Travelling presidents
The French conveniently put it this way: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. This means the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Advertisement
Throughout the week, one of the major talking points has been what some have pejoratively described as the President’s new hobby- travelling. There have been so many other matters arising from these travels.
Within a short time frame, the President has been to the Queen’s England, the happiness - air-filled Denmark, and the military controlled Burkina- Faso. He was also at the Vatican to see the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis.
In no particular order, the President has been to other countries such as Norway, Turkey, the United States of America, China, Dubai, Japan and a host of other African countries.
In his absence, the Vice-President has been absent as well. And in the absence of the Vice-President, there is currently a constitutional discourse as to whether the Speaker of Parliament is required to be sworn in as President or not.
And as the arguments rage on, some have begun to question the propriety or otherwise of the frequent travels by the President.
After all, if the President was in the country, there would have been no need to split hairs over whether the Speaker of Parliament is to be sworn in, and there would have been no constitutional disputes and there would have been no bickering with regards to his persistent travels.
Some have suggested further that “he [the President] should have asked the Vice-President to stay within the jurisdiction and let the Foreign Minister and his officials step out of the jurisdiction rather. After all, what are foreign ministry officials for?
But this is not the first time that arguments have arisen as to the appropriateness or otherwise of the persistent travels of a President.
President Kufuor of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) who was President of the Republic from the year 2001 to 2008, also had a similar reputation as someone who was always eager to leave the jurisdiction at the least opportunity.
He hasn’t ceased travelling as every now and then his office would issue some information regarding a trip to either an FAO engagement in Rome or election monitoring in some other country.
The anxiety associated with having a President always globetrotting can actually be traced to our history. In one breadth, it is not a bad thing at all. There are scores of African Presidents who for one reason or another are unable to leave their airports or are simply restricted to some friendly states.
Take Omar-El Bashir as an example. With an ICC sword of Damocles hanging over his neck; it is no secret at all that he is severely impaired when it comes to travelling.
Another example is Robert Mugabe, a proud west-whipping and bashing nonagenarian, who is under a travel ban of some sort from the European Union (though it is sometimes waived to make it possible for him to attend some other international engagement).
So here is the bright spot: having a President travelling all over the world unimpeded is actually a very good thing. It means he is at peace with the west and the west in turn considers him as someone worth working with and partnering.
It also gives enough room for the President to manoeuvre and make overtures to international investors whose presence are direly needed in the local economy to promote growth and development- especially in the power sector.
It gives visibility to the country and with his persistence in mode of dress; he carries a bit of the distinctive Ghanaian culture with him everywhere he goes.
But here is the low side. Elections are won at home. Tonnes of positive vibes outside the country make no difference to citizens reeling under extreme poverty and deprivation.
Very few people take kindly to the fact that the President is “always leaving and always gone” in a country that is plagued with serious challenges.
The opposition has taken advantage of this frequent travels to assert that the President’s journeys are fruitless but have been careful not to draw former President Kufuour into this by saying that his trips were useful and successful.
Advertisement
An opposition Member of Parliament has further asserted that President Mahama has broken all records of presidential travels in the history of the country while the average Ghanaian wallows in abject poverty.
But let’s put things in perspective. The liberty and confidence that a President has to continually travel out of the country is a manifestation of our democratic maturity as a nation.
Sometime in the past, leaders could scarcely travel because of deep mistrust of persons within and without their ranks of being overthrown. When they did travel, it was actually on short trips. May be we can pat ourselves in the back for at least assuring ourselves of this.
It is simply amazing how events are replaying themselves. Indeed, the more things change, the more they remain the same. I never thought we would be arguing over this in a different regime. But here we are!
Advertisement