No MP represents ghana

Many times I have wondered how some Members of Parliament behave the way they do, as if they are monarchs of all they survey, when the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana 1992 expressly states that sovereignty resides in the people, neither the Executive, Legislature nor Judiciary.

There are certain actions that MPs take on the presumption that they represent the people of Ghana, but that is not true of any single MP.

They represent only their constituents and they must appreciate that some of them represent a minority of their constituents.

Whilst some MPs are elected by tens of thousands of voters, others are there because of the size of the land area of their constituencies rather than human beings, except that they all represent some constituents.

But none of them should take it for granted that because they are in the majority or minority, they can act anyhow on any matter irrespective of the interests of their constituents.

The constituents are not homogenous and have varied and different interests.

For instance, the constituents of Asawase  in Kumasi are not more nor less important than those in the  Kwabre or Ketu constituencies.

Therefore, in taking any action, there must not be any presumption that some of them can do without the others.

What is imperative and necessary for the MPs to understand and appreciate is that democracy is more about rules and regulations.

It is only when the rules and regulations are unable to help us arrive at decisions that numbers become necessary.

Therefore, to claim to be a democrat but hoodwinked on the belief that what matters are votes and numbers but not processes is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of democracy,

As someone has succinctly put it, a democrat is the one who is able to tolerate the viewpoints they dread and would never dare to hear because listening to the things you want to hear makes you a sycophantic fundamentalist.

Times past

In times past when MPs boycotted proceedings of the House, I took pains to analyse them to see whether such actions were intended to promote democracy or for selfish, personal or partisan gain.

The boycotts by the New Patriotic Party in the Second  Parliament under the Fourth Republic as to whether carried over Ministers of State needed to be vetted as well as that of the four MPs in the Eighth Parliament purported to have vacated their seats and so pronounced by the Speaker, were justified in the interest of upholding democracy, the rule of law and due process.

The boycott of proceedings by the NPP over the matter of parliamentary approval of the budget and that of the National Democratic Congress in support of their colleagues indicted of criminal conduct and thus standing trial were spurious and abuse of the parliamentary process for parochial interests.

Thus, instead of the Minority in the current Parliament boycotting proceedings at whichever forum of the Legislature because a desire to do something has not been granted, that cannot be justified by any imagination of the national interest.

The concomitant is also true about some NDC MPs who consider the Minority an aberration and impediment to their getting their way.

There are times that some of them are overheard saying they do not need the Minority or that the Minority has become a nuisance or an encumbrance in the spoke of their wheel to expeditiously vet the Ministerial nominees. Such MPs from the Majority side have become  pains and clogs to democracy.

In as much as the voters in the Ashanti Region are not more nor less important than their counterparts in the Volta or any other region in the country, their elected representatives cannot be ignored because in terms of numbers they matter.

So, when because of personal differences some interests are ignored, that amounts to a slap on the face of democracy.

My argument is that, as MPs, members must know the limits. The people of Bantama, ordinarily will never consider the MP for Kwadaso as their representative, how much more the MP for Takoradi or Techiman South or New Edubiase. Similarly, I do not think that the people of Ketu North will consider the MP for Ketu South as their representative, even when they are at ad idem over government policy.

All Ghanaians voted for or against the President and he won with more than fifty per cent of the votes. He can speak for all Ghanaians.But no MP was voted for by all Ghanaians.

Therefore, when they speak,they should not present themselves as if they represent every Ghanaian, especially where they won from a minority vote and are in Parliament because of the rule of first past the post,  which means that no matter the number of candidates, the one who receives the highest number of votes stands elected unlike in the case of the President where the rules require that to be elected,  the candidate must obtain more than half of all the votes cast.

It is only when our MPs work together as a collective that they can claim to have the mandate of our people,  otherwise, if they think that because they are in the Majority or Minority they can do whatever they want, they are only titillating themselves and laughing concomitantly.

That is where both the Majority and Minority must be ready to tolerate each other over the things that they would ordinarily detest but in the name of democracy must accommodate. Thus, our 

relaxed atmosphere

On Friday, February 28, I watched the vetting of the MP for La- Dadekotopon for appointment as Deputy Minister of Local Government, Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs.

I was enthralled about the relaxed atmosphere prevailing, especially as Jerry Ahmed engaged her in Ga to the admiration of those who came to support her.

But the beauty was smeared when the Chairman of the Appointments Committee and First Deputy Speaker, Bernard Ahiafor, my esteemed mate of the Law Class 2002, disallowed the question as to how she would team up with the substantive Minister to engage the chiefs on the question of double sale of land, on the alibi that there are laws governing land issues.

With all due respect, there are laws yet we engage in counselling, mediation, settlement and general alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

My expectation is that unless it is a leading question, the chairman must allow the appointees to determine  whether to  answer or otherwise.

It is only when the questioner insists on a fixed response unreasonably  that the chairman could justifiably overrule and intervene.

That must be informed by the constitutional imperative under Article 19(10) that " no person who is tried for a criminal offence shall be compelled to give evidence at the trial".

In a situation where an indicted criminal has the right not to respond to questions put to him or her even by a court of competent jurisdiction, an appointee being vetted has a better right not to answer some questions at the vetting.

Both the Majority and Minority must understand that it is when they come together that they can claim to represent the people of this country.

They must learn to appreciate the processes of democracy that when the rules are exhausted, it becomes a numbers game.

There must not be any impunity or boycott that has no direct response to upholding a democratic construct or concept.

Acting on impulse or ego has no part in democratic ethos.

They all need to demonstrate mutual respect and build their reputations because the generality of Ghanaians are watching to see who is a true democrat or pretender.