In a thought-provoking critique of Ghana’s political landscape, Clara Kowlaga Kasser-Tee, a distinguished legal practitioner, has shed light on the troubling distortion of patriotism, neutrality, and partisanship in public affairs.
In her piece titled “The Dangerous Proposition: Of Neutralism, Patriotism, and Partisanship,” the lecturer at the University of Ghana School of Law lamented the concerning trend among Ghana’s political figures and their supporters. She highlighted how principles often give way to convenience, and the sincere pursuit of good governance is overshadowed by partisan double standards.
Kasser-Tee identified three distinct yet interconnected groups. Group A comprises individuals who vocally champion good governance while in opposition but conveniently change their tune upon assuming power. Instead of upholding the standards they previously advocated for, they now defend actions they once criticized.
Group B includes former office holders who turned a blind eye to power abuses while in office, only to rebrand themselves as advocates for transparency and accountability once out of power. They often urge others, especially neutral parties, to uphold public scrutiny.
Group C, according to Kasser-Tee, consists of individuals who equate loyalty to a political party with unwavering defense of all its actions. Patriotism, for them, becomes selective – condemning wrongdoing only when committed by the opposing party while justifying or ignoring misdeeds by their own.
Kasser-Tee emphasized the common expectation that neutrals bear the burden of patriotism, even though they lack state power. They are often called upon to police public actions and speak out, despite facing insults in return.
Deep-Seated Partisanship:
In another vein, the Vice Board Chairperson of the Ghana Centre for Democratic Development decried the entrenched partisanship that compels party supporters to blindly support their leaders, regardless of the national repercussions. Loyalty, she argued, should not be to the Constitution, democracy, or the public good, but to fleeting political interests.
Mrs. Kasser-Tee cautioned that such a dynamic not only undermines genuine patriotism but also erodes the bedrock of accountable governance. She stressed that advocating for good governance must be a continuous, unwavering commitment based on the belief that public service is a sacred duty, and governance should always prioritize the people over politicians’ personal interests.
She criticized the emerging trend where individuals engage in governance discussions not out of a genuine desire to build a better nation but to capitalize on the system they criticize once they gain power.
Kasser-Tee’s remarks underscore the persistent struggles in Ghana’s political evolution, where elections are fiercely contested yet the core tenets of good governance are often neglected during political transitions. Her words challenge citizens, politicians, and civil society to introspect on whether their proclaimed values are authentic or mere tools for political expediency.
Moreover, Kasser-Tee highlighted the vulnerabilities faced by neutral voices in Ghana’s polarized political environment. These neutrals, lacking the backing of political factions, often face backlash from both sides, labeled as covert partisans or opportunists seeking attention.
However, as she stressed, it is precisely these neutrals who play a pivotal role in upholding Ghana’s democratic integrity. By prioritizing accountability irrespective of the ruling party, they fulfill an essential patriotic duty that cannot be sustained by partisanship alone.
In conclusion, Kasser-Tee urged a recommitment to genuine patriotism that transcends party affiliations and prioritizes the national interest above all else. She suggested that only through such a renewal could Ghana aspire to a future where governance is about serving the people, not self-enrichment, and where public trust is earned, not manipulated.
