A nation watches while its lawmakers perform
By: Johannes Jafo Akunatu [0247019099; akjafo@gmail.com]
Friday's State of the Nation Address had the potential to be a time of reflection nationally. However, instead of being a moment of reflection, it was merely another chapter in the long history of Ghana's political theater, which is now taking place within the walls of parliament, the supposed forum for serious legislation.
When President John Dramani Mahama stood up to deliver his speech, the parliament turned into a symbolic battle. The majority side was wearing mostly white; they were cheering, singing, and protesting in support of the president. On the opposite side of the house, the minority were dressed in black, carrying cocoa pods and singing protest songs (coordinated) in support of cocoa farmers and their discontent with the policies of the government. Eventually, the Speaker of the House was forced to regain control of the situation after the two sides' chants were competing for attention.
It was dramatic, it was loud, it was political, but most importantly, it was predictable.
For anyone who has observed Ghana's fourth republic, this was not an anomaly. This was standard procedure.
What made Friday so unique was not the protest itself, but the hypocrisy involved. Today's minority protesters are the exact same party that protested against disruptions caused by the previous opposition while they held office, and the current majority did exactly the same thing during the previous administration. Ghana's parliament has become experts at producing a never-ending cycle, where one party condemns the other for behavior that it too exhibited once it gained control of parliament.
Ghanaian history clearly shows that in 2007, opposition MPs boycotted President John Agyekum Kufuor's State of the Nation Address. And in 2013, the opposing party retaliated and boycotted President Mahama's State of the Nation Address. Over the years, there have been repeated instances of walkouts due to disagreements over taxation, censure motions, and legislative disputes that have disrupted parliamentary business across multiple administrations.
This type of behavior is no longer spontaneous dissent. It has evolved into nothing more than political choreography.
The symbolism used on Friday was hard to miss. White indicated joyous approval, and black represented the hardships faced by Ghanaians. Cocoa pods waving in Parliament, symbolized how farmers are feeling, due to their struggles with prices of cocoa due to global market fluctuations. In terms of communication, both sides were using spectacle instead of arguments.
When Parliament is being used as a protest venue, then there is a serious problem with who Parliament is representing; the citizens, the politicians, or the parties.
Democracy relies on difference of opinion. Protest is also acceptable inside Parliament. The problem occurs when protest replaces meaningful discussion of issues. The State of the Nation Address (SONA), as outlined in Article 67 of the Ghanaian Constitution, serves as an opportunity for the president to provide an account to the representative of the people. However, increasingly, SONA is becoming less about assessing the nation and more about showing allegiance to each party's base.
As a result, what viewers at home are seeing is less likely to be vigorous debates on policies, but instead they will be viewing the yelling, chanting, costumes, and organized disruption within Parliament. In this way, Parliament appears less and less as a place of rationality and more and more as a stage where politicians can show their party loyalty.
In addition, there is another concern regarding the quality of the elected officials in Parliament. Parliament is intended to be composed of the brightest minds in the country to review the policies put forth by the executive branch of government, create laws to govern the country, and protect the interests of the country. Unfortunately, however, all too many times MPs act as if they were elected as permanent campaigners rather than as parliamentarians. The incentives and rewards are set so that the visible MP may earn more political capital with a single viral moment in Parliament than he/she would with a year of quiet, hard work in a committee.
It should be noted that neither the National Democratic Congress nor the New Patriotic Party has a monopoly on this type of behavior. Each party has condemned disorder in Parliament while profiting from the disruption. Each has learned that the news coverage of a dramatic moment in Parliament will travel further and faster than any number of policy details could ever travel.
To give you a sense of how different Ghana's current situation is with respect to other parliaments, compare Ghana's current situation to the Westminster Parliamentary System of Great Britain, from which Ghana borrowed much of its legislative tradition. Although British Parliament is certainly not always quiet and polite, Prime Ministers' Question Time can be very loud and contentious. As much as the drama surrounding the State of the Nation address (SNA) has been entertaining, there's a more serious issue at play: how strictly members adhere to formal rules and regulations governing debate and discussion within the House. Members have a formal mechanism to request a member to yield his/her time to allow another member to speak. This limits the number of interruptions; however, many members use the time-yielding system as an excuse to interrupt other speakers. Furthermore, even though Ghanaian politicians are known to employ a lot of rhetorical devices to get their point across, they understand that the best way to win support for their ideas is to engage in genuine debate.
Unfortunately, while Ghana inherited the framework of parliamentary democracy, it seems to be losing sight of its spirit.
It is ironic that Ghana, which is often cited as one of the more stable democracies in Africa, has lost some of the spirit of parliamentary democracy. Ghana has experienced a period of relative stability since the early 1990s and has thus far avoided coups. Ghana experienced several years of unstable civilian government followed by military rule. In fact, the last time Parliament met in Ghana was during the 1960s, under Kwame Nkrumah's leadership. Since then, Ghana's history has seen periods of civilian rule punctuated by military intervention. This experience of instability was finally ended in 1992 with the adoption of a new constitution. Stability, in theory, should lead to improved governance standards. However, Friday's and other events demonstrate that Parliament is being reduced to a series of spectacles, and the spirit of parliamentary democracy is slowly disappearing.
Therefore, the scenes of chaos and disruption that occurred on Friday in the Chamber represent more than just the petty squabbles of two rival parties. These chaotic disruptions reveal that Ghana's political culture is stuck in an endless cycle of campaigning. Even though elections may come and go, the behavior of campaigning never leaves the Chamber.
While Parliamentarians were engaging in this kind of theatrics and posturing, citizens faced increasing levels of cost of living increases, high levels of youth unemployment, struggling agricultural sectors, and growing economic uncertainty. The contrast is stunning. Citizens are worried about their ability to survive from day-to-day, yet their elected representatives are engaged in a fight over who gets to tell the story of whether the nation is progressing or failing.
Some might say that such theatrical performances reflect democratic vitality. A harsher, but no less valid, reading of the situation would be that Ghanaian politics has mastered the art of entertainment before it knows how to govern.
The consequences of Parliament continuing down this road will likely be slow but inevitable erosion of public confidence in Parliament. Democracy doesn't always collapse through military coup d'etats. At times it erodes through ridicule and the people lose faith in their institutions when they stop believing the rhetoric coming out of the mouths of those who are supposed to be representing them.
The tragedy is that Ghana's Parliament has the potential to be so much better than what we see today. Parliament's committees establish national budget priorities, Parliament's debates help determine the direction of national policy, and Parliament's authority speaks for millions of citizens. Unfortunately, these duties and responsibilities are consistently eclipsed by the theatrics displayed every time Parliament engages in theatrics instead of thoughtful deliberation.
Friday's SNA did not simply show us where the opposition and ruling parties disagree. Friday's SNA showed us a legislature that is comfortable with the idea of acting out a scripted performance.
Until Ghanaians begin to reward seriousness more than spectacle, the circus will continue to run in Ghana's Parliament year in and year out.
Post a Comment