Since when did reckless behavior and irresponsibility become a benchmark to
assessing the adequacy of the nation’s political leaders? What kind of nation
are we building when the leadership of our political parties is flooded with
acerbic people who are themselves stained with conducts that defy the basic
stipulations of contemporary universal morality?

Do we ever, for a minute, take into account, the incalculable dangers to leaving
our nation’s politics to our experimental politicians? I take offense to Ivor
Greenstreet’s recent coldhearted comment that the ex-president Jerry John
Rawlings is a “loose canon”. In a rebuttal to a claim from the Propaganda
Secretary of NDC that the youth organizer of CPP Kwabena Bomfeh is an NPP mole
in the CPP, the general secretary of CPP Ivor Grenstreet lunched a scathing
attack on the former President, Jerry John Rawlinngs.
“If criticism is the yardstick by which NDC determine what a mole is, then the
real mole the NDC should be concerned with is their own loose canon; founder
Jerry John. He is the greatest critic of His Excellency the President and in a
most shameful and disgraceful manner”. Those were the exact words Ivor
Grenstreet used in describing the former president. Should Ivor Greenstreet’s
populist brand of political rhetoric go unchallenged? It would be absurd for
Ivor Greenstreet to link Mr Rawlings to loose cannon. What has Rawlings got to
do with Richard Quashiga’s calling of Kwabena Bomfeh as an NPP mole in the CPP?
Why the personal attack on Mr Rawlings? Ivor Greenstreet’s statements have
portrayed him as a loose talker who does not exercise discretion in the public
domain.

When you reach a certain level of public elevation and stature, you avoid loose
talk like a strange disease. One may ask how much of life I have seen to be able
to make such statements about someone as old as Ivor Greenstreet. My response is
simple: it is true that what an old man sees when sitting down will elude a
young man standing at his full height. So also is it true that what a baby sees
when crawling would totally elude an old man when perching. Ivor Greenstreet has
done the unthinkable. Simply put, he has let many people down with his reckless
outburst.
How does he think people would think of him, his judgment and posturing after
this classic status-deflating spree he has embarked on? Pathetically enough, the
more he opens his mouth to defend, rebuff, or redress the situation, the more
flies he invites to feast on the carcass he has unleashed into the Ghanaian
political atmosphere. I honestly think he is so gone with the wind with this sad
comment of being momentarily carried away. Until he spoke that balderdash, I was
inclined to think political rallies were the only grounds upon which such loose
talk is spewed. If issuing a mere statement to counter someone’s “guff” can
elicit such momentary flights of indiscretion, I shudder to think what a
political rally would bestow upon a General Secretary if and when called to
address the charged crowds that show up at such gatherings. Ivor Greenstreet, in
my opinion fell into a trap, one created by himself but unfortunately set for no
other but the trap-builder.
Let this be a warning to those acerbic politicians in our political parties, who
think rather pathetically that their political careers have spanned over decades
and therefore cannot be wrong. There is a new breed of interpreter in Ghana
today. That breed is generically called “Youth” and they are as smart as they
are vicious and eager to overturn any semblance of pretentiousness at the
highest echelons of any political party. I have always held that those who
cannot understand and comprehend the changing dynamics of political activity
today have absolutely no business trying to become political players. There is
always a price to pay for loose talk or emotional outbursts irrespective of whom
they emanate from. If Ivor Greenstreet’s pain is anything to go by, let his
contemporaries in government begin the process of fine-tuning their act for a
time is coming when so-called political leaders would be told openly in the face
to go burn the sea.
Does the president and his advisors, for a minute, compute the harm his
political friends causing the NDC? Whose interest was he serving when he lunched
such a scathing attack on the former president?

Does the provision on free speech confer on our politicians the uninhibited
privilege to express their idiotic guff in public without being hauled over
burning coals? If the preceding is what democracy is about, then we must rethink
our brand of national politics, and re-socialize some of our political leaders
to learn good manners. While democracy offers us the window to communicate our
views on any subject matter, it does not allow incendiary provocations. Our
nation cannot afford the cost of any human folly that could be misread, as a
threat, and incite violence.

The breeding of the likes of Ivor Greenstreet in the nation’s political space
also attests to the quiescent character of the Ghanaian voting public, and our
predisposition to choosing impulsive politicians, whose reckless talk, if left
unchecked, will one day reduce our nation’s democratic accomplishments to
rubble. What true, and civilized, democracy would allow a political figure to
pass such a loutish comment without dispensing some form of consequence? If as a
nation, we would allow Mr. Greenstreet to speak with such a discourtesy, and get
away with it, what moral obligation do we have to guiding our young children
from using snide language against noble citizens? Having run out of ideas, some
of our nation’s politicians have turned our democracy into a theatre for
political comedy, and character vilification.

Would Ivor Greenstreet be immune from the physical and psychological wounds his
rhetoric is seeking to create? Civilized democracies thrive on the display of
wit to outwit one’s opponents and not calls for war of attrition to discredit
one’s adversaries. In twenty-first century liberal democracy, to deviate into
the space of good judgment is forgivable. It marks a noticeable departure from
old thoughts into the orbit of civilized conduct. The fault in our democracy, as
we have come know, does not rest in our stars, but our chose of politicians
whose concept of free speech, and peace, is at the atavistic stage, and cannot
be trusted as a dependable resource to solidify our communal values on peaceful
co-existence. Let’s reject recklessness of our politicians and embrace peace in
the interest of our dearest nation.
Many of Mr. Rawlings’ criticisms of President Mills have been overanalyzed and
misrepresented to serve the political ends of his adversaries. In the coming
days, or months, we should not be surprised to seeing Ivor Greenstreet and his
sponsors at the presidency run, gasping, to the radio station to announce that
Mr. Rawlings is trying to recruit an army of dead people to effect regime
change. This is not a conjure of my imagination, but my satirical way of
chronicling the growing insecurity that has enveloped our ethno-democratic
politics.
Let’s accord our past presidents, the respect they deserve, even if we disagree
with their policies, and vision for the nation. Like him, or loathe him, Mr.
Jeremiah John Rawlings has served his nation well, and the best way he knew how.
In 1992, he became acquiescent to political pluralism. In 2000, he conceded to a
transition, which he personally supervised, and left our nation in one piece. As
a pragmatist, and an astute leader, he understands Africa’s politics and time to
quit, if and when necessary, to preserve the achievements of the struggle
against injustice. Mr. Rawlings is someone who command respect across the broad
political spectrum in Ghana and beyond. His forthrightness is legendary,
especially when he throws light on issues that fall within his experience.
Let’s not allow the conceited to use the child’s words to create castles to keep
our nation in darkness. As Ghanaians, our commitment must rest with building a
nation that respects the rights of all, and not some. We should create a
collegial atmosphere that encourages impassioned articulation of ideas, and not
the culling of the irrelevant to justify a lost cause as some have done. I bear
no ill-will towards any individual. However, I cringe to see the unwholesome
assimilation of irrationality by the likes of Ivor Greenstreet to the nation’s
cultural-moral consciousness.
If our nation continues to elate itself on the nonsense that it is fed our by
politicians, then we should be prepared to pay a very heavy price for not
speaking out against a rogue-General Secretary of a political party whose
notoriety is sourced from making a reckless statement.



We shall be back!

Emmanuel Dela Coffie
www.delacoffie.wordpress.com