Letters
Autopsy of Ghana
No observer of the modern African political system can fail to notice the mounting frustration caused by increasing interventions of military roles. In many parts of the continent, especially the black-controlled sector, the wait for stability can even be more conveniently measured in decades than years.Ghana's intermittent changes of administration draw a remarkable attention and grave concern, particularly among the colonial masters, as to her maturity level - a degree of measure generally accepted and considered before granting self-rule.
It is rather disappointing that after twenty seven years of growth Ghana still lurks in total embryonic stage in her search for a reliable axle to revolve upon.
Her rise to independence was a did- actic effort which animated neighbour- ing African states into theorising their preference of 'self-government in danger' over servitude in tranquility. It then became excitingly obvious that the African was ready to manage her own affairs.
However, this frenzy of self-rule was soon transformed into a mythical error which, again, is closely watched by the colonial masters.
With Ghana at a centrefold point of the focus the outlook was apparently bright, at least, during her honeymoon span i.e. from 1957 to 1966. In fact, during this period, she became an exemplary sovereignty institution, championing issues like 'total liberation of Africa', and continental unification a platform which raised few inimical eyebrows. Rapid progressive changes such as road constructions, health facilities, schools, inter alia, became symbolic paragons of institutional edifices - a renaissance which also involved huge unbearable expenditure.
These two factors dominated national politics at such incalculable rate that they plunged the entire nation into a state of exhaustion. Hence, the rise of sharp opposition and decline of unity.
Ghana has long learned that where there is no liberty, there is no unity and where there is no justice, undoubtedly, there is no harmony.
The mirror reflects a negative outlook. But there is one cause. Out of fear and intimidation Ghanaians deeply submit to blind partisanship and, and thus, display unrestrained and unpolished attachment to any immatured revolutionary concepts. We have, in the spirit of ignorance, hailed too many Caesars. Next year we will be twenty eight, quite old enough to live in unity but young, indeed, to die for freedom and justice.
Dr Tommy De Lawrence, Los Angeles.
Killings without trial
The killing of the men said to have been involved in the attempted coup of the 25th March should be condemned by all those who respect humanity.These men were killed hours after they were arrested. They were denied justice as to a trial to prove their guilt. I want to ask Rawlings: if he had been treated in this way on the 15th May 1979 after his attempted coup, would he be alive now? What was his punishment when he overthrew the democratically elected government of the PNP if coup plotter were to be punished?
PNDC government must realise that the death penalty of coup plotters cannot stop coups in Ghana so long as Ghanaians continue to suffer under this obnoxious government.
George A. Dankwa, West Germany.
Government with a bite - that's what we need
I thank Mr Osei Kwadwo of London for setting me straight on the salaries of Deputy Ministers, which I wrongly stated in my letter in this magazine recently. Maybe I should have removed 'Deputy' from that particular sentence.National unity is an impenetrable barrier, the lack of which creates vulnerability to external influences. Hence, the foreign-sponsored Afrifa- Kotoka coup d'etat - and the consequential Acheampong - Akuffo- Rawlings syndrome.
Mr Anane Adjei of West Germany, however, completely missed the point of my letter. I maintain the civilian governments have had the greatest opportunities to make something of Ghana. It is widely accepted that on attaining independence we were amongst the richest countries in Africa. Radio Brunei, in a comment on the recent expulsion of Ghanaians from Nigeria went so far as to state that we were the richest in resources and reserves.
Then followed the years of corruption, relatively poor industrial planning and dictatorship. Nkrumah might have been ahead of his time in Pan-Africanism but the corruption and plain thievery which marked his rule effectively prepared the ground for a military takeover. So we lost a great opportunity to really move ahead.
The military generally being incapable of good government by virtue of its structure could not stem the tide of deterioration that had began.
Busia, upon hindsight, could take a few lessons in leadership from Maggie Thatcher. He lost control of his Ministers, and his government spent time quarrelling with the judiciary 'If they wish to play politics I am prepared to take them on'. There was of course some progress - the rural development scheme and terrible mistakes (Aliens Compliance Order) but the deterioration continued and the value of the cedi diminished. This was the second great opportunity we civilians messed up.
So we got whom we deserved - Kutu Acheampong. His rule saw what I call the final destruction of our cedi when in an effort to provide funds for his Unigov dream, he increased the money supply to ridiculous heights without any concurrent increase in production.
Of course, he didn't know any better with his simplistic approach to economics. His appointment of Col. Bernasko to head Agriculture was probably his best move, for, that remarkable man made us self-sufficient in rice production within one year. Here is a man of action, a performance-oriented individual who should have been used by Limann, but he was not.
But if Busia's government with all her economic experts was unable to achieve positive results (admittedly, curtailed after only two years) how can one blame Kutu for thinking he could do better?
After Akuffo another non achiever whose regime brings to mind. the botched attempt at monetary reform he made, we had the first coming of Rawlings. Ghanaians sat up. For once people were paying taxes they had evaded for years. His 'house cleaning' was welcomed by the majority of Ghanaians.
There was a renewed hope that he could still make something of this country. The greatest demonstration of support he received was when he asked the entire nation to clean our surroundings. The response was fan tastic! It cut across tribal, religious or political lines. The country was like an explosive device - charged up, primed and ready to go.
And then the anti-climax - we got Limann. The fear of punishment for crimes against the state (corruption, mismanagement) vanished. He was a poor leader and hence we lost the third great opportunity.
Finally, we have to remember that very many Ghanaians have lost confidence in the ability of our present crop of civilian administrators and politicians to lead us. I do not believe that the economy of Ghana is so complex that our trained economists just can't understand it. It is the will and dedication that they rather lack, to do something about it.
We must also remember that no military coup that upset civilians has ever been faced with an unequivocal NO from Ghanaians immediately upon assumption of power. Rather they know that none of the previous administrations has been worth fighting for.
It is too easy for them to blame our situation on the state of the world economy but I say that with all the machinery of government at their control, civilian leaders have woefully failed in their duties and responsibilities to the hardworking Ghanaian of which (believe it or not) there are quite a few.
Kafui King, Brunei
