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 

Rawlings: A Threat to Democracy June 12, 2007

Rawlings: A threat to Democracy?   

Since he was voted out of power, Rawlings has dominated the news, sparking fears and anxiety that the old coup maker has similar plans. Taking swipes at the Kuffour government seems to be his main past time activity since he is unemployed. The question people are asking in secret is this – is he capable of another coup? This writer believes that the issues are far more complex, but no so  destabilising. It is quite unusual for a head of state whose party has lost an election, to continue to hound the incumbent in the way that Jerry Rawlings continues to hound his successor, President John Agyekum Kuffour.  But what is of concern to Ghanaians is the extent to which Rawlings’ constant outbursts posses a real threat to national security. To put it bluntly, does Rawlings constitute a present danger to the NPP government and the country? To answer this question requires a brief detour into the Rawlings record while in office. From the days of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council – AFRC (June – September 1979) to the Provisional National Defence Council (1982 – 2000), Rawlings has always presented himself as an ordinary person seeking to make life better for the ordinary Ghanaian. This is where most people were deceived into thinking that Rawlings differed from other past leaders in Ghanaian history.   In the AFRC/PNDC eras, Rawlings presented himself as champion of the masses, as an ordinary  person, one of the mmoborowa, by associating himself with the ordinary people and with radical political groups, youth leaders, workers, farmers, and anyone with a cause worth exploiting. But his own life style, which is completely out of this earth, speaks differently. He neither likes ordinary people, nor lives like them. Infact, he detests poor people. BUT, he has an aversion to exploiting the plight of poor people for his own inordinate ambitions. Rawlings is like a leech, sticking to the backside of ordinary people, exploiting their anxieties, their fears, their genuine problems, for his own goals.  Let us go back to 1979 – 1981 when Rawlings had been discharged from the armed forces by the Hilla Limann administration. He (Rawlings) made the University of Ghana his main home. Conniving, plotting, scheming, cheating and screaming his way to the minds of unionised Legon workers, the TUC (Trades Union Congress- Ghana), students, and members of the June Four Movement (JFM). Indeed anyone who felt disaffected by the inability of the Hilla Limann administration to deal with mounting social and economic problems and the resulting hardships. The seeds of the December 31^st coup and consequent events in Ghana, should be viewed from this angle. To what extent is Rawlings genuine in his attachment to popular causes?   History will decide whether the  Rawlings record is worth the paper it is written on. But as someone closely associated with Rawlings and the PNDC is the 1980s, I can deliver my own verdict. Contrary to what the foreign and local supporters of Rawlings would have us believe, the Rawlings record in Ghanaian politics is abysmal and indeed negative. As a leader, Rawlings sought to build a country based on brute force in which he brutalised anyone who disagreed with him. As  the Secretary of Youth and Sports in 1982, I was at the receiving end of this brutality when he personally invaded my house and arrested friends and colleagues, no reason was given. Rawlings brutalised his own vice President, and numerous others in government.  Under both the PNDC and NDC regimes, Rawlings spread the poison of dishonesty, deceit, corruption, dishonour and mistrust in government. Under him, the moral fabric of Ghana was destroyed beyond repair. Kuffour and the NPP inherited a country beholden to the IMF and the World Bank, who had for  several years, destabilised Ghana under the deceitful  notion of economic stability. Of course, the NPP is not complaining about that, they are only peeved that Rawlings stole their economic policies.  For a person with such abysmal record, decency would have dictated that Rawlings, having lost the election, should respect the electoral right of Ghanaians and  keep an arms length from intervening on every single issue. He should as  mark of respect and decorum, give President Kuffour the respect he deserves as President. But  never in Ghanaian history has this nation been treated to such a display of spite  and thwarted ambitions cloaked altruistic concern for the poor and mmoborowa.  Is it too much to ask Rawlings to give his successor an opportunity to try his hands at repairing some of the damage, even though we all know how humanly impossible a  task that is. That has not happened. What is Rawlings after?  In the minds of some young Ghanaians, there is a seductive but illusory notion that Rawlings the autocrat is better than Kuffour the liberal democrat. In some academic circles, the African ones included, the erratic, self serving leadership of Rawlings which resulted in several conflicts, and a state rife with patronage, corruption and incompetence and kalabule, is still preferable. To them, I say, you can have him. It is not difficult to imagine that in his own mind, Rawlings has ambitions of  returning to power, with the masses once again hailing the Juniour  Jesus (he refuses to hear the cry of Junior Judas). Rawlings is helped in this day-dreaming by his fellow travellers, those for whom power and affluence would have been a day dream, if they had not turned a revolutionary experiment into one gigantic national fraud and swindle. Another group helping Rawling are the African intellectuals and their cabal of Africa-American opportunists who continue to praise the Rawlings era. These people and their institutions are adept at trying to keep the Rawlings agenda alive, to what purpose, no one knows. However, we can be sure of one thing.  That Rawlings will not rest until he has tried his destabilising tactics to discredit Kuffour as he did to the late President Hilla Limann. I am no sympathiser of the NPP but dare I say that Kuffour is proving, to be better at managing the neo-colonial economy better than Rawlings ever did. I can hear howls of protests at this. But I stand to correction. In terms of economic policy, there is hardly any difference between the two. The difference is only inn terms of personal integrity. Even here, I dare say President Kuffour is miles ahead. But most important of all, Rawlings refusal to accept the inevitable truth – that he no longer runs the show in Ghana is the main problem. Rawlings has not been able to wean himself form  his toxic addiction to power and peoples adoration. But every show must end. So to what extent is Rawlings a threat to democracy and our stability as a nation? Not much. At best, and on his own, Rawlings is only an irritant. Ghana  today is a far cry from 1981 when some of us were willing tools in the soiled and shaky hands of Rawlings and his tribal cabal. The Africa of today is quite different from that of 1979/1981. The global situation is radically different as well. Today, coups are frowned upon, at least by Ghanaians. I do not see a situation in which Ghanaians will hail a coup – they never did in the past, be it 24^th February 1966 or 31^st December 1981. I also do not believe that the “orange” and “velvet” revolutions of Eastern Europe can be so easily replicated in Ghana or Africa overnight. At any rate, most Ghanaians would like to give the NPP and Kuffour a chance to prove their case. However, he (Rawlings) posses a danger in one regard. Being the populist demagogue that he is, Rawlings has the tendency to hijack others peoples causes, exploit them, and rip these causes apart for his own selfish ends. Economic problems, ethnic tensions in the North, a restive youth population, Northern fears about Akan (Ashanti) domination, concerns about the rising cost of the 50^th Anniversary celebrations, you name it. These represent a potent and toxic cocktail  of grievances that Rawlings needs to serve his addiction, and to convince his foreign praise singers. Certainly, Rawlings would exploit all or any of these for his own ends, and in the process, destroy all hopes of the NDC making an electoral come-back.  Without other people and their causes, without people fighting for him, Rawlings would be a naked emperor. He has neither the courage, nor the intellectual acumen to act on his own. He relies on raw passion, and people with grievances (real or imagined), to do his dirty work for him. In the PNDC era,  dedicated soldiers like Major Courage Quarshigah (now Minister of Health), Captain Baba Awuni, and and Sgt Akata-Pore, among others who did his fighting for him. How did Rawlings reward his colleagues and friends who risked life and limb to save him during the AFRC and PNDC periods?  The graveyards are littered with the bones of people who once stood by him,  and thought he had honourable motives. It will take people of extraordinary naivety to do the same today. After all, where are all those young soldiers who fought  to bring him to power in 1979 and 1981? Most of them ended up as victims of gruesome murders and summary executions (without trial). I can name several but this is not the place. How come he has fallen out with almost all those he worked with in the AFRC and the original PNDC eras? What does that say about him? None of this is new since I have detailed them in my book – “the Struggle for Popular Power.” History, it is said, repeats itself, first as a farce, and second as a tragedy. We have had enough tragic moments in Ghana’s history. It is time to jettison the false prophet – Rawlings and his clique of nation wreckers, and begin to enjoy the uninterrupted peace and dawn broadcasts favoured by coup makers. Ghanaians want to live in peace within the Parliamentary democratic system (with all its weaknesses) we have chosen as a people.  Ghanaians want to live enjoy the global respect that Nkrumah acquired for us, and to let our children, women and youth live in peace and harmony with one another. Is that too much to ask? Conflict in the North, and other destabilising factors can only lead to the sort of confusion which demagogues like Rawlings thrive on. Ghana may not be a perfect democracy, but the alternative Rawlings offers could be worse.  But before you despair, and think that all is lost, let me say that these are comic moments. There is a saying that  every market  has a madman. So perhaps, this is Ghana’s moment. Who can begrudge us?    

This article first appeared in the Ghanaian Oracle, May 2007

Zaya Yeebo© theghanaianoracle