Wayo Seini: Carpet-crossers are not traitors

The former First Vice Chairman of the New Patriotic Party, who left the party to become an opposition Parliamentarian, only to cross the carpet back to the NPP has hit back at his critics.

In an article published in The Statesman (see P 7) Wayo Seini says free movement of people across parties in response to political or social situations must be seen as a right of the citizenry in a multi-party democracy. He argues against such a person being labelled as "opportunist, stomach politician, traitor, etc.”

He mentions the great British premier Winston Churchill and a founding father of the Danquah-Busia tradition, J A Braimah as prime examples of principled politicians who have crossed carpets in the past and later returned to their parent parties, to leave indelible footprints.

Prof Wayo Seini writes: “In our current political dispensation, there are several people who previously belonged to other parties (or traditions) than the parties they currently belong to. Indeed, the concept of all-inclusive government has enabled many to seize the opportunity to serve the NPP government when they were not part of the sweat and toils of the rank and file of the party.

“In my specific case, the reasons for my resignation from the NPP in October 2003 and my subsequent joining of the NDC six months later and my return to the NPP in March this year were clearly stated and I need not repeat them here.” He adds, “I have never on a single day regretted doing the Churchill, for it has enabled me not only to make friends (particularly among the NDC members of parliament) on the other side of the divide, but it has equipped me with a broader political horizon to enable me understand and appreciate the intricacies of the political game in the Ghanaian context.”

Below is the full text of Prof Wayo Seini’s article as appeared in The Statesman:

Multi-party democracy and political opportunism
Wayo Seini

Ghana's 1992 Constitution guarantees multi-party politics. This implies that political parties (more than one) can be formed and every citizen has the liberty to join any political party of his choice and political parties can compete freely and fairly in elections that are intended to produce a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It sounds like a free or competitive market situation, as we are told, in economics. Freedom of movement of people across parties in response to political or social situations is assumed as a right of the citizenry.

Yet, in our democratic dispensation so far, when a person moves from one party to another the fellow is labeled all sorts of names - opportunist, stomach politician, traitor, etc. Sometimes you even hear trained political scientists using these terms associated with politics of the abattoir in serious political discussions. We the laymen may not know, but I expect a political scientist worth his profession to know that in the world of democratic governance many important statesmen have changed political parties before in their political careers. Perhaps, the most important world statesman often cited by political scientists is Sir Winston Churchill, the war time prime minister of Britain. According to political historians, Churchill was born a son of a prominent Tory (Conservative Party) politician, Lord Randolph Churchill, at Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire. His political career began in 1900, when he became Conservative MP for Oldham, a seat which he had previously failed to win. When he became disaffected with his party he migrated to join the Liberals in 1906. It is said that he was an accomplished arbitrator and believed in modesty of ambition. Churchill, however, was regarded with suspicion by some, for his ability to change parties at regular intervals. At the beginning of the Second World War the reputation of Winston Churchill was that of a gifted politician who had twice changed parties, an impulsive man prone to impractical enthusiasm, and a Conservative backbencher who opposed the foreign policy (of appeasement) of his leader the prime minister, Neville Chamberlain.

Churchill soon replaced the prime minister and his earlier flirtations with the Liberal party were to help him galvanize the House of Commons and, indeed, the entire nation into a unified force to successfully confront Hitler in the Second World War. Apart from Churchill, political scientists can cite several other examples in well established multi-party democracies in Western Europe and America.

Here in Ghana there have, in the past, been several movements of prominent politicians across political party boundaries which many have regarded as opportunistic. Perhaps, the most level headed politician to do a Churchill in this country was J A Braimah, one of the founding fathers of the Danquah/Busia tradition. He left his mother party to join the Convention People"s Party and when he became disaffected, he returned to the United Party. The first independent parliament of Ghana was littered with a wave of politicians crossing the carpet from the opposition benches to join the majority CPP government side for various reasons.

In our current political dispensation, there are several people who previously belonged to other parties (or traditions) than the parties they currently belong to. In deed, the concept of all-inclusive government has enabled many to seize the opportunity to serve the NPP government when they were not part of the toils and sweat of the rank and file of the party.

In my specific case, the reasons for my resignation from the NPP in October 2003 and my subsequent joining of the NDC six months later and my return to the NPP in March this year were clearly stated and I need not repeat them here. I have never on a single day regretted doing the Churchill, for it has enabled me not only to make friends (particularly among the NDC members of parliament) on the other side of the divide, but it has equipped me with a broader political horizon to enable me understand and appreciate the intricacies of the political game in the Ghanaian context.

I know there are many who think that the NPP started only in 1992 and are not comfortable with references to the past. They are wrong. The NPP is the Progress Party. The party never died after the 1972 coup. Many adherents throughout the country kept it alive underground and resurrected it whenever possible, first into the Popular Front Party in 1979 and the New Patriotic Party in 1992. It is for this reason that I always address Busia’s former ministers and their contemporaries as my uncles and aunties, and his former deputy ministers and their contemporaries as my brothers and sisters.

It is also precisely for this reason that, in spite of our differences in the Dagbon chieftaincy divide, I have always referred to people like Amadu Kaleem, Moses Shaibu and his brother Alhaji Adam as my brothers. Despite the fact that Tamale was a stronghold of NAL in the second republic they were some of the very few of my educated contemporaries who braved it to serve as foot soldiers of the Progress Party.

Today, the dynamics of multi-party politics and the freedom to move has made it possible for many who were fiercely opposed, indeed hostile, to Busia’s government to occupy high positions and play significant roles in its successor government. That in itself constitutes a brilliant piece of political opportunism.

A leading member of the NPP once told me that academicians don’t make good politicians because they "don’t tell lies”. My reaction was that by the nature of the profession it will be criminal to do so otherwise you will be imparting false knowledge to your students and colleagues either at lectures or at academic seminars and conferences.

I notice that in a gullible society such as ours, it is very easy to tarnish someone’s image by simply calling him names such as liar, thief, traitor, and so on without substantiating it. My philosophy in life is never to judge anybody by the words of another person other than my own observation. I say so because many things have been said about my political ambition, mostly without my knowledge.

I read this little piece by Haruna Atta, in reaction to my article in The Statesman on the NPP presidential hopefuls, in which he alleged that I once told him that I had presidential ambitions and making it look as if it was a secret we shared. That was never a secret. I actually declared my intension to contest the NPP presidential primaries in 1996, just as others are doing now. It was carried on the front page of The Statesman (when Haruna was the editor) and reported in other newspapers. As to why I did not pursue my ambition, I can reveal now that I shelved my ambition in order to promote the presidential ambition of J A Kufuor (without his knowledge).

It was a political opportunity I decided to sacrifice for good reasons. If you search the archives of the Free Press you will come across an article that I wrote after the publication of the “Stolen Verdict” advising that the NPP must look beyond the “Stolen Verdict” to find out other reasons for our losing the 1992 presidential elections. In it, I pointed out a few inequities and failings of our presidential candidate. In fact, I became convinced that we needed to change our flagbearer for the 1996 elections. So far as I was concerned it was very crucial to our coming to power in future.

My investigations first revealed that Nana Akufo-Addo was the single most popular member of the NPP, following the “kumi preko” demonstrations, and I found time to tell him so. When later I declared my candidacy, further investigations and consultations brought me to the firm conclusion that J A Kufuor was the most popular politician after Rawlings and would be the next president of Ghana, if given the chance.

Since I felt that the two of us might be competing for votes from some critical areas of the country and dividing the vote, I decided not to pursue my ambition any further so that my candidature would not derail his efforts at the NPP special congress.

I never told J A Kufuor that I was sacrificing my presidential ambitions in order to further his. But I did tell him that in my estimation there would be no president after Rawlings except Kufuor and predicted that six out of ten voters will vote for him to become the president. The over 57 percent of the vote he received in the run off translated into that prediction.

I hope Haruna now understands why I quietly shelved my presidential ambitions in 1996. In doing so, I did not only serve the interest of J A Kufuor but that of the party too. As someone who can, without any doubt, describe himself as one of the foot soldiers of the progress party, coming back to power after almost three decades in the wilderness had always been my primary objective and I was never going to shy away from promoting Kufour’s interest once I became convinced that he was our route to the castle.

Once at the castle, my objective now is clear: to help in any way possible to get a winnable candidate. Just as my article in the “Free Press” did not get down well in some circles of the party, but eventually helped the party to do the right thing and set us on the way to the castle, I knew that the article I wrote on our current presidential hopefuls was not going to be received with enthusiasm by everybody. My prayer is that it helps to produce a candidate who will be marketable, like Kufuor was, to enable us retain power. I am convinced that one of my top four will do it.

As for a pact with Djane Selby it is first time news to me and I can only describe it as one of the numerous efforts that have been made to tag me as an over-ambitious politician. It is strange that since 1992, no election year has passed without me being mentioned as a possible vice-presidential candidate, to the extent that my numerous contributions to the party in various ways are always viewed by some as attempts to become a running mate to our presidential candidate. It is now clear to me that some just used my name as a shield for their own inordinate and selfish personal political ambitions. To me, the reason is not hard to find. I can hardly find any Northern educated contemporary who did not come to meet me in the Danquah/Busia tradition and so, for some, they must necessarily destroy my image in order to promote theirs. In any case what is wrong with me being picked as a running mate to a presidential candidate who is convinced that he is doing so on merit rather than any other extraneous reasons?

My advice to Haruna Atta is that reputable journalists are just like academicians. When they spread misinformation, particularly to achieve their narrow personal or client’s agenda, the public who vote for their paper by way of purchases will gradually cease to do so and circulation will suffer. Multi-party democracy offers opportunities to individuals and groups of individuals. Such opportunities are better utilised in the interest of democracy and the advancement of the country when information fed to the public is true to the core. Fabrications don’t, and will never, help the advancement of our infant democracy.

PS: My sincere thanks to all those who wrote rejoinders and comments on my article on the NPP presidential hopefuls. Fortunately they did very little to debunk my assertion that times have changed and in recent times vice-presidents, who ride on the overwhelming popularity of the president to power, are high risk candidates since they find it difficult to win elections on their own. If you doubt it, ask the NDC.