Strong analogies, weak democracies

Our politics has always been replete with so many anecdotes and analogies that it is easy to lose count of all of them.

To be sure, most of these analogies are self-serving and in a lot of ways undermine the democratic path that we have chosen for ourselves as a nation.

The most popular of these analogies is the one that seeks to justify violence on the grounds that someone entered into a particular premise without seeking the necessary permission - whatever that means.

So it happened that a press conference was brought to an abrupt end early in the week. This was because some persons alleged to be members of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) wielding  gun and machetes, brandishing broken bottles and other dangerous instruments, caused  journalists and others present to flee for dear life.

The leader of the group, who was identified by name, gave the reason for the disruption: “You cannot just enter someone’s house and start doing things without the person’s approval.”

The first point is that he is going to walk away without any police intervention or invitation. The second point has to do with the reason given for the intervention - “you cannot enter someone’s house and start doing things without  the person’s approval.”

In May this year, Paul Afoko as Party Chairman and Kwabena Agyepong as the General Secretary of the NPP were chased out of Bolga in the course of a meeting. The reason? The regional chairman of the NPP was not informed of the meeting.

Of course, a Ghanaian’s home is his castle. And is bound to do everything possible and legitimate to defend himself and all those who live with him. It is a point that is hard to contest.

However, to go to the point of describing a constituency as a home and therefore requiring permission or notification is in itself a worrying development.

In a sense, this is a direct affront to the integrity of the state and its security apparatus- that a group of individuals can easily coalesce and decide on who can exercise a legitimate political activity.

It is definitely a bad sign when individuals hold meetings in particular regions or constituencies without informing the local agents or officials of the party. But is such an act so grave as to  merit attacks, and counter-attacks and in one specific case, resulting in death .

The Let My Vote Count Alliance (LMVC) recently challenged the use of injunctions as a means of frustrating lawful political gathering - which in all sincerity is something that the police have always used as a tool to repress freedom of association, especially the right to demonstrate.

The Human Rights court gave judgement in their favour. The judgement was consistent with the historical posture of our Supreme Court.

The Court has always frowned on any procedure and process that seeks either directly or indirectly to place unjustifiable hurdles in the way of the individuals seeking to pursue legitimate business in the state.

The question that comes up is “can A decide to hold a press conference in constituency AA without the approval of the party executives?”

In the thinking of persons who hold the view that regional and constituency executives must be informed of activities that are ongoing or else  something terrible would be visited on the “dissidents”, this is a zero compromise matter.

And to be sure, it will be utterly wrong to limit this phenomenon to the NPP only. Almost all political parties in this country are prone to this culture.

But we have to come to terms with the fact that with the exception of private premises, no one has the right to restrain anyone or intimidate or threaten any one who is carrying on an activity that can be classified as a lawful political activity.

The strength of a political party in a lot of ways should be measured by the extent to which it takes on dissent amongst its own ranks.

In a lot of ways, these are desperate times for the opposition party. With some months to go into the presidential and parliamentary elections, it is bent on putting forward a party that displays some semblance of unity and robustness. And one can say its moves are gaining some grounds, as the extent of public discord seems to be simmering down.

But violence in any form is not justifiable. If such trends are allowed to continue, next year’s general election would be no different from all that we have witnessed since 1992 - fear filled and motivated elections.

We would be once again running all over the place preaching peace instead of propagating the policies that are going to make a difference.

There is no justification for the disruption of lawful political activity on the grounds that permission has not been sought from the regional party executive members. 

This is simple. A constituency is not a home to any particular person or group of persons.

Politics _today@yahoo.com