By Otchere Darko

Most modern democracies are all based on the concept of bi-partisanship or multi-partisanship. This means that in such democracies, there will always be a governing party and [an] opposition party or parties. Ghana has always followed this modern way of democratisation, except for a brief period of time in the nineteen sixties when the country was made a one-party State. This bi-partisan or multi-partisan method of organising the political affairs of a country has appealing advantages; hence, its overwhelming acceptance and patronage worldwide. *However, it is also true that the method has disadvantages, when compared with the pre-modern forms of democracy that were based essentially on “oneness” or “togetherness”, such as the earliest system of Athenian democracy used by the Greeks of Athens, which was not based on parties. One of the most serious disadvantages of the modern bi/multi-partisan system is the inherent “fixed dichotomy” and its associated negative tendencies. Even in countries where this modern system has been tried for years, such as the USA and UK, the way opposing politicians deliberate on national issues leaves much to be desired. For example, the way the Republican Party thwarted the plans and programs of Obama’s Democratic Party in the last two years has been an eloquent testimony of how these unhelpful negative tendencies do make a mockery of democracy itself. In UK also, how political exchanges proceed between Conservative and Labour Party members during “Prime Minister’s Question Time” clearly epitomises the “rawness” and “roughness” of political discussions and deliberations that take place between governing and opposition parties, even in the so-called “civilized” societies..... the watching of which makes one to wonder whether such a system has any merits at all, in the real sense.

In Ghana, things have always been even worse. I hate to talk about the extremely hostile political developments of the nineteen fifties and sixties in our then young democracy, immediately before and after the exit of our colonial masters. Most of all, I hate to discuss in detail the current extreme and dangerous hostilities that exist between NDC and NPP..... hostilities that have the potential to re-enact Ghana’s nineteen fifties and sixties’ dramas. The way some politicians in the two main parties open their “foul mouths” publicly to talk insultingly, provocatively and “childishly” makes you wonder whether these people are working for the good of the country, or whether they are just in politics to “flex” their muscles to show how “power” can be “sweet”. And some of these “foul-mouthed” politicians who trade horrible insults against their fellow politicians on the other side of the divide claim to be “PhD holders”; while others claim to be “lawyers”. What these negative politicians are doing to themselves and their names through their provocative public utterances is not my concern here. My concern is more about how we can minimise the actions and inactions that are causing these extreme hostilities and splitting the two parties further, apart from their polarising effects on the whole nation. Below are a few suggestions which, I believe, can contribute to help to dilute partisan tensions and bring about a more cordial interparty relationship and a calmer political atmosphere in Ghana.

In order to make opposition less demeaning, less painful and less unattractive, in relation to the governing party, constitutional provisions should be made to allow the main opposition party, or an alliance of all opposition parties, [where existing opposition parties can come together to create one big opposition mouthpiece], to form a “shadow cabinet” that will be paid by the State to play opposition in a more organised and more disciplined way, so that the Government and the Opposition can interact better and with reduced envy and jealousy to enable the business of governance to proceed more smoothly, more positively, and more productively. I believe that if we can create such a “shadow cabinet” paid by the State to interact with its counterpart in government, it will encourage Government and Opposition to approach political discussions in more persuasive and more conducive ways than the current situation where political discussions between Government and Opposition tend to be confrontational, conspiratorial, and crude. *I am aware of the fact that putting in place such arrangement will cost the nation substantial sums of money, in terms of the payment of such shadow cabinet, but good partisan relationship and political harmony are “democratic prerequisites” that are worth paying for.

Another suggestion is for the President to develop the culture of regularly meeting opposition members in camera; and discussing certain important national issues with them, such as long-term loans or projects whose payment or completion periods extend beyond the life of the Government in office. For example, if a Government in office is planning to borrow from inside or outside the country to finance its current projects and the repayment of the loan or the year-to-year interest payments will go beyond the term of office of the Government of the day, it makes sense that members of the opposition party or parties be consulted, because it is always probable in a democracy that they, the opposition party members, may be those who will be in Government next time round and, therefore they, rather than members of the Government of the day, will be repaying the loan, or paying the interest on it. These meetings and consultations, in my opinion, should be routine, at best; and where long-term loans and projects are concerned, they should precede the actual negotiation or implementation stages of the loans and projects. They should also not be on the floor of Parliament, in order to make them less partisan and more informal. Where the kind of shadow cabinet I have suggested above exists, the President must regularly meet and consult with this shadow cabinet in camera, just as it meets and consults with its own governing cabinet collectively, and in camera. I believe that if such regular meetings and consultations take place in camera between the President and the Opposition, the kind of open “confrontations” that take place in Parliament between the governing and the opposition parties will be limited. Similarly, the kind of open confrontations that take place outside Parliament between Government Ministers, etc, and members of the Opposition will also minimise, if the Government makes it routine to liaise regularly with opposition parties. The workability of this suggestion will be based on the development and maintenance of mutual trust between the party in government and the party or parties in opposition. And mutual trust is only possible where the opposing parties discount the fear of each other, or one another.

Finally, the media houses, especially radio stations that organise panel discussions, have a crucial role in helping to bridge the gap between the Government and the Opposition. One can reckon that more than half of the hostilities that creep up from time to time between NDC and NPP originate from radio discussions, under the supervision of our so-called “journalists” and “media practitioners”. In my opinion, the media houses are as guilty as NDC and NPP for creating the existing extreme hostilities; because some of these media houses deliberately choose topics and issues that have the potential to generate controversies and hostilities. While freedom of expression, association and discussion is guaranteed by the Constitution, freedom must always go with responsibility. Our media houses have professional and democratic responsibilities to ensure that they do not use their platforms and forums to create conditions that have the potential to generate political controversies and hostilities, and mar the tranquil political atmosphere within this country, relative to places like Somalia, Zimbabwe, or Ivory Coast.

*Africa can take the initiative to practice democracy differently and better, for even Western Nations to emulate. We have taught the world before, in the past. And we can teach the world again, if we try to do things differently and better.

Source: Otchere Darko; [This writer is a centrist, semi-liberalist, pragmatist, and an advocate for “inter-ethnic cooperation and unity”. He is an anti-corruption campaigner and a community-based development protagonist. He opposes the negative, corrupt, and domineering politics of NDC and NPP and actively campaigns for the development and strengthening of “third parties”. He is against “a two-party only” system of democracy {in Ghana}....... which, in practice, is what we have today.]