Exile Movements and Democratic Change in Africa

The report of a Conference organised in 2006, is entitled, “Telling Our Own Stories – African Activists in Exile” written by Zaya Yeebo, fills a missing chapter in Africa’s quest for genuine democratic rule based on Constitutionalism and democratic reform, and for a better understanding of the role of Africans in exile.

What do African political activists do in exile? This is a question I have been asked often. But the answer has always been long in coming. This time, I am trying to provide one.

Yusuf Hassan, a prominent Kenyan political activist in the 1980s, believes that by not discussing the role of exile movements in African, politics, we are leaving out a great part of the history f political struggles. He call this, the “missing chapter in the history of democratization” in Africa. By this, he means that any examination of the recent history of Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria would reveal glaringly, how the exile opposition movements are denied their place in history. It is as if the exile movements did not play a central role in the return to constitutionalism and democracy. Yet the role of these groups in the democratization process is far more remarkable than it is often recognized.

The political turmoil that engulfed some African states in the 1970s and early 1980s, invariably led to the flow of some major political groups towards western countries, principally, the UK, France, Germany, and the United States, among others. In the UK, the exile movement comprised major political groups and activists from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Cameroon, Uganda, the Gambia and Nigeria.  One common feature of these groups was their desire to continue the “struggle” for democracy back in their countries.

It has to be recognised that this was in the period of the cold war, and in no other continent was the cold war fought more bitterly than in Africa, where politics and society in general reflected the divisions created by the cold war. Politics in the 1970s and early 1980s reflected the international situation then. The flow of exiles is also symptomatic of the brain drain that has affected Africa for decades.

Countries which have experienced political instability and violence tend to have the greatest exodus of its professional and business classes. Ghana is a classic example of this phenomenon. Between 1966 and 1980, many professionals left Ghana to seek say or refugee status in other parts of the world. This exemplifies the political instability, economic chaos and general uncertainty of that period. Under the Rawlings regime, there was a deliberate attempt to drive out those who were most likely to oppose the regime or resist the political oppression and corruption of the era.

Ask any political exile and the answer you get is that they have no reason to leave for good. While in exile, he would campaign for political reform and democratic v change to create the environment for their return home. Getting exiles to return therefore requires significant political change as it happened in Ghana after the defeat of the National Democratic Congress regime. Historically, political exiles have played a significant role in democratic change in many Africa countries.

African leaders in exile

Two prominent leaders of Ghana, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah and the late Professor Abrefa Busia studied in the US and the United Kingdom, and were profoundly influenced by the debates about democracy from two differing political perspectives. Dr. Kwame Nkrumah was influenced by the emerging pan African, and his association with other political exiles like CLR James influenced his radical thinking greatly. The late Dr. Kamuzu Banda lived in Ghana and was influennced by the emerging independence movement in Ghana, and later returned to campaign for the liberation of Malawi. In the same way, Zimbabwe’s  radical leader, Robert Mugabe studied in Ghana, where he met his wife and was influenced by  the ideas of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah.

While not describing themselves as “exiles”, they were nonetheless living outside the boundaries of the countries they sought to influence. This includes Jomo Kenyatta, Obafeimi Awolowo (Nigeria) , Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana), Kamuzu Banda (Malawi), Kenneth Kaunda (Zambia) and Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe). The leadership of the African National Congress of South Africa would qualify for this categorisation.

Exiles of the 1908s 

In the early 1980s, political exiles living in the United Kingdom, led by  the late Professor Mohammed Babu, played a leading role in mobilising Diaspora based African to campaign for the end of military dictatorships ad an end to one-party rule in Africa, and for a return to multi-party democracy. London in the 1980s was the bastion of anti-dictatorship struggles with almost every African country represented in the political circuits. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the repression initiated by  Mengisthu  and his Marxist Derg regime in Ethiopia in the 1980s drove hundreds of thousands of professionals, students, businessmen and women,  and generally every Ethiopian who has the means to leave did so.

Some of these exiles who settled in London, the United States and other parts f the world,  helped to fund and organise the armed opposition that toppled Mengistu Haile Mariam in 1991.  Somali went through a similar phase spanning the time of Siad Barre to the time of his death and the breakout of the civil war.

The Ghanaian Exile Movement in the 1980s

In the 1980s, Ghanaian exile movements included the United Revolutionary Front, the Democratic Alliance of Ghana, the Ghana Democratic Movement, and several others. Most of these represented mainstream political parties like the Convention Peoples Party, and the Busia Danquah fraternity. The current leadership of he NP government includes prominent people who were then in exile. Honourable J. H. Mensah, General Hamidu, and several others top this list. Others like Major Boake Djan also played a leading role in mobilising exile movement for the restoration f democracy in Ghana.

Nowhere is the role of the exile movement more exemplified than South Africa under the white-minority apartheid regime. The fall of apartheid in South Africa was hugely influenced by the contribution of leading South African exiles from both the African national Congress (ANC) and the Pan African Congress (PAC). Leading exiles like Thabo Mbeki, now president, spent years in exile. Africans driven abroad by political repression, economic hardship and lack of academic freedom, often return to agitate for progressive political and social change. Exiles from Kenya, Ghana, Togo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Bukina Fasso, and many other countries have played and continue to play this role.

Since politics is a major cause of exile, political changes can also causes  many exiles to return home to take off from where they left. The end of the brutal Rawlings dictatorship brought many Ghanaian exiles and émigrés back home. The same situation applied in South Africa after the fall of the apartheid regime, the defeat of Daniel Arap Moi in Kenya in 2003, the fall of the Sani Abachi dictatorship in Nigeria. The end of apartheid brought South African exiles home in droves. 

African Movements in Exile 

The role of exile based organisations and intellectuals in molding internal democratic processes are as old as history itself. History is replete with examples of exiled groups and intellectuals working to promote constitution making and democratisation processes. Academics and intellectuals who had lived in the Diaspora led the independence movement in Africa.

In some countries such as Rwanda, Uganda, Namibia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Sudan, former exiles have returned to play significant roles in their own countries. The list above would indicate a certain trend in this, i.e., where the internal opposition is armed, the role of the exile movement becomes central to their own post liberation role. However, in countries such as Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana, where opposition has mostly been peaceful the outcome has been different. It has not been so easy.

Exile movements in the Diaspora do not always have the same ideological or political orientation. It is also possible for one country to have several political groups divided mainly by ideology and sometimes ethnicity (e.g., Ghana and Nigeria). The congregation of these groups in the UK, mainly London, meant that networking became inevitable, especially, when some of these groups began to realise that the governments were exploiting their own internal divisions.

Another factor, which influenced these groups, was the international solidarity from various European groups and progressive individuals, especially in the UK. For example the Committee for the release of Political Prisoners in Kenya was formed to campaign for the release of  Ngugi W’athiongo, and for greater freedom against what was then characterised as “the Arap Moi dictatorship”. This group campaigned against the Moi dictatorship and for the release of political prisoners in Kenya.

It is not an exaggeration to state that at some point, these groups became the only viable platforms for campaigning against one party dictatorship and for constitutional reform in some African countries. Kenya’s Mwakenya and the Nigerian democratic movement under the Abacha dictatorship are examples.   For example, in the 1980s, the Rawlings regime went through a period of severe political repression characterised by executions, detentions of opponents without trial, and general intimidation of the population. The only avenue to express dissent and to campaign for a return to democratic rule was through the opposition movements based in London, namely the left wing United Revolutionary Front (URF) and the right wing Campaign for Democracy in Ghana.

Ugandans, Cameroonians, Gambians, Sudanese, Ethiopians, etc. also did the same for their cause in London. These groups published propaganda materials, contributed cash and in some few cases, arm to their groups at home. They also linked up with human rights groups in Europe such as Africa Watch, the Africa Research & Information Bureau (ARIB), Amnesty International to campaign for the release of political prisoners.

Undoubtedly, the activities of these organisations and individuals contributed greatly to changing perceptions about the nature of these regimes and bolstered the activities of opposition groups in the home country.  The talk of the second liberation, third revolution, which would sweep away one-party dictatorships and their military counterparts, were born of this exile revolution.

It is this aspect of African history, and contribution to democracy that has yet to be debated, documented and studied. The exile movement remains in the UK, but its relevance is waning as most African governments take the constitutional road to democracy. This project seeks to discuss the role of exile movements in the democratisation process, and provide an avenue to examine the continuing role of these movements in the democratisation process.

While exile groups may contribute to Constitutionalism and the democratic process, they may also present some moral dilemmas. There is always a political contestation between exile groups based in the Diaspora and internal opposition groups. The main question for this being whether these groups really represent the national interest  (different contestations of the national interests based on class, ideology and the programme of a political movement).

The Centre for Community Development Initiative’s (www.ccdi.org.uk) “Exiles and Democratisation” Project has been looking at the role of these movements in African politics. Funded by the Ford Foundation (www.fodrfoundation.org), the project works with exile based political groups and individuals to examine in detail, the role that these movements have played and continued to play in African politics. The report of a Conference organised in 2006, is entitled, “Telling Our Own Stories – African Activists in Exile”. This book fills a missing chapter in Africa’s quest for genuine democratic rule based on Constitutionalism and democratic reform, and for a better understanding of the role of Africans in exile.

© Zaya Yeebo, updated, August 2008

Ghana: Northern youth must reject the culture of violence.

Once again, Ghana is waking up to some painful realities: it cannot claim to be the sole island of peace and stability; that that politics in the north is inter-twinned with the numerous chieftaincy disputes that have lingered for years. In this case, I use ‘the North’ broadly to cover all the three regions – Upper East, Upper West and Northern regions. I am also aware that the majority of people in the North, like the rest of Ghana, would rather live in peace, regardless of political allegiances, and the choices that elections present. The current mayhem in some parts of the northern region, and in Bawku, will make the north a laughing stock in Ghana and Africa. It is not too late to stop this spiral of unnecessary and unwanted conflict.

What is driving this mayhem? The temptation is to blame the leadership of the two main protagonists involved in the violence. There is no doubt that they bear some responsibility for this. Dr. Edward Nasigre Mahama, Presidential aspirant of the Peoples National Convention (PNC) was more forthright and even brave. He was quoted as saying: “I visited the sites where both NDC and NPP property, as well as stores of some innocent traders had been destroyed and I condemn the two political parties NPP and NDC for being responsible for the destruction,” he emphasized. He also described some political groups as “violent parties.”

The Regent of Gulkpegu Alhaji Abdulai Ziblim, was quoted by the Ghana News Agency (GNA) as saying that “the recent disturbances in the Tamale Metropolis and the Gushiegu District were not entirely political.”  Alhaji Ziblim went even further to say that “the recent disturbances were just like the events leading to the 2004 general election, in which some people openly wielded arms and the recent registration exercise, which witnessed gun-shots at certain polling stations.” Candidly, he added: “In all these instances, nobody has been arrested and this gives the impression that some people are above the law because the police seem to be helpless in the circumstances” (Sept 03, GNA)

The poor security in the Northern region was confirmed by the Metropolitan Chief Executive of Tamale, Mr. Mohammed Amin Adam, warned: “I could not guarantee a peaceful election in Tamale and therefore the need for the Regional Security Council to come in with all the force behind them to ensure that everybody is able to exercise his or her political right to ensure that Tamale one again does not become a flashpoint” was apramount.

In an article I wrote earlier that year, I cautioned the youth of the North, and followers of some political leaders as they could be used as tools for the political ambitions of some people who have lost political power in Ghana, and would do anything to regain it – ‘by any means necessary.’ Of course, others would do anything to retain the power they have gained so far. It appears that such caution has been thrown to the wind. Once again, the North has become the centrepoint for proxy wars and ambitions of certain individuals who think they have a God-given right to leadership by all means and at all costs. Is this unavoidable, and is there any justification for this?

The current problems in Tamale and Gushiegu, follows predictable patterns as there exists some chieftaincy disputes in the area. The unresolved difficulties following the assassination of the late Ya Na, and the fact that the community is divided along party lines makes this easier. Far away from Tamale, the Bawku crisis remains unresolved. This problem  has its ethnic and chieftaincy origins, but always expressed along party lines – it used to be Busia/Danquah versus the CPP, but now it is now likely to be NDC versus NPP. There are other similar conflicts around chieftaincy in the Wa area as well. This is quite worrying. The cheerleaders of this violence are never the victims. The actions of some political leaders in recent Ghanaian history killed the very notion of respect for life, and fertilised the soil with bile and blood, out of which now festers ethnic and religious fanaticism. These vain and ignorant crusaders will never take up arms themselves, especially, now that people are waking up to what some of these forces really represent. That is why the North remains vulnerable to proxy wars and conflict.

The North is the most underdeveloped part of Ghana, a fact recognised by most Ghanaians and international organisations. Yet, it also remains the scene of intractable conflict. Poverty and conflict usually go hand in hand. Now, we have added another dimension: elections as a way of settling political, ethnic and chieftaincy disputes. But how can the north rise from the depths of underdevelopment if the people who can lead this fight against poverty – youth, women, civil society, chiefs’, etc, are at each others throats. Who benefits from this cycle of violence?

The NDC ruled Ghana for over 20 uninterrupted years, while the NPP has been in power for almost eight years. The fact that the people of the north have not seen any redemption is a matter of objective analysis, and not a partisan issue. That the North still suffers from benign neglect is n undisputable fact. For the youth to start dividing themselves along NPP/NDC/CPP lines are worrying. The question the youth should be asking themselves is which of these parties can bring development and relief to the poverty stricken citizens of the North?  Which of the major two parties has the political will, capability and the interest to address the marginalisation which the north suffers from after December 2008?

When this election is over and the politicians have attained the ultimate prize, Northern youth will go back to their communities, live and work together. So why go on a burning and killing spree for the benefit of others? Youthful enthusiasm, and the perceived interests of the parties’ at elections could be some of the reasons, but I go for the other reason for this behaviour, that there are some dark forces intent on making the North look like a violent backyard, something they cannot do in their own constituencies’. Of course, the 2008 elections is quite crucial, with the discovery of oil, and all the wealth that comes along with being a Minister of State, a party apparatchik, or even a Member of Parliament. Where does the interest of the ordinary citizen, the mmoborowas (downtrodden masses) of the North feature in this scenario?

The current problems in the North are also about the lack of leadership in the three regions. We have seen the frenzy surround the choice of “running mates”. It is almost becoming like a fashion accessory. If you want northerners to vote for you, chose a Northerner as a running mate. But which of the choice names that have emerged have shown exemplary leadership in the North? History repeats itself, but never exactly in the same fashion.  History can also provide lessons for the future. History tells us that the North suffers from benign neglect, and has done so under the two parties’ whose supporters are involved in the current conflict.  It also tells us that northern leaders are no different from those from other parts of Ghana. The North is poor, the people wallow in abject poverty, and children do not go to school, while northern women still suffer from backward traditional practices. This is likely to remain the case even after the December 2008 elections, no matter who wins. Where are the voices of reason? What does history tell us about politicians and their promises to help lift the North from poverty and deprivation?

Northern leaders, whoever they are, should accept some responsibility for the current state of affairs. They are responsible for failing to understand the challenges, or the consequences of enlightened and progressive politics in the era of globalisation that the state cannot be expected to redeem our people, especially one led by people who have to reason to care. The Northern elite (me included) seem incapable of responding with humanity when confronted with genuine challenges, glaring injustice, and clear political choices. Some of us are even complicit in the oppression of our people. What is clear is, ever since independence, Northerners  have become a backyard for proxy violent party political struggles. First between ‘matemeho’ (Busia/Danquah) and the CPP during the independence struggles. Then in the Unigov years, between pro-and anti-UNIGOV supporters. The story goes on.

My advice to fellow Northerners is to reject the politics of violence and hate, to reject those leaders who seek to turn the North into a conflict zone in order  to feather their political nests.  The Northern leadership should speak with one voice against violence, and against those forces that are fanning these proxy wars in the three regions. For the meantime, I expect the two running mates of the NDC and the NPP to come out strongly against the use of violent political actions, and the suffering that it brings to ordinary people. This is about humanity and decent behaviours, not about party politics. Nationally, the heated, sometimes, abusive language of some leaders sitting in the comfort of their state sponsored homes in Accra, while inciting violence in the ‘zongos’ should be rejected by northerners’, by the Imams, chiefs, and youth leaders. If political leaders resort to abuse instead of informed, civil debate, the youth will follow suit.

History has shown that some of these so-called leaders actually thrive and blossom in times of mayhem and violence, when law and order breaks down. Some of them seek the complete destruction of the modern state, that way, and they can justify their violent personal and political behaviour. Such elements are beginning to peddle once more, ideas that were dismissed as peripheral and unacceptable in any decent society. But why use the North? Their houses never get burnt down, they are not prevented form undertaking economic activities to sustain their livelihoods, their children are not prevented from going to school, so what do they care? Such people should be asked to foment conflict and mayhem in their own backyard, and leave the suffering innocent people of the north alone. The northern political leaders who belong to the “parties of violence” should be ashamed of themselves in equal measure.

Northern leaders, especially, leaders of political party representatives in the North should begin to speak with one voice, and for the nation as a whole to say enough is enough. We need a peaceful election, but cannot have one if the leaders of political parties encourage young people to resort to mindless violence about nothing. If the national leadership fails to achieve this, then the whole question of national unity is in peril. As for the northern leaders, I can only say this: If you cannot bring a halt to the emerging violence, then you lose your raison d’être to aspire to national office and leadership. The time for unity is now; ordinary people in the North have suffered for far too long. Let us call a halt to these proxy wars.

© Zaya Yeebo / September 2008

Ghan’s Presidential race: Why I fear Nana Akuffo Addo is Miles Ahead.

In an election year, there will be many of such research and pools. But how can they be trusted? Without venturing, I will dare make many predictions. Recently, when I told a close friend that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo will win the Presidential elections and succeed Agyekum Kufour, his response was immediate. “No, they (NPP) cannot win this time.”

“Why”, I asked sounding perplexed. His answer was to the point. “There is too much poverty”. He could have said more, but he did not. No one can argue against the fact that for the past eight years, poverty has been on the increase, while the North-South divide is getting  dangerously wide. Yes, there is too much poverty, but unlike my friend, how much of that can be attributed solely to the NPP and Kufour?

For more than 20 years, Rawlings ruled Ghana first under the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) and later under the NDC (National Democratic Congress) administrations. So if Ghana is poor, and Ghanaians cannot make ends meet – which is a fact, who should be held responsible? The Committee for Joint Action (CJA) will blame the NPP. Indeed, on some occasions, Rawlings has been seen to join CJA rallies, giving credence this antiquated lie.

For me, Rawlings, more than Kufour should be held responsible for the current poor state of our infrastructure and welfare services. Water shortages, load shedding, poor primary schools, child poverty, you name it. If it is a matter of apportioning blame, then he (Rawlings) should shoulder a greater proportion of this, after all, he was in charge for over 20 years. Why Ghanaian voters will punish Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo for something that is not his making beats my mind? But some people seem to think that this is what will happen. Ghanaian voters are quite sophisticated, and can distinguish political gerrymandering for truth, I think so.

Incumbency and Diaspora connections are also important factors in this selection. Undoubtedly, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo will benefit from his government’s incumbency. While the NPP rules Ghana, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo will have advantages which the other Presidential aspirants may not have. Other parties in Africa have always benefitted from incumbency, but Sierra Leone and Kenya demonstrates that sometimes, a party needs more than incumbency to win an election. But it is worth exploring.

Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has been to Guinea, Nigeria, and will soon be on his way to other countries with huge Ghanaian Diaspora communities. Some of this can be attributed to the fact that the NPP is still in charge. But to be frank, the NPP has always had a huge Diaspora following in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands and so on. The Diaspora has always been a source of funding for the NPP. The party will exploit these connections to raise huge amounts of money for the Akuffo Addo campaign.

The NDC has also benefitted from such Diaspora links, although limited to the personality of Rawlings. Rawlings could rely on a few Diaspora Ghanaians and African-Americans in the US because he built connections with the African-American community mainly through the Louis Farrakhan networks while he was in office. Recently, the CPP presidential candidate, Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom, was in London on fundraising and meet the community tour. His address to party loyalists in north London was impressive, candid and courageous. He demonstrated that the CPP’s revival was not a figment of our imagination, and for party loyalists like me, it was encouraging.

The strength of the various parties contending for power is another. The NPP, NDC, CPP and PNC are the main parliamentary parties. Of all these parties, the NPP remains the one with huge potential to raise money – by any means necessary. The NDC has advantages which it has squandered and continues to squander due to huge personal egos and power hungry individuals who behave as though Ghana will sink without their meddling.

The continuing attention lavished on Rawlings – who is not a Presidential candidate is disadvantageous to the Professor John Evans Atta-Mills campaign. In my view, and it is one which I will hold with deep religious conviction, the main obstacle between Professor Mills and state power is neither Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom nor Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, but Rawlings.  It also appears that no one in the NDC has the courage and conviction to ask Rawlings to do the decent thing for the sake of the party. For Professor Mills to run a clean and honest campaign, Rawlings and the undemocratic tendency in the NDC must take a back seat and allow the Professor to represent their party (the  NDC).  Until then, the Professor has a huge battle.

How about the others? The CPP is beginning to show some revival under the leadership of Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom.  Since he won the support of the CPP congress, Dr. Ndoum has taken up the challenge with confidence and zeal. Those of us who doubted his commitment to the Nkrumaist agenda will now have to revise our thoughts and support Dr. Ndoum. He appears to be a fighter, a man of unadulterated zeal and convictions. However, the CPP will need more than this for Dr. Ndoum to get the keys to the castle of Flag Staff House.  There are some who think Kwesi Nduom might even lead the CPP to victory. My projection is that the CPP will make serious parliamentary gains. Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom might hold the cards if the Presidential race goes for a second run. Nevertheless, Kwesi Ndoum will take the party far beyond what others have done in the last two elections.

In assessing the chances of the parties and their candidates, it is becoming clear to me that the Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo campaign is perhaps the most professional, up to date and formidable machinery.  It is obvious that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is exploiting his skills as a human rights lawyer and campaigner to good use. The NPP is not known for its activism, but Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is. This shows that there is a distinction between President Kufour and Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.

He is pragmatic about regional and pan African politics, so far, he seems to be the only one articulating the ECOWAS agenda. He has already broken his party’s mould by talking about pan Africanism, while he was in Guinea (Conakry), even paying tribute to Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. Whether this is an opportunities election ploy or not, we wait to see. Basically, he is stealing the clothes of the CPP. That worries me as a CPP member because I have always regarded that terrain as a no go area for the NPP. The CPP will need to catch up. Paa Kwesi Ndoum also articulates a progressive regional and Pan African policy, supported by Kwame Nkrumah’s daughter.

On the economic front, I will need to check party manifestoes before passing judgement. My guess at this stage is that there will be little difference between them. The NPP will maintain its liberal economic philosophy, with greater emphasis on the market, and probably continue the NDC policy of selling the nations assets to the highest foreign bidder. It will do what the IMF and World Bank instructs it to do, although with more caution than Rawlings and his PNDC/NDC did with the help of Dr. Kwesi Botchway, and foreign predators.

Here, only the CPP has the blueprint for a national economic revival of the ailing neo-colonial economy. It is refreshing to listen to Dr. Paa Kwesi Ndoum honestly articulating a progressive economic policy based on self reliance. It seems the CPP will have some welfare type policies to appeal to its grassroots but the leadership is certainly not a socialist ideology wielding type. As for the NDC, the way the Rawlings regime handed Ghana’s economy to market forces, selling anything of value, and closing down schools and welfare centres, making civil servants unemployed and so point to the sort of recklessness which Ghanaian can do without. I do not think they are better at managing the neo-colonial economy than the NPP, probably worse. Neither the NDC nor NPP can match the CPP on this score.

I am worried at my own conclusions, for, if my predictions are right, Ghana will be ruled for another 4 years by the NPP, but this time with Nana Akuffo Addo as President. It will be crowning moment for the NPP, but sad for Nkrumaists like me since I would like to see the back of the NPP. Of course, I would like to see the CPP ruling Ghana again, but that is a forlorn hope, and might not happen. Something tells me that my wishes will not come through this time. I have to get used to another dose of NPP medicine. If this happens, the only real loser will be Professor Atta Mills, who would have lost his last chance of becoming President. But it is too early for such predictions, there will be several months of campaigning and mudslinging. Even my village bakologo (frafra word for soothsayer) is cautious on this. He is playing a waiting game, so am I?

Zaya Yeebo

 Ghana at Criossroads: Time for change

For the first time in Ghana’s post independence history, the choice of a president remains a very tight race. For a start, there is an impressive array of presidential aspirants, most of whom, one can say with satisfaction, have the right credentials to run Ghana. That makes it a very tight race. But there is more to this election than most.

In 2000, the election was about whether the Rawlings founded NDC (National Democratic Congress) could be trusted to take Ghana forward without a major political and social conflict. It can be said with certainty that in 2000, there were many political interests in Ghana who thought that another NDC victory would spell a disaster for the country. Rawlings had been in power for almost twenty years in various guises.

While many Ghanaians can point to some positive things about this era, there is an equal number who can list lots of negatives about the period. Some of the actions of the NDC leadership at the time helped to smoulder open democracy, and fertilised the soil with bile and blood, out of which grew ineptitude, incompetence and tribal fanaticism of the worst kind. In spite of this, the local and foreign cheerleaders of the Rawlings (not the NDC), believed that their hero’s mission of destroying a buoyant democracy had not been accomplished, and that those who opposed him were a treacherous distraction. Ghanaians knew better, and President Kufour benefitted from this groundswell of anti-NDC hysteria.

The 2008 election is quite different. Form many this is perhaps the most important election which will define the future of Ghana. The discovery of oil is one factor. Oil is always a source of hope and fear. In some countries, it ahs made the politicians, and their foreign harbingers quite fabulously rich, while impoverishing the many, especially those on whose soil the oil is found. Mention oil, the mouths of politicians and business (both local and foreign – begin to salivate with murderous glee. To that extent, the major political parties – the NDC, the NPP (New Patriotic Party), the PNC (Peoples National Convention)  and the CPP (Convention Peoples Party) also have their eyes on the oil prize.

But there is a catch. While Ghana is being praised by many for being able to hold a stable country, there are worrying signs of fracture and destabilisation. There is a feeling that in spite of what the NPP might have achieved; there are worrying signs of national decay, some of which can be traced to the days of the NDC. Poverty is on the rise. When poverty reaches the levels that it has in Ghana, even the cleverest of political economists are hard put to know what to do. Chieftaincy related conflict is increasing daily, while cocaine promises to blight the country, as it is seen as a major transit point. What if Ghanaian youth become users of cocaine? Related to this is youth unemployment and lack of opportunities for upward progression. Corruption remains a serious issue, even though I would not go as afar as suggest that it is the cause of poverty and underdevelopment as some people like to exaggerate. These are issues which the next President has to address as a matter of urgency.    

What is crucial  is whether the next leader has  the right strategic approach and support from his own party to address these issues. The first President, Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah had the undoubted commitment to address issues of development, poverty and change. But some would argue that he lacked the rights lieutenants to help him achieve his socialist goals. The NPP – both past and present, does not have such problems. There seems to be ideological unity of purpose, even though there may be disagreements in terms of strategy.  The CPP seems to be grappling with these in manner that is quite distasteful, and can only lead to paralysis. The constant desire to deny the party any ideological affinity is worrying one.

As for the NDC, it is caught up in contradictions of its birth. As  party, it has the signs of  strong leadership, but not a democratic one. It seems that having helped to found the party, Rawlings would like to treat the party as a personal fiefdom, sometimes, treating the party’s presidential candidate like a tiresome priest. Professor Mills is a man of honour. He has the credentials to lead the country, but his problems do not stem from Nana Akufo Addo’s (the NPP candidate) well oiled campaign machinery, but from his own party. Some ex-leaders have developed a ruthless delusional fanaticism of a man who is afraid of the dark, and has to be in the limelight  day and night. Any attempt to shove them to the back is met with the response of a wounded tiger.  That is Mills Achilles heel. If the NDC does not control the intemperate behaviour of its leader, it can send the party into a tailspin. If he (Mills) can overcome that, then his chances of gaining the keys to the new Presidential lodge would be hugely improved.

Come to the NPP. They have a presidential candidate with an impressive history of political activism No one can deny that Nana Akuffo Addo has a long history of campaigning for democracy in Ghana. But like the CPP, the NPP can also be expected to see cracks in the party because it has its own  contradictions. They may want to deny it, but the problems stems from the two traditions of the party. The Busia/Danquah fraternities, or to put it crudely, the Ashanti-Akim factions of the party. For the sake of unity, and capturing the prize, both tendencies will sacrifice personal interest for their leader, so this does not constitute a major problem yet. .

No one knows how the coming elections will play out. I think the CPP can only out for increased parliamentary seats, for me that will be enough. The real contest is between Professor Arthur Mills and Nana Akuffo Addo, the two titans. The parties should use the campaign period to highlight issues of national nature, explain how they intend to deal with intractable conflicts (e.g. Bawku), but most important of all, how they intend to address poverty from a radical and structural angle.

In the past, some of our leaders have failed to understand the challenges that confront them, or the consequences of their actions. Some have seemed incapable of responding with clarity when confronted with genuine injustices, giving the impression that they are complicit in the oppression of the majority of Ghanaians. 2008 presents us with a chances to change all that. Can we seize the moment?

(c) Zaya yeebo

August 200

Exiles Movements and Democratic Change in Africa

What do African political activitis do in exile? This is a question i have been asked often. But the answer has always been long in coming. This time, i am trying to provide one.

Yusuf Hassan, a prominent Kenyan political activist in the 1980s, believes that by not discussing the role of exile movements in African, politics, we are leaving out a great part of the history f political struggles. He call this, the “missing chapter in the history of democratisation” in Africa. By this, he means that any examination of the recent history of Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria would reveal glaringly, how the exile opposition movements are denied their place in history. It is as if the exile movements did not play a central role in the return to constitutionalism and democracy. Yet the role of these groups in the democratisation process is far more remarkable than it is often recognised.

The political turmoil that engulfed some African states in the 1970s and early 1980s, invariably led to the flow of some major political groups towards western countries, principally, the UK, France, Germany, and the United States, among others. In the UK, the exile movement comprised major political groups and activists from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Cameroon, Uganda, the Gambia and Nigeria.  One common feature of these groups was their desire to continue the “struggle” for democracy back in their countries.

It has to be recognised that this was in the period of the cold war, and in no other continent was the cold war fought more bitterly than in Africa, where politics and society in general reflected the divisions created by the cold war. Politics in the 1970s and early 1980s reflected the international situation then. The flow of exiles is also symptomatic of the brain drain that has affected Africa for decades.

Countries which have experienced political instability and violence tend to have the greatest exodus of its professional and business classes. Ghana is a classic example of this phenomenon. Between 1966 and 1980, many professionals left Ghana to seek say or refugee status in other parts of the world. This exemplifies the political instability, economic chaos and general uncertainty of that period. Under the Rawlings regime, there was a deliberate attempt to drive out those who were most likely to oppose the regime or resist the political oppression and corruption of the era.

Ask any political exile and the answer you get is that they have no reason to leave for good. While in exile, he would campaign for political reform and democratic v change to create the environment for their return home. Getting exiles to return therefore requires significant political change as it happened in Ghana after the defeat of the National Democratic Congress regime. Historically, political exiles have played a significant role in democratic change in many Africa countries.

Two prominent leaders of Ghana, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah and the late Professor Abrefa Busia studied in the US and the United Kingdom, and were profoundly influenced by the debates about democracy from two differing political perspectives. Dr. Kwaem Nkrumah was influenced by the emerging pan African, and his association with other political exiles like RLC James influenced his radical thinking greatly. The late Dr. Kamuzu Banda lived in Ghana and was influennced by the emerging independence movement in Ghana, and later returned to campaign for the liberation of Malawi. In the same way, Zimbabwe’s  radical leader, Robert Mugabe studied in Ghana, where he met his wife and was influenced by  the ideas of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah.

While not describing themselves as “exiles”, they were nonetheless living outside the boundaries of the countries they sought to influence. This includes Jomo Kenyatta, Obafeimi Awolowo, Kwame Nkrumah, Kamuzu Banda, Kenneth Kaunda and Robert Mugabe. The leadership of the African National Congress of South Africa would qualify for this categorisation.

In the early 1980s, political exiles living in the United Kingdom, led by  the late Professor Mohammed Babu, played a leading role in mobilising Diaspora based African to campaign for the end of military dictatorships ad an end to one-party rule in Africa, and for a return to multi-party democracy. London in the 1980s was the bastion of anti-dictatorship struggles with almost every African country represented in the political circuits. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the repression initiated by  Mengisthu  and his Marxist Derg regime in Ethiopia in the 1980s drove hundreds of thousands of professionals, students, businessmen and women,  and generally every Ethiopian who has the means t lave did so. Some of these exiles who settled in London, the United States and other parts f the world,  helped to fund and organise the armed opposition that toppled Mengistu Haile Mariam in 1991.  Somali went through a similar phase spanning the time of Siad Barre to the time of his death and the breakout of the civil war.

In the 1980s, Ghanaian exile movements included the United Revolutionary Front, the Democratic Alliance of Ghana, the Ghana Democratic Movement, and several others. Most of these represented mainstream political parties like the Convention Peoples Party, and the Busia Danquah fraternity. The current leadership of he NP government includes prominent people who were then in exile. Honourable J. H. Mensah, General Hamidu, and several others top this list. Others like Major Boake Djan also played a leading role in mobilising exile movement for the restoration f democracy in Ghana.

Nowhere is the role of the exile movement more exemplified than South Africa under the white-minority apartheid regime. The fall of apartheid in South Africa was hugely influenced by the contribution of leading South African exiles from both the African national Congress (ANC) and the Pan African Congress (PAC). Leading exiles like Thabo Mbeki, now president, spent years in exile. Africans driven abroad by political repression, economic hardship and lack of academic freedom, often return to agitate for progressive political and social change. Exiles from Kenya, Ghana, Togo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Bukina Fasso, and many other countries have played and continue to play this role.

Since politics is a major cause of exile, political changes can also causes  many exiles to return home to take off from where they left. The end of the brutal Rawlings dictatorship brought many Ghanaian exiles and émigrés back home. The same situation applied in South Africa after the fall of the apartheid regime, the defeat of Daniel Arap Moi in Kenya in 2003, the fall of the Sani Abachi dictatorship in Nigeria. The end of apartheid brought South African exiles home in droves. 

The role of exile based organisations and intellectuals in moulding internal democratic processes are as old as history itself. History is replete with examples of exiled groups and intellectuals working to promote constitution making and democratisation processes. Academics and intellectuals who had lived in the Diaspora led the independence movement in Africa.

In some countries such as Rwanda, Uganda, Namibia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Sudan, former exiles have returned to play significant roles in their own countries. The list above would indicate a certain trend in this, i.e., where the internal opposition is armed, the role of the exile movement becomes central to their own post liberation role. However, in countries such as Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana, where opposition has mostly been peaceful the outcome has been different. It has not been so easy.

Exile movements in the Diaspora do not always have the same ideological or political orientation. It is also possible for one country to have several political groups divided mainly by ideology and sometimes ethnicity (e.g., Ghana and Nigeria). The congregation of these groups in the UK, mainly London, meant that networking became inevitable, especially, when some of these groups began to realise that the governments were exploiting their own internal divisions.

Another factor, which influenced these groups, was the international solidarity from various European groups and progressive individuals, especially in the UK. For example the Committee for the release of Political Prisoners in Kenya was  formed to campaign for the release of  Ngugi W’athiongo, and for greater freedom against what was then characterised as “the Arap Moi dictatorship”. This group campaigned against the Moi dictatorship and for the release of political prisoners in Kenya.

It is not an exaggeration to state that at some point, these groups became the only viable platforms for campaigning against one party dictatorships and for constitutional reform in some African countries. Kenya’s Mwakenya and the Nigerian democratic movement under the Abacha dictatorship are examples.   For example, in the 1980s, the Rawlings regime went through a period of severe political repression characterised by executions, detentions of opponents without trial, and general intimidation of the population. The only avenue to express dissent and to campaign for a return to democratic rule was through the opposition movements based in London, namely the left wing United Revolutionary Front (URF) and the right wing Campaign for Democracy in Ghana.

Ugandans, Cameroonians, Gambians, Sudanese, Ethiopians, etc. also did the same for their cause in London. These groups published propaganda materials, contributed cash and in some few cases, arm to their groups at home. They also linked up with human rights groups in Europe such as Africa Watch, the Africa Research & Information Bureau (ARIB), Amnesty International to campaign for the release of political prisoners.

Undoubtedly, the activities of these organisations and individuals contributed greatly to changing perceptions about the nature of these regimes and bolstered the activities of opposition groups in the home country.  The talk of the second liberation, third revolution, which would sweep away one-party dictatorships and their military counterparts, were born of this exile revolution.

It is this aspect of African history, and contribution to democracy that has yet to be debated, documented and studied. The exile movement remains in the UK, but its relevance is waning as most African governments take the constitutional road to democracy. This project seeks to discuss the role of exile movements in the democratisation process, and provide an avenue to examine the continuing role of these movements in the democratisation process.

While exile groups may contribute to Constitutionalism and the democratic process, they may also present some moral dilemmas. There is always a political contestation between exile groups based in the Diaspora and internal opposition groups. The main question for this being whether these groups really represent the national interest  (different contestations of the national interests based on class, ideology and the programme of a political movement).

The Centre for Community Development Initiative’s “Exiles and Democratisation” Project has been looking at the role of these movements in African politics. Funded by the Ford Foundation (www.fodrfoundation.org), the project works with exile based political groups and individuals to examine in detail, the role that these movements have played and continued to play in African politics. The report of a worskop orgnaised in 2006, is entitled, “Telling Our Own Stories – African Activitis in Exile”. This book fills a missing chapter in Africa’s quest for genuine democratic rule based on Constitutionalism and democratic reform, and for a beter understnading of the role of Africans in exile.

© Zaya Yeebo

April 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

Why I fear Nana Akuffo Addo will win the elections.

A recent research by an American firm, claims that the MP for Akim Abuakwa South, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, presidential candidate of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) “has been tipped to win the December election.” A similar research by groups fronting for the Convention Peoples Party (CPP) also claims that the CPP will “overtake the NDC.”

In an election year, there will be many of such research and pools. But how can they be trusted? Without venturing, I will dare make many predictions. Recently, when I told a close friend that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo will win the Presidential elections and succeed Agyekum Kufour, his response was immediate. “No, they (NPP) cannot win this time.”

“Why”, I asked sounding perplexed. His answer was to the point. “There is too much poverty”. He could have said more, but he did not. No one can argue against the fact that for the past eight years, poverty has been on the increase, while the North-South divide is getting  dangerously wide. Yes, there is too much poverty, but unlike my friend, how much of that can be attributed solely to the NPP and Kufour?

For more than 20 years, Rawlings ruled Ghana first under the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) and later under the NDC (National Democratic Congress) administrations. So if Ghana is poor, and Ghanaians cannot make ends meet – which is a fact, who should be held responsible? The Committee for Joint Action (CJA) will blame the NPP. Indeed, on some occasions, Rawlings has been seen to join CJA rallies, giving credence this antiquated lie.

For me, Rawlings, more than Kufour should be held responsible for the current poor state of our infrastructure and welfare services. Water shortages, load shedding, poor primary schools, child poverty, you name it. If it is a matter of apportioning blame, then he (Rawlings) should shoulder a greater proportion of this, after all, he was in charge for over 20 years. Why Ghanaian voters will punish Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo for something that is not his making beats my mind? But some people seem to think that this is what will happen. Ghanaian voters are quite sophisticated, and can distinguish political gerrymandering for truth, I think so.

Incumbency and Diaspora connections are also important factors in this selection. Undoubtedly, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo will benefit from his government’s incumbency. While the NPP rules Ghana, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo will have advantages which the other Presidential aspirants may not have. Other parties in Africa have always benefitted from incumbency, but Sierra Leone and Kenya demonstrates that sometimes, a party needs more than incumbency to win an election. But it is worth exploring.

Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has been to Guinea, Nigeria, and will soon be on his way to other countries with huge Ghanaian Diaspora communities. Some of this can be attributed to the fact that the NPP is still in charge. But to be frank, the NPP has always had a huge Diaspora following in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands and so on. The Diaspora has always been a source of funding for the NPP. The party will exploit these connections to raise huge amounts of money for the Akuffo Addo campaign.

The NDC has also benefitted from such Diaspora links, although limited to the personality of Rawlings. Rawlings could rely on a few Diaspora Ghanaians and African-Americans in the US because he built connections with the African-American community mainly through the Louis Farrakhan networks while he was in office. Recently, the CPP presidential candidate, Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom, was in London on fundraising and meet the community tour. His address to party loyalists in north London was impressive, candid and courageous. He demonstrated that the CPP’s revival was not a figment of our imagination, and for party loyalists like me, it was encouraging.

The strength of the various parties contending for power is another. The NPP, NDC, CPP and PNC are the main parliamentary parties. Of all these parties, the NPP remains the one with huge potential to raise money – by any means necessary. The NDC has advantages which it has squandered and continues to squander due to huge personal egos and power hungry individuals who behave as though Ghana will sink without their meddling.

The continuing attention lavished on Rawlings – who is not a Presidential candidate is disadvantageous to the Professor John Evans Atta-Mills campaign. In my view, and it is one which I will hold with deep religious conviction, the main obstacle between Professor Mills and state power is neither Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom nor Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, but Rawlings.  It also appears that no one in the NDC has the courage and conviction to ask Rawlings to do the decent thing for the sake of the party. For Professor Mills to run a clean and honest campaign, Rawlings and the undemocratic tendency in the NDC must take a back seat and allow the Professor to represent their party (the  NDC).  Until then, the Professor has a huge battle.

How about the others? The CPP is beginning to show some revival under the leadership of Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom.  Since he won the support of the CPP congress, Dr. Ndoum has taken up the challenge with confidence and zeal. Those of us who doubted his commitment to the Nkrumaist agenda will now have to revise our thoughts and support Dr. Ndoum. He appears to be a fighter, a man of unadulterated zeal and convictions. However, the CPP will need more than this for Dr. Ndoum to get the keys to the castle of Flag Staff House.  There are some who think Kwesi Nduom might even lead the CPP to victory. My projection is that the CPP will make serious parliamentary gains. Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom might hold the cards if the Presidential race goes for a second run. Nevertheless, Kwesi Ndoum will take the party far beyond what others have done in the last two elections.

In assessing the chances of the parties and their candidates, it is becoming clear to me that the Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo campaign is perhaps the most professional, up to date and formidable machinery.  It is obvious that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is exploiting his skills as a human rights lawyer and campaigner to good use. The NPP is not known for its activism, but Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo is. This shows that there is a distinction between President Kufour and Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.

He is pragmatic about regional and pan African politics, so far, he seems to be the only one articulating the ECOWAS agenda. He has already broken his party’s mould by talking about pan Africanism, while he was in Guinea (Conakry), even paying tribute to Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. Whether this is an opportunities election ploy or not, we wait to see. Basically, he is stealing the clothes of the CPP. That worries me as a CPP member because I have always regarded that terrain as a no go area for the NPP. The CPP will need to catch up. Paa Kwesi Ndoum also articulates a progressive regional and Pan African policy, supported by Kwame Nkrumah’s daughter.

On the economic front, I will need to check party manifestoes before passing judgement. My guess at this stage is that there will be little difference between them. The NPP will maintain its liberal economic philosophy, with greater emphasis on the market, and probably continue the NDC policy of selling the nations assets to the highest foreign bidder. It will do what the IMF and World Bank instructs it to do, although with more caution than Rawlings and his PNDC/NDC did with the help of Dr. Kwesi Botchway, and foreign predators.

Here, only the CPP has the blueprint for a national economic revival of the ailing neo-colonial economy. It is refreshing to listen to Dr. Paa Kwesi Ndoum honestly articulating a progressive economic policy based on self reliance. It seems the CPP will have some welfare type policies to appeal to its grassroots but the leadership is certainly not a socialist ideology wielding type. As for the NDC, the way the Rawlings regime handed Ghana’s economy to market forces, selling anything of value, and closing down schools and welfare centres, making civil servants unemployed and so point to the sort of recklessness which Ghanaian can do without. I do not think they are better at managing the neo-colonial economy than the NPP, probably worse. Neither the NDC nor NPP can match the CPP on this score.

I am worried at my own conclusions, for, if my predictions are right, Ghana will be ruled for another 4 years by the NPP, but this time with Nana Akuffo Addo as President. It will be crowning moment for the NPP, but sad for Nkrumaists like me since I would like to see the back of the NPP. Of course, I would like to see the CPP ruling Ghana again, but that is a forlorn hope, and might not happen. Something tells me that my wishes will not come through this time. I have to get used to another dose of NPP medicine. If this happens, the only real loser will be Professor Atta Mills, who would have lost his last chance of becoming President. But it is too early for such predictions, there will be several months of campaigning and mudslinging. Even my village bakologo (frafra word for soothsayer) is cautious on this. He is playing a waiting game, so am I?

Zaya Yeebo

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.

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

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