Nana Addo`s age and competence

It is just 10 months since the National Democratic Congress (NDC) government took office, but already the politicking to the next election has begun both nationally, and within the various parties.

In the New Patriotic Party (NPP) this is particularly tense, due to the well established democratic traditions within the party, and the closeness of the last elections, which implies that all things being equal, the party would have to do very little to win power again. This implication is even heightened by the poor performance of the Atta Mills/John Mahama administration, which has already lost the trust of many Ghanaians.

In the NPP, it is obvious that for some it is time to continue the internal politicking to either keep the party on their side or to win the party to their side, with the incentive being that the successful group has a chance of ruling the nation. It is therefore not a surprise that many are eagerly strategising and canvassing for support within the party, of course through many means.

MAIN PROTAGONISTS IN NPP
It should also be stated though it is an obvious fact that the main protagonists in this struggle for the hearts and minds of the NPP are the Akufo-Addo and Alan Kyerematen groups, and no amount of ostrich games can hide this fact.

Since the beginning of this year, the core campaign for the Alan camp seems to be centered on Nana Addo's age. This, for me, is a monumental strategic failure on their part, as it would not sell, and I intend to show why this would be so.

It is an undeniable fact that by December 2012 Nana Addo would be 68, while Alan Kyerematen would be 57, but this fact aside, there is nothing more. Ultimately, the race for the NPP flagbearership would boil down to capability, boldness, ability to work with party ranks, and care for the grassroots, nothing more, nothing less, so all this fuss about age, is much ado about nothing.

In any case let's not forget that it is the same Alan camp, together with some of us, who argued strongly in the run-up to the 2007 Congress, that age has nothing to do with competence. I am therefore much amazed that the same camp would, today, betray this principle, and turn around seeking to play on this same issue of age. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument purposes, let us all undertake an academic discourse with this issue.

ISSUE OF NANA'S AGE
The question I would quickly pose is, what is it about Nana Addo's age which makes him unfit for the flagbearership? Is it an issue of merely the numbers, or there is more to it? Is it a matter of the loss of strength or mental agility, then I would quickly ask if anyone can associate these affiliations of age with Nana Addo? But, if it's about just numbers, then the least said the better. After all, haven't we seen numerous septuagenarians steer their countries better than the so-called young bloods? Mention can easily be made of the Nelson Mandelas, the Pandit Nehrus, Ronald Reagan, Lee Kwan Yeu, Winston Churchill, Conrad Adenauer, and Charles De Gaulle, etc.

So the truth, as it was before 2007 and now, is that leadership has little to do with age. Indeed, any serious research would point out that most of the leaders we revere , hit their peaks and really performed at quite 'old ages' as some would put it. Ronald Reagan was sworn in a few weeks shy of his 70th birthday, and was again sworn in for his second term when he was almost 74. Golda Meir, first Israeli female Prime Minister, was elected at the age of 71. Winston Churchill was 66 when he first became Prime Minister in 1940, by the time of his first retirement he was 72. Interestingly, he made a comeback as Prime Minister at the age of 78, in 1951, and retired finally in 1955 at the age of 82. Can anyone say that Churchill was affected by age? Absolutely not!

Finally to our own Nelson Mandela, this great African leader, one who many leaders look up to throughout the world, took office in 1994, when he was 76, and he has since become an icon of leadership across the world. With these examples how can anyone use age as a factor for which one individual or the other should be denied the mantle of leadership, if that individual has all the qualities desired in a leader.

Therefore for me, anyone who chooses to undertake this crusade of age, either does not know what he or she is talking about, or is just perpetuating an agenda of deception for personal selfish ambitions. Again, if any candidate hinges his campaign on the issue of his age, against that of the other, then for me, that marks an admission of incompetence, and the lack of leadership qualities. All individuals, if really qualified for any position, would hinge their ambition on their leadership qualities, their experience and competence, and not I am younger than he is, or am older than he is.

MODERN TREND
Now in pursuing this argument I know many would retort that there is a modern trend and that old leaders are a thing of the past. Really, is this really so? Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India is 76, Mwai Kibaki, President of Kenya is 77, Raul Castro of Cuba is 77, Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal is 82, Jacob Zuma just elected this year is 67, Silvio Belusconi of Italy is 73, the new Japanese Prime Minister is 62 and the list goes on. So yet again it can't be true that there is a so called modern trend which brings out young leaders. There are still many old leaders as well as young ones.

Still on my academic exercise, is it also not true that in the course of world history there have been numerous so called young leaders who have disappointed so much? I again I would give few examples - Yayeh Jammeh, the dictator in the Gambia took office at the age of 29 –and we are witnesses to the kind of leadership he is offering in the Gambia, our own Jerry Rawlings in 1979 was 32 and in 1981 on his second return was 34 and we know the kind of leadership he offered as compared to the NPP's John Agyekum Kufuor who took office at the age of 63; Shinzo Abe was elected in 2006 at the age of 52, he is till date Japan's youngest post war Prime Minister but he disappointed so much and had to resign just a year later due to mounting pressure. Indeed in the United States, the generally accepted worst Presidents include such personalities as Milliard Filmore who took office at the age of 50, Franklin Pierce who took office at the age of 49, Andrew Johnson who took office at the age of 57 and Warren G. Harding who took office at 56.

I seriously believe that we should be serious as a Nation especially with our leadership; these arguments are ultimately about running our country so for anyone to imply that youth without knowledge and experience should run the country merely because of age is regrettable. Again, I don't think that anyone believes that the job of a President is that of a boxer or sprinter for which we need a young man; in which case most of those currently making the noises about age would not even qualify.

I hope I have been able to prove that the brouhaha over age is a non-starter. Thus I do not see why Mr. Alan Kyerematen and his camp could even start this argument in the first place. As I stated earlier, this could be as a result of the acknowledgement of Nana Addo's credentials as a true leader, a visionary and above all a true blue Party man. My advice to Alan is that if he indeed finds himself capable then he should tout his capabilities, experience, vision and contribution to the party for this is the only way he can become flagbearer. In the run-up to the December 2007 congress, we saw how Kwabena Agyei Agyepong campaigned on this same issue of age and at the end of the day we all saw where it landed him. I hope Alan does not make the same mistake.

For now, I will hold my breath.

   Comments1