There is a certain dysfunctional and toxic tendency that has gained root in our national discourse, which in the opinion of George Orwell, could only be described as double-speak, making contradictory statements, and yet, believing in both.
Most often, you hear our politicians say that we need to be united to confront national development but when it suits them, they go to every length to divide our people into WE and THEM or THEY and US.
The dysfunctional discourse of WE/THEM and THEY/US, came up at one sitting of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament, when the Director General of the Ghana Education Service (GES), in answering a question about what is being done about teachers recruited last year, who have not been paid said, WE did not recruit them, to which the chair of the committee asked who are the WE, while reminding him that government is a continuum.
On Saturday, September 27 this year, I watched a GBC programme, Focus, with George Sappor interacting with Prof. Michael Ayamga-Adongo, Deputy Chief Executive of the Environmental Protection Authority, Mr Cletus Seidu Dapillah, MP Jirapah and Mr Ishaq Ibrahim, a Law lecturer at the University of Professional Studies, Accra.
They were having a discourse on the issue of illegal mining, and what must be done to contain the situation and save our people from the needless destruction of our forests, water bodies and the environment generally.
The sum of it was whether there was a need for the government to declare a state of emergency, to help contain the galamsey menace, as was popular close to the general election last year.
Indeed, members of the University Teachers Association, to which Prof. Ayamga-Adongo is a member, undertook an industrial action to back the demand for a state of emergency to be declared.
My expectation was that, if anything at all, there would be agreement on what we should do, but no, it was so fanatically partisan that even Prof. Ayamga-Adongo, who admitted supporting the call for a state of emergency, and now directly charged with the obligation to protect the environment, was rather talking partisan politics.
He pointed out that for any volume of contaminated water that spreads in the pits and silts into groundwater or spills into water bodies, the higher percentage must be attributed to the NPP.
This prompted Mr Ibrahim to question his professional competence, a criticism that the Prof. was unwilling to let go and emphasised that his record and credibility could be verified and ascertained in academics at the university and in the public domain.
What irked and exercised me was the thought of Prof. Ayamga-Adongo and Dapillah that if anybody should criticise the government, then that must preclude any member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), which superintended over the escalation of the destruction from illegal mining over the past eight years.
They suggested that because the NPP government failed to arrest the situation, every member or supporter of the NPP, YOU, should not criticise the NDC government, which ostensibly includes every member and supporter of the NDC as a party, US, for also failing to tackle the menace, YOU should not expect US to deal with the matter in nine months when you failed to deal with it in eight years.
In response, Mr Ibrahim retorted that YOU wanted US to declare a state of emergency and now that YOU are in the saddle, YOU are still blaming US for the problem, and suggested that the NDC campaigned on a promise to end galamsey in 120 days and thus stated that YOU should do what you promised and leave US out since WE are not in government.
Separation
If these were coming from ordinary members of the people, I would not be bothered. Our basic understanding of Separation of Powers in the three arms of government is becoming uncertain.
If a member of Parliament can conclude that certain political office holders, including representatives of the people in the Legislature, are not part of government, then there is much to be desired.
Does that mean that every member and supporter of a political party is an accomplice to the actions and inactions of the party or that every member is guilty of the failures and successes achieved by the party?
Put another way, does it mean that once a political party is in power, the members and supporters of the party own all the national assets to the exclusion of other citizens or that members and supporters of the party which is out of power cannot and must not criticise policies because that exclusively belongs to the party which is in government?
Should government be limited in definition and substance and appropriated to only members and supporters of a party to the total exclusion of other functionaries of the state, but whose roles are intrinsically embedded in the theory of the Separation of Powers.
If that is the case then no one must insist that this country belongs to all of us.
Are some of us more Ghanaian than others? Do some of us have more and better rights in offering viewpoints about national issues than others because the party they belong to is either in government or outside the powers of government?
Do members of Parliament and the Judiciary have any role in government?
Can we say for certain that all members and supporters of a political party, especially a ruling party, do not do anything against the interests of the government and the state?
Fight
In the fight against illegal mining and the concomitant destruction, there have been claims of involvement and active participation of certain party executives and officials, belonging to both the NDC and NPP in the ugly business.
We can speak about allegations made against officials of the NPP by Dr Kwabena Frimpong Boateng, who had the privilege to chair the Inter-Ministerial Committee on mining.
The NDC national organiser, Mr Joseph Yamin, has accused some officials of the party, including members of the anti-galamsey Task Force, as deeply involved in illegal mining activities.
There have also been counter accusations against Yamin and the subsequent information that he was to appear before the Economic and Organised Crime Office for investigation.
Personally, I do not support the idea of a state of emergency.
However, looking at the level of destruction of forests, more importantly water bodies, I will not be against the declaration of a security zone in any part of the country.
It is done when markets get burnt to enable relevant institutions to gather the necessary data for subsequent action to deal with issues for the benefit of our people.
It is more crucial in the effort to protect our water bodies, forests and farmlands, our environment.
