What The Papers Say
Catholic Standard, September 8, 1985
"The Search" revisited - II
We have reverted to the issue of a search for future political arrangements for this country because it appears to us to be a question of capital importance over which there should be no quibbling or equivocation. The importance of this issue rests on the elementary principle generally accepted in all civilised societies that what concerns all should be discussed by all. This also happens to be the clarion call of the 31st December process encapsulated in the slogan "power to the people".In concrete terms, however, what power do the people hold? Precious little, as far as power to decide on major issues affecting the political and economic issues affecting the country is concerned. Very far-reaching decisions on the economy have been, and continue to be, taken without any consultation whatsoever with the people at the receiving end. A considerable amount of foreign loans has been flowing into the country within the last year; some of these loans have gone to various specific projects, while others have been disbursed by the government. The criteria for the disbursement remain a secret to the people who will be called upon in future to repay these loans.
Without any consultation with the people or their representatives, “even the few amenities" that we used to enjoy such as subsidized hospital fees and school fees have been progressively withdrawn and we are now being asked to pay directly for these services while we continue to pay taxes. Surely, power to the people should mean the power to decide whether our taxes will be used to subsidize hospital treatment and educational facilities or not. Now, these are important issues which affect both our well-being and survival as citizens, and we should have a say in how such decisions are arrived at.
We have had occasion to raise these issues before, we raise them again because the government appears deliberately to have turned a deaf ear. We are even more worried because our future appears to be in the process of planning without our being consulted. The other day, it was Mr Justice D.F. Annan speaking of the "implementation of the programme of the NCD", whose details remain a secret to the people of this country.
More recently a very highly placed government official is reported to have made a statement about the future political arrangements for this country which deserves some comment. Mr P.V. Obeng, member of the PNDC and Chairman of the Committee of Secretaries is reported in the People's Daily Graphic of August 24 to have said that "the administration of the nation is now a joint responsibility of both civilians and men in uniform". He is further reported to have explained that "this is because it is now generally accepted that the separation of natural responsibility between civilians and the military is now unnatural and undesirable".
The fact that "the administration of the nation is now a joint responsibility of both civilians and men in uniform" is evident; whether it is accepted as desirable or reflecting the wishes of the people being administered is another iss altogether. And what is so natural or desirable about sharing of political responsibility between civilians and military?
All this so ominously echoes the bogus argument advanced during the Union Government charade that need to be vigilant lest the rehashed arguments will surreptitiously foisted on us in an unguarded moment. And we can already forsee the organisations and movements which will perform the same role as the Ghana Peace and Solidarity Council played in those dark days of Unigov.
What is even more menacing is the effort to root such an undemocratic arrangement in our traditional culture. Mr P.V. Obeng is also reported to have said that "African tradition culture recognises statehood and leadership built around traditional military formation". If "traditional military formation" is taken to mean the traditional arrangement in which there was no professional standing army, but all male adults could be called upon to perform military duties as the need arose, we cannot quarrel with the statement. But given the context and environment in which the statement was made, he means the modern professional military, then with due respect, his interpretation of our traditional culture is of more than dubious value: it is totally misleading.
In this era of democratic egalitarianism, how can or justify anything short of "one man one vote"? And what is the percentage of the military to the civilian population for any sharing of power? And if the military as a distinct group or class, why not teachers, and why not fishermen or farmers or drivers? The military certainly have an important role to play in nation-building, but our own history and that of other developing nations fail to persuade us that a "joint military and civilian leadership should bring an end to the search for a new socio-political order by African nations' Is Mr Obeng trying to tell the country that what the PNDC is searching for us is Union Government in a new garb? We would have thought that we knew and deserved much better than that.
In any case, it is just possible that we may be reading too much into the statements attributed to Mr P.V. Obeng. However, in the absence of any concrete evidence that there is an earnest search by the National Commission for Democracy or any other competent body charged with that responsibility, and short of any specific statement from government on the issue, one is only left with making inferences and speculating on the basis of statements which occasionally escape from the lips of high government officials.
To end such speculation, we reiterate our call to the government to let the sovereign people of Ghana know where they are going. The Standard hopes that a statement will be issued soon and that it will not put us back on the thorny and stormy road to Union Government under a new guise.
