Manifesto wars in Ghana
It is a little over two months to the 2016 Presidential and Parliamentary elections in Ghana.
Advertisement
None of the parties has launched its manifesto, or development blueprint for the next four years. But already, there is a raging battle over who has stolen, is likely to steal or will steal which policy initiative from whom.
Welcome to Ghana, where we launch manifestos late, or never, where you can be accused of stealing ideas from a document of unknown status – ready or draft—, where some leaders and people ridicule the value of the manifesto, questioning its relevance to the election winning agenda, and where ultimately, the translation of values and philosophical beliefs into a set of coordinated implementable policies and projects by government is uncertain.
Political discourse
To be fair, the discourse has not always been this bleak. Thank God we are even discussing these manifestos and expecting them to be written too. It has not always been so, but thanks to our collective determination and belief in this democratic process, thanks to the unrelenting campaign of many early writers and/or social and political commentators, there has always been a consistent push to achieve what I think of as the promise of democracy – actualising the link between the ballot and improvements in the concrete realities of our people.
We can readily cite the Institute for Democratic Governance, Centre for Policy Analysis, the Institute for Economic Affairs and IMANI Centre for always driving this public policy discourse and in more ways than one, holding our political leadership accountable. Things can only get better with each election cycle, but before that, the manifesto wars in which we are currently engulfed is ridiculous, really.
The New Patriotic Party (NPP) was initially going to launch/speak about its political party platform/manifesto. The platform/manifesto, as we know, is the “formal set of principal goals which are supported by a political party or individual candidate, in order to appeal to the general public, for the ultimate purpose of garnering the general public's support and votes about complicated topics or issues.”
The NPP stalled, believing the NDC will steal ideas from their document. A few weeks down the line, this week, the President and candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), launched highlights of the NDC manifesto. All hell has successfully broken loose, with the NPP, the current state of readiness of its own manifesto being unknown, accusing the NDC of stealing its ideas. This is the subject of intense political discourse this week and will likely persist through the launch of the NPP manifesto!
A few matters arising.
Are these parties really different? Should they really be different? Are the concrete development challenges which they are trying to tackle not the same? Or rather, if they were applying themselves to solving the same issues of development, should not the differences have arisen from their strategic and tactical approaches? Or at its most basic, are these parties now so bereft of innovative ideas that they have no option except to steal from each other?
Since the NPP says the NDC stole its ideas, it implies that in three weeks, the NPP will only repeat the policies highlighted by the NDC candidate . It also only means that the upcoming launch of the NPP’s own manifesto in three weeks will throw up nothing new. Since the NPP also takes the position that these stolen ideas by the NDC are simultaneously a rehash of old unfulfilled NDC promises, despite being stolen and originally belonging to the NPP, we can safely assume that the NPP is also going to similarly launch a rehash of old ideas already promised by the NDC. What a lovely merry go round!
At that point, the NDC will in turn accuse the NPP of stealing from its already launched manifesto highlights. The circus will begin all over again. And on and on it goes; shall we add one region or five regions, should we advocate for a Cashew Marketing Board or a Cashew Board, shall we call our breakthrough development initiative for under-sourced areas the Savannah Development Authority or the Northern Development Authority, isn't it brilliant to move from SSS to SHS? So is this all that differentiates the NDC from the NPP and vice versa? Are we simply choosing between little changes in names and designations?
At this point, I miss Dr Tony Aidoo. He has argued repeatedly more than anyone that I know of the NDC and infact for all political parties, to aspire to link their development platform and concrete programmes to their core values and philosophies. He has asked for the NDC to truly distinguish itself as a party with core social democratic beliefs and to let us feel the tangible effects of this philosophical orientation in our daily lives. Social democracy has its core, elements of self-determination, empowerment of underserved, under resourced, marginalised populations through active intervention from government.
The party, whose tenure in office should lead to radical transformation in access to quality health care for poor and very poor people, whose tenure should transform the socioeconomic circumstances of the kayayei and kayayoo, and transform mental health care should be the NDC. I expect the NDC to look after the people that nobody cares about. That is my understanding of social democracy. Now here we are toying with names – Board, Savannah, North, etc. Maybe there is no real difference after all, and these parties have never really prioritised distinguishing themselves by way of core values and beliefs. Perhaps, they have all pandered and continue to pander to the convenient, focusing on winning electoral trophies.
But for me, I support a party first and foremost because of the party’s core beliefs and values. The policies and programmes come later. So I look at the United state of America for example. Fortunately, as far back as July 2016, both Democrats and Republicans released their detailed platforms or manifestos. I know that like me, the Democrats believe in the simple but powerful idea that “we are stronger together”.
Democrats speak out against racial inequality, advocate for education as a right for all, talk about ending the “the school-to-prison pipeline and build a cradle-to-college pipeline instead, where every child can live up to his or her God-given potential”, they talk about balancing work and family, retirement in dignity, regulating campaign financing, the threat posed by climate change, building alliances to take on global threats such as terrorism. They speak with pride about America’s “heritage as a nation of immigrants.” Believing that “today’s immigrants are tomorrow’s teachers, doctors, lawyers, government leaders, soldiers, entrepreneurs, activists, Parent and Teachers Association members, and pillars of our communities.” Democrats speak about protecting civil liberties and rights of everyone.
Republicans believe in American exceptionalism, believe in partnership of the state with individuals who they believe are the best stewards of national resources and not the government. This belief may then translate into certain expectations of that individual. In homeownership for example, Republicans will “scale back the federal role in the housing market, promote responsibility on the part of borrowers and lenders, and avoid future taxpayer bailouts.” They accuse China of “currency manipulation, exclusion of U.S. products from government purchases, and subsidisation of Chinese companies to thwart American imports” as if these were crimes. After many years of unfair economic blockade and sanctions against Cuba, Republicans are opposed to Obama’s policy of “opening to Cuba”, describing it as “a shameful accommodation to the demands of its tyrants” and calling on Congress to uphold sanctions.
So this is my point. Ideology and beliefs are important and without knowing about Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump personally, on the basis of the core beliefs of these parties, if I had a vote, it would undoubtedly be for the Democratic candidate, Hilary Clinton. I am calling on our parties to rediscover themselves and identify with their core values and beliefs. When that happens, there will be no space or time for these needless manifesto wars because the differences will be clear.