The Road To Kigali—Part 47

K.B Asante

I am not very enthusiastic about the call by various civil society groups and individuals for President Mahama to be all-inclusive in the kind of cabinet appointees and other key executive operatives that he decides to select for the formation of his new government (See “Be Cautious in Implementing All-Inclusive Gov't – K. B. Asante Urges Mahama” Radioxyzonline.com 1/16/13).

I am not enthusiastic because in a salutary democratic culture, the necessity for the maintenance of a loyal opposition is functionally imperative. It is on this count that I unreservedly concur with Mr. K. B. Asante, the retired Nkrumaist diplomat, that an all-inclusive government, as an overriding ideological objective could be irreparably disastrous for Mr. Mahama down the road.

First of all, this is not the very first time that such a veritably inimical proposal is being rather incautiously promoted by various shades of civil society groups, including religious bodies.

But that such proposal defies common sense inheres in the fact that since 1957, this proposal has been invariably used by governments to stifle ideological opposition.

An all-inclusive government eerily recalls President Nkrumah's repulsive imposition of the one-party state on Ghanaians. The very ideology behind an all-inclusive government is patently unhealthy; for, it presupposes dissent to be inimical to progressive governance.

But, of course, as Ghanaians have clearly witnessed during the course of the past twenty years that constitutional democracy has ruled the day, as it were, the country has been able to more rapidly advance, in terms of cultural and political enlightenment, than at any other time during the country's 55 years of post-colonial sovereignty or self-governance.

During the 1970s, in the wake of the military ousting of the Busia-led Progress Party (PP), the then-Col. I. K. Acheampong, Chairman of the so-called National Redemption Council (NRC) junta, proposed the formation of a Union Government, popularly dubbed as Unigov.

Then also, the rationale was that such an all-inclusive government would head off the kind of rancorous and bitter political enmity that was widely perceived to be the bane of multiparty democracy in much of Africa.

The reference point here of “Africa” is very significant to bear in mind, because none of the proponents questioned the fact that, indeed, the kind of inherent political dissent that came with multiparty democracy seemed to be working wonders for the very Western countries that had once subjugated and colonized Africans and much of the non-Western world.

In sum, the bogus theory here was that there was something either genetically or innately defective about the African species of humanity that made the latter not quite up to snuff, as it were, where democratic governance was concerned.

And so in quite a credible sense up until Election 2012, Ghanaian democracy had fairly well proven to the rest of the world that the continental African was fundamentally as capable of democratic governance as any other polity of humans the world over.

Of course, like even the most advanced of democracies, such as the United States and Britain, Ghanaian democracy has not been without its own peculiar and formidable challenges.

In the case of the current call for an all-inclusive government, it clearly appears that the proponents firmly believe this to be a viable alternative to the kind of electoral probity and accountability that is being direly sought by the main opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP).

In other words, the rather feeble-minded proponents of an all-inclusive government have yet to fully appreciate the fact that short of electoral justice of the kind being popularly demanded from the Supreme Court of Ghana, no amount of an all-inclusive government is likely to induce the kind of peaceable political climate that the overwhelming percentage of Ghanaian citizens crave. Such proposal is akin to the Biblical parable of the mansion that was unwisely constructed on a sand dune.

Like a proverbial house of cards, the latter patently lacks storm-weathering endurance. It is this critical phase of nation-building that the average Ghanaian appears to be woefully incapable of meaningfully appreciating, at least based on the available media literature.

In other words, short of electoral justice of the kind being vigorously and doggedly sought by the New Patriotic Party, and even such other marginal political parties as the Progressive People's Party (PPP) and the National Democratic Party (NDP), from Ghana's august Supreme Court, any expedient attempt made by the Mahama-Arthur regime in the name of an all-inclusive government is more likely to incense democracy-loving Ghanaians than appease them.

At any rate, when all has been said and done, it bears significantly observing that all good governments have the salutary and self-protective agenda of facilitating the equitable distribution of the commonwealth or collective national resources for the benefit of all of its constituents, irrespective of which districts or regions of the country are putatively regarded as the ruling party's stronghold or no-go areas.

One would expect the Mahama government to be far more focused on the latter objective than seeking to use bribery to skirt around justice. Mr. Mahama is more likely to succeed this way.

On the other hand, nothing prevents the appointments committee of the Mahama-led National Democratic Congress from scouting for viable talents, wherever such talents can be found, to facilitate the fulfillment of its Campaign 2012 manifesto, regardless of partisan and/or ideological affiliation, just so long as yours truly, for instance, is counted out.

*Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D.
Department of English
Nassau Community College of SUNY
Garden City, New York
Jan. 20, 2013
###