Controversy Unlimited: "In The Name Of Busia..."

Don’t sneer at Dombo! Whenever yours truly invokes any of the founding fathers of the Danquah-Busia-Dombo tradition, you can be sure that it is at once a pointer to a warning ahead of, a prophesy to avert and/or an admonition to take due cognizance of slippery slopes that many a kingpin of the NPP may overlook, mainly because of a certain belief in ‘experience’. As I have stated umpteen times elsewhere, I have come to realize that in contemporary times, wisdom does not necessarily ripen with old age. My piece is not necessarily to question that shade of grey on the hairs of the aged; rather, it is to raise issues that we may overlook as the NPP goes into a conference to take a look at its constitution and the organizing principles upon which it may waltz itself back into the corridors of power or salsa away into political irrelevance at the next general elections of December 2012 and beyond.

REFORM

The major arguments that have been adduced by the various protagonists within the NPP have been crystallized into two main schools of thought: (i) change the status quo and (ii) retain the present arrangements. Of course, those who revel in the pits of deviousness are quick to label this or that person as representing either of the two major positions. Whereas the maintenance of the status quo is rightly or wrongly attributed to H.E. John Agyekum Kufuor, the change advocates are believed rightly or wrongly to be the handiwork of Nana Akufo-Addo. Why anybody would attribute these positions to these fine gentlemen is best left to the imaginations of the very people who come up with such thoughts. However, there also appears to be unconfirmed pointers as to the reasons for which such positions are attributed to the gentlemen mentioned above. For instance, whereas the status quo advocates state categorically that President Kufuor won both NPP primaries and national elections using that system and therefore sees no reason why it should be changed, change advocates tend to reinforce the notion that the political dynamics of the NPP and by extension Ghana have changed to the extent that it would be foolhardy for anybody to rely on a structure erected for our immediate post-revolution era to be used for organizing a party as democratically inclined as the NPP in its march towards the future. For them, the NPP cannot be cast in the mould of a club of decrepit old armchair self-imposed strategists of no real value; after all, politics is largely groundwork, if Ghanaians politics is anything to write home about. Thus, those who actually do the groundwork think it only proper that they are recognized as stakeholders in the very vehicle that the armchair and submarine politicians want to ride on into the corridors of power.

It is at this point of dissent that the party faces its greatest threat and challenge to its stability and cohesion. Whereas the change advocates need two-thirds majority for their preference to be upheld, the status quo gurus only need a third of the valid votes cast to thwart the efforts of the change apparatchiks. Knowing the intricacies of internal NPP politics and the way issues of this nature usually play out, I dare say that the outcome of this particular struggle would be very dicey. Dicey because the change advocates appear to be prevaricating, not taking a strong, bold and decisive stance on their preference, perhaps in an ambitious attempt to maintain the delicate balance and cohesion of the party now that being in opposition is testing the loyalty, strength and commitment of the rank and file. Conversely, the status quo people are at it again, sending all sorts of despicable text messages aimed at tarnishing the reputation and image of the self-same Nana Akufo-Addo, as if someone is contesting a presidential primary. Whoever wants to start a fight under the belief that the change mantra is from the stables of the immediate past flag bearer must really have a date with the psychologist. How on earth can text messages, change the position of thousands of foot soldiers who genuinely believe that this is their one chance to have a say in the way the NPP is run and with that, contribute their energy, strain every sinew and bear their crosses with grace till the party achieves political victory? Perhaps, some never learnt any lessons from the past. Those who try to tarnish the reputations of others must always hold themselves in readiness for appropriate responses to their methods of operations only that in their unfortunate circumstances, they have no control over the timing, format or intensity of the appropriateness of the response that would be visited upon their unnecessary belligerence. Should it come to that in the first place?

PRESIDENT KUFUOR’S ROLE

Both by accident and by design, President Kufuor has turned out to be the most successful Danquah-Busia-Dombo leader yet. Until another leader emerges from the tradition of liberal democrats, he would remain in the history books as such, having distinguished himself both at home and abroad, even if his relations with the party both in and out of government are questionable on a number of fronts. To all intent and purposes, President Kufuor has come to the end of his era, for he can never occupy any political position in this country until and unless we amend the constitution of the Republic. That being the case, how well can the NPP marshal and harness his strengths and attributes in the effort to chalk yet another victory in national elections?

The difficulty in answering the above question is what has brought me to the point of asking whether the party has not overlooked the role(s) of ex-presidents in the party’s affairs whether it is in power or languishing in opposition. Given that Kufuor is the only living ex-President from the Danquah-Busia-Dombo tradition alive, does it not make sense that he is given a role to play in the party, be it at the organizational or administrative level? Normally, I would advocate for ex-President Kufuor to be given an appropriate statesman role in the party, a sort of elder to whom we shall turn in times of trouble or where good counsel is needed, especially now that the first generation gurus led by the late R.R. Amponsah are leaving us “fatherless”. However, I am unable to recommend or support such a thing even if it comes up, for there are those who are quick to point out that ex-President Kufuor cannot do exactly that because of the stance he has taken over several matters in the annals of the party’s history; his open support for aspirants to national executive or flag bearer positions. These things have cast him in a rather unfortunate position that does not enable him to be perceived as an honest broker should disputes arise in a social organization of which the NPP is a prominent Ghanaian one. Perhaps, that is the one cross John Kufuor would have to bear till the good lord calls him to eternal glory as far as internal NPP politics is concerned. Yet, we can never underestimate his abilities and attributes as far as promoting the image and progress of the party goes. Ex-President Kufuor is currently one of the most recognizable faces across the globe as far as high flying people are concerned. Now running a string of global diplomatic engagements, he is in a unique position to bring his influence to bear in very many areas. Take fund raising for example; for a man who has been made the chief fund raiser for the 700th anniversary celebrations of the prestigious Oxford University, access to both brainy and bankrolling moguls can only come naturally. Who would not want such a man in his corner? For a man who has made a wide network of global “big friends”, why would his own party “receive him not”? It is not everyday that one can lift a handset and ask a world leader for a favour for his/her country. If God has given us such an opportunity in the person of John Kufuor, perhaps the NPP must use it to the maximum except for the small matter of enormous suspicion surrounding the actions and inactions of the self-same John Kufuor when it comes to the internal affairs of the NPP. Yet, I am inclined to posit that as has been the case in all contests of the NPP since he became president of this Land of Our Death, his “position” would be soundly defeated again for a myriad of reasons I shall not adduce here, with the single exception of the fact that ordinary party people have correctly gauged what it is that is being subjected to re-evaluation. Anybody who stands in the way of this transitional storm is as good as an unmoving target to a crack marksman. Such a person is bound to become a distant footnote in the annals of NPP history.

UNITY

An expected outcome of the conference is one that has concerned a cross-section of adherents to the underpinning philosophy of the NPP as far as its cohesion is concerned. It has always been the case that fears abound anytime major decisions are to be made in and about the party. As I have stated elsewhere in this column, new ideas are usually opposed simply because they are not already common. The idea of promoting unity is not a new one; on the contrary, it appears to be the temporary resting bay of those who fear the unknown, especially any change that would see their already dwindling influence dwindle even further. Is there any disunity within the party that threatens to undermine the ability of the party to chalk electoral success during national elections? I honestly don’t see it. My reason is simple:

No political party in modern times, including extremes of both the right and left of the political center have enjoyed monolithic thinking amongst its membership. The day monolithic thinking becomes an attribute of any party would be the day the party gets composed of automatons. Instead, what we tend to see is a oneness of purpose, which in the case of political parties, is primarily to win political power and thereafter implement their programmes of action for the development of the country within which they operate. It therefore stands to reason that anybody who believes in the principles of the NPP is united to the party by that belief and not the absence or presence of this or that person in the party. Had it been the case that unity within the party is premised on personalities, the late Alhaji Inusah would have gone away with NPP faithful when he did his defection deed; Wereko Brobby would have yanked off a cross-section of foot soldiers when he broke off and founded the United Ghana Movement; even Kwame Pianim, who chose to “resign from active politics” would have compelled those of us who cut our political teeth under him to say good bye to the great Kukrudu tradition: no real or imaginary leader or kingpin of the NPP can ever, repeat ever go away with anybody if he or she chooses to go away for any such person can rest assured that he or she would go alone the same way he or she became an adherent of the tradition.

Thus in my humble opinion, the calls for unity are totally misplaced. They are a figment of the imagination of those who are inclined to erect the superficial veneer of ‘disunity’ in order to perpetuate their myopically parochial self-seeking bastardized preferences of total political irrelevance to the fortunes of the NPP. What they are invited to rather preach is for people to respect the laws of the political organization, nay the NPP they claim to belong to. Without mincing words, disunity in the party starts when vanquished or defeated aspirants to any position refuse to accept their defeat in good faith and try hard to exercise a “Sampson Option”, knowing very well that if they choose to go away, they would be accompanied only by the air that God surrounds them with. Those who call for unity must direct their fire and ‘words of wisdom’ to their counterparts who think it is their birthright to always win even when they truly don’t deserve the position they aspire for, at least at certain material times. When you are perceived to be one that undermines the rules of engagement, you are at once cast into the mould of a sour loser, a spoiler and an egoistic onanist who must never be allowed to lead in any sphere of influence within the hierarchical structure of the party. If the calls for unity are a decoy to get the rank and file of the party to accept a reversal of the logic of victor over vanquished, I say it is tantamount to belching after mixing excess intake of beans and beer that has gotten flat. Throughout world history, no vanquished person, group or state has ever dictated the terms of an armistice or surrender. How on earth does anybody think it must be possible for the NPP to reverse such time-tested principles? It is the rightful duty of the vanquished to learn to unite with the victor and not engage in sabotage either through word, thought or deed. I am sure both John Kufuor and Nana Akufo-Addo would be more than willing to give free lessons on how to adjust to life as either a vanquished contestant or a victorious aspirant; there are no better examples of unity than how these two handled their victories and defeats in recent times as far as the NPP is concerned and for this writer, the calls for unity as they come now, are totally misplaced. In any case, why would anyone go on a bad-mouthing spree of a fellow contestant over an executive position or idea, lose the contest and then turn round to hypocritically ask for unity while seeking to also dictate terms for the expected unity? Call me a hardliner on this but I see nothing to be united. People must be told in the face to respect the rules of engagement for disrespect of the rules is the beginning of end of cohesion: it is as simple and truthful as that.

VOICE COUNT

It would be improper to end this piece without questioning the rationale of a so-called idea to consider the amendment proposals of the NPP through a voice-vote. I say without any fear of contradiction that it is a recipe for serious disaster. Constitutional amendments of the NPP are a very serious business. As a matter of fact and interest, the two dominant schools of thought are rather entrenched in their positions and are likely to resist any attempt to use a voice count/vote to determine whether the amendments would be passed or not. Here is the thing: one group wants to have a third of delegates vote against the proposal. The other group wants to have two thirds of the delegates emphatically declare their preference for the amendments. How do you ascertain which group carries the day by using a voice vote? With all due respect, it is this same attitude of Mafioso antics that created numerous ‘independent parliamentarians’ in known strongholds of the NPP. We must abort that idea faster than it came for I prophesy that without a real vote, the vanquished would spend their time questioning the legitimacy of amendments instead of waging war against the degeneration that is being visited upon the laudable achievements of John the Kufuor during his 8 year tenure in office. Let Mac Manu’s ‘legacy’ not become what the late Professor Mawuse Dake called “Kplamase”. Kplamase is defined as “lizard droppings”. If you ever see a lizard dropping, you would notice that it is a large piece of black matter with a small patch of white. What then is the rationale? We must simply show clearly whether we are ‘black’ or ‘white’. On matters of pure principle, we cannot be both and expect not to be blackmailed because it was our preference to please everybody. Common sense would tell even my two week old baby that never in the history of men has anybody achieved the feat of pleasing everybody under any known human circumstance. Let us be resolute in our resolution in order to send a clear signal of our readiness to do what it takes to make the people of Ghana fully endorse the creeping realization that the party that has “Development in Freedom” as its motto is indeed the only one with the proven master plan to effectively bring real and tangible development to the increasingly despondent people of Ghana. May Jehovah Misqabbi preside over our deliberations!