|
Anchoring the
future to the past, Kufuor
E.
Ablorh-Odjidja, Ghanadot
February 02,
2007
Two things have happened, as a result of the election of
Kufuor in 2000 to the presidency of Ghana. The country has
rediscovered itself and the civilized world has regained its
confidence in us.
And to crown it all, in January 2007,
at a meeting of heads of state of AU countries, President Kufuor
was chosen by his peers to be the chair for this continental
organization for the next 12 months; a selection which was an
honor for both Ghana and Kufuor.
The appointment
coincided with the 50th anniversary of Ghana’s independence and
that was a plus too. Kufuor,
naturally, was “overwhelmed” by it.
It has been a
difficult passage for Africa since Ghana gained its
independence in 1957. And
the past decade has been challenging because of the intemperate
nature of leadership on the continent.
While some
countries burned during this period, Ghana, for the past six
years, has enjoyed a sober leadership under Kufuor.
Consequently, she has maintained a steady course for
development.
She has gone
from a state of political immaturity and is fast on the way to
one of settled, steady governance and economic prosperity.
Ghana has won kudos from many within the international
community of nations because of Kufuor’s policies.
Last year
alone, he garnered almost 1.3 billion dollars in aid for Ghana,
most of it in grants. The
most famous one being the MCA compact with the US government,
under which Ghana received 547 million dollars; meant for
capacity building and to combat poverty.
The question,
however, remains whether Ghana is now on track to achieve the
development status imagined by Nkrumah, the first president of
Ghana, at the time of independence.
The answer,
after Kufuor’s guidance, should be positive, unless something
else happens after his term in office.
Mark Doyle, the
BBC correspondent, wrote a piece in 2005 in which he contrasted
Ghana with Malaysia.
According to
him, the two countries were “on economic par – equally poor”
when they obtained independence from the British, but it became
a different story much later with Malaysia becoming by far the
richer.
He said,
“The main architect of the economic boom years for Malaysia -
the 1970s and 80s - was the recently retired Prime Minister, Dr.
Mahathir Mohamad.”
And
that Dr. Mohamad told him that "Political stability is extremely
important….Without political stability, there can be no economic
development. People are not going to put money into a place
where there is no certainty."
And how true
that statement was, especially when it is juxtaposed to
Nkrumah’s prior statement on the same issue today:
“Seek ye first the
political kingdom…”
Nkrumah said at the beginning in the mid 50s politics in Ghana.
Ghana today
is enjoying a level of political stability that many nations on
the continent can envy. Free
speech abounds in her media, but it has to be remembered that
the country’s democracy is still tenuous.
“We think
the most important thing about democracy is the right to change
the government through the ballot box... Freedom to destabilize
the country is not something that we consider as a part of
democracy." Dr. Mahathir
Mohamad told Doyle of the BBC.
Not that
Ghana lacks citizens with the desire to destabilize the
country’s fledgling democracy under Kufuor, as happened under
Nkrumah, and later augmented by the machinations of our known
serial coup-makers within the country.
But the
experience so far has been that try as these folks would, Kufuor,
with his mild-mannered temperament, has so far denied them the
spark with which to cause the upheaval.
By his style of
governance, Kufuor has forced Ghanaians to reminisce on the
bitter lessons of the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
These experiences have made it doubtful whether Ghanaians
would risk the stability of the 2000s for empty rhetoric that
promotes bloody revolutions.
Under
Kufuor, the constant threat of coups has been removed.
Rawlings, the chief serial coup maker, has had his turn
in office. And for
19 years, did nothing that justified the bloody
counter-revolution that pockmarked his rule.
But Rawlings
may not know it.
Thus, he continues to fume and threaten peace.
But in reality, he is just as spent as an extinct
volcano.
In place of Rawlings, we have Kufuor; a man who
has proven himself temperamentally suited for his time and job.
A man who has the necessary patience for the maintenance
of peace under all sorts of challenges, outright abuses, and
taunts.
He has indeed
proven to be a leader with the common sense, strength, and
quietude that Ghana needs as she makes her journey into the
future.
And because of this Kufuor has come to be known
around the world as the gentle giant.
Some would
rather credit Ghana’s good fortune to one episode; the peaceful
transition of power from the NDC to the NPP.
For them, it is not
Kufuor that has caused the good things to happen to the country.
Rather, it is because of
the peaceful transition and the enabling circumstance created by
their magnanimity in 2000 that allowed the change to happen;
meaning Rawlings’ willingness to step down.
While the
thought implied with the peaceful transition statement is good,
subsequent acts of Rawlings after the transition belie this
claim. Ghana has a
stable government today because the country by 2000 got fed up
after 19 years of bloodshed and empty but emotive rhetoric.
The victory
achieved in the election of 2000 is certainly providential, but
it was brought about through the hard work of an experienced and
a very seasoned politician and not a gift bestowed on Ghana by
the peaceful transition proponents.
The real
peaceful transition will come when Kufuor leaves office.
A peaceful transition is what happens in civilized societies
during elections or when governments change hands. However, in
our society so far it has been brutish.
To be judged as a civilized nation, we will need peaceful
transitions in governance.
As the record stands today,
there was a peaceful transition from the British to the Nkrumah
regime (seemingly).
After that, transitions have been downhill and brutish; predominant military and mob rules, in our country.
Indeed, we
didn’t see a brutish military-style takeover in 2000.
But we should not do a disservice to the marvel that
happened in 2000.
On that
note, we observe that the rest of the world is responding
positively to our change in the style of transition and are
becoming aware of our incipient political maturity.
African heads of states, seeking to avoid the
embarrassment presented by Sudan in Darfur, have chosen
President Kufuor to lead the continent.
This turn
in African affairs is a come from behind story of the
continent. Not since the days of Nkrumah has Ghana enjoyed such
recognition and prestige among her peers on the continent.
Hopefully,
we will soon hear from the political malcontents at home, not
with a steady propaganda diet of some feigned legacy of a
peaceful transition bequeathed to Kufuor in 2000, but with how
muted their grievances become before and after Kufuor leaves
office.
It is only then
when we will know the true nature of what they mean by the
peaceful transition.
For this writer, it will be true only if the positives of Kufuor's
policies are left intact and not reversed should the opposition
party come to
power the next time.
E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Publisher www.ghanadot.com, Washington,
February 2, 2007.
Permission to publish: Please
feel free to publish or reproduce, with credits, unedited. If
posted on a website, email a copy of the web page to
publisher@ghanadot.com. Or don't publish at all.
|
