Ghana’s Democratic Maze

Ghana’s democracy, at best, is nothing more than an elaborate maze. Even if this sounds harsh, this statement is not made lightly. At stake is the question of what Ghanaians benefit as the impact of their democracy? Looking at Africa on a whole, Ghana can take-pride in her ‘high-rating’ so long as she does not overlook the ‘faults’ or drawbacks. Moreover, it will be pretentious to deny, doubt or dismiss these. For Ghanaians, this realisation is critically required to bring a balance to their outlook on democracy. The paper puts forward this glimpse of the actual picture to help with a meaningful approach.

Admirably, Ghana does not have the problem of leaders refusing to ‘go’ after their term. Yet John Mahama’s humility in the face of defeat merits regard as a statement or encouragement. Nevertheless, this does not overlook the nature of previous handovers. Having said this, Ghana has settled into a democratic maze that makes this examination necessary. For this reason, any lessons that can be learnt as the result of this will be useful at all levels. To this end, this paper must start with the question of what Ghanaians are celebrating as democracy.

To be precise, Nana Akufo-Addo’s winning margin does not lay Ghana’s challenges to rest. Specifically, her party-political positioning has reached a point that can be democratically questioned or cautioned to say the least. For all the positives that are abstractable, the ‘winner-takes-all’ dispensation warrants a rethink. However, this cannot happen without examining the ‘entrenched’ effects of colonialism for its reminder of the powerful adage of the ‘elephant’ that has been killed that ‘selected-hands’ on all sides of the party-divide have taken it in turns to make the most of the spoils.

Disappointedly, the ‘revolution’ that Ghanaians often refer to was in truth, nothing more than a ripple that took a ‘few’ more to the top. As such, the NDC’s rendition that infrastructure was not enough to win them power is more worrying as a statement. Indeed, the same can be said of the excerpts of economic hardship, political arrogance, grassroots disaffection and so forth that have become apparent. Immediately, questions can be asked about the inclusivity that is regarded of democracy. In the same way, the distinction made between Ghanaians as citizens or spectators has to be reviewed.

Any arguments that come up therefore must ‘make-sense’ of the linkages between democracy and the living conditions of Ghanaians. Similarly, so should any critique of the institutions, politicians, civil servants and so forth that comprise of its functioning. If it has to be said, the citizenry is almost ‘forgotten’ after the ‘curtain goes up on presidential inauguration’. Particularly, for a large section of Ghanaians, they remain ‘none-the-better’ by the experience. So the reports of party supporters on the rampage of ‘taking control’ should be knocking ‘some sense’ in Ghana.

As a statement, the ‘frustrations’ say it plainly as to what is at stake. Within society, for example, the difference can be taken as attributed to the will, effort, resourcefulness and so forth of the citizenry. Importantly, Ghanaians must take-on an analysis that sees the ‘chickens coming home to roost’. Democracy, for all that it has been ‘dressed-up’ to be, has to make evident and relevant the focus of development. Ghanaians, to this matter, cannot be apathetic, naive or ‘politically-bias’ about this outlook. Moreover, its proximity to the question of ‘who-gets-what’ of Ghana’s wealth’ speaks for itself’.

The ballot box, even if it has to symbolise everything, has to address the misconceptions of the said maze. Ghana can no longer hide the reality that most of her wealth continues to be in the hands of a ‘selected-few’ while the rest ‘shuffer and schmile’ as Flea Kuti is forced to sing. Democratically, this fact is what Ghanaians are now questioning. Whilst, not justifying the criminality and lawlessness in the wake of the last elections, the ‘wake-up’ call is sounded. Importantly, those at the centre of this have made-clear ‘frustrations’ that reverberate onto the sharing of Ghana’s national cake.

For all the excitement, songs-repertoire right through to the colourfully-impressive inauguration ceremony, it is time that the impact is ‘made-known’. Democracy in Ghana’s case has to hold reverence for the living conditions of Ghanaians. For all the ‘show-boating’, leaving this out of the picture only places the real truth in doubt. Worst, the typology of the few that continue to ‘enjoy’ while the rest just ‘tighten-their-belts’ is as embarrassing as it is noticeable. Moreover, how long can Ghana get away with this script whilst hiding behind the ‘overkill’ of change promises?

The ‘tsoboi’ mentality that Ghanaians ‘toss-in’ as part of democracy has a place so long as it gives and makes sense of the impact. Even so, outlets of this must align with their living conditions and advancement. As a nation, Ghana cannot keep-up a ‘democratic pretence’ whilst the impact remains in question. In truth, she can make what she wants of this but Ghanaians must appreciate the difference to ‘bring in’ their contribution. The democratic maze that is viewed in this glimpse strikes an urgent note that Ghana must make of its purpose, practice and impact rather than just revel in what she is said o have.

Richmond Quarshie