Atta Mills proves critics wrong

No, not for being his own man – he didn't have to prove that. Neither for throwing a tirade at supposed detractors – even Jesus Christ did in the temple. He's proved them wrong for showing he can also do NPP's duck dance aka 'Dabodabo'. The biggest campaign mantra for incumbents during elections is the tune of “continuation” which in the 2008 elections always triggered the duck dance from Akufo Addo and his NPP. The lyrics claim the opposition will not continue with the incumbent's policies when it takes over power. Though Atta Mills did the rolling fore fingers to signal change during the build up to the 2008 elections, by his actions, or that of his surrogates, he has indeed proved his critics wrong by continuing Kufour's policy on clashing with the ex-president.

It is always said that the evil that men do lives after them, but in the case of Kufour and Rawlings, their actions – in this case inactions – surely followed them into retirement. The golden rule says, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and whether these two ex-presidents believe in this rule or not, treatments meted out to them by their respective successors are very well deserving. Kufour set a precedent that made the retirement benefits of ex-presidents subject to the discretion of the sitting president. To be fair to Atta Mills he is just following the precedence set by his predecessors, Kufour and Rawlings to some extent. Hence, his duck dance.

Tough Rawlings administration was not mandated by law to provide Hilla Limann with any retirement befitting of an ex-president, he had a moral obligation to do so. Limann was left to die as an ordinary man under the watchful eyes of Rawlings. Limann was then the only living former head of state, a status that would have made him a national treasure in most progressive nations. However, he was neglected by the state only for them to show up to offer his family a state burial. To be fair to Rawlings, one can argue that Limann belonged to the 3rd Republic and therefore the 4th Republic had no responsibility for him. But should we have lost sight of the man who preceded the 4th Republic?

When Rawlings handed over in 2001, nothing was heard about his retirement package, which could be attributed to one of two reasons: either it was very modest or Kufour's administration swept it under the carpet with expectation that his successor will do likewise. However, that did not stop the Kufour administration from treating Rawlings like a troublesome schoolboy who needed to be disciplined to keep his blipping mouth shut. We all had to endure Rawlings' utterances, which came to be known as “Booms”. But for some undemocratic reason, the NPP could not tolerate the fact that Rawlings, though a statesman, was still entitled to the same freedom of speech the 1992 constitution accorded every citizen. For every “BOOM” Rawlings released he had a privilege taken away from him, not unlike Pinocchio whose nose grew longer for every lie he told. That may be an exaggeration, but it doesn't denounce the fact that Rawlings was treated with contempt by the Kufour administration. Rawlings set a mere precedent with Limann, but Kufour set a legal precedent with Rawlings: that the benefits and privileges accorded to any ex-president is subject to the discretion of the sitting president.

So should it surprise us that President Mills has unconstitutionally put on hold Kufour's retirement package? Should it surprise us that President Mills has taken back the cars Kufour took with him? Should it surprise us that Kufour has been called anything short of an “illegal percher” of his office space at Osu? No!! Not at all, it's just a continuation of a policy he initiated. We all get it that Kufour's retirement package is by all standards sinful and immoral considering the financial state of the country, however, Atta Mills by his actions and/or inactions is no less guilty than Kufour and Rawlings. Why won't toothless bulldogs like the so-called Osu Council threaten the ex-president with eviction when the current administration isn't treating him any better?

Ironically, the cast of this whole mess, presidents Atta Mills, Kufour and Rawlings are just symptoms of a problem which is deeply rooted in the stale 1992 constitution. Why wouldn't Kufour want it all when the constitution allowed him – should I say the NPP majority – to setup a committee to decide on his retirement package? It doesn't surprise me that the Chinery Hesse committee was so generous to Kufour because Article 12 of the 1992 constitution directly allows any outgoing administration to determine his own retirement package. This nonetheless, makes Kufour a victim of circumstance: meaning the constitution put him in a conflict of interest situation, which any human being – even 'modest' ones like Kufour – may be tempted to abuse.

Typical of how issues are dealt with in Ghana, the current administration rather than finding a lasting solution to the problem is rather playing politics with it. Much of the raucous surrounding the Chinery Hesse recommendations have unfortunately been misdirected at the package itself rather than how the package came to being. In the first place, the general public had no knowledge of the Chinery Hesse Committee and its recommendations until after the fact; when the recommendations were made, the Kufour administration waited till the 11th hour before presenting it to a very busy and distracted parliament; to make things worse when the report reached parliament – the peoples 'representatives' – the discussion was clandestinely held in camera as if they had something to hide. Obviously, they had their selfishness and lack of concern for the citizenry to hide. It is a shame that members of parliaments who are elected to serve as watchdogs over the executive rather connive with the latter much to the detriment of the very people they are suppose to represent.

Despite all the hue and cry about Kuffour's monstrous package, it is important to note that it would have gone largely unnoticed had the NPP won the 2008 elections. This should make it more imperative for the current administration to find a lasting solution to this maligning quandary. The best solution I'll recommend is to either amend or completely repeal Article 12 of the 1992 Constitution to prevent retiring presidents from influencing their own retirement benefits. This can be achieved by tying the retirement package of presidents and ministers to the general Civil Servant retirement system. That is not far fetched because the president is the highest civil servant of the land and therefore has to retire as one. Also to prevent conflict of interest, the effective date of any changes to ex-presidents' retirement benefits should be delayed so as not to allow the sitting president to be the first beneficiary of any change. Lastly, a non-partisan State Protocol and not the Office of the President should be assigned the responsibility of providing ex-presidents retirement benefits. That could prevent future clashes between presidents and their predecessors not unlike the shameful Kuffour-Rawlings and Mills-Kuffour clashes.

I must admit that the above recommendations are simplistic at best; however, a solution to this pertinent problem would require an open debate on how we should treat our leaders. It doesn't surprise me that both Kuffour and Rawlings have had to endure shame after stepping down. Historically, we as a country have found ways to vilify our ex-leaders one-way or the other. Since Nkrumah's era our leaders have either died in exile or been executed on the very land they served. Thanks to our fledging democracy Kuffour and Rawlings may never have to suffer the same gruesome fate, however, if President Mills doesn't seize this opportunity to change the status quo, him and those that follow may suffer the same fate as Rawlings and Kuffour. I won't go to the extent of calling all our past leaders heroes because most of them weren't. But as we debate the best way to retire our presidents, ministers and for that matter, all public servants, I hope we remind ourselves that “a nation that does not honor its heroes is not worth dying for”.

Credit: Eric Boafo [[email protected]]