By Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D.
During a yuletide courtesy call on His Majesty, the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei-Tutu II, at his Manhyia Palace by the Asante Regional Minister, Mr. Eric Opoku, and the latter's entourage of Metropolitan, Municipal and District Chief Executives (MMDCEs), Otumfuo Osei-Tutu was reported to have exhorted these National Democratic Congress' government appointees to staunchly rally around policy targets set by President John Dramani Mahama, in order to enable the president to steer the country on the most righteous course of development (See "Otumfuo: Help Prez Mahama Achieve Vision" Graphic Online / Ghanaweb.com 12/24/13).
Now, these are the spirited words of a good leader and a great statesman. Unfortunately, however, Otumfuo could have gone even further and more constructively, as well as progressively, had he also thrown the challenge to President Mahama and Parliament to ensure the prompt democratization of the posts of our regional, municipal and district administrators by having such proposal put on the ballot during the next general election.
It is quite certain that the Asantehene has been a witness to the huge number of Mahama administrative appointees who have been roundly rejected at the metropolitan, municipal and district levels, so far, and continue to be rejected by the day. In other words, the imperative need for leadership accountability cannot be lightly ignored. What is more, the anticipated yeomanly performance of these local administrators would be best guaranteed, if they were periodically made to undergo an electoral scrutiny by the people.
As it stands presently, about the only thing that these administrators have to do in order to keep their jobs and remarkable paychecks is to simply remain in the good books of the regional minister and the president, as Otumfuo himself so poignantly observed. In turn, the regional minister is not accountable to anybody but the president and the latter's deputy. It also goes without saying that the president and his regional ministers do not live nearly as close to the local administrators as the inhabitants of the various local districts themselves. The same democratic process ought to be institutionalized at the district assembly level, if this is not already being thoroughly done.
The problem with our current system of democratic governance is that, at best, it is half-hearted (or the punitive equivalent of a half-way house). What this means is that the full beneficent experience of a democratic culture has yet to be realized by the people; and until a full-suit of democratic governance is implemented, the long-term development of the country is apt to suffer a serious regression.
The present system whereby local administrators are directly appointed by the central government, rather than locally and collectively by the people who are to be directly governed by these administrators, encourages favoritism and rank corruption; it also unsavorily reflects a vestige of the kind of dictatorship prevalent in the colonial era, and also during much of the pre-elective tenure of the former Chairman Jerry John Rawlings, the founding-patriarch of the National Democratic Congress.
It is rather pathetic, therefore, that the Kufuor-led New Patriotic Party administration had eight long years to fully democratize how local governance is practiced in Ghana but curiously failed to do so. Indeed, it is this kind of abject political neglect that has made it extremely difficult for Ghanaian voters to be able to clearly differentiate between our two major political parties. It is also for this reason, for only one ready example, of course, that I often feel greatly amused when those cynically bent on having their way, expediently invoke the names of Drs. Danquah and Busia, and Mr. Dombo, to unctuously plead their unholy causes.
__________________________________________________________
*Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, Jr., Ph.D.
Department of English
Nassau Community College of SUNY
Garden City, New York
Dec. 24, 2013
E-mail: okoampaahoofe@optimum.net
###