Candidates still big on promises, less on the 'How'

The second and last of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) organised forum for 4 of the 8 presidential aspirants in Ghana December 7, 2008 election came off yesterday at Institute of Linguistics, Literary and Bible Translation (GILLBT) Training Centre in Tamale amidst heavy security presence. The four Presidential Candidates are Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo of New Patriotic Party (NPP); Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom of Convention People's Party (CPP); Professor John Evans Atta Mills of National Democratic Congress (NDC) and Dr. Edward Mahama of People's National Convention (PNC). The Presidential Candidates were drilled during three sessions of questioning. In all, the candidates answered 13 questions on governance, human and social issues. It was on the theme: "Strengthening The Pillars of Ghana's Democracy."

I think yesterday's event was an improvement on the first one overall. I was however a little disappointed with the recalcitrant attitude of some people among the audience who refused to resume their seats even upon several promptings from the MC.

It is difficult to rate the performance of individual candidates considering that each had to answer the same question for all the 13 questions after others had given their responses. Mostly, they all seemed to agree on the magnitude of the burden ahead except how to deal with them. The candidates were as usual more on "promises", less on the "how". Take for instance the question of electing D/MCEs, which all the candidates think should be the case but none gave any firm commitment on when if given mandate would implement such a system. For me, this is one important issue that the moderators should have demanded firm time lines for action from the candidates rather than how many number of houses each has. That also brought to the fore how problematic asset declaration is going to be granted the secrecy aspect of prevailing law is amended. One recalls the cunning answer given by Paa Kwesi Nduom regarding one 'residential house' excluding commercial interests. How do we strengthen the institutions of state charged with oversight responsibility to verify the authenticity of claims or otherwise of assets declared. For me, President personally publicizing his possessions or properties would not be enough because it is somewhat populace or better still mere moral suasion without legal backing. We should not forget Dr. R.W. Anane's legal challenge against Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ). If we allow people to do out of their own free will, some will one day contest the legal basis of such a sysyem when the whip is raised against them either justly or otherwise. We must also be mindful of abuse against perceived opponents where courts of public opinion would be employed to destroy them such that people would accuse others and turn round to ask their victims to prove their innocence contrary to the legal position of the land.

Imaginative suggestions on conflict resolution were given in my opinion but I felt Dr. Mahama was unduly defensive and apprehensive although the question was on conflicts in certain parts of Ghana and not northern Ghana. It is this sort of insincere attitude on the part of stakeholders like Dr. Mahama that impinges negatively on the nation's ability to deal firm and constructively with the numerous conflicts bedeviling the country. Overall, I think 'we are here where we are' attitude must show the way so that the blame game will stop and leaders held accountable for their own period of stewardship rather unnecessarily comparisms with others and using medocrity standards to applaud themselves.

I suggest that going forward, such exercise should be limited to the two main political parties to be decided on number of votes garnered from the preceeding election to allow for real debate and not this charade. Secondly, follow up questions by moderators should follow from a candidate's response and not based on a rigid format where questions written down before the programme are asked irrespective of the leading answers. Further, where any candidate distort fact or published statistics, it must be pointed out by the moderators to make it more useful. What we have been witnessing is like a mother trying to spank the erring baby but at the same feeling pains of her labour. The current situation is certainly unacceptable. The organisers seem more interested in having the candidates participate and just say anything and get away with. We must be seen to be attaching more seriousness to the enterprise of debate if our ultimate goal is to help the voter make an uniformed and objective choice in the exercise of his/her franchise on voting day. Let's not spare the whip and spoil the child.