Without Inducement?: Dr. Arthur Kennedy Must Explain

While key actors in the theatre of modern Ghanaian politics are busy and frantically exploring the immediate and future implications of Dr. Arthur Kennedy's publication, "Chasing the Elephant into the Bush", some gurus and prominent members of the NPP now see him as a Judas-like betrayer. Dr. Kennedy on his part is returning fire rapidly by justifying his right to free speech and expression. In his defence and to assert his right, Dr. Kennedy is adding to what he is said to have written in his book by implying that some in the 2008 Nana Addo failed campaign currently questioning his loyalty were and are not as loyal to the NPP as they claim to be.

Naturally, the most vocal critics of Dr. Kennedy are his own, or shall I say former, kinsmen of the elephant family for obvious reasons. How dare one of their own reveal what was expected to remain on the inside. This sense of betrayal is compounded by the perception that Dr. Kennedy's publication is red meat to social democrats who will use it to help keep the right-wing capitalist elephant in the bush for the next thousand years.

Reading Dr. Kennedy's replies to his critics and some public statement by NPP activist, it is clear that some are trying to discredit and question not just the facts of what he has penned, but his person. The pure vilification and outright hatred by his former pals is real, a reason why he is likely to quit being an elephant activist. He is actively defending himself, his honour and his reputation by firing back at anyone who tries to call him names.

A man who has been on the receiving end of the now stand alone Dr's fire. is Egbert Fabille Jr, a media man, lawyer and political analyst who played a role in the very campaign that was the basis of the much talked about book. Yet Dr. Arthur Kennedy has not provided an example to justify calling some of his NPP critics like Egbert a practitioner of "moneycracy" incapable of commitment without inducement. Dr. Kennedy must explain why and on what basis he made such allegations.

As quoted extensively by the Enquirer news paper, Dr. Kennedy fired serious allegations at Egbert in his reply to Egbert's statement that he was behaving like a student politician during a discussion on his book. He noted that "Unlike Mr, Fabille, I did forget the good things I learnt from student politics-like integrity, speaking one's mind, standing up for one's principles, and commitment without inducement. These are the values that have served me well and would have served Fabille too. Dr. Kennedy continued that, " in the eagerness to embrace national politics one can become too tolerant of bad habits like "moneycracy" and hero worshipping.

To give you a sense of the gravity of the allegations against Egbert, even if implied, I looked up the definitions of "Inducement" and "Monecracy", two key words in Dr. Kennedy's reply to Egbert. Inducement, according to the dictionary is the offering of something like money or a gift to persuade you to do something. I was unable to find "Moneycracy", it was likely coined by Dr. Kennedy. Even so, the politically savvy can deduce that it is derived from Money and Democracy.

Dr. Kennedy is standing by what he has said about Egbert, he must give specific examples of where and when Egbert was induced, for what purpose, and/or by whom? As a matter of principle, I believe it will serve the national interest if allegations made against public figures and those with influence are substantiated. This is not a simple matter because Egbert as a lawyer and a media personality helps shape opinions in this nation. While I may disagree with him on a long list of issues, the truth is that he plays a role in the media and in political circles. These make Egbert a public figure and as Dr. Kennedy knows, he played a role in the failed 2008 Nana campaign in which he was the Communications Director.

Dr. Kennedy owes the people of Ghana specifics if he truly cares about the positive evolution of Ghanaian politics. We must develop a keen interest in the deeds of those whose work or pronouncements have the potential to shape public opinion and perceptions. The people have the right to know that those who make a living and a name speaking on national issues, and/or seek to represent them have the credibility they claim to. Dr. Kennedy must demonstrate with examples what he means by commitment without inducement and moneycracy because these are serious allegations he has made. If he cannot support his charges, he owes Egbert an apology.

Dr. C. Apaak

Currently Visiting Family In Bolga, Ghana

caapaak@yahoo.ca (020 0117620)