The evolution and use of the term “neutral” in Ghana’s political discourse regularly prompt me to ask two questions.
First, how did the term emerge? Second, why has it become such a contested political label?
I reflect on these two questions regularly because every so often, some Ghanaians, mostly partisans, get into a frenetic debate over the term and whether it is possible, in a polarised political environment, to have “neutrals.”
My favourite phrase in these heated exchanges is the assertion that “there are no neutrals.”
Neutrals
Social media – specifically Facebook – is the context for my reflection. If my memory serves me right, the “neutral” emerged to reflect four key things I observed in our political discourse.
First, it appeared that our duopoly politics had created an environment in which, by default, every citizen belonged to a side – the New Patriotic Party (NPP) or the National Democratic Congress (NDC).
This notwithstanding, there are other political parties operating in Ghana.
But the reality is that, even though it is designed as a multiparty democracy, the country is a duopoly.
Second, which is a consequence of the first, meant that any person who ventured into the public square to engage in matters of politics and governance was speaking either in favour of or against one side of the duopoly.
It was difficult for some partisans to accept the notion that political commentary had no partisan undertones.
Third, which is a consequence of the first two points raised, was the need to push back against the narrative and dispel the notion that every citizen belonged to a side or that every political commentary had a partisan undertone.
In rejecting the narrative, there was a need for a political label that freed one from the NDC or NPP tag.
So, phrases such as “I am not NDC or NPP, I am for Ghana,” or “I am neutral” were used regularly in response to those who asserted “there are no neutrals in Ghana” or “fake neutrals.”
Fourth, I feel that disassociating from the partisan label offered one a certain modicum of legitimacy as an objective voice in a polarised political environment.
These were the voices, able to dispassionately examine national issues and rise above the narrow confines of the binary NDC-NPP discourse.
Partisans
At the heart of the response of partisans, in my view, is a push back against what they believe is a cynical view of the political label “partisan.”
Partisanship, in many instances, is associated with negative connotations such as blind loyalty and the pursuit of narrow self-interest.
To be labelled a partisan then is no compliment.
Partisans abhor this characterisation.
In my interactions with them, they assert two things.
First, that they are just as concerned about the welfare of the country as their fellow “neutral” Ghanaians; second, they simply believe their partisan cause (ideas, policies, programmes, etc.) is what will secure the country's welfare, not that of their opponents.
Another thing partisans will point out in their rejection of “political neutrality” is the lack of what I call being an “equal opportunity offender.”
Here is what I mean.
If one is truly politically neutral, the expectation of partisans, in my view, is that their commentary will offend both sides of the duopoly.
So, to observe commentary they judge to be more favourable to one side of the duopoly is a betrayal of what “political neutrality” represents.
In fact, some argue that it is even better for “political neutrals” to completely stay out of the public square and make no public comments on political matters.
A dear partisan friend of mine recently engaged me in conversation and said, “We are also watching very closely.”
And in watching, any observation of comments or actions by a perceived “political neutral” is seized upon and used to strengthen their rejection of “political neutrality.”
Reconciliation?
I feel “political neutrality” as a label was introduced in a political environment already prejudiced against it.
Or perhaps what the label sought to convey was a politically active citizen with no strong attachment to any political party.
I say this because, across 10 rounds of the Afrobarometer survey, some Ghanaians have said they do not feel close to any political party, even though they regularly vote in elections.
Reconciliation will require partisans accepting the legitimacy of “political neutrality” not as a convenient political label, but as an identity in contrast to what partisanship represents. But it will also require a less cynical and more benevolent view of partisans by “political neutrals.”
The discourse has degenerated to a point where I wonder if reconciliation is possible. But I am an eternal optimist.
The writer is the Project Director, Democracy Project.
