My generation, I mean current three scores and ten to four upwards, have a very dim view of today’s lot but in whom we should put our hope to build-on or indeed re-construct our running ramshackle legacy, regrettably not quite what the Fathers left us, confessedly. Occasionally though, there is a surprise from among the under forties which fosters a reason for either a reluctant or tentative review of thought about that fixation which concludes that this country could be or might be heading fast to a lost cause today, unless there is renaissance in a sincere deep national introspection – individually, severally and collectively.
Myriad of guises
The Church, which per ancient or better still specifically ancestral wisdom, would have been either absolutely trusted to intercede or, on its own initiative, has gone junkie, basking itself daily in “God for sale” through a myriad of guises. It started a few decades ago in here; and there is no letting-up.
This is apparent at the spread and from the growth rate currently. Pity. Anyway, let me deal first with the opinion and the mess we have made of the heritage bequeathed us.
The impact of Politics
My position is that the bottom line in the nothingness [losing hope] is what politics is doing to our “them” and “us” political democracy. Politics came to the fore to spearhead independence.
It came along with loud enunciations about equity and justice for all which run after all in synch approximately with the indigenous governance system – traditional authority from a cursory study.
The difference is that the prior was unwritten but the replacement is written and handed over at independence with the former becoming an overarching shadow through the retention of Chieftaincy, its natural pivot with its loaded networks through cultural tapestries for governance.
Of course in the side by side run of the machinery of government the spread has become adulterated and shrinking significance even culturally to being paid lip-service honours by national political leaderships, all kinds of status opportunists, including religious charlatans all helping to pollute democracy.
Also presently, there is more than enough evidence about “democracy” in the sense of government and opposition having been initially misunderstood and misapplied with both physical and vocal violence.
Both have engineered corruption which envelopes nepotism and factionalism – a divisiveness which has denied the country identikit, led to fractured policy pursuits in terms of development and the economy particularly stuck in a state of “stop-go” because whereas political succession succeeds in nomenclature, dislocated building-on every four years occur where the ruling group changes.
The Stark realities
The regular submission to justify the switch-offs and or shut-down has been that the preceding group got it wrong. But could these stark realities have self-arrived.? No.
They brought the country here through the absence of thinking to fashion out line of succession in the political parties and craft alongside a deliberate framework to groom future leaders.
The scramble took its historical cue from Nkrumah’s “seek ye first the political kingdom…”. Secondly throughout post-independence to date and especially in the years before overthrows throughout Africa, succession talk was “haram” within all the Political Parties – government and opposition alike. The stories of Tom Mboya [Kenya touted to succeed Jomo Kenyatta was repugnant]; and so was K.A.Gbedemah for Nkrumah in Ghana’s governing CPP.
The same anathema reigned in the years of the four military rules here and into the next set of civilian political parties’-led governments. Nothing was and has been ever so straightforward in leadership successions here – CPP’s is over who led; the PP’s simmered into the break-up 1979 [Victor Owusu versus Paa Willie – PFP/UNC.
I knew there was continuing leadership succession rancor which disguised in cabinet jostling [Foreign Office and the Law Office whereby Paa Willie accepted the shift to Education for Victor] before the ouster (1972 by Acheampong); and after Prof Busia stayed in exile and died. Afrifa had also come into the fray from at some prior point.
The NPP by roots was modeled on British and European Conservatism. Founding Fathers like Edward Akufo-Addo [Nana Addo’s dad] was very close to German Chancellor Conrad Adenauer. In that system’s cabinet postings’, the Foreign Secretaries were obvious next leaders.
This should provide a distinct light on that in-fighting which led to the split. There were other causes but this was fundamental. It was by intriguing logic so with the CPP in the Kojo Botsio – Ernest Ako-Adjei shuffle and skittle, Gbedemah’s apart.
The NDC was shrewdly stumped by Rawlings in the case of alleged foisting Prof J.E.A. Atta-Mills on them; but read back the wrangle after Prof Atta Mills and that stalks the party post-defeat 2016 more poignantly today, though under wrappers it seems for now.
In politics leaders are groomed; but the persons may also emerge on merit internally and or nationally. In the Socialist camp they come along in the “firebrand category” while the Capitalists traditionally prefer the reverse. A mix though in today’s real politik holds the edge with the people. But then also the environment in and around the political scenarios-mood of party and reflection of the state of country would have greater determining influence on choice. Charisma is a handy Asset.
Democracy versus Dictatorships
At the end of the day the party decides between the “darling” and “pretenders.” Wrong turn can be costly and it is always delicate maneuvering; while it can also create party split as happens all the time in democracies and rarely under dictatorships and communist rule.
The meaning is that there is always the conflict between choosing the right person and the populist. Both NDC and NPP have this critical bother. The others do not have it really because they tend to be “ONE MAN” chess board.
Against this background, follows the evolution of political parties in this country and how processes to make leaders were lost. Initially, it was clear that the series of military take-over [coups] stifled thinking about renewal. Persons with the potential were disenchanted with politics. Therefore the rumps of oldies were left to hang on. Politics and governance were changing complexion but had no corresponding innovations in leaderships within the political parties.
Restoration of constitutional governance
These were not seen as challenges as all the rumps were only seized with the idea of going with who they had to go for power at the next available opportunity which had been the restorations of constitutional governance.
The CPP was struck down by the death of Alhaji Imoru Egala. It is true the party bounced back incarnated in PNP, the leadership issue had not been dusted and done. Remember it had gone to trial. It was then the ideological quarrel as to which was true “Nkrumahists” qualified to succeed the CPP and own the leadership started and unsettled leaving a broken family in CPP and PNC.
For the PP which was a new name for the same UP [proscribed after the 1966 coup] ethnicity did not rear its ugly head until 1979 when the Ashanti decided on two grounds to [i] take back their party [re:NLM into UP] and [ii] found it fit that an Ashanti would be more appropriate to lead. Trekking into the fourth Republic, re-united as NPP but without a unanimously elected Head and lacking youth, the party opened up to enlist a new roll of membership. Hoards ran in to hoard the numbers, merely boosting party membership roll.
