, apart from the faces, not much has changed with the change we voted for.
The Blame Game is Their Stock in Trade
Politics is said to be a ‘dirty game’ but sometimes you wonder how dirty we make it seem. Did I, for example, hear of an allegation of ‘sabotage’ (by members of a particular political party) as being behind the increase in armed robbery in the country? Come to think of it, in the days leading to the last general elections the then opposition NDC claimed that armed robbery was rampant because the government was not doing enough to fight it, so when voted into power they would arrest the situation. Of course that hasn’t happened and someone must be blamed for it. But even granting that it’s such an easily identifiable group which is behind these criminal activities shouldn’t that rather give the government the upper hand in fighting the menace? Should that, on the contrary, be the reason why we have to live with it? So if I may ask, who then are behind the relatively new cyber crime of ‘Sakawa’? Perhaps ‘sabotage’ has been behind the high number of road accidents in the country, or it could even be that an interest group was behind the high rate of drug trafficking under the previous government.
The irony is that our politicians make such comments one day and turn round the next to remind us that belonging to different parties doesn’t mean we should be enemies so everybody should cooperate with government to ensure the forward movement of our country. Some time ago when the government of the day saw every act of the previous government as being embroiled in ‘financial malfeasance’ the opposition saw it as ‘demonization’. The only thing that has changed now is who is using which phrase or vocabulary.
We Could Take a Cue From Our Traditional Rulers
We’ve seen from our traditional rulers that there’s nothing wrong with a sitting chief positively projecting his achievements. What they never do, however, is any attempt to paint their predecessors black. In fact the act of pouring libation is all about praying for the souls of our predecessors and thanking them for the part they have played, however small, in leading us to where we may find ourselves. Instead of taking a cue from such beautiful culture as practised by our traditional rulers all that our political leadership spend their energy on is painting their predecessors black, evil and good-for-nothing, hoping that by so doing they – their opponents – can never come to power again. This, as we’ve seen so far, is at best, only wishful thinking, for as it turns out to be, sooner than later, the table turns over and the cycle begins all over again.
I really wonder what our politicians take us for.
Kwame Twumasi-Fofie
