Birds do or must vote
I happened upon something on television the other day. As I walked by, I heard a man on the TV say: “birds don’t vote”. Of course, I stopped, or to put it correctly, the words stopped me in my tracks. The subject of birds voting or not voting must surely be a novel one and I had to satisfy my curiosity.
The scene playing out on the TV screen was recounting an incident at the Sakumo Ramsar site. I saw a group of armed policemen and some official looking personnel, someone driving a bulldozer that was demolishing what looked to me like a freshly constructed wall and some obviously unhappy people, huddled on the side.
Advertisement
I remembered vaguely that there had been some announcement that there would be demolition of structures that had been put up illegally on the Ramsar site in Sakumono. Apart from this wall that was being razed down, the buildings I could see all looked intact to me.
The Reporter at the site was interviewing one of the “obviously unhappy people”. The fellow being interviewed disagreed with the bulldozing exercise and was volubly making himself heard. He it was who said, “birds don’t vote”.
I listened as he explained that the authorities were claiming the area was a Ramsar site, which, according to him, meant that it was a site reserved for birds.
He rejected the idea that birds could be given priority over human beings in the allocation of land, which is how he saw the designation of an area of land as a Ramsar site.
“Human beings have built houses to live in, and the houses are to be pulled down because the place is reserved for birds”, the rage the man felt came through clearly and then he added in a manner that he hoped would explain his anger and maybe convince anyone who couldn’t see the logic of his argument, “birds don’t vote”.
According to this logic, the only consideration there should be in making any decision or judgement now in our country must come down to votes. Birds don’t vote and anybody who would be wanting votes, better remember this fact and prioritise the needs of those who do vote.
Site
I am not quite sure if what is left of the Sakumo Ramsar site still qualifies to be called a Ramsar site, which is defined as an area of wetland of international importance, designated under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands for containing rare or unique wetland types, or for their importance in conserving biological diversity.
It might well be that when this site was designated as a Ramsar site back on the August 14, 1992, it qualified as such. It might well be that at the time, the site had wetlands and birds found it an attractive place to stay.
I acknowledge that as a rule, we do not pay much heed to the obligations under the international agreements we sign up to.
Thirty years after this area was deemed fit to be designated as a Ramsar site, more than half of it has become a built-up area and what is left, looks nothing like a wetland, nor the type of place that birds would find an attractive place to go to.
It is probably worth recounting here, an example of how we lose the biological diversity of a place without even trying too hard.
For years, there was a big tree in Jamaicaso, near Aburi. As regular as the sun rises in the morning, around this time of the year, a flock of interesting birds would arrive and settle in the big tree and stay around for about a week or two and then, take off.
They were birds escaping from the Northern hemisphere winter, making their way to the warmth of the southern hemisphere summer months. They were beautiful birds, their songs were different from the birds that were local and for about a fortnight, they were a joy to watch.
Around March, on their return journey to the northern hemisphere, they would stop but this time, only for a day or two. Those birds were probably the reason a pair of binoculars features in the property list of my home.
One fine day, about four years ago, the big tree was cut down to build a house. That was the end of the adventure with the migrating birds.
I don’t know if they did arrive one early October morning and discovered the tree had disappeared and they didn’t have a place to park and rest for a while.
I don’t know if they found another tree, but that was the end of that experience. Sometimes I wonder if I should tell the inhabitants of the house that occupies the place the big tree used to stand about the yearly visitors they have replaced.
But I digress. I must get to the main question that faces me with what I heard on the television.
Belief
There appears to be a belief that we have no obligation to leave any room in our country for anything that doesn’t vote.
If we, who have votes, want to cut down all the trees, we should be allowed to do so, if that means there will be no room for the animals, well, trees don’t vote and animals don’t have a vote.
Whatever happened to the culture that placed value on a rounded personality and respect for the environment?
How did we get to the state where we think it is okay to have cities and towns without any open spaces?
I remember when we fought to be allowed to vote. I wonder if anyone thought then that the power of the vote would be used only for individual considerations and not for the common good.
I am looking at galamsey and I can only conclude it is driven by the same mindset that says birds don’t vote.
Trees don’t vote, snakes don’t vote, rivers don’t vote, mountains don’t vote. If you want to win an election, better think of those who vote.
I wonder if there are enough people now in this country who would accept that we humans are only a small part of what constitutes life on this earth. And that means all the things that don’t have a vote but are essential to our very existence.
The mountains, the rivers, the trees, the animals must be on the ballot and yes, the birds must vote.
