Winner-Takes-All (WTA) entails state capture or the partisan monopolisation of state resources, facilities and opportunities, as well as the exclusion of political opponents from national governance (Gyampo 2015). The opposite of the above may well explain all-inclusiveness.
It is in no doubt that the WTA politics has brought about a divisive system that confers certain exclusive rights to top party echelon and apparatchiks after elections, to the neglect of the rest of the citizenry (Gyampo 2010).
The WTA politics, many analysts have argued, has been a dangerous formula and people who are not part of the ruling party have felt excluded.
Since the inception of the Fourth Republic, governments, particularly that of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), have all appointed people from outside the party. Former President John Agyekum Kufuor appointed Paa Kwesi Nduom as Energy Minister, and Minister for Public Sector Reform. P.V. Obeng was appointed Chairman of the National Development Planning Commission (NDPC). Also, though he went to Parliament on the ticket of the Convention People’s Party (CPP) for the Ellembelle Constituency, Freddie Blay was the First Deputy Speaker for the Fourth Parliament. President Akufo-Addo also appointed Edward Mahama of the Peoples National Convention (PNC) as Ambassador at Large. He also appointed Citizen Vigilante, Mr Martin Alamisi Barnes Kaiser Amidu, who is not a member of the NPP, but a one-time vice-presidential candidate for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), as the first Special Prosecutor, an appointment which has necessitated our looking into all-inclusiveness and WTA politics.
Appointing people from the opposition political parties into your government helps to enrich, if not strengthen, our democracy, as the citizenry feel involved in the governance system of the country, because, if even my party does not win the election, someone may be given an appointment from amongst us.
Though some may argue that not all of the outside the party appointments ended up sour, as there have been instances of bad blood between the appointees and the appointing authorities.
It would be recalled that it was under the tenure of former President Kufuor, who appointed Nduom as the Minister for Public Sector Reform, that Ghana, in 2006, signed the $547 million Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact.
When Nduom later was up to contest for the presidency on the ticket of his party, he and the party capitalised on the achievement and campaigned against the NPP, which gave him the opportunity to serve in its government.
Very fresh in our minds is the brouhaha surrounding the former Special Prosecutor and the Akufo-Addo government.
When the Office of the Special Prosecutor was set up, the anticipation was who was going to occupy the highest seat. What would have been the norm was for the President to appoint someone from within his political party, the NPP. But to the surprise of everyone, an outsider was given the chance to help nip corruption in the bud.
People’s criticisms on the appointment of Mr Amidu, who was formerly with the NDC until some misunderstandings ocurred, could be a topic for another day.
Ghanaians are witnesses to what has become the banter between the government and the former Special Prosecutor, leading to his resignation and subsequent epistles which sought to unravel the alleged negative intention of the very person who appointed him, damning the consequences.
The developments which have resulted in bad publicity for the ruling government, following the Agyapa Minerals Royalties Limited risk of corruption and anti-corruption assessment report by the then Special Prosecutor raises the question of if political parties, when in office, should strictly go by the WTA politics, or risk bringing in outsiders, and for what reason?
One may view the effect of practicing all inclusion governance instead of the WTA politics, or the opposite, depending on where the person is standing politically or others.
In as much as political parties, which later form governments may want the best for the country, none of them would want to work with turncoats.
You may want to tell it to the marines that a government for even a day in office can have everything done rightly, without cheating the ordinary taxpayer. The general public hears of the shady deals, which end up siphoning the scarce resources of the nation into individual pockets, when an insider reveals some.
For such reasons, politicians are comfortable working with their own, just so they are able to keep secrets, for if one revealed it, they all sunk together.
We at The Chronicle have observed both scenarios and will recommend the best one for the nation, as far as development is concerned.
All inclusion politics demystifies negative perceptions that political parties go into office to “create, loot, and share.”
However, considering the recent happenings with the former Special Prosecutor and the Akufo-Addo government, we shudder to think that subsequent governments would want to take such a risk.
Be that as it may, it is the candid position of The Chronicle, by way of recommendation to subsequent governments, if only they would heed, to weigh the pros and cons in the interest of the nation more than the individual or party in situations of wanting to practice all-inclusivity or the winner takes all politics.
The post Editorial: The all-inclusion and winner-takes-all politics: The case of the former Special Prosecutor appeared first on The Chronicle Online.
Read Full Story
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Instagram
Google+
YouTube
LinkedIn
RSS