SAVE YOUR PROMISES

The political season is once again here, and parties are vigorously waging a war of promises on the conscience of voters. All of them will, apart from organizing political rallies, showcase their policy documents- The Manifesto- to the voting public.

These Manifestos are carefully constructed solutions, reached after a deliberate diagnosis of the ailment of the country. That is, an effective, efficient and people centered policies or programmes are proffered in these Manifestos. The politicians will mount the political rostoriums, sit on radio and TV, trying to sell these policies to electorates.

Manifestos are nothing more than promises. In the absence of a solid, well defined, deliberately designed National Agenda for the country, Manifestos come in to fill the void. They are constructed along the Directive Principle of State Policy enshrined in Chapter Six (6) of the 1992 Republic Constitution.

The promises in these manifestos are statement of intent. The political parties are inviting the electorate to accept the Social Contract they are proposing. The Contract will be honoured if they are given the mandate to rule this country.

One distinguishing feature of these Manifesto promises are how they almost appear similar in character or thematic areas. All of them will talk about how to modernize the Agric sub-sector; employment creation;  improve education and its ancillary sectors to meet global standard;  fix the ailing healthcare systems; greater infrastructure development; prudent fiscal policy; all directed at fixing the wobbly economy of this nation.

The question worth asking is: apart from Nkrumah who was able to achieve or implement most of his grand policies that this country atill revelles in, how much good have the subsequent governments made of their promises?

How many times have we not heard or read political functionaries, apologists and apparatchiks scream themselves hoarse, our ears being the targets, to  fix our health care systems but run to other nations (US, South Africa, Europe) to seek medical care-themselves, family or cronies? How many parties have promised to improve the impoverished educational system but are quick to send their children abroad to get QUALITY education? How many of them buy 4-wheel drives just because the roads leading to their homes is/are riddled with potholes?

A friend joked that these politicians are often thrown into a state of shock or disbelieve at the electorates quick acceptance of promises they themselves don’t believe is feasible. It’s funny but honestly isn’t it a fact?

One of the promises I personally find interesting is their promise to clean the various capital cities within 100 days of assuming the reins of power. They commence with some clean-up, for at most three months and leave it there. No questions asked.

The launch of Manifestos has become a norm. At least, it serves as a programme of work for these political parties likewise canons or armors for the electorate to fire at them should they renege on their promises.

But,if I were to be a political advisor, I would tell my bosses not to waste resources on publishing and launching a Manifesto because as with many Ghanaians, they vote not on the promises or policy direction but on ethnicity, religious consideration and personality.

The two leading parties have managed to align themselves with certain ethnic class and regions. These ethnic groupings/regions see them as their ‘bona fide’ properties which must be supported to the hilt. They offer them all the care backed by an assurance that they can lose in all the other regions BUT shall never, ever lose at these ‘World Banks’.

Some analyst have opined that even if you put a monkey on the ticket of that particular party in their strong holds, they shall win convincingly. So with a region or people of such orientation, what effect will a campaign promise/manifesto have on their choosing of candidate?

The issue of religion has become an intricate strand within the body politics of this republic. Some parties have made it a deliberate rule to present a ‘balanced’ ticket (north-south balance, where they choose a Muslim from the north and a Christian from the South). This strategy is to appeal to the various religious denominations within the country and the two sectors of the nation.

I’m yet to witness a presidential hopeful who will declare himself as an atheist or belonging to a minority religious sect. I’m very much sure (s)he won’t even make it past the primaries of his party, let alone lead that party into elections or win the presidential slot  in an overly religious country as Ghana. Should that fellow contest as an independent candidate, not many people will join his campaign train. A lone ranger on some adventurous mission.

On the personality front, most voters place premium on how the person looks-handsomeness, stature, skin tone, humility or humbleness, age. There is an abundance of evidence to show that people have voted (and still vote) not based on manifesto promises but on looks. For this group of people, you may have all the best plans and programmes, you may articulate them with such fiery touch but if you look anything close to Socrates, sorry, you won’t get the votes!

However, there exist classes of people who go far beyond the rhetoric and subject the Manifestos to critical queries. These are the ‘critical middle- class’, who by virtue of their education and/ experience are able to discern the feasibility or otherwise of these manifesto promises-policies and programmes.

The ‘critical middle-class’ have become the king-makers. They decide or can decide the outcome of elections. They are open-minded and do share notes on various issues raised in these manifestos and based on these analytical dissections decide on who will have their votes.

As with any serious organization, there is the need to have a blue-print and Manifestos contain the visions of these parties for this nation. But the drafters should beware that the ‘heavy ’promises- too wild, too incredulous contained in the manifestos do not sway many because many are those who vote based on other considerations and not Manifesto promises.