Promoting Parliamentary Democracy – the African Perspective August 26, 2008

Promoting popular democracy  through legislative strengthening in Africa- a new approach required

---

 

This paper looks at ways in which African countries can build long term democratic institutions, while at the same time providing the wherewithal for institutions of democracy to become independent of vested interest and foreign influences.

 

Introduction

 

The second liberation of Africa occasioned by passionate street protests against one party and military rule, in the late 1980s, early 1990s, which was preceded by years of popular struggles in Africa and opened the floodgates to multi party democracy. Today, democracy is taken for granted by many, while the clamour for this system of government has never been louder. While African governments, political parties, civil society, and various solidarity movements grapple with new approaches to building sustainable democracies, donors have increasingly been concerned mainly with the impact and quality of governance and their economic development aims in Africa. 

 

Increasingly however, it is becoming obvious to all that years of popular struggles by farmers, youth, women’s movements, and intellectuals and so on, will come to nothing unless the institutions of popular democracy are built and sustained to underpin the gains that these struggles yield. I use the term ‘popular democracy’ as opposed to other forms (e.g. electoral democracy) because in recent years, ‘democracy’ has been the subject of various debates. In my view, popular democracy is the sort of democracy that is won by the people’s movement for change. It can be gained through elections or violent means, as long as it is democratic, and is based on the consent of the people. Perhaps, the best definition of this, is Winston Churchill’s’ admonishing to UK parliamentarians that: “it is not Parliament that should rule; it is the people who should rule through Parliament” (House of Commons, November 11, 1947).

For any society that seeks to build and sustain democracy, three main institutions are essential: parliament, political parties and civil society (the media is included in civil society). In Africa, it is essential to add traditional institutions represented by chiefs and traditional rulers, and the mass of young people, and the women’s movements, community based organisations and so on. Any attempt to secure popular representative democracy without these important actors is bound to result in a system of government that is not accountable, non-democratic nor less representative.

 

Power, democracy and representation

Democracy, especially the popular version is about the acquisition of power and the means to distribute or redistribute abundant economic resources and power arrangements in a society, not simply about elections. Power is also about the distribution of resources and the means of acquisition. Every African country tries to balance power relationships vis-à-vis ethnic, regional, religious, and sometimes economic interests. Some may call this ‘tribalism’ or ethnicity, but real politic dictates these arrangements. A lack of awareness of the local political context, i.e., the real politics of a country therefore means that most foreign imposed solutions, no matter how well intentioned, is bound to fail.  

 

Traditional forms of donor support  to African parliaments relies overwhelmingly on ‘technical’ support, which most often is based on quick two-day workshops. In all the efforts by national governments, political parties and external donor institutions, the question of building long term democratic culture is often is eschewed in favour of short term, quick, and often non durable solutions. These workshops are usually facilitated by people whose experience of governance or parliamentary development is based on countries with long years of parliamentary tradition (e.g. House of Commons in the UK).  While these may be relevant at times, and could provide valuable lessons in parliamentary practices and systems, sometimes, they are off the mark.

 

Experience has taught me that these engagements are not aimed at institution building, but largely discussions on what ought to be, or what is done elsewhere in what is called “mature” democracies. The tools are often lacking. It is also important to recognise that political behaviour is usually not influenced by these workshops and conferences. They have their uses; but more often than not the issue of building sustainable institutions for democracy is even not on the agenda.

 

There is also an assumption that the key requirement to creating effective parliaments and political parties is having a democratic and accountable government. The reverse could also be true. Strong political parties can ensure effective representation in parliament, leading to people-based and accountable legislatures, and vice versa. A strong popular based democratic government will more or less be based on consent, i.e., the will of the people and could garner support in times of a political stalemate or crisis as we are seeing in Zimbabwe.

 

A people based legislature will be in a position to oversee resource re-distribution which is equitable and fair, and not influenced by regional or ethnic considerations, will defend the national interest and develop a economic and foreign policy based on old fashioned ‘national interest’. In today’s world, globalisation has become an excuse for naked exploitation. If parliaments are to retain their relevance and gain the respect of the people, they ought to show they have teeth and are willing to use the vast powers they have in protecting the vulnerable.

 

Western donors institutions are beginning to acknowledge the fact that  some forms of donor assistance in this area is greatly flawed and ineffective. They lack detail and focus; are naïve about the politics of these countries, their cultures and history; and are implemented by people who lack political judgement. In my years of working in governance from the UK, I have often met people in highly respected institutions who often treat Africa as if it were one region, and do not bother to study in depth the countries in which they work.

 

There is a reluctance to accept the fact that Parliaments are not value-free institutions. They are often the product of a long term process of political struggles, and therefore reflect the cultural and political traditions of a country and of particular societies. No one will argue that the US Congress and the UK House of Commons have different traditions and precepts. Why should that be a problem in the case of Africa? In essence therefore, the institutional or capacity needs of African parliaments are bound to differ, and rightly so. It is important to bear this in mind in developing strategies and programmes to underpin the work of legislative institutions in Africa. The differences matter. The capacity building needs of the Ethiopian House of Peoples Representatives (HoPR) and those of the Kenyan National Assembly are bound to differ. While Ethiopia has emerged from years of military dictatorship and a guerrilla war, Kenya is also emerging from years of one party rule, still trying to come to terms with a troubled transition.

 

Institution building versus parliamentary strengthening

 

In recognition of the increasing importance of parliaments and Members of Parliament (MPs) in democracy building, parliamentary strengthening has become an important part of international democracy assistance strategies.  As a representative forum, African parliaments remain one of the most important institutions of governance and democracy building. Historically, national parliaments have always performed the roles of representation, legislation and accountability. In their representative function, parliaments ensure that all shades of political, ethnic, and/or cultural views are represented and articulated to government. 

 

Parliament therefore serves as a crucial link between the electorate (voters) and MPs. As a legislative body, parliaments play a critical role in the legislative process by scrutinising and amending government bills, but also possess the ability to initiate, propose and shape legislative national priorities. Finally, parliament is the only constitutional way through which democratically elected governments are held to account in their actions and policies. To a large extent, parliaments help to establish the norms and values that underpin the democratic culture of a country and help to shape people’s expectations and attitudes towards democracy.

 

But one area that is constantly lagging behind people’s expectations is the relationship between the elected representative (the MP) and his/her constituents, and therefore their ability to hold governments to account. Every democracy requires a mechanism for constant national dialogue as a forum for peaceful coexistence. In countries in transition from conflict to peace (e.g. the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, or even Kenya), mediation and reconciliation remains a key function of the national parliament. Yet in many parts of Africa, national parliaments are falling short of these expectations.  For African parliaments, the reasons for such weakness are varied and differ from country to country. 

 

Investment in African parliaments has often been low, even though this is steadily rising in recognition of current realities. Yet, they still lack the basic tools to perform their core functions as representative institutions.  Most have limited staffing, and often poorly trained staff, lacking in experience and political will. The internal structures, often inherited from the colonial days, remain weak and disorganised, thus undermining the rules of parliamentary business. 

 

One area that is often ignored in African parliaments is the influence of the unique political environment. No parliament is independent of the political process or the interest of the ruling elite; indeed, parliaments often reflect the political realities of the day.  The effectiveness of a parliament will therefore be conditioned by the existing political realities in which they operate. One such reality is the process of transferring power, often seen as a quick fix, a change of guard at the State House, regardless of the long term consequences for the country in question. For those who prefer the quick fix solution of transition, any attempt to anticipate hiccups and difficulties are frowned upon, and when this happens, it comes as a surprise to them. Kenya is a good example of this.

 

It is also often the case that organisations involved in parliamentary strengthening are themselves lacking in experience and a track record of supporting African political institutions. There is often an assumption that foreign based international organisations or individuals have the wherewithal to provide parliamentary capacity building to enhance the effectiveness of legislative institutions. ‘Internationals’ as they are called these days are therefore given access to complex parliamentary processes and often changing political environments, where they spend large sums of money on capacity building which in the end, simply disempowers the staff and legislators of African parliaments.

 

One glaring proof of this is the lack of a single African-led, or African based parliamentary strengthening institution leading in Africa today. While international these institutions may be well intentioned, they often fail because of the certain assumption that anyone – no matter how poorly trained, ill equipped or inexperienced ‘expatriate’ – can be good for Africa. Often, quite conversely, the consequences are dire for the future of sustainable African institution building. The only exception here is the efforts being made by the East Africa Legislative Assembly (EALA: www.eala.org) to set up a parliamentary centre for East African legislators. The Africa Union and other sub-regional organisations (e.g. ECOWAS) can learn from this.

 

A new proactive approach required

In short, if there is recognition that legislatures are the driving forces of democracy and popular-based representation, then it is important to institutionalise these effectively. Africa needs to build Regional Parliamentary Centres funded by African governments, staffed by African experts, who of course can be supported by experts where necessary. The need to strengthen the Secretariats of  African  parliaments   to enable them deliver effective services to MPs and legislators, build sustainable, accountable, and transparent institutions to underpin democratic governance has never been greater. The lack of an African Parliamentary Institute mandated to train parliamentary staff, and supporting various committees of parliament is a serious ideological and institutional weakness.

 

The effectiveness of electoral politics means that voting ineffective MPs out and new ones in every five years is becoming the norm. This means that new MPs will need trained and competent staff to support them. Only a parliamentary institute linked to an institution of learning (e.g. University) can provide this sort of expertise on a long term, sustainable basis. It will produce professional parliamentary staff with a future interest in promoting excellence, and not mediocrity, and foster operational consistency in the work of legislatures, and be able to support new parliamentarians when the need arises.

 

Such an institution can not only enhance the work of parliaments, but also enable new (leaders) legislators to better understand their functions and how to exercise them for the good of the country. African parliaments need to move to the modern era through better management, effective financial systems and practices, and to use resources that are abundant in-country. Waiting for others – i.e. ‘internationals’ to provide the technical support, will lead to disappointment in the electoral process and weaken the parliamentary system as a whole. The people cannot wait.

 

 

© Zaya Yeebo/July 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ghana: Kwame Nkrumah – The Unfinished Agenda March 22, 2008

Nkrumah’s unfinihsed agenda. 

Kwesi Pratt  examines  the factors which shaped Nkrumah’ s ideas, ideals and vision, the  current state of the worldwide Nkrumaist Pan African movement and the struggles which lie ahead.

 

The anti-colonial struggle in Africa, a component of the general anti-imperialist struggle, preceded the organised well focused nationalist struggle for independence in the late forties of the 20th century in Africa spearheaded by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. For example before the First World War the Aborigines Rights Protection Society made up of Fante traditional royalty foiled Britain’s attempt to seize Fante land for use by white settlers in the Gold Coast. Meanwhile Garveyism (led by Marcus Garvey, a West Indian black businessman) was gaining currency in Africa with its message “Africa to Africans”.

 

The South African Native National Congress founded in 1912; Nyasaland National Congress founded in i918; John Chilebive’s Anti-First World War Movement which protested, among other things, against the participation of Africans in the useless imperialist war, the Negritude movement in ‘France (by African Students) led by Caesaive, a African West Indian and Leopold Senghor of Senegal. Young Senegalese of Senegal and Young Dahomeans of Dahomey who challenged French socio-economic policies in their respective countries, the Mau Mau Movement led by Dedan Kimathi, the Pan-African Movement – were all examples of such organizations.

 Nkrumah and the anti-colonial struggles

As mentioned earlier an extremely important trait of the third stage of the general crisis of global capitalism was decolonization. But the decolonisation process was informed by the cumulative magnitude of socio-economic hardships and contradictions caused by the general crisis of global capitalism. Nkrumah’s vision and his long anti-imperialist struggle were shaped by these crises, a formidable weapon he used in his onslaught on colonialism.

 

In Ghana and elsewhere in Africa, during the Second World War the colonial powers intensified the exploitation of the human and natural resources of the colonies to be able to finance the war. While they demanded more raw materials from their colonies at reduced prices, they increased the prices of manufactured goods, which they exported .to the colonies.

 

Unemployment which engulfed the youth and thousands of African soldiers who returned from Burma, India and North Africa after the war was widespread. The undeveloped physical and social infrastructure more or less broke down. Misery, hunger, disease, frustration, afflicted the colonized peoples. Law and order were seriously threatened and the crime rate soared astronomically. In other words, the contradictions between the colonial forces and relations of production reached antagonistic proportions beyond repair.

 

Dr. Nkrumah, armed with the correct ideology, scientifically identified the essence of the contradictions and their related objective regularities. He understood Africa’s objective demands and exigencies of the time and mobilized the people around them. It was not his charisma, which informed his success. It was his vision derived from a scientific analysis of the world around him which was nourished by the suffering of the African masses.

 

Nkrumah’s timely intervention was an important watershed in the global anti-imperialist struggle for the following reasons: Firstly, it introduced a new dimension to Africa’s struggle against foreign domination since the pre-­colonial struggle. Secondly, Ghana’s independence opened the flood gates to decolonization of the rest of colonial Africa. Thirdly, the Nkrumah led anti-colonial struggle in Ghana constitutes a very important chapter in the struggle of all oppressed people in the world. Finally, and perhaps, most important of all, Nkrumah’s achievement record is yet to be broken in Ghana. Though lapses which certainly led to his overthrow are regrettable, they constitute a good lesson for the progressive forces in Ghana and elsewhere.

 

Nkrumah has played his part. Currently, global capitalism is having a field day. That is the correlation of class forces globally seems to be in favour of reaction. The big question is; what is the way forward? The apparent inactivity of the progressive forces in Ghana and elsewhere in Africa is not only disturbing. It is also a betrayal of the ordinary people and all that Nkrumah stood for.

 The Nkrumaist front today

Today, Nkrumaist are deeply worried about the state Nkrumaist Movement in Ghana. It has been deeply infiltrated by all manner characters who have no political and ideological commitment to what Nkrumah stood and worked for. It is no uncommon these days to hear self-proclaimed “Nkrumaists” declaring that the times have changed and we should change with the times. They openly advocate the moribund ideology of the exploiting classes under guises such as, Tony Blair’s now discredited “Third Way” and some strange concept which they refer to as “dignitarianism”.

The world in which Nkrumah lived and worked has not changed substantially. It is still dominated by the forces of imperialism and the colonised people are still the drawers of water and hewers of wood. Our natural resources are still being plundered for the benefit of the former colonial powers and their elite. The working class in the advanced capitalist economics continue to suffer the same indignity of exploitation.

 

Those who insist that Nkrumaism is no longer relevant can do the most decent thing. They should leave the Nkrumaist movement alone and join the New Patriotic Party (NPP) or any of other political clubs destined for the dustbin of history. If  Nkrumaism is no longer  relevant, then what are they doing in Nkrumaist political parties.

 

Those of us who profess Nkrumaism and defend its socialist relevance must proclaim socialism as the only option available in the struggling masses. We must recognise that what we are seeing today is history repeating itself as farce largely due to our own passivity and unprincipled and unacceptable disunity. All the issues of political leadership that Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah and the CPP confronted in the 40s, 1950s and 1960s are back on today’s political agenda. The difference is that unlike that period, the critical leadership that progressive forces provided is absent and imperialism is having a field day in our country and in our continent.

 

If we correctly identify the struggles of the fifties and sixties as struggles against imperialism and all its institutions we should not be bending over backwards to appear reasonable to our exploiters and to appease the managers of his institutions ­- IMF, World Bank, so-called development partners and our local elite. We cannot continue to confine ourselves to working professionally within NGOs or academia or media in ways that actually cut us off the masses and their striving. We must engage. And we must not restrict our struggles to the moribund political party structures. Our constitution and our political parties law has been designed to emasculate the masses and promote a culture of patronage that guarantees dominance by two parties equally committed to serving foreign imperialist interests.

 

We must, like Kwame Nkrumah before us, be willing to deepen that crisis and bring things to a head in a manner that allows the masses to resume their historic role in national development and to develop once again the kind of leadership needed to transform Ghana. Today, more than ever before, it has become imperative for the progressive forces to pool their resources and harness their energies for the onslaught against all manifestation of oppression and exploitation.

 

The World today is aff1icted by hunger and disease, vicious exploitation and senseless wars. We must stand together and demonstrate that another world build on the principles of social justice, mass democracy and peace is possible. It is important to focus on the essential issues of how to end poverty and to rein domination. We must produce workable alternatives to what the dominant class in offering and show that all the peoples of the world can and must have relevant education, healthcare and improved housing. This is the task of the Nkrumaist movement.

 

Kwesi Pratt is Editor of Insight, and a commentator on pan African and Global Affairs.

Ghana: Political Leadership and the National Interest March 22, 2008

POLITICAL LEADERSHIP AND THE NATIONAL INTEREST 

It is in the national interest that an aspiring president must have roots in a constituency with a demonstrated record of performance in the provision and delivery of services. Political parties therefore have a duty to first think about what is best for Ghana and put forward candidates who through responsible service have proved that they can represent the national interest. In order to deepen representative governance presidential candidates must have had the experience of serving the needs and protecting the rights of their constituencies. They must really have a record of providing for the needs and meeting the aspirations of the people either at the constituency or national level through exemplary performance in public and/or private sector service. A presidential candidate therefore should at least be capable of wining a parliamentary seat. Political parties consequently owe such a duty to the nation in the selection of candidates for national office.

With such criteria, as indicated above, those who contest and fail to win the presidential candidacy of their parties would be encourage to aim at wining parliamentary seats in order to enrich and strengthen the quality of representative governance. Presidential aspirants are therefore potential parliamentarians with roots in a constituency. For example, parliament would be enriched by the likes of NDC’s Spio Garbrah, PNC’s Yakubu Saaka, NPP’s Frimpong Boateng and CPP’s Badu Akosa (to mention a few) and their constituencies would be better served at the same time. These presidential aspirants would therefore have had hands-on experience of representative governance and proven themselves to be responsible leaders enjoying the confidence of their constituencies through selfless service.

National interest therefore demands that leaders of political parties must also be representative voices in parliament. Experience is the best teacher as parliament becomes a veritable testing ground to mould statespersons widely respected for integrity and impartial concern for the public good. Leading politicians, especially party leaders, would serve their parties and the nation better through the platform that parliament presents. Parliament enjoins discipline – that efficiency of purpose. Parliament demands responsibility – the cornerstone of representative power and authority. Parliament presents access to information and national intelligence to enable power to be exercised responsibly. It is in the national interest therefore that a leader of a political party is a responsible member of parliament servicing a constituency while at the same time demonstrating in parliament that voters have a viable alternative should the ruling party fail them. It serves the country no good if opposition leaders have no voice in parliament, cannot command information and have no access to national intelligence. Any presidential aspirant must be well placed in the process of the exercise of state power either through the executive, legislature or the private sector. A party leader must be able to influence or at least impact on the exercise of state power. For example, serving even on parliamentary committees provides such an essential platform to effect change.

Presidential candidates and their running mates should also avail themselves to run simultaneously for parliamentary seats. By-elections therefore become necessary when a presidential candidate and running mate are elected president and vice-president respectively and they at the same time win their parliamentary seats. Should it happen that the elected president and/or vice-president do lose their parliamentary seats they contested, the winning of nationwide presidential election validates their status. The nationwide choice and voice is inviolate. The other presidential candidates who have also won their parliamentary seats go to parliament as leaders of responsible opposition to enrich debate and strengthen that essential procedure of check and balance.  Should a presidential candidate of a party also fail to win a parliamentary seat then a leading member who won a seat is chosen by their peers to be the leader of the party concerned in parliament. What matters most here is a party leader’s representative voice in parliament and the stature of going through the rites of passage as deserving aspirant to the highest office of state.

All presidential and parliamentary aspirants including seekers of political office from the local to the national level must be acutely conscious of the fact that they do so within the discipline of state power contestation through representative governance.

State power fails to be representative if the exercise of it serves not the purposes of the constitution in respect of equitable service provision and delivery at the local level.  State power must therefore be exercised to ensure equal opportunity to all and equal access to resources by all. There should not be a rich South and impoverished North divide as the continued perpetration of such developmental apartheid falls foul of the national motto of “FREEDOM AND JUSTICE”.

State power must henceforth be the concern and business of all citizens even when citizens through their votes temporarily place an aspect of that responsibility in the hands of their representatives in parliament and in the assemblies. For the state to function effectively much depends on the quality of and moral strength of elected representatives and how well these representatives are able to serve as effective check on the executive. It becomes critical therefore for constituencies to first draw up profiles including personal and professional qualifications for an ideal parliamentarian or assembly person who will serve the national interest and consequently constituency interest. Constituencies then nominate candidates who fit agreed profiles. As it is the choices that we make that define us the choice of a representative must answer clearly the question: “What is it that we are looking for in a representative?”

The national interest is therefore served when the quality of representation makes parliament not a mere rubber stamp of executive wishes. A strong and independent parliament is critical to representative governance. Party loyalty does not mean that MPs must condone executive excesses, incompetence and corrupting acts. Parliamentarians and assembly persons fail in their duty to the nation if they become complicit to executive abuses, especially the use of public office and purse for personal gain and advantage. As soon as elected representatives enter the sacred chambers of parliament or the assembly they do so to serve, protect and advance the national interest above that of the party.  It is parliament and the assembly that present a check on any signs of lapses, poor judgement and corruption on the part of the executive in the exercise of state power. Parliament and the assemblies are constituted to prevent and not to cure acts that tend to prevent effective function of the state. It is rather the judiciary that cures but the teaching here is that prevention is better than cure. Parliament and the assemblies must at all time demonstrate to voters that theirs is a house of zero-tolerance for corruption and abuse of power.  

The state and its agent, the executive, must not be seen as sponsoring corruption and poverty. Institutional corruption and incompetence is a marked failure of the executive and a slap in the face of parliament. It is such failures that infest the effectiveness of the judiciary. Institutions of state that breed corruption and mediocrity must not be tolerated by parliament. It is only when state power and how it is exercised become the concern and business of all citizens that abuse of power would be effectively checked. It is then that a government that uses state power and resources to enrich a privileged few would become an abomination in Ghana.

A government for the few is a corruption and an impoverishment of representative governance. A government for the few is an act of treason and for such to happen is a crass failure on the part of parliament and the assemblies. Here, it becomes the abiding responsibility of the press, the fourth estate, to continuously alert the public and voters of such facts about executive perfidy, moral lapses, poor judgement and general fitness to govern. Eternal vigilance, in the case of Ghana, becomes the price of freedom and justice.

© Akyaaba Addai-Sebo

Independent Consultant on National and Pan-African Interest

25 Azania Mews, London, NW5 3BW, UK

Tel: +447989575666

E-mail: addai@tribute3ml.com

   

Funding Political Parties – to whose benefit? March 22, 2008

In parties we trust  
Political Parties and leadership in GhanaPolitical groupings have been part of the Ghanaian political landscape since the colonial era. The anti-colonial struggle was led largely by interest groups coalescing to act on behalf of the population, even at a time when there was no entity called Ghana. Even the then Gold Coast (as Ghana was known) was hardly a cohesive entity. However, there was a recognition by the intellectuals and elite of the period that colonial rule was an aberration which had to end at some point, and took steps to hasten the defeat of colonialism in Ghana. The Aborigines Rights Protection Society was one of such groups. When the United Gold Coast Conventional (UGCC) was formed by leading activists of the anti-colonial struggle, it was in realisation that only a united “party2 could work to dislodge colonialism. The UGCC disintegrated amidst the onslaught launched by Kwame Nkrumah and his new Convention Peoples Party (CPP). The UGCC metamorphosed into several forms, leading to the National liberation Movement, (NLM). Even though this coalition now calls itself the New Patriotic Party (NPP), its ideology remains the same. Parties in Ghana are therefore the result of mass popular struggles for succession to the colonial regime, and for a wider political mobilisation for freedom from poverty and colonial racism the and its divide and rule tactics. The above summary of a complex history shows that political parties have been and remain the main avenues for political mobilisation based on ideas and leadership. What has made Ghanaian parties relevant in both the pre-colonial and post colonial times have been their independence, the fact that they represent a constituency of ideas – even if they are ethnic abased. The NPP and its predecessor parties have been largely based on the dominant Akan groups in Ghana, drawing their support from cocoa farmers, traders and lawyers. The CPP, the ‘veranda boys’ also drew their support from immigrant populations in the Ashanti region, form the north and other social groups who considered themselves well enough and were therefore opposed to the ‘socialist’ policies of the CPP and Kwame Nkrumah. None of the above descriptions will apply to these parties today, as the NPP has become national, and some sections are beginning to reject the socialist foundations of the CPP. Their relevance is underscored by the fact that they exist to capture power for the groups they represent, and that has been their mainstay, even when the military has seized power, they survive, and live in the hope that they would return one day to capture power. Ghanaian parties are therefore social institutions and legitimising agents of political process and interest group networks who also promote a certain economic and political philosophy. That is the main difference between the Kwame Nkrumah family or Nkrumaists, and the Busia/Danquah  fraternity. Unlike other countries, parties in Ghana have institutional history and social roots. These parties have successfully built a committed cadre of leaders within a democratic process, no matter how flawed it may be, to represent their interests. The recent presidential aspirants nominations of the main arties – the NPP< CPP and NDC produced an impressive list of candidates, a process which was judged by most Ghanaians to be democratic. In Ghana, political parties are socio-political institutions that people recognise as their own, and therefore represent their interests. Parties remain the main interface between them and the state. Peoples see themselves as CPP, NPP, NDC (National Democratic Congress) and so on. During and after elections, parties become the main legitimising agents of government. Political parties are also primary legitimizing agents of the government and governing systems of the state. The social function and legitimizing role of political parties are under unprecedented strain. In Ghana, the process of the process of decolonisation was led by a conscious group of politicians who ensured the emergence of a people led, cohesive and democratic systems of governance under the leadership of Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. The seeds for a viable multiparty democratic system was sown. The claims that the absence of a so-called “vibrant middle class” makes political parties less viable as vehicles of democracy is not supported by Ghana’s example.  To what extent do these parties or political institutions promote democracy? Undoubtedly, political parties remain the most crucial instruments for sustaining and promoting multi party democracy. But single party states can and do also promote democracy. In this case, I refer to the one party rules of Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana and Julius Nyerere in Tanzania. In the case of Ghana, a vibrant multiparty system, with multiple ideological and identity base helped to sustain, strengthen and underpin our brand of democracy, in the time of Kwame Nkrumah and recently, under the post military era. The CPP party of the left, and the NPP, a party with right wing liberal ideology, have contributed to making Ghana a viable multi party democracy. The Achilles heels of governance? In spite of this impressive record, parties in Ghana risk undermining their own role. The  increasing display of wealth and the use of financial inducements to attract votes during the recent NPP presidential aspirants contest was stomach churning and deeply offensive the ordinary supporters of the party. It created that impression that these parties are led by career politicians with a single point agenda of winning state power with all the privileges that come with it. This trend is not Ghana specific, even in the land of the ‘mothers of democracies’ (the UK), this trend is becoming the norm, as for the USA, politics will not be interesting without the millions of dollars they spend on getting themselves elected, and therefore beholden to vested interests. If parliamentary democracy is the route to accountability, democracy and a people based political system, parties remain the engine for this vehicle. As Akyaaba Addai-Sebo wrote in an essay recently, “national interest demands that leaders of political parties must also be representative voices in parliament. Experience is the best teacher as parliament becomes a veritable testing ground to mould statespersons widely respected for integrity and impartial concern for the public good. Leading politicians, especially party leaders, would serve their parties and the nation better through the platform that parliament presents. Parliament enjoins discipline – that efficiency of purpose.” Addai-Sebo continues: “political parties therefore have a duty to first think about what is best for Ghana and put forward candidates who through responsible service have proved that they can represent the national interest. In order to deepen representative governance presidential candidates must have had the experience of serving the needs and protecting the rights of their constituencies. They must really have a record of providing for the needs and meeting the aspirations of the people either at the constituency or national level through exemplary performance in public and/or private sector service. … Political parties consequently owe such a duty to the nation in the selection of candidates for national office.” If political parties are to oil this engine and provide parliamentary democracy with the human resources, it is important that the instruments for achieving this are not undermined by desk-bound academics and civil society activists who do not dare to take up the challenge. Civil society has a role, but it cannot replace political parties, and should not seek to undermine the legitimacy of political parties by their constant whining and headline grabbing antics.  Political parties should not also undermine their own role. If citizens are to trust their parties, they should be seen to be open and accountable. I do not think that foreign organisations should pay parties to play their role as is being proposed. Parties have existed in the past through membership contributions, making them accountable. If parties are funded by foreign non governmental organizations, they cease to be accountable to their own people. They become beholden to some foreign interest as they are forced to open their books for inspection, and will spend time writing “project reports” for their foreign funders. Foreign funding of groups who are likely to rule Ghana should not be encouraged. It undermines national sovereignty.  As Africa tooters towards finding our own brand of democracy, it is important to build institutions. Parliaments represent the people, but there can be no parliaments without political parties to provide the candidates and the wherewithal. But parties and those who represent them, should promote and protect national sovereignty, not undermine it by behaving like charities. Parties are not charities. Those foreign organisations fronting this policy of paying parties should be resisted and banned from doing so by parliament. Zaya Yeebo 

Scramble for Africa June 8, 2007

 Africa has once again become the theatre of struggle between the various world powers. How different is this from the scramble  for Africa in the 19^th-century? Africa has once again become a vital strategic arena for contest between the great powers – the United States, France, the United Kingdom, China, and to a lesser extent, India. This has once again raised the spectre of Africa becoming a proxy for other peoples wars and conflicts. In the era of the cold war, Africa became the theatre for conflict between the communists regimes of the east led by the Soviet Union and, and the capitalist regimes of the West led by the United States. How beneficial is this to the long suffering people of Africa? The doubting Thomas’s in Africa will see this as a red herring. They will argue that Africa has nothing to attract the supper powers.  In fact some academics in the US have argued that they do not need Africa. They were wrong. Africa is home to very strategic minerals, and has some of the largest deposits of these natural resources: timber, diamonds, gold, bauxite, and coltan. Of all these oil stands out as the most well known natural resource for which countries like the United States will go to war for. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is about oil. Nothing more.  Oil has become so important that there is intense competition between states and western multi nationals to  secure access to this important resource. According to the UN World Investment Report, foreign direct investment (FDI) flows are concentrated in oil, mining and gas. Eights of the world’s oil producing countries are in Africa: Nigeria, Sudan, Algeria, Chad, Egypt and Equatorial Guinea, Congo-Braziville and Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Sudan and Nigeria alone attracted 48% of  Africa’s investment flows.  The United States, ever the highest oil consuming nation, has said it will protect its interests to ensure that oil flow is not interrupted. The US is therefore intersected in Africa for this reason. It needs an alternative to the problematic areas of the Middle East, where US hegemony is under threat from anti-occupation forces in Iraq, and radical regimes in Iran and elsewhere. In Latin America, the US is facing similar problems from the radical Chavez regime in Venezuela. As its problems mount, the US is turning to Africa. At the moment, West Africa supplies 12% of the crude oil needs of the US. America’s own national intelligence Council predicts that this will rise to 25% by 2015. How can America protect its oil source? Apart from the US, France the United kingdom are also increasing their investments in Africa. France has huge investments in Francophone countries such as Gabon, Cameroon and Chad. while the UK also supports its former  colonies.  Apart form oil, Africa exports timber to Europe and china. The American forest and paper Association estimates that. Ghana is a major exporter of timber. Liberia, Cameroon, and Gabon are also on the list as major exporters of timber.   Military basesElsewhere in this edition, we carry an analysis of the concerns expressed by some Ghanaians that the US is planning a military base in Ghana. Both the US and the Ghanaian governments have denied this. But credible evidence points to the fact that is the US is to secure its interest in West Africa, it will need a military base. In February 2007, the US set up an African Command (Africom). The US has established bases and signed access agreements with 5 African countries, including Ghana, Gabon, Senegal, Mali and Namibia.   

Recolonising Africa June 8, 2007

Recolonsing Africa. Watch up for an update.