On the Sunday, June 29, 2008 edition of Ghanaweb news, Kojo Poku posed a cynical question: "Is the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) an arm of the New Patriotic Party (NPP)?” Kojo Poku's issue with the nonpartisan IEA was that the foundation's recently sponsored forum for the presidential candidates to lay out their positions was skewed to favor Nana Akuffo Addo, the NPP presidential candidate.
The author's vituperative assault was based on three specious arguments: First, Nana Akuffo received more minutes than his competitors; second, Nana received very soft questions; and third, the silliest of them all, that Nana Akuffo Addo showed up late.
A review of the recorded videos of the IEA discussions of the presidential candidates Akuffo Addo, Mills and Nduom, shows that each was allotted an equal amount of time. Approximately, thirty five minutes was given to each presidential candidate for their address to the gatherings. Also, each candidate received about the same number of questions, which were of a similar degree of difficulty and conducted in a non-partisan and evenhanded manner. Furthermore, how does a participant being late for an event constitute partisan bias on the part of the organizer of the event?
In an objective review of the video tapes, it is evident IEA strived to present a forum devoid of partisanship. Organizing a presidential forum that seeks to highlight the nation’s economic and social problems deserves commendation not condemnation. It’s easy to conclude that Opoku based his opinions on evidence that at best is highly suspect and malicious.
One would expect that after several years of democratic dispensation, Ghanaians would lose taste for the kind of petty politics that is so typical about African politics. Not so fast. Mr. Opoku’s attack in which he raises the issue of the number of questions asked of each candidate as well as the number of minutes allotted to each candidate is trivial, and that it takes attention away from what is really important – the messages of the individual candidates. What is even more disturbing is that the author twists facts to support his case in a hideously disingenuous manner to politicize the noble effort of IEA to help Ghanaians make the right choice in December 2008.
Instead of discussing the fruitful issues raised in this forum and leading a healthy discussion to help educate voters, this author elected instead to politicize the whole exercise under the specious excuse of the NPP candidate getting fewer and softball questions.
Such blindly partisan attacks on an exercise intended to promote and enhance our democracy are misguided and counter- productive and characterizes the kind of gutter politics that has helped fuel cynicisms and chaos, which in turn has retarded our nation's journey towards democracy.
It is commendable that under the regime of the NPP, more Ghanaians than ever before are fully engaged in the political process without any sort of restriction, fear or intimidation whatsoever. Today, the Ghanaian democracy is being touted as a shining example in a region more familiar with despots than democracy and chaos than order.
Our nation will be better served if people channel their energies towards giving constructive criticisms when they disagree, help generate creative ideas, and contribute effectively to a nonpartisan dialogue offered by the IEA in a manner sanguine for a democracy.
jowusu@gmail.com
