7

Read Comments Comments (7)

• Nsesem 3 months ago

  Democracy is often misunderstood—it’s not a magic solution. Some people blindly praise it, ignoring its flaws and the success of other systems. Why do we so readily adopt foreign ideas without adapting them to our needs? ...
  read full comment

  Democracy is often misunderstood—it’s not a magic solution. Some people blindly praise it, ignoring its flaws and the success of other systems. Why do we so readily adopt foreign ideas without adapting them to our needs? Our focus should be on progress, development, and advancing our continent.
  Look at South Korea and Singapore: neither was a democracy at the start. They developed first, then gradually adopted democratic elements. Singapore, in particular, thrived under decades of strong leadership, which challenges the idea that democracy is the only path to success. China and Vietnam are not democracies, yet their economic growth is undeniable. On the other hand, many democratic countries in Latin America, the Philippines, and Africa struggle with instability and underdevelopment.
  The key is not the label of democracy, but the presence of selfless leaders, strong institutions, progressive governance, and homegrown solutions tailored to our unique challenges.

  reply
• Nsesem 3 months ago

  Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership of Singapore from 1959 to 1990 offers a powerful counterpoint to those who insist that only democracy or any single ideology, can drive national progress. Nkrumah’s vision for Africa emphasized s ...
  read full comment

  Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership of Singapore from 1959 to 1990 offers a powerful counterpoint to those who insist that only democracy or any single ideology, can drive national progress. Nkrumah’s vision for Africa emphasized self-determination and pan-African unity, but his critics often argue that only Western-style democracy can deliver development. Singapore’s experience under Lee, however, demonstrates that what truly matters is the quality of leadership, not the political system. Whether democratic, autocratic, socialist, or monarchical, the right leader can propel a nation forward, while weak or corrupt leadership can stifle progress for decades. Mediocre leaders, through sheer incompetence, can leave entire nations stagnant.

  reply
• Nsia 3 months ago

  @Nsesem, great minds think alike. You have highlighted the salient points that keep eluding the dimwits and complete wankers that constitutes the Fatuous and Odious Detritus known in Ghana as Danquah Busia Traditions. Thank ...
  read full comment

  @Nsesem, great minds think alike. You have highlighted the salient points that keep eluding the dimwits and complete wankers that constitutes the Fatuous and Odious Detritus known in Ghana as Danquah Busia Traditions. Thanks ever so much for knocking a modicum of sense into the empty head of the writer who wrote this pyramid of utter piffle!

  reply
• Pelicles. 3 months ago

  Ghana came into existence through the intercourse of Mahama's parents so, the country should be given to Mahama as his personal property. I think that will satisfy his admirers.
  
  Some of us remember Ghana under Mahama from ...
  read full comment

  Ghana came into existence through the intercourse of Mahama's parents so, the country should be given to Mahama as his personal property. I think that will satisfy his admirers.
  
  Some of us remember Ghana under Mahama from 2012-16.

  reply
• Nsia 3 months ago

  @Pelicles, the brain dead fart displaying his idiocy to Ghanaians as usual. The point is: were born completely stupid or you grew up to become one?

  @Pelicles, the brain dead fart displaying his idiocy to Ghanaians as usual. The point is: were born completely stupid or you grew up to become one?

  reply
• MAWUSINU 3 months ago

  This is total rubbish. When the chairperson for the electoral commission was removed, there was no cause for panic, it's the removal of the chief justice that spells doom. When NPP has paralleled opposition, they were still b ...
  read full comment

  This is total rubbish. When the chairperson for the electoral commission was removed, there was no cause for panic, it's the removal of the chief justice that spells doom. When NPP has paralleled opposition, they were still bulldozing their way through and passing bills unnecessarily. Now that someone is blessed with supermajority, you are here bleeding. After all, bleeding is allowed.

  reply
• Kwame 3 months ago

  If my memory is not escaping me, it is a fact that in some countries, not excluding the US its the president that appoints and dismiss justices of their supreme court.
  That was what was in the 1960 Ghanaian constitution tha ...
  read full comment

  If my memory is not escaping me, it is a fact that in some countries, not excluding the US its the president that appoints and dismiss justices of their supreme court.
  That was what was in the 1960 Ghanaian constitution that the president appoints a judge and dismiss the same. So Kwame Nkrumah did nothing wrong by dismissing a Chief.
  These people don't write about issues that affect the lives of thousand of people and their families.
  In 1966, the Workers' Brigade was banned by the National Liberation Council (NLC) military cum police junta. 250,000 Ghanaians lost their jobs in one day. If you are to add the dependants of the workers of the Brigade it means over 1,000,000 Ghanaians lost their livelihood in just one day.
  The majority of them 75% could not find another job until death took them away from the shores of Ghana in the early 1990s.
  Members of the Workers' Brigade did nothing wrong, that the Brigade will be abolished. Their mass dismissal was not based on their performance, indiscipline and any form of insubordination and misconduct.
  The Chief Justice on the other hand was dismissed as a result of his incompetence. He was unable to jail people who tried to assassinate the president, caused serious injuries to the president, assassinated and maimed scores of members of the Young Pioneers.
  There was a case by the US and her NATO allies against the late President of Iraq Saddam Hussein for signing the death penalty of some group of people who made attempt on his life.
  In the Iraqi Constitution at the time the crime was committed states that the maximum penalty for on who made an attempt on the life of the president of Iraq or assassinate him shall be hanged.
  I don't know if people who made attempts on the lives of people or murdered people in countries in NATO countries are set free.
  On the dismissal of the former Chief Justice Mrs. Gertrude Araba Sackey-Torkornu, I stated that an employee whose conduct goes contrary to his job cannot stay in office for another day.
  Now on if John Mahama should have a third term. Robert Mugabe became the president of Zimbabwe in 1980. He was in power until late 2000s. A period over forty years or so. So is the case of Paul Kagame and Muweri Museveni, who came to power through the barrel of the gun, not through universal adult suffrage, but have been in power for over 40 years.
  It is the people of Rwanda and Uganda who decided that Paul Kagame and Muweri Museveni stay in power forever. If their stay in power is so bad, undemocratic and against whatever norm established by the international community, I am sure that no country will have been dealing with Rwanda and Uganda, much more trade with them and have their diplomatic representatives in the two countries. There are a number of examples around the world, but we give only three as reference.
  From Yusef Stalin, Leonid Brezhnev, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, Vladimir Putin, even military dictators of South East Asia and others long stay in power has been to the benefit of their countries socioeconomic development.
  On the other hand US and Western European countries which have two terms of office for their presidents' development and their socioeconomic development is based on usurping the resources of weaker countries or some sort of illicit trade, mainly in illicit drugs as has been the case of Britain, Holland and the USA.

  reply