Letters
What happens when the military takes over power?
The conventional wisdom that the practice of politics should be left to civilians has come under serious challenge from our soldiers. Whatever the justification, coups must be seen as a new role for the military in Africa. Hence the question: 'what happens when the military takes over power?'They start by taking corrective actions against the politicians who are usually held responsible for all the problems facing the state. In typically military fashion, emergency measures are taken to change the government and tackle all the problems that the soldiers perceive as being the reason for their intervention.
In the short term they take decisions aimed at disciplining and correcting grave social and economic problems. Military rule is often by decree which usually gives an impression of haste in preparation because consultation is limited to a small circle of the new rulers and their political advisers.
The freedom in a military-ruled state in Africa however, varies from one place to the other, but generally military regimes brook no criticism of their general conduct. They are, therefore, free to do as they choose. It must however be pointed out that the military comparatively do not have the temperament and technical know-how for administering their countries. In the short- term, they may give an impression of vigour and efficiency.
However, in the long-term, the characteristics of discipline and precision that seem to serve them so well in the barracks do not seem to work for them as political leaders. They eventually find that the problems of government which persuaded them to intervene are much more complex than they assumed and do not easily lend themselves to military-style solutions. As they are unable to control the public administration completely, their decisions achieve a cosmetic, rather than a substantive, effect.
The net effect is to weaken further the civilian institution which they claimed they were protecting when they seized power. Military rule generally interrupts the maturity of our civil institutions and halts the growth of experience of our civil political establishment. When they leave the scene these come to haunt the new civil leaders.
Rule by our soldiers tends to exacerbate tensions and conflicts. It is surprising how problems which in the civil political environment can be contained, develop into serious crises in a military administration. The patient approach is not the strong point of the African soldier. His impatience with complex problems and his need for instant solutions tend to complicate delicate issues and more often than not bring about unnecessary disputes and conflicts. Against this background and the socio-political mess in Ghana today it is about time Flt-Lt. Rawlings and his cronies gave way to constitutional rule.
Lawrence Whyte-Afari, W. Germany
Such rubbish!
I wish to register my utter disgust in the strongest possible terms about the article in your most recent issue entitled 'Life in Nigeria is Rife with Graft' under your Between The Lines column.In fairness to you, the article was mostly culled from The Washington Times but two things worry me: if the western media write such drivel about us Africans what business has an African publication - so- called to give it further currency by reprinting it? The other worry I have is that from the P.S. you added, it appeared you agree with the writer, or at least you do not condemn him. When you say that President Babangida should listen well and that the battle lines have been drawn, what exactly do you mean? Drawn between Yoruba/Ibo on the one hand and the North on the other, as suggested by The Washington Times?
I thought much, much more of you than to sink to such depths. I do believe that you owe us an apology.
Tunde Adesinah, Thamesmead
Why was Col. Ewa sacked?
Unless the PNDC comes out with an explanation about why they suddenly relieved Col. Ewa of his post as Secretary of Interior, I will provide a reason.I suspect that with the increasing clamour for an investigation into the death of the Catholic Priest Father Charles Kukah, whom everybody believes was murdered by government agents and everybody further believes was mistaken for Father Charles Buckle, they sacked Col. Ewa because he, like Mr Johnny Hansen before him, wanted to set up a Special Investigation Board to look into the matter.
People will remember that when the judges and the army officer were killed in June 1982, and there was an uproar, Johnny Hansen as Secretary for Interior announced the Special Investigation Board (SIB) to investigate and report on the murders, thinking he would then clear the govern- ment of all suspicions. The poor man was not to know that members of the government were indeed involved.
Left to the PNDC, they would never have instituted that SIB and considering the amount of trouble they got from the SIB and the serious indictment that still hangs over ex- Capt. Kodjo Tsikata, it is not difficult to see why. I therefore think that Col. Ewa with his well-known and strong ties to the Catholic Church and being a keen Rosicrucian must have been pressurised by the Church and must have wanted to institute another SIB into the mysterious death of Father Kukah and to quench the persistent rumours that he was mistaken for Father Buckle the editor of the Catholic Standard.
Flight-Lieutenant Rawlings and ex-Capt. Tsikata remembering their torment of 1982 to 1983 would have none of it and therefore sacked Col. Ewa as Secretary of Interior before he could announce an investigation.
I have no sympathies with Col. Ewa and I don't like the role he played in the entire PNDC saga, but if my theory is correct, then there is hope yet for Ghana.
The PNDC, of course, can always disprove my theory by (1) giving reasons why they sacked Col. Ewa and (2) appointing a SIB to investigate the death of Father Kukah.
If they do not, then the popular opinion will persist that they are murderers and COWARDS.
Selina Ankutse, Hendon, UK
