In a parliamentary democracy, the opposition checks the government and the legislative majority it controls.
Its primary functions include evaluating government operations, critiquing the government’s policy agenda, providing realistic alternatives to government plans, and holding public officials accountable for their decisions.
However, the reality of how the opposition operates can be quite different, particularly in Ghana, where there is a perception that opposition parties exist solely to oppose every policy initiative of the incumbent administration. This perception is often fueled by the competitive nature of Ghanaian politics, where parties vie for power and influence.
Some individuals criticize government measures without considering their potential benefits. For example, a regional minister raised concerns that implementing a 24-hour economy might prevent men from being able to “sleep with their wives.”
This raises the question of whether the politician truly understands the issues involved or is driven by personal interests at the expense of the country’s economic well-being.
While it is important to criticize the government and hold public authorities accountable, some critiques can be excessive or unfounded. For instance, Hon. Afenyo Markin has frequently challenged nearly every decision the current administration makes under President John Mahama. His criticisms often lack effectiveness.
On January 9, when the Speaker of Parliament announced the President’s nomination of three ministerial candidates for vetting by the Appointment Committee, the Minority Leader expressed dissatisfaction, calling the approach a “tot-tot method” of ministerial appointments by the President. Hon. Afenyo argued that a government committed to establishing a “24-hour economy” should provide a complete list of ministerial appointments rather than making piecemeal nominations.
The recent payments to DDEP bondholders, aimed at compensating individuals whose funds were unjustly held for ransom ignited widespread admiration for President Mahama and his NDC government.
Yet, figures like Hon. Afenyo-Markin have come forward to criticize the government, insisting that the NPP initiated these payments and that this marks the third installment, with the NPP previously making two payments without any public acknowledgment.
This raises an important question: why didn’t the NPP make their payments known to Ghanaians? Even if they were the ones to kick start this process, they should recognize that their actions were ultimately in the best interest of the Ghanaian people, and it is unjust to downplay the NDC for continuing a mission that they began.
Hon. Afenyo-Markin is on record as drumming into the ears of Ghanaians that the dismissal of public officials appointed after the December 7 election not only violated fundamental legal norms but also undermined the integrity of legal principles and eroded public trust in state institutions.
We can draw parallels to a dark episode in our history under the NPP’s predecessors during Busia’s regime when he arbitrarily terminated 568 public employees who were hastily labeled as political recruits in 1970. One of those affected, Sallah, bravely challenged this unconstitutional dismissal and sought reinstatement. In a rare victory for justice, the court ruled in Sallah’s favor.
Yet, Dr. Busia dismissively proclaimed, “No court can enforce any decision that seeks to compel the government to employ or re-employ anyone.”
Afenyo Markin would do well to reflect on the historical actions of his political forebears and learn from their missteps. It is crucial to critique not just for the sake of criticism, but with an understanding of the past.
I am not advocating for arbitrary dismissals by any government. Rather, it is imperative that such decisions are accompanied by transparent communication and that a constructive solution is reached that serves the interests of all parties involved. Only then can we hope to rebuild trust and integrity in our governance.
It is also worthy to note that unjustified criticisms can sometimes hinder constructive discussions and undermine valid concerns. It is important to differentiate between constructive criticism, which can promote positive change, and unfounded allegations, which may breed cynicism and distrust in public institutions. A balanced approach that focuses on dialogue and collaboration rather than division is crucial.
In all democratic countries, including Ghana, the opposition reminds the ruling party that a lack of popular support could result in their removal.
Additionally, the opposition warns the public that those in power can make mistakes. This includes critiquing decisions, demanding explanations for actions taken, and suggesting alternatives.
The opposition also requires the ruling party to justify its policies and actions. However, unnecessary resistance to government initiatives can stifle growth and development.
Political parties and leaders should evaluate proposals based on their potential benefits and effectiveness instead of dismissing them solely due to party differences. Constructive debate and cooperation can enhance proposed initiatives, benefiting the nation and its citizens.
When policies aim to improve the welfare of the people, all stakeholders must collaborate for the common good. Unjustified opposition to beneficial programs can hinder economic development and social progress. However, focusing on constructive criticism and support can lead to more effective solutions addressing the country’s needs, offering a hopeful vision for our nation’s future.
I am patting the shoulders of the Opposition Party in Ghana for the crucial role they play in the country’s democratic representation. Especially how they question the government’s policy agenda, promotes competition in parliament, and encourages popular sovereignty and political equality principles. This fosters better responsiveness to the public’s needs.
Ultimately, political leaders and parties should prioritize the country’s welfare rather than oppose each other merely for disagreement. Adopting a more collaborative approach can pave the way for innovative policies that promote growth and foster a more cohesive society.