Switching of ”Wife-Deceased MPs” Position: A Dead Journey To Ghana’s Democracy!

It is becoming an obvious norm in Ghana that anytime a member of Parliament dies, the wife takes the position. It has continued for the time being. This article examines the danger that these acts of switching ”Wife-MPs” positions have for the Democracy of Ghana.

Political Parties and Pressure Groups have the same functions in any democratic dispensation. But they have a fundamental difference. Whereas a Pressure Group seeks to influence policies and governmental actions in a manner favorable to its members, Political Parties, in the strictest sense, are formed to capture political power. In their quest to capture political power, in transitional democracies, they resort to several appropriate and inappropriate ways and means include genuine issues-based campaign, emotional overtures, propaganda and other efforts to court pity and sympathy from voters. It must be noted that the Mfantseman seat, though a swinging one, has since 1992, favored the NDC 80 percent more, than the NPP. Indeed, from 1992 to date, the NPP has only done “two one terms” in the constituency, ie, Asamoah Boateng’s one term of 2004-2008 and Hayford’s one term of 2016-2020. The rest of the years were enjoyed by the NDC and in my own prediction, based on the voting trends in the constituency, 2020 was going to be an election for the NDC, at least, for the Parliamentary race. In such a situation, where a ruling party’s occupancy of a parliamentary seat is not too secured; and where the incumbent MP from the ruling party, has been allegedly murdered, what “politically wise” thing would any serious political party interested in capturing political power do? They will by all means, appeal to sympathy, and it would be a fundamental misunderstanding of how political parties in fledgling democracies operate, to fault the NPP for imposing the mourning widow as a replacement of the MP, and slating the MP’s funeral rites one week to the 2020 parliamentary elections. This is not the first time and we may have to endure the practice for a while, as political parties grow and democracy develops.

But just as there are two sides to every coin, the practice has its downsides. It amounts to a sheer political convenience that extols the dogmas of partisan selfishness, and disregards the interest of widows and surviving children. It also sacrifices our culture and customary protocols for political expedience. Widows and family members who go through such experience, are denied the rite of mourning their loved ones, just because a group of people need a certain parliamentary seat at all cost. The widow, is being made to sacrifice her job as Police Officer, for a non-Ketu-South-like seat, that she can easily win in 2020 because of sympathy, but cannot be guaranteed victory beyond the victory. Will the party take care of her and the children, when she loses her seat and no longer has a job with the Police Service? We must also be careful not to perpetuate this precedence. Else, very soon, some unscrupulous people who have marital issues with their spouse, may be plotting murder as a mean of getting selected to parliament.

Meanwhile, all these deceased MPs wives who jump into the positions their husbands left even while the man is not buried, what is their motivation? Is it to continue what their husbands left or solely seize the opportunity? Did they really dreamt of being in frontline politics before their husbands died? The practice should not become a mandatory part of our politics, I'm not a fun and it is for the following reasons; People will start suspecting such widows as time goes on as potential roleplayers in the death of their husbands, especially in cases where the cause of death isn't natural; Spouses without the desire to represent their people will jump on simply because power and money is assured; A few may deliberately kill their husbands so they become direct beneficiaries. Voters may be forced to make emotional voting decisions instead of rations one and end up with a representative who can't serve them in that regard. On the brighter side though, it'd dissuade people who think taking away the life of the MP would position them to take from doing the same because his wife is there. In my analysis though, this populist emotional blackmail should not be the new cool in our politics.

Finally, we must be in the know that, the practice of asking widows to replace their dead husbands in parliament, may be dangerous and soon undermine quality representation, particularly, if the only driving force to push a certain segment of the citizenry to parliament, is the loss of their spouse. Perhaps, the MP's job is not sexually transmitted. Therefore, it should not always be the case that anytime an MP dies, the wife, automatically ought to occupy the position. We shouldn't reduce politics to family matters. What of a case where the wife of the MP isn't educated?

I conclude by calling on political parties in Ghana to be committed to their ultimate purpose of capturing political power. But as we grow our democracy, the quest for political power must not usher us into a regime of sacrificing timeless principles, institutions, rules, customs and traditions for political expediencies. We should not in our own making create a scenario that will cost us our democracy.