Why do politicians consistently attack each other?

Becoming politically conscious at a very young age, I remember with fondness how I followed the “big boys” in Adabraka, as we regularly went on processions (I do not know whether I should call them demonstrations) on the Nkrumah Circle –Kingsway road singing and chanting one “war song” or the other.

I followed one such processions in the 1992 elections, where we were taught anti –Rawlings songs which I sang with all the energy I could muster but if asked today to do same, I cannot open my buccal cavity to utter those lyrics as I am not proud of myself. As we say in our local parlance “we insulted him papa!”

But with the benefit of hindsight, I do not think anybody should engage in politics of insults. My motivation for writing this piece is what I consider an unfortunate statement from a close pal who said he is excited anytime Ghana heads to an election especially when the campaigns heat up. So I quizzed him to know what particularly tickles him and to my utter shock, he said shamelessly that he enjoys the “insults and personality attacks”. Unbelievable!

This brings to the fore calls from various quarters on politicians to preach their message or development ideas rather than resorting to insults and attacks on their opponents. In recent time I remember, the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General and Head of the UN office for West Africa and Sahel, Ghana’s illustrious son, Dr. Mohammed Ibn Chambas, at a colloquium on peaceful elections in Ghana held in Accra, calling on political parties to desist from attacks on personalities and focus on relevant issues affecting the lives of Ghanaians. A retired Supreme Court judge and a former professor of Law at the University of West Indies, Justice Vincent Cyril Richard Arthur Charles Crabbe also called on political party leaders not to insult anybody in politics because insults are not the same as argument. Chairman of the National Peace Council, Most Rev. Emmanuel Kweku Asante has on numerous occasions made this clarion call and so many other civil society groups and organizations.

It is in this regard that I find the infamous “Mutum Banza” statement made by no mean a person than the Deputy Secretary of the ruling National Democratic Congress, Koku Anyidoho, at a rally in Kumasi very unfortunate. The word, which is an Hausa expression, connotes “a useless person” or a “nonentity”. It was used to describe the Vice-Presidential Candidate of the opposition New Patriotic Party, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia.

The 2016 campaign seem to have a double edged sword aimed at key personalities of both parties. I presume the strategy is that Dr. Bawumia “goes for the head” of President John Mahama whilst Koku Anyidoho (the bull) is unleashed on the previously soft spoken but now “a baby with sharp teeth”, Bawumia. The attacks have both been messy (although one side appears always to be on the offensive). What is alarming (and I call on every Ghanaian to see the need to desist from this negative act), is the threat of verbal reprisal attacks by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Member of Parliament for the Bantama Constituency, Henry Kwabena Kokofu. Supporters I know are not enthused about how their leaders are verbally attacked. I deem it a worrying trend because we are witnesses to happenings in neighbouring countries – it is the power of words! Words, words! It can plunge us into where we do not wish to be. Maybe the current generation does not care much about this but for the sake of the future of the youth, we must!

So I ask, why do Politicians attack each other? A Professor of Political Science at the California Technical Institute, Dr. Michael Alvarez, whose research and teaching focuses on elections, voting behavior and election techniques, apparently once addressed this question. He answers simply by saying that candidates engage in negative attacks because they work.

Alvarez draws three main conclusions after much research on similar work done by others;

First, candidates engage in negativity because they believe it will help them win. But there are many different negative strategies that candidates can use: some are harsh, personal and are intended to turn off the opponent's supporters; others are negative, but informative, and these attacks might make it more likely that the attacker's supporters turn out to vote.

Second, negative politics works—other evidence reveals, negative politics does not always work predictably. Again, sometimes negative politics will turn people off, but sometimes negative politics engages voters. Thus, negativity doesn't always lead to alienated voters.

Third, voters appear to like negative information. Research has shown that voters will seek out negative political information, and if the demand is there politicians and candidates will supply negativity.

I guess we are beginning to see our political situation through the lens of his conclusions.

Let me conclude with a very insightful quote I picked from a bible study discussion I sat in at one Methodist Church in Accra recently. The topic for that Sunday was “The Christian’s Civil Responsibility: How do I vote?”. The church in the study material (The Weekly Bible Lessons) quoted an election advice from John Wesley as recorded in his journal of October 3, 1774:

“I met those of our society who had votes in the ensuing election, and advised them:

To vote, without fee or reward, but for the person they judged most worthy.
To speak no evil of the person they voted against.
To take care their spirits were not sharpened against those that voted on the other side.”

Story by Ghana | Myjoyonline.com | Gabriel Nii Otu Ankrah