The Road to Kigali – Part 6

By Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D.

In this segment, I would like to take the opportunity to remark on three pieces of news reports bordering on the raging grievances regarding widely perceived irregularities that attended Ghana’s Election 2012. The first of these pieces has the head of the Methodist Church of Ghana, Rev.-Prof. Emmanuel Asante chiding the flagbearer of the main opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) “to demonstrate that [Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and his associates] truly understand the meaning of democracy even as they dispute the results of the just-ended 2012 elections” (See “Akufo-Addo, NPP Must Prove They Truly Understand Democracy” JoyOnline.com/Ghanaweb.com 12/10/12).

It is rather curious, however, that Rev. Asante, who also doubles as the Chairman of something called the Ghana National Peace Council, should be more concerned with the maintenance of “peace” – whatever that means – in the country than “justice.” In the wake of Nana Akufo-Addo’s widely reported refusal to concede defeat following the Electoral Commissioner’s declaration of President John Dramani Mahama as winner of the 2012 presidential election, this is what Rev. Asante told the media: “While it is important for the opposition party to seek justice, it is imperative that they simultaneously seek peace.”

Well, I don’t know what is so “imperative” about the maintenance of “peace” in Ghana that dictates that those in avid search of “justice” ought to be so cautious as not to tilt the balance of “peace” in the process. At any rate, what concerns me here, more than anything else, is the apparently frivolous and equally cynical wagging of “peace” as a means of self-righteously dampening the spirits of those in search of justice.

Significantly, even as Rev. Asante rightly points out, both “peace” and “justice” are mutually inclusive quality-of-life elements or ingredients of our democratic political culture. Still, in many an advanced and civilized democracy, it is “justice” that holds the key to “peace.” The latter observation is incontrovertibly attested by our national motto which unabashedly declares “Freedom and Justice” to be the overriding factors of meaningful citizenship and nationhood.

Somehow, it appears that some clever somebody discovered the widely perceived complacency of Ghanaians in general – and one that dangerously verges on cowardliness – and decided to manipulate the electorate with the same. The motive here, of course, clearly appears to be Machiavellian and purely political. And on the latter score, also, must be pointed out the fact that Ghana’s longest-ruling military dictator, former President Jerry John Rawlings, has not hesitated to remind Ghanaians of their craven cowardliness.

And so, to be certain, I was in no small measure amused in the lead-up to Election 2012, when the founding-patriarch of the ruling National Democratic Congress showed up at the Manhyia Palace of the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei-Tutu II, to append his signature to the so-called Kumasi Declaration of post-electoral non-disturbance of the widely perceived peacefulness of the country.

Since the Kumasi Travesty, for that was what it objectively was, I have agonized over the fact that the operatives of the main opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) would allow themselves to be passively conducted into the ratification of a patently vacuous and dishonest treaty that was inevitably bound to end in their own electoral defeat.

In essence, what I am suggesting here is that the so-called Kumasi Declaration was a flagrant act of political suicide, on the part of the main opposition New Patriotic Party, mischievously orchestrated with the finessed solicitation of the Asantehene. I am, of course, not hereby in any way, shape or form, whatsoever, implying the complicity of the Asantehene. Rather, what I am clearly suggesting is quite the opposite, which is that Otumfuo Osei-Tutu II is a veritable victim of the Peace Council con-artists just as much as the key operatives, members, supporters and sympathizers of the New Patriotic Party and, in fact, all the signatories, with the glaring exception of the movers and shakers of the Kwaku Ananse-minted National Democratic Congress.

Significantly, we need to also highlight the fact that the New Patriotic Party is not alone in its decision to battle out the clearly staged outcome of Election 2012 in a legitimately constituted court of the land, in this instance, the Supreme Court of Ghana. The other parties are the Konadu Agyeman-Rawlings-led National Democratic Party (NDP) and the Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom-fangled and owned Progressive People’s Party (PPP), a breakaway faction of the rump-Convention People’s Party.

That vigorous efforts by the National Democratic Congress, in flagrant cahoots with the Afari-Gyan headed Electoral Commission had been made in order to effectively stall both the political and presidential ambitions of Ghana’s longtime first lady, in a bid to parrying off a winsome NPP attack, cannot be gainsaid and may well be forensically proved in court. That such cardinal global leaders as America’s President Barack H. Obama and the United Nation’s Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon have been significantly moderate in congratulating Ghana on its “successful” conduct of Election 2012 (See “U.S. Urges Voters to Accept Results” Ghanaweb.com 12/11/12; and “Ban Congratulates Ghana” Ghanaweb.com 12/16/12), clearly attests to the fact that Election 2012has not been nearly half as free and fair as Rev. Asante and his so-called Peace Council would have Ghanaians and the rest of the world believe.

In congratulating the country on its “successful” conduct of Election 2012, President Obama opined thusly: “The United States encourages all parties to accept the results and to use the appropriate legal processes to resolve any electoral disputes.” This statement, of course, is deliberately worded paradoxically, since accepting the clinically tainted results of Election 2012 automatically preempts its legal and/or judicial challenge or contestation. And so, perhaps, like Rev. Asante, Mr. Obama, in a bid to diplomatically parrying off another potential political headache, besides the Israeli-Palestinian question, Afghanistan and Iran, among a plethora of others, prefers to counsel the adoption of the acquiescent route of “peace” with a thinly splashed veneer of justice, if only the latter is wont to stanch potential chaos on the cheap. Needless to say, Ghana is no Egypt on the foreign-policy radar of Washington.

It is equally paradoxically significant that Secretary-General Ban would issue the following counsel: “The concerned parties [should] continue to use legal means to resolve all disputes; all actions taken in this critical period [of Ghana’s political history] should contribute to preserving peace and stability in Ghana.” Once again, “justice” has been sacrificed on the altar of “peace and stability.” No wonder that as a global institution of moral authority, the UN is palpably a White Elephant.

By all means, let “Freedom and Justice” reign in all the land, even as Peace wistfully stands aside and looks, and then applauds and shouts “Amen!”

*Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D.
Department of English
Nassau Community College of SUNY
Garden City, New York
Dec. 16, 2012
###