In the past few weeks happenings of epic proportions have occurred, actually without much of people appearing to notice and react with customary style.  It is odd on the face of it.  But on one hand there is good reason; and on another, it looks satisfying for the opposing courses.  Before the latest edition of the lockdown, major driving point of contention in public arguments is whether the insistence to have us queue to re-write our names for a fresh electoral role for imminent national ballot, sufficiently addressed the life- matters-issue.  

That is a classic case of priority-quandary particularly as here, when both sides of the options are at par as merits.  While the choice may be repeatedly faulted after made, the additional spanner especially, is the awkwardness of time-frame botched in two ways: [I (a)] double-headed ‘politifact’ –an uncanny digression into compelled constitutional crisis which [ii (b)] could obscure the replica of a type of Mali-stand-off ; and secondly in in-chief, both being bound in a ruthless pandemic—Covid-19.   Narratives have formed around the resolution of the GBC versus Ministry of Communications ‘’spectrum-impasse’’ followed by the further easing of the bio-security regulations.  

These are shortly ‘afters’, neither of which can be overlooked for their collective bearings in up-coming electioneering campaign.  The substantive explanations are relevance particularly for posterity and empirically, which might defuse the tendentious elements in them to stop a badly polluted over-politicized country getting muddier.   It is said that the presidential advisory to the Ministry to freeze keyed the end of the parleys not falling apart.  The word used reportedly is ‘’suspend.’’ There is no contesting what it means which, from a lurking reality, is ‘’withdraw’’.  The political perception that shapes the dissension within the ruling party [NPP] is a definition and interpretation of the understanding of ‘suspend’ at large. 

 Put simply, the two are  a copycat of what beset the Brits into frenzy over ‘’breach’ or ‘no breach’ of mandated lockdown protocols by Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Senior Advisor David Cummings.  Central in referenced comparison to make a discord, is that the Premier stood by his man.  Here it seemed or truly that the ex-cathedra nudge-up was abandonment, even appeasement, some would contend.  Whichever, I confess a suspicion that others may not let it go away for a casus belli within a party that has since their Sunyani [late 90s] to elect its ‘’Presidential-Ticket’’, stalked itself with internal wrangling—muted in situ and open out of power seat. 

 [Eventually John Kufuor was elected, won against contestants Nana  Akufo-Addo and J.H. Mensah (his brother-in-law)]. 

 And that is the vivid current evidence and the rare luck to point at on a social media video of the former president talking about lack of accord apparently inside and predicating it on which leadership quality was generally for country and specifically for the party.  I need to break the wall to piece the puzzle together.  I shall quickly use the political expediency route for a first explanation in the kind of speaking for the intervention.   Every political Reader knows the ploy as ‘casual approach to safety’.  In fact that is or must approximately the pivotal face-saver-thought for Brit PM Johnson against public demands to dismiss Cummings.  It has worked until it won’t. 

 Next, in politifact, survival is led by primary consideration of the historical record, especially memorable achievement(s) within specific heroic contexts.  The now President Akufo-Addo piloted [as the Attorney General] to expunge the Criminal Libel Law [CLL], found politically misused and obnoxious for decades.  Relative to the tiff over the Spectrum issue, the counter media and public submissions protest rejects perceivable intent to curtail freedom of the press which envelopes the annulled CLL. Every person’s survival instincts will go for protectionism—cloaked or blatant. Thirdly, and this is norm- assumption which has cut corners to either destroy principles or undermine democracy here in continuum.   

Like PM Johnson’s, we have in this country condoned into almost a culture the right to do wrong with nonchalance, once you are in power and or connected in the corridors of the same.  Too many examples will fill to make a Book—‘’No Court’’ and ‘’the Savundra case is dead and buried forever.’’  That is the environment which fuels the charge of ‘appeasement’.  But whether it is a humbug also leaves the choice to confront alienating the media walking into an election.  

A couple of elections back, comparing the NPP/ NDC, the consensus public perception was that the NPP was more media-friendly.  Time and the twist in the tail of the Broadband differences appear to resonance of doubt hanging well on that and therefore allowing the ultimatum to proceed would have been electorally suicidal.  it is obvious relative to the press alienated by a faux pas and has the final word, always.  The second of the events in happenings that form the basis for this analysis now, is concerned with a salient ambiguity in the presidential address which initiated the new code of conduct as regards personal and public safety in the confrontation with a virulent virus which continues to hit home, made life tougher—terrible for some, including businesses and trade and less to moderate for others.  

In terms of calming scare and slow the game of blame and give meaning to the dictum that says ‘hope has a smile’, the same embedded a piece of controversy—a point of non-clarity.  I am summarizing the understanding which despite ended on a high note, has raised the question as spells the ambiguity, interpreted as probably, allegedly a sly political toss:  the President advised ignoring the stats through  Mathematics of omissions—simple addition and subtraction.  The better fact which cannot be lied away is that the infections are on a surge, there is no precise curves to calculate our having managed the pandemic well for self-applause.  

The question many are asking is why would he not lay on the Maths is shaping the discourse to propel, perhaps unduly, the wondering about falling short is a gimmick and or joins up the ended registration to conclude that bothersome equation on which matters—life or the vote, stating it in stark terms, though previously argued properly in mitigation explanatorily in this to date.  The point is it is worth coming full hog with in order to foster change of thought and expectations of what has come to be characterized as the basic criteria for leadership material for [a] political and a movement and or group; and [b] a country or nation.  It has been a subject embroiled in so much as confused firstly the kind [a]and which evolves someone for [b].  

For instance in Unionized-Labor where it is strident, the best choice falls on ‘outspokenness’.  The reverse type needs ‘ebullience’.  For political party and the variety of descriptions in the trail, it is acceptable to align the Unions’ sketch correspondingly and generally.  But there are careful exceptions which are personal clout, not charisma which is both an asset and a liability.  That is one side.  The other derives from any of the old Trio: ‘’some are born great; some achieve greatness; and others have greatness thrust upon them’’.  I guess we can all work our way through the matrixes.  But a far greater ingredient is usually overlooked in thinking to shape and call as ‘’Leader material’’ in a political party which succeeds and thrives to deserve.  I shall preamble it with the CPP’s ‘’organization decides’’.  

Who represents that then is that sine qua non factor within politifact in a Political History dissection exercise, away totally from Political Science theorems.  It is the stature, political base and mien of its Secretary-General.  That baggage makes and fails the party, called the clout and class.  In our practical politicking’s narrative this has been the single Head which makes the telling difference between the party and its competitors on the one side; and the same carrying the party to country. 

 To date, I have self-advisedly and not to be even unnecessarily invidious avoided foreign and domestic comparative lists to fit the descriptions.  I shall now break the spin for the historical evidence-citations only to remove or induce a reduction of intense speculation because [a] chance of truth; and [b] you don’t let the matter go away as fixed but has the enormous advantage to keep the audience also thinking for re-constructive purposes.  Starting with the ‘’oldest’’ political party—the CPP [12 June 1949]: The unrivalled names start from Tawiah Adamafio through Horatio (Kofi) Crabbe to none.  Then the UP through PP via PFP/UNC to NPP:  Ben Joa Kojo da Rocha, Agyenim Boateng to the thin end in Dan Botwe who used learned from predecessors with skills formulated in the NUGS at Legon. 

 It is essential part of political party development to make definitive impact and influence a nation’s external image outside of substantive Foreign Secretaries.  After all, these merely and usually reflect any ruling political party or Opposition’s stand at home and more than decisively in global relations.  During our own years of experiences in global or regional geopolitics, the country’s strike for attention rests in how articulate the ‘’Shadow-in-the-box’’ is, irrespective of whether or not that presentation turns its leadership into imperial lackey, a vast complex other case.

©Prof nana essilfie-conduah.     

Show More
Back to top button