INTRO
It was a politically charged atmosphere.
Excitement was at fever pitch. As is the tradition of congresses of such nature,
rival political parties were to take turns to deliver a solidarity messages.
Ostensibly, not to soil the
electrifying mood, two mush room political party representatives had come to
present their messages. It was all that the party fanatics had expected. The
flurry of flatteries and compliments had got party members cheering. Yes, the
sugar coated messages was keeping the excitement and vibe on.
But this ecstasy will be ephemeral as
another representative of one of the oldest political parties, Ivor
GreenStreet, takes the stage to deliver his speech.
For those who had thought he was to
proceed on similar tangent, they will always live with disappointment and awe
over the maverick direction his speech took. He was not charitable. In fact he
had made it clear that such an occasion is so critical to render it a praise
singing and merry-making adventure.
He did not minced words in registering
his displeasure at the slump in the economic and energy fortunes of the
country. He openly criticized what he referred to as the suffocation of the
Ghanaian people by corrupt officials.
As expected his speech did not go down
well with the charged party fatefuls. The booing and the jeering were enough
testaments to the fact that his speech had stirred the hornet’s nest.
The palpable display of intolerance by
party apparatchiks, even by their leaders who couldn’t but join the populist
chorus of unleashing sarcastic reactions to GreenStreet’s speech would not end
at the venue for the congress.
On Social media and other mainstream platforms
the personality attaches on the man continues unabated until another topical
political issue finally bails GreenStreet out of the backlash.
MY
TAKE ON THE FALL OUT OF HIS SPEECH
I was extremely taken aback by some of
the comments and reaction that Green Street’s statement generated. I am unable
to reiterate same in this piece as doing that will not only amount to a
digression but most instructively such will serve to perpetuate the malice some
of those reactions carried. In fact, I think some of those statements are so
disingenuous and unsavory to earn my writing space.
Consistent with my style, I will begin
my analysis with series of rhetorical questions, answers to them becomes my
position on the issue. First and foremost, why will many, especially those from
opposing political divide try strenuously to question the discretion and
subject Grenstreet’s thinking to such a level of scrutiny, a legal luminary that
he has been known for, even to the extent that an self- acclaimed expert in
communication at the Presidency will derogatorily remark that the man needed an
elevation,(an intellectual elevation as he naively wants us to believe) to have thought otherwise.
Could such reactions been on account of
the unpredictable outlook of Greestreet’s messages, knowing that most
solidarity messages are usually massaged in a flattery manner? The unsettling
unpredictability of Greestreets message to me has done the magic. In fact, for
a party with a defensive communication posture, I am inclined to believe that
the unpredictability of Green street message had thrown their communicators
into a state of dissonance.
Having touted itself, over the years,
as a social democratic party, the least they could have expected was to have a
party with similar ideology cast doubt over their commitment to the tenets of a
Social Democratic Party. More so, the level of cooperation that had existed
between the ruling party and the CPP is deep as key members of the ruling party
have openly claimed on many occasions as being Nkrumahist.
The almost vituperative reaction from
some party big-wigs, therefore, could only have been a knee jerk reaction to
the shock a sense of ‘betrayal’ of a sought can engender. This explains why the
party was particular about that CPP’s speech even though, the NPP and some
other political parties were equally harsh in their criticisms and general
assessment of the ruling party.
Indeed, I am not sure the speech as
delivered by the General Secretary of the New Patriotic Party, was unpredictable
and charity, given the level of political and ideological rivalry that exit
between these two major political parties. It is in the light of this that I
stress that the rather unprintable reactions to Greenstreet’s speech was an
expression of deep shock, arising from the bitterness of betrayed hearts.
WHO
DETERMINES THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A COMMUNICATION PLATFORM?
Who determines the appropriateness or
otherwise of a platform? Is there an accepted intellectual standards for what a
right context or platform for messages are? And who said that such intellectual
view cannot be bended in a competitive arena like that of politics? Will that
theory survive in Politics? There is no denying the fact that such theory, if
existed, will only be useful for classroom discourses. If there cannot be an
acceptable consensus with respect to what can be said to be an appropriate
platform for a message then it only leave us to the mercy of discretion, a
variable which is subjective in my view.
Politicians in our part of the world
are known for seizing every opportunity to clinch political points. Today, Not
only do they file in and out of one media
houses to the other defending their political parties, even church gatherings
are not spared of a dose of the
exploitative nature politicians. So if
point -winning tactics can be unleashed even in churches, how do you fault a
man who does that on a political platform? For those who are questioning the
man’s discretion of a choice of platform, I respectfully dare them to tell us
what other platform could have been appropriate for those comments.
To some extent, I am not surprised that
the appropriateness of the platform is being questioned, by some astute
political figures. Elsewhere, when a political convergence of such a magnitude
is afforded, maximum attention is usually paid to policies and broad
developmental ideas. In fact, such become occasions where members of the ruling
political class are able to express their sincere views on issues that affect
the broad developmental agenda of the country. This is sadly contrary to the
nature of the political congresses and rallies that are organized in our part
of the world. Most unfortunately, ours is everything but developmental, a
platform that is deeply-steeped in sycophancy, merry making and praise-singing.
With this orientation, I am not
surprised that people will have issues with Greenstreet’s speech especially as
it sought to deviate from the usually ritual of praise singing. A practices
that directly gnaw at developmentally focus agenda.
Again, testing the propriety or
otherwise of the platform should not be done from the perspective of the host
as doing that will be narrow and restrictive in nature. Much as the host
extends the invitation, the guest must equally determine the direction of their
messages as doing otherwise defeats the spirit behind having political rivals
read a solidarity message. Besides, such will also constitute a censorship of a
sought as messages to the guests are only trimmed and tailored to pamper to the
whims and caprices of the host party.
MULTI-PARTY
DEMOCRACY.
Key to sustaining Ghana’s democracy is tolerance.
Multi-party democracy is supposed to do nothing than to open our hearts and
minds up to accommodate divergent and dissenting views, however, hard they
come.
Any attempt at cowing and gagging people from doing same will only serve
to derail the democratic gains that the country has made since the adoption of
constitutional democracy in 1992.As the country continue to pay the economic
price for opting for the path of democracy, we equally have to endeavor to pay the
emotional and intellectual cost therein, as well.
Again,no platform should be inappropriate, so
far as I am concerned, at least not in politics. Learning to restrain ourselves
to listen to stingy criticisms is in itself a mark of political maturity and
should not be compromised or taken for granted if we are serious about
sustaining the our enviable democratic path.
Samuel Osarfo Boateng
samuelcreasta@gmail.com
233541842198.
No comments:
Post a Comment