Election 2024: Our Political Temperaments

THIS week, I had a political wish. I asked the elections fairy if presidential and parliamentary elections can be held on July 31.  The fairy just smiled. 

I have followed politics long enough to know that it can be a “bloody sport.” 

I agree that it takes a special kind of fortitude to step inside the political arena both as a candidate and an enthusiastic supporter of a particular candidate and party.

For people like me, who prefer a less adversarial approach to politics, the more I observe, the more I keep asking myself – four more months of this before Ghanaians cast their vote on December 7? 

The President made a largely unnoticed point in his Independence Day speech reflecting on the current state of Ghana’s democracy.

One of the things he pointed out as needing more work is the quality of our public discourse, with particular emphasis on two things – a) encouraging tolerance of opposing views and b) recognising that dissenting voices present no danger to subjects under public discussion and conversation.  

And regardless of how one feels about the president and the conduct of some persons in his own party, the political heatwave blowing across the public square is largely because we are failing to listen to this noble advice. When I think of the fact that we have four more months of this heatwave to endure, I begin to wish this election over sooner rather than later.

Tolerating opposing views

Our partisan edges have become much sharper, and our polarisation is deepening. This is well captured by the Afrobarometer survey.

On critical questions such as trust in institutions, perceptions of corruption, and evaluation of central government performance, partisans are divided. For example, when a partisan’s preferred political party is in power, their trust in institutions improves.

In opposition, it declines. Under such circumstances it becomes extremely challenging to embrace the president’s call for tolerating opposing views. 

Let me quickly say this before proceeding to the substantive point. Tolerance is not about accommodating disrespectful conduct during discussions on matters of politics and public policy.

Our politics, especially social media engagements, is quite rife with such conduct. Anyone who uses intemperate and insulting language in public conversations must be roundly condemned.

As Justice Clarence Thomas of the US Supreme Court once said “None of us should be uncivil in our manner as we debate issues of consequence. No matter how difficult it is, good manners should be routine.” Also, tolerance does not mean that we cannot advocate for the things we strongly believe in and care about with deep passion.

Tolerating an opposing view, in my opinion, does not delegitimise one’s position on a given matter. Yes, it may weaken the strength of the argument in support of it given the counter arguments raised by those who hold an opposing view.

It however does not make it illegitimate. All tolerance requires is the political temperament that recognises something about human society - there will always be divergent views on matters of politics and public policy. 

But I believe we all know this. So, what drives our inability to exhibit this political temperament?  Is it a deepening fear of the political and economic consequences of a particular side emerging victorious in an election? 

Next four months

July is almost over. We have August, September, October, November, and six days in December before the election.

That means we have four months and six days during which time partisans, nonpartisans, independents, floating voters, neutrals (pick your political persuasion) will be sorting it out politically in the public square.  

We can debate the issues, correct misinformation, and make the case for our preferred candidate very passionately without exhibiting the worst versions of our political temperaments. More importantly, there must be a recognition and acceptance that voters have every right to question the policy ideas and programme proposals candidates offer during the campaigns.

They are even allowed to raise doubts about it. Afterall, don’t we say that elections are about the Ghanaian people? If we sincerely believe this, then as the president said in his speech “dissenting voices present no danger to subjects under discussion.” 

Unless the danger is viewed through a political lens where partisans feel dissenting voices harm their policy ideas and programme proposals which ultimately diminishes the chances of their preferred candidate winning the upcoming election.

Everyone wants their preference to win. I get that. The political heatwave is likely to intensify but it does not have to.

We do not need to keep cranking up the dial. Whatever our parochial interest, it cannot be bigger than what is really at stake – the future political, social and economic development of Ghana.

Let’s listen to the president and improve the quality of our public discourse!

The writer is the Project Director, Democracy Project.