1.0 Contradictions and Inconsistencies

Proponents of the People Representation Bill (PRB) adduce the fact that the Ghanaian Living Overseas (or GLO) contributes to the development of this country by his/her remittance and thus must be ?given the right to vote overseas?.

First, to suggest that the Ghanaian Living Overseas, by virtue of his location has ?lost? his right to vote and therefore it requires a new law/bill to restore that right back to him amounts to colossal falsity and a very strange distortion of facts. I heard Hon Asamoah Boateng on radio saying this and some callers who clearly do not understand all the issues voiced their support for him.

The constitutional provision that grants the right to vote says you must simply be a Ghanaian. It makes no reference to your geographic location. Be thou in China or Chile you still posses that right just by virtue of being Ghanaian. Therefore it is wrong for anyone to talk about passing a law to give Ghanaians outside the right to vote. The constitution grants all Ghanaians the right to vote, it does not grant the right to vote anywhere. I cannot go and live on the moon and say my rights have been taken away from me. This is not rocket science and must be understood by all without question

The substantive issue therefore is; should GLO?s be given the opportunity (emphasis on opportunity) to exercise this right to vote outside Ghana? That is the issue. Let us not confuse 1. having a right to something and 2. being able to exercise that right where you choose to. This is all mixed up in media discussions.

I watched Paul Adom Okyere?s interview on Metro TV of Nana Bediatuo on the People?s Representation Bill and I was disappointed that the former?s usual analytical mind deserted him that occasion as he left his interviewee to walk away Scot free with some colossal contradictions. Consider the following. Paul asked him : ?Why can?t we for instance start the external voting exercise on a pilot scale, in West Africa, say, and see the results before extending to other countries?. He replies in his very refined mannerism: ?Paul, that would mean we are creating levels of citizenship where some classes are at a disadvantage1?. (or something close to that). However that is exactly what the bill he supports wants to create: a situation where only one class of Ghanaians ?those living in the 48 countries where Ghanaian embassies exists (out of the 179 or so countries worldwide) are only those that will be given the opportunity to exercise their right to vote overseas. When Paul mentioned the Ghanaian voter living in Trinidad and Tobago and how he was going to vote his answer was that those in the other 131 countries -where there are no Ghanaian embassies -will have to travel to the nearest country where Ghanaian embassies exits. See? Now all on a sudden the point he makes about creating levels of citizenship where others are disadvantaged because they cannot exercise their right to vote where they reside, dissolves into thin air! Very clever.

2.0 Politicization of the debate

Very recent history suggests that the NPP would simply have opposed this bill if it were in opposition. Equally the NDC would have supported this bill if they were in power. The debate has been politicized and apparently all NDC followers are against while NPP followers are in favour. That is not true. I know a good number of NPP card bearing faithfuls who are against this proposal. Let me digress a bit and say both NDC and NPP must be wary of its fanatical supporters. They can never help any party to move ahead in that whatever the party does they will approve. All parties must have people who are capable of critical analysis of party position. A situation where an internal critic is seen as a traitor can lead no party anywhere.

I am not a card bearing NPP supporter but I find the performance of the NPP government quite satisfactory. But for certain things that continue to happen my assessment of this government could have been ?very good?. I am hopeful that my business will thrive under this government even though I do not hold a party card. When I criticize government policy the President will not call on Ghanaians to boycott my goods. That for me is the essence of positive change. But while my personal view is that progress under NPP government has been study all across the country, I am deeply worried that major problems like the implementation of NHIS, the disability bill, the proposed Venture Capital Fund, Afram Plains Irrigation initiative, and other key projects, have all taken backseat while the government is embarking on a project that is grossly misconstrued, needless and antithetical to its own agenda of encouraging homecoming. The President has on a number of foreign trips urged GLO?s to come home because there is freedom now in Ghana. In one breadth we decry the thousands of medical personnel who have abandoned this country to seek greener pastures elsewhere and in another we are saying accord them the privilege to vote wherever they are. A country that stands to gain from the homecoming of its citizens outside cannot be pushing for them to carry out such an important exercise which happens only once in 4 years outside the country.

I am deeply worried that the government may not listen and brand all opposing views as ?opposition talk?. As a people I have noticed that we find it difficult to accept it when we realize we are wrong. We stick to our own convictions without listening to others because we know we are so right. We can only be right, others can only be wrong. It happened under the previous government and if it is happening today then it is unfortunate. If any of Kwame Nkrumah?s close pals had suggested to him that the path he had taken was wrong (one party state, arbitrary detentions etc) and that it could lead to a series of adverse events, he would have branded him a traitor and sent him to die in prison.

This is not an attempt to compare NPP?s rule with the excesses of Nkrumah. Far from that. But I cannot believe that NPP proponents are quick to point out that it was the NDC that made a similar provision/law for some Ghanaians to vote outside. How can the NPP allude to something it opposed, as a basis for its actions today? After all, the framers did envisage instances where Ghanaians may not be able to come home to vote and thereby included proxy voting in the constitution. So why should anyone be allowed to vote in another country when the constitution grants him the right to vote in Ghana by proxy? I do not think even government officials or even soldiers stationed outside should vote outside this country when the constitution prescribes proxy voting. At a time when mistrust between political parties is pitch-high no ballots boxes or election results should ever be brought in from anywhere outside Ghana. I want to see a peaceful post election era in 2008 but this bill is only courting post-election chaos where election results are disputed by losing parties.

Look at the suspicion and rancour that characterized the elections in a single constituency like Odododiodio even when every ballot was cast under our own very eyes. The mere opening of an NPP office generated huge controversy. Our democracy is still in its infancy and no attempt should be made to saddle it with complex, burdensome and needless experimentations.

3.0 Implications of the Bill

What does this country (or some may say this government) seek to gain from imposing on itself such a huge burden? Whenever the enormity of the implications of this bill is pointed out the response you get is that we have to start anyway, somewhere, somehow. The problems will be managed as we go along. But the gravity of problem that can arise out of this bill - disputed election results - has the potential of threatening the very foundation of our dear nation, its security. It cannot be compared for instance with problems that arise out of NHIS implementation. For the sake of this argument lets just look closely at this proposal of allowing Ghanaians in those 48 countries to vote. Can you imagine a situation where 11,040 (48 countries x 230 constituencies) ballots boxes from 48 other distant countries are brought in? Granted even that the EC will have the resource and capability to carry this out, one major component of the problem is about people?s fears, suspicions and doubts. That cannot be resolved so easily. Even where there are no twins, the press can make us believe there are twins. That?s on a lighter note but on a serious note will any party in opposition ever accept results of elections carried out overseas under the supervision of Ambassadors who are officially representatives of the country but in the practical sense agents of the party in power? On the other hand, can the Electoral commission recruit and send electoral officers/agents to 48 countries when the government cannot even provide for the full cost of elections carried out solely within Ghana?

I also understand that the embassies are to serve as voting centers. To think that provision of one polling centre at the embassy for a whole country in enough is simply preposterous. Can you imagine an election in a geographic area like Ghana where the only single voting centre is at the Castle? That will be the scenario for all Ghanaians living in the UK, which has the same area like Ghana. The scenario in the US where Ghana has 3 consulates will be like organizing elections across the whole of Africa with only 3 polling stations one each in Cairo, Lagos and Durban. Nana Bediatuo and other proponents think this is acceptable and when these are pointed out their best response it to minimize these and discount them.

Are there grounds for suspecting the Government of a hidden agenda? I do not think so but government?s actions seem to suggest so. Let?s look at some other rights the constitution accords every Ghanaian. Article 25 for example offers every Ghanaian the right to Free Compulsory Basic Education. It states ?all persons? meaning ?all Ghanaian citizens? have a right to free compulsory basic education. Now can a Ghanaian living outside claim that s/he is being denied that right and thus ask the government to make provisions for him or her to enjoy FCUBE out side Ghana? Recall that the argument being advanced in the case of the PRB is that those outside are also Ghanaians and therefore must be allowed to exercise that right outside. Here I bet the government will scream ?come home and enjoy that right!? True or false? Is the government ready to provide the right to Free Compulsory Basic Education (a right of every Ghanaian) to GLO?s? Or is the government interested in the exercise of only one of many rights accorded the GLO? Can the government select a few rights and make provision for them to be exercised overseas leaving the other rights? The above, coupled with the haste with which this bill is being handled makes its already suspicious opponents believe so and they are quite right to think so.

4.0 Contribution of Ghanaians Overseas

Proponents of this bill are simply mired in contradictions of unimaginable proportions and of all the points they adduce in support of the PRB this one about GLO?s and their soi-disant contributions to the economy, is the funniest. They talk of inward foreign remittances from GLO?s as if they are free contributions to the government. The Gross Domestic Product of Ghana is the value of the collective work of all Ghanaians living in Ghana (GLIG). Are we saying foreign remittances from GLO?s are greater than the GDP of Ghana? If their remittances are greater than the amount GLIG?s generate (i.e. GDP) then we could consider placing them in a special category and accord them special privilege to vote overseas. Even there it will be unconstitutional because we will be saying if you are rich, you are more Ghanaian than others.

Finally proponents try to create the impression that asking GLO?s to come home is either being unfair to them or asking too much from them. If journeying to Ghana to vote is asking too much of the Ghanaian living in the UK, what about the thousands of Ghanaians living in Accra who hail from Wa who have to go there to vote? Certainly flying from London to Accra in 6 hours cannot be compared to the 8-hour strenuous journey from Accra to Wa. Why then should we send the Londoner a ballot box to vote there and not give the Upper West men the chance to vote for their presidential/parliamentary candidate in Accra where he resides? Is it because Londoners are ?more Ghanaian? than those from Wa? Probably, because he sends free pounds sterling to the Government, while those from Wa don?t. Huh? The suggestion is that if you reside overseas you are more important. Many Ghanaians have chosen to live in Ghana in spite of all the difficulties not that they cannot go outside. I have many friends who have gone to seek greener pastures and can?t understand why I am not keen on living outside. What kind of vision do I have that makes me still want to live in Ghana they ask. They tell me to forget about Ghana, as they see no point in living and working here Ghana. They will soon have one more reason never to come home.

Finally if this bill is ever passed, I foresee elections results being disputed in 2008 and beyond by the minority parties. This could trigger undesirable events. Also there will come a time when Ghanaians who were not born here and have never set foot in Ghana will decide who should lead this country. All said and done, the fact remains that GLO?s still have their right to vote. They have not lost it for it to be restored. The answer to the question whether to grant GLO?s the opportunity (emphasis on opportunity) to exercise their right to vote overseas can only be an emphatic no.

Now therefore, can we switch the debate to when the Venture Capital Fund proposed many months ago by the Vice President Aliu Mahama will come into being, so more people can advance thier businesses here in Ghana before they also vamoose to overseas? Please?