The Language of Leadership: Decorum, Respect for Women and Ghana’s Democratic Maturity

In an earlier Open Letter to the Speaker of Parliament, Rt. Hon. Alban Bagbin, I raised concerns about preserving parliamentary civility and the dignity of Parliament. My concern was not directed at any political party. It was about a broader principle: those entrusted with public authority must reflect the standards expected of the institutions they represent.

The recent controversy surrounding comments attributed to Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin regarding Nana Yaa Jantuah brings that question back into national conversation. The Minority’s demonstration arose from grievances over the conviction and imprisonment of its Chairman, Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, which the organisers describe as political persecution, as well as fears of further arrests and prosecutions of former government officials. There was also a legitimate democratic objective: demonstrating that the opposition retains the political strength to challenge the government.

Governments must expect demonstrations, criticism, petitions and resistance. But the legitimacy of a political cause does not determine the legitimacy of every word used in pursuing it.

There is a fundamental difference between criticism and insult.

The Constitution protects the freedom to express opinions and challenge authority. A Minority Leader has every right to criticise government and present a petition. But that freedom does not confer a licence to insult or humiliate another person.

To describe Nana Yaa Jantuah, a senior government official acting on behalf of the Presidency, as “a nobody” goes beyond vigorous political criticism. The circumstances make the words even more troubling. They were uttered at a memorial service commemorating Ghanaian service personnel who had lost their lives in the line of duty. The nation was mourning, and Nana Yaa Jantuah was there as a Minister of State designated by the President to receive a petition.

She was therefore not simply a private citizen caught up in a political argument. She was carrying out an official responsibility on behalf of the Republic.

To insult a woman serving the Republic in those circumstances is particularly unfortunate at a time when Ghana seeks to encourage more women to participate in politics and public life. What message do we send to young women watching? If I enter public life, will my ideas be challenged on their merits, or will I be personally diminished because I dared to enter the political arena?

That question should concern us all.
Although the incident occurred outside Parliament, the public conduct of Members inevitably reflects upon the institution they represent. The Standing Orders provide standards of order and decorum for precisely this reason. The Speaker may therefore wish to consider whether appropriate mechanisms exist to address conduct inconsistent with the dignity expected of Parliament.

The expectation is perhaps even higher when the politician is also a lawyer. Advocacy requires force and conviction, but not abuse. The lesson is not to suppress emotion, but to discipline it.

Context Matters

There is an instructive comparison from South Africa. In AfriForum v Economic Freedom Fighters and Others, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal considered the liberation song “Dubula ibhunu” — “Kill the Boer.” The Court held that, in the particular circumstances, the singing constituted protected political expression rather than hate speech. Importantly, it examined the historical context, the nature of the song and how a reasonably informed person would understand the expression.

The lesson is simple: context matters.

Political speech can be passionate, provocative, metaphorical and uncomfortable. Democratic societies must leave room for robust political expression. But context does not make every word acceptable. There remains a line between forceful political expression and personal humiliation.

Ghana, too, has a colourful political vocabulary. Former President John Agyekum Kufuor was called a “thief.” The late President Professor John Evans Atta Mills was labelled “Professor Do Little.” President John Dramani Mahama was described by critics as incompetent. And then came Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo — or, as some opponents preferred, “Nebuchadnezzar.” His presidency acquired the label “Akyem Mafia,” while “Nana yɛnka n’asɛm” became another memorable expression in the political vocabulary surrounding him.

You have to give Ghanaians credit: when it comes to political nicknames and political insults, our creativity can be quite extraordinary!

But beneath the laughter lies a serious lesson.

Political language has a memory, even when politicians do not.

Yesterday’s victim can become tomorrow’s offender, while yesterday’s offender can later present himself as the victim. The circulation of old videos of politicians in response to present controversies illustrates this politics of amnesia. If an NDC politician used disrespectful language yesterday, it should be condemned. If an NPP politician uses it today, it should likewise be condemned.

The question is not who did it first. The question is whether we are prepared to do better now.

Do not answer an insult with another insult. Do not answer today’s criticism by producing yesterday’s offence. Raise the standard.

This is where leadership requires humility. President Mahama’s second term has attracted admiration from many for the restraint and humility displayed in his public engagement. Whether one agrees with his policies or not, humility lowers the political temperature and creates room for dialogue.

For the Minority leadership, this should be a moment for reflection. If the objective is to rebuild public trust and win the hearts and minds of the electorate, effective public speaking must be part of that renewal. A strong opposition is indispensable to democracy, but political strength should never be confused with the ability to humiliate an opponent.

I was reminded of this during my own study of Effective Speaking and Human Relations in Toronto, Canada, where Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People was one of the principal books we studied. One enduring lesson was that persuasion depends not only on what we say, but on how we say it and the respect with which we address those with whom we disagree.

A well-chosen word can calm a nation; a reckless word can deepen its divisions.

That, ultimately, is political and parliamentary decorum: not silence or timidity, but the discipline to know what to say, how to say it, when to say it, and when a particular word should simply not be said.

About the Author

Seth K. Awuku is a Ghanaian writer, legal scholar and political commentator with interests in constitutional law, governance and democratic development. He writes on contemporary Ghanaian political and legal affairs and has contributed to several Ghanaian media platforms.