Why moderation is essential in the politics of developing countries
Is the noise being made about who should sit where in the Ghana Parliament really worth it?
Some people, including me, are of the view that a Parliament that has not been able to Stop the galamsey that is destroying the very water we drink to stay alive, does “protest too much” when it comes to ‘superficial issues like who should sit where in the chamber. If it is so crucial to determine who should sit where, why don’t they VOTE on the issue (by secret ballot!)? That would certainly tell all and sundry which party holds the majority in the House, wouldn’t it?
Parliament has been given enormous powers by the 1992 Constitution. It is allowed by the Constitution to conduct its own business with as much “sovereignty” as could be desired. All Parliamentarians should unite to guard that “sovereignty” jealousy.
For they, as representatives of the people, should hold power on behalf of the people and not allow the judiciary, which is APPOINTED, NOT ELECTED, to have the final say in matters which MPs should be able to handle without rerunning to referee to handle them for Parliament.
Of course, there are matters of interpretation, as far as the Constitution is concerned, when the Supreme Court should be called in. But occasions when that happens must be rare.
I mean: suppose we were saddled with a Supreme Court that was “partial”? Or “corrupt”? Or “arrogant”? The decisions of such a Supreme Court would be laughed at, and the whole political process would become Meaningless. Of course, human beings can make genuine mistakes.
Those can be forgiven, but the greater the chance of making mistakes (especially on political issues) the likelihood it is that mistakes WOULD be made.
Having watched the politics of Ghana and other African countries over a long period, I am convinced that there are times when compromises should be arrived at to take the heat out of potentially explosive situations.
The reason why compromises are sometimes necessary is this: there are always competitors for power hiding in the wings in a developing country, who think only of their own personal benefits than the nation’s needs and are prepared to-
Opportunistically-deride the political system as being “not serious” enough to tackle poverty and the other pervasive problems that are always present in a developing country. So a strict and brave decision to insist on a party’s “rights” must be balanced with a “pragmatic” approach that can recognise that perhaps allowing an opponent to take “nine” during a heated moment would pave the way for taking “ten” later.
It is such “pragmatism” that creates what is known in political language as “Statesmanship.”
BY CAMERON DUODU
