A little clarification here, Justice Crabbe

Read Comments Comments (7)

• BERNARD 8 years ago

  ARE (0540527508) YOU A STUDENT,GOVERNMENT
  WORKER,
  OR UNEMPLOYED LOOKING FOR A BUSINESS TO DO ON PART TIME / FULL TIME.
  CALL NOW

  ARE (0540527508) YOU A STUDENT,GOVERNMENT
  WORKER,
  OR UNEMPLOYED LOOKING FOR A BUSINESS TO DO ON PART TIME / FULL TIME.
  CALL NOW

  reply
• G. K. Berko 8 years ago

  What Justice Crabbe said alludes to the need for the Nation to have a consensus developmental plan that all Parties would commit to working to fulfill.
  
  All that is needed is for the Administration to consult with the Peop ...
  read full comment

  What Justice Crabbe said alludes to the need for the Nation to have a consensus developmental plan that all Parties would commit to working to fulfill.
  
  All that is needed is for the Administration to consult with the People via their local, district, municipal and Parliamentary representatives to fully and honestly gather from the People of what our priorities could and ought to be.
  
  We know how most Politicians bait the electorate for votes with Utopian promises that may turn out to be beyond our resources at any particular period. We also know how even with the best of intentions, external factors may cause an Administration to renege on its pre-election promises to the Electorate.
  
  And lastly, we also know that with a deeply fragmented or divided Electorate, a winning Party's Administration may not be able to claim it has the mandate of the majority of the Citizens to fulfill a particular parochial agenda that suit only its partisan supporters.
  
  In view of all the above, it may behoove the Administration to reach back to its partisan supporters to explain any limiting factors that demand scheduling their priorities behind a more crucial National need.
  
  Secondly, it is only when we have a prior long-term developmental plan or set of goals that we have constructed by consensus of the People, via the local, district, municipal Governments and Parliament that any necessary deferment of promises to a particular political or partisan constituency could be done without any repudiation of political trust.
  
  With such a national developmental plan, life gets easier for the both the Constituents and the Politicians who got their mandate to govern.
  
  Politicians would be compelled by the need to fulfill the larger national plan to keep resources on projects that need priority.
  
  As much as we all wish to see our local needs be immediately fulfilled, certain national imperatives might cause us to re-prioritize differently in favor of other more remote national needs. That does not necessarily connote abandonment of constituents.
  
  It is important to note that it is also with such existing national plan that Politicians could be forced to promise what is deliverable to their constituents.
  
  The creation of such a plan, in my opinion, ought to be based upon honest and full educative interactions between the electorate and the escalated hierarchy of the Government, i.e.: local, district, and municipal Governments, the Parliament and Executive.
  
  It would not be out of place to have the Executive initiate such a plan with a group of experts as the NDC Administration might have done. But the plan MUST be presented to the larger Society for some inputs from the general Public and explanation to the People of whatever the group has already suggested, and must be subject to consensus approval or rejection by the People.
  
  Once that plan has been adopted nationally, its implementation then falls within what is practical and most beneficial financially and technologically, at any particular period or Election cycle.
  
  No wide deviation from the plan could then exist without a return to consultation with the stakeholders.
  
  At this point, it is not who is part of any group the Executive has set up to formulate the plan that matters as much as what the contents of the plan are.
  
  To completely ditch the national plan as it is now for the mere fact that it was formulated by some partisan ideologues of the incumbent President is just too partisan and unproductive. It would have caused a waste of National resources for putting that group and elements of the plan together.
  
  The Plan, however, could be reviewed, and presented to the larger community for the People's input to arrive at a lasting consensus that would draw unflinching commitment to its full implementation by any future Administration.
  
  Long Live Ghana!!!

  reply
• Mensah Abrampah 8 years ago

  Brother Berko, you give some valuable insights. I am supportive of the adoption of a national development agenda because at the end of the day a national development agenda is the will and aspirations of us all put together i ...
  read full comment

  Brother Berko, you give some valuable insights. I am supportive of the adoption of a national development agenda because at the end of the day a national development agenda is the will and aspirations of us all put together in a document and made the law of the land. We must end the chronic partisanship that not only divides us but inhibits progress and development. I believe this is what Justice Crabbe intended to say but he was incoherent. I am not leftist but a living believer in the Danquah/Busia/Dombo political tradition but I'm also a rational being who appreciates rational thoughts and discourses like your comments. Thank you.

  reply
• Mensah Abrampah 8 years ago

  Well said, bro. I lean towards the Danquah/Busia/Dombo political tradition but for rapid national development we as a nation need to determine what our national development agenda should be for the next 25 years and should be ...
  read full comment

  Well said, bro. I lean towards the Danquah/Busia/Dombo political tradition but for rapid national development we as a nation need to determine what our national development agenda should be for the next 25 years and should be subject to scrutiny and reform every 10 years. We need to have a singleness of vision and purpose to succeed. Additionally, we must also show high interest in nations that only few decades ago were our fellow travelers or were even worse economically but have successfully transformed their economies in a short span of time. The transformed economies of countries like Singapore, Malaysia, etc, must engage our interests and attention and if we are incapable of outperforming them we still have much to gain by learning and adopting what is surely working for them. Once we have a national development agenda, the politicians will be compelled to stick to it because that's the will of the people and the law of the land and they have no choice but to obey.
  What else we need to do is to ensure that accountability, probity and transparency move beyond its spineless rhetory to daily work principles, norms and the law in all levels of government and business administration.

  reply
• Kojo Bentua 8 years ago

  Read the whole of Justice Crabbe's speech. For now, you either didn't understand him, or you're too partisan to comment objectively on the speech.
  Very shallow thinking here!

  Read the whole of Justice Crabbe's speech. For now, you either didn't understand him, or you're too partisan to comment objectively on the speech.
  Very shallow thinking here!

  reply
• rkt 8 years ago

  "But even more poignantly must be observed the fact that a comparative analysis of the performance of the two major ideological camps dominating the Ghanaian political landscape, clearly indicates that the Danquah-Busia-Dombo ...
  read full comment

  "But even more poignantly must be observed the fact that a comparative analysis of the performance of the two major ideological camps dominating the Ghanaian political landscape, clearly indicates that the Danquah-Busia-Dombo camp has been the more progressive in the country’s Fourth-Republican dispensation." and where is the proof without which i suppose one would be right to say u didn't say anything? next, i understand vcrac, as i have always called the eminent judge, to be saying that our campaign promises must be based largely on the directive principles of state policy and a national development plan. largely, because it's a dynamic world and new technologies and brilliant new ideas will always come into being. if an opposition party envisions these, why, it should be able to sell them to the electorate, which when sufficiently persuaded to vote it into power, would serve notice to the ndpc to thoroughly examine this "new idea" and incorporate it into the nations development plan with necessary amendments. now this can only happen after the "copyright holders" assume power because sometimes some parties, when challenged to provide what is felt to be grandiose, impractical promises meant only to hoodwink(?) the electorate, counter by saying they must hold their cards close to the chest for fear of their opponents implementing their "ideas" should they give any details and, consequently, remain perpetually in opposition! now, that is sad, cos it redefines service as what contribution one makes or can make whilst a president, minister, etc. ie whilst one is in "power"! sad because it would mean the Einsteins, Newtons,Bill Gates, Bells, Baffoes, Alloteys, Abrahams, Frimpong-Boatengs, and the other thousands of celebrated denizens, past and present, of planet earth, did not serve humanity! aaawww! so, u see, vcrac was saying, as eminent management gurus have shown conclusively, that we need a plan, and when we have one we must follow it (but above all we must appreciate that a plan is a dynamic document)! do u still think vcrac was asking politicians to use the electorate and dump it? i don't 'cos the senior senior citizen is too honest to advise thus! however, in the unlikely event that that is what he meant then he must be saying that if anyone is so gullible as to believe any dishonest politician, or for that matter, person, they must blame themselves for swallowing their promises line, hook and sinker!

  reply
• Mana from heaven 8 years ago

  Okoampah, you are unnecessarily verbose.

  Okoampah, you are unnecessarily verbose.

  reply