I am absolutely sure of it that the biggest problem of President Mills of Ghana is lack of wise counselors or advisors. I’m even surer that he needs an inclination for that kind of desired wise counsel-an inclination the president has woefully failed to demonstrate since he became President. Why, how can any leader ever lead successfully without the benefit of such counsel? Perhaps, only in an Atta Mills Presidency can people delude themselves with such a notion.
The last time I wrote an open letter to the President, I humbly cautioned his Excellency to get his acts together as urgently as practicable before ultimately losing his core support base in the NDC. And what did I get for daring to make such a prudent suggestion? A flood of e-mail in my in-box. You can guess the content of these messages that mostly came from naïve, blind, sycophantic and avowed stomach supporters of the president. Many of them cursed me for daring to evoke one of the cardinal principles that form the bedrock of the NDC-the courage to speak the truth and stand by it no matter the cost. There were others who commended me though for speaking out openly what many of them had already been discussing privately. But one thing became clear to me after my last letter to the President-many people who call themselves NDC do not even have an appreciation of the core values of this movement-and that includes the President.
I am not one of those who have been taken aback by the abhorrent behavior of President Mills whiles in office. As for how he has treated the founder of his party, it had long been predicted. And he’s been on record to have said that he will not treat President Jerry John Rawlings differently from President Kufour. Therefore, the reparation some of us have been advocating and expecting President Mills to give to President Rawlings for the eight years of damage and denigration from the Kuffour Presidency will only remain a day dream.
The ingratitude of President Mills is legendary without a doubt.
I first learnt of this in the run-up to the 2004 general election whiles I was still a student in Cape Coast. That was an election he meekly conceded defeat and earned himself and accolade the ‘asomdwe hene’ as though that was worth it. One evening in the company of a couple of my colleague student activists, we got the greatest shock of our lives from the man whose picture boldly occupied the front of the T-shirts we regaled.
Apparently, upon his arrival at his sister’s residence in Cape Coast during a campaign tour of the central and western regions, President Mills had been ill advised by his ‘advisors’ that we were a group of opportunist students who had come to meet him and try to get from him some favors. The truth however is that, we had been given these T-shirts by his own sister who revealed to us when Prof. Mills would arrive at her residence and encouraged us to regale ourselves with them and meet him to invite him to give us a talk in school. Upon her request, we were seated that evening and waiting for Prof. Mills for several hours until almost mid-night. That night has since remained one of the most regrettable nights for me as a youth activists of the NDC.
Why, when we were finally asked to see candidate Mills, he was seated and surrounded by a bunch of ingrates who were already day-dreaming of becoming presidential aides and ill advisors. He was the first to address us-and it was appalling. He spoke totally unlike someone who even dreamt of becoming president. He said to us that he had been told that we were students who had come to his sister’s residence to seek campaign paraphernalia. Prof. Mills asked us if his sister’s residence was the party office and why we had come there.
I was not the leader of the group but I wished I was. Our leader had become instantly timid-understandably. Although we were all shocked at the remarks from the Prof. who wanted to become Ghana’s president, our leader was even more confused as he had the extra burden of responding appropriately and respectfully. As would be expected, he fumbled through his response. He could not even be coherent as he struggled to put his vocabulary together. At this point, I only wanted to do one thing-remove that T-shirt of the Prof. and throw it to his face. At the end, he said to us, that he would see what he can do regarding coming to address us in school. We left his presence immediately with disgust and full of regrets.
It became obvious to me that this Prof. was not a serious man worth my energy in campaigning for. Here was a man who was running for president. A group of student volunteers got invited by your own sister to come and meet you. And if we came to your house for party paraphernalia-and yes, it was not the party office-but in whose interest was it? Not you who is running for president? So that if the Prof’s so-called advisors ill-advised him, as a ‘presidential material’ he should have known how to handle such information better than making it sound as though he didn’t have a ‘presidential mindscape’. And as if he was going to do us a favor. But how can you blame him if he does not have that ‘mindscape’. He simply cannot fake it.
It didn’t surprise many of my comrades who know about this experience with the Prof. When I said in 2006 that the Prof. cannot rule Ghana with these same people I met with him in 2004 as his advisors and with the same inclination. With that kind of naked ingratitude shown to students rooting for him to be president, how could you expect him to show any appreciation to the foot soldiers or his financiers or even his political benefactors in the NDC? And with such ill advisors surrounding a man who already lacks the inclination for wise counsel, how would you expect him to act wisely and in the interest of consolidating power for the NDC?
This is why when people say that I criticize the president unnecessarily; I say back to them that they’re supporting a man they don’t even have an iota of knowledge about. Some of us have been observing the Prof. since 2004 to see if he will become different. That is why we gave him the benefit of the doubt after he became our flag bearer in 2006 and supported him unconditionally. Unfortunately, a leopard can never change its colors. The president has continually confirmed to all of us who have eyes to see and an open mind to think that he is not a leader that can inspire all others to follow him and work for a common goal. He is a legendary ingrate who will only learn his lesson after his reign has crumbled and there is no indelible mark left behind to show for it.
There are those avowed supporters of the President who say that President Mills’ refusal to consult and take free advice from NDC founder and former President Jerry John Rawlings is a demonstration of his independence as a president who is of his own ideas. I’m not sure if that is what Prof. Mills really thinks he is doing. But if what his supporters say is true, it will be the most naïve thing any President can do to ignore the rich counsel of the man who introduced you to politics-such a priceless boon- in a bid to demonstrate independence of mind when in reality you do not have what it takes to be independent minded in the first place. After all, does he not still take useless and destructive counsel from his bunch of ill advisors? What is independent about that? And how does this so-called independence inure to the benefit of his presidency? Did Prof. Mills become NDC leader independently? Absolutely not! So where does this independence theory emanate from? I guess it can only emanate from ill advisors whose only aim is to cover up their own bad deeds that would suffer exposure by the former President Rawlings whose commitment to the truth is equally legendary and unmatched in our political landscape.
And that is why I say President Mills is in dire need of advisors to replace the current bunch of ill advisors. Before then, let the president develop ASAP the inclination to heed to such wise counsel or consider himself a failed president. Less I forget let those who have suddenly woken up to the reality that the NDC founder is indispensible to the fortunes of our party in any present or future election-be it intra-party election or national election-know where to direct their ‘wise counsel’. Let them be talking to those ingrates in the NDC pressing the self destructive button and making sure they listen. For no one else needs counsel than President Mills and his ill advisors who have done him no single good since he became president. They even convinced him to forget that he became president because he was consecrated on June4 in Swedru where he was famously declared by NDC founder Jerry Rawlings as heir to the NDC Flag so that he now can violate the inviolable June 4.
I’m also of the opinion that it is also almost too late for the President to make any amends to assuage the King makers in the NDC to retain him as NDC leader. He would have to fight it independently. And I double doubt if independent fighting for political power has ever been a part of the ‘father for all’ president who prefers to chase after the myth called ‘floating voters’ at the expense of the real people who put him there. Has he ever heard the saying that a bird in hand is worth ten in the bush?
If I were to be an advisor to President Mills for just a day, the first thing I would tell him is that there is a different moral code in politics. That moral code is not called ‘father for all’. It involves having two faces: the man and the alpha man. Seeking retribution for injustices perpetuated by public officials for example requires the face of the alpha man. Not the meek man. Keeping your opponents far from the seat of government does not require ‘father for all’. Sustaining power does not require praise singers around you as president and espousing gentleness. It requires people who would look you in the face and tell you the truth. If it is too bitter, why chew it. Just swallow it. I will hasten to add that no single political opponent has given him applause since he declared himself ‘father for all’. If your political opponents will not applaud you for that, what do you expect from your neglected followers? Further praises? No. absolute abandonment!
And if the ‘father for all’ moral code hasn’t been prudent, why maintain it. As I have said earlier, it is one of the most naïve themes of the President to even declare himself ‘father for all’ to Ghanaians when he has woefully failed to unite his own NDC almost two years after gaining political power. He has been ‘father for all’ in the judiciary and what has been the result; a disaster in the pursuance of justice. He has been ‘father for all’ in the public and civil services, and what has been the result; sabotage and subterfuge. He has been ‘father for all’ in the media, and what has been the result; the opposition is shaping public opinion and leading the discourse-even gaining a moral high ground. He has been ‘father for all’ business men in Ghana, and what has been the result; apathy from his campaign financiers and colossal sums of money in the hands of his political opponents.
I cannot and will not believe that the Atta Mills Presidency is working with strategy. If it is, what is it called and what is its purpose? I’m sure of one thing; it is not a winning strategy, so: it is not worth it. I cannot rest my case until the NDC flag and membership ID card is taken away from this president whose values, views and ideals are anything but those of the NDC!
saCut Amenga-Etego (YFL General secretary and NDC youth activist)
Monday, September 6, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
A dialogue between two or three political philosophers concerning justice!
The heir of this argument is a 'gentleman'. Here,we're not referring to an 'abrantie' as in Ghanaian parlance. In ancient Greece,a gentleman is one who is willing to stand up for, and defend his family and friends-not just the needs of the body. He is also concerned about defending the honor and safety of the polis (political community). He accepts the view that justice is 'giving to each what is owed' but he interprets it to mean a kind of loyalty to members of a family, friends, team or group. Doing maximum good to your friends and harm to your enemies. This gentleman see justice as a form of 'patriotic sentiment' that citizens of one polis feels for one another as opposed to others. Justice for him is devotion to one's own. And one's own is the good. One's own is the just.
Challenge from Another philosopher who thinks that:
Loyalty to a group cannot be a virtue in itself.He asked 'Do we ever make mistakes? Of course yes...Isn't the distinction between friend and foe based on a perception, a kind of knowledge on who is a friend and who is a foe? Have we ever mistaken a foe for a friend? Ofcourse yes... So how can we say that justice is doing good to our friends and harm to our enemies when we don't even know and cannot be sure who our friends or enemies are? Isn't such an unreflective attachment to one's own bound to result in injustice to others?
But the gentleman has an answer. The best polis knows who it's real enemies or friends are. The best city may be characterised by peace and harmony at home.
With such an unsatisfactory answer from the gentleman, he certainly needs some help from another who thinks he has some form of knowledge about justice and intends to teach it.
Justice he says is the interest of the stronger.Every polity is based on the distinction between the ruled and the rulers.Justice consists of the rules that are made by and for the interest and benefit of the ruling class. For him, the rulers determine the laws of justice. He believes that we're essentially beings who are first and foremost dominated by the desire for power and control. Power and domination is all we care about. This distinguishes the real man or the 'alpha man' from the slave.And what is true for the individual is also true for the collective things, states or cities.
Politics is a 'zero sum game'. There are winners and there are losers. The more someone wins, the more someone looses. And the rules of justice are simply the laws set up by the winners of the game to protect and promote their own interest.
Even as this gentleman seems to be making a good point, he has a challenge.
The question is repeated. Do we ever make mistakes? Of course yes...We agree that it is not self evident what our interests are. And if justice is truly in the interest of the ruler or strongest,then doesn't that require some kind of knowledge or reflection on the part of those in power to know what is really and truly in their interests?
The ancient Greece 'abrantie' replies that if a ruler makes a mistake concerning his true interests, then he is not a true ruler. A true ruler knows his true interests.
But he is still challenged. Justice is not power alone. Justice requires knowledge and reflection. Indeed, all virtue requires knowledge and reflection.
The gentleman refuses to give up. He replies that justice consists of convincing people to obey the rules that may interest others because of the fear of the consequences of injustice. Therefore, justice is only respected by the weak that fear injustice. A true ruler in some ways is one who has the courage to act unjustly for his own interest. A true ruler is like a shepherd with a flock but he rules NOT in the benefit of the flock but acts in his own interest. Justice is a virtue.
But what kind of justice is it to deceive andexploit other people?
Well, the ancient Greece 'abrantie' believes that a just person is a fool for obeying laws that are not beneficial to him. What do you believe Ghana 'abrantie'?
SaCut Amenga-Etego
(YFL general secretary)
Challenge from Another philosopher who thinks that:
Loyalty to a group cannot be a virtue in itself.He asked 'Do we ever make mistakes? Of course yes...Isn't the distinction between friend and foe based on a perception, a kind of knowledge on who is a friend and who is a foe? Have we ever mistaken a foe for a friend? Ofcourse yes... So how can we say that justice is doing good to our friends and harm to our enemies when we don't even know and cannot be sure who our friends or enemies are? Isn't such an unreflective attachment to one's own bound to result in injustice to others?
But the gentleman has an answer. The best polis knows who it's real enemies or friends are. The best city may be characterised by peace and harmony at home.
With such an unsatisfactory answer from the gentleman, he certainly needs some help from another who thinks he has some form of knowledge about justice and intends to teach it.
Justice he says is the interest of the stronger.Every polity is based on the distinction between the ruled and the rulers.Justice consists of the rules that are made by and for the interest and benefit of the ruling class. For him, the rulers determine the laws of justice. He believes that we're essentially beings who are first and foremost dominated by the desire for power and control. Power and domination is all we care about. This distinguishes the real man or the 'alpha man' from the slave.And what is true for the individual is also true for the collective things, states or cities.
Politics is a 'zero sum game'. There are winners and there are losers. The more someone wins, the more someone looses. And the rules of justice are simply the laws set up by the winners of the game to protect and promote their own interest.
Even as this gentleman seems to be making a good point, he has a challenge.
The question is repeated. Do we ever make mistakes? Of course yes...We agree that it is not self evident what our interests are. And if justice is truly in the interest of the ruler or strongest,then doesn't that require some kind of knowledge or reflection on the part of those in power to know what is really and truly in their interests?
The ancient Greece 'abrantie' replies that if a ruler makes a mistake concerning his true interests, then he is not a true ruler. A true ruler knows his true interests.
But he is still challenged. Justice is not power alone. Justice requires knowledge and reflection. Indeed, all virtue requires knowledge and reflection.
The gentleman refuses to give up. He replies that justice consists of convincing people to obey the rules that may interest others because of the fear of the consequences of injustice. Therefore, justice is only respected by the weak that fear injustice. A true ruler in some ways is one who has the courage to act unjustly for his own interest. A true ruler is like a shepherd with a flock but he rules NOT in the benefit of the flock but acts in his own interest. Justice is a virtue.
But what kind of justice is it to deceive andexploit other people?
Well, the ancient Greece 'abrantie' believes that a just person is a fool for obeying laws that are not beneficial to him. What do you believe Ghana 'abrantie'?
SaCut Amenga-Etego
(YFL general secretary)
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Methodist Bishop's comments-Liberation theology or just a clearance of tainted conscience?
There has been great controversy over comments purportedly made by a 'man on the pulpit' in the Methodist church of Ghana during a visit to that church by opposition leader Nana Akuffo Addo of the NPP last Sunday. His comments were varied but suffice it to say that the man on the pulpit publicly declared himself a member of the opposition new patriotic party during sermon time on the pulpit whiles asking for the rejection of the ruling NDCgovernment in the next general election in 2012. Whiles many members of the NPP are gloating over what they perceive to be a political plus, many others especially the supporters of the ruling NDC have been embittered greatly by his remarks. Some have expressed disappointment in the 'man of God' for dabbling in party politics. Government spokesman and deputy information minister Okudzeto Ablakwa was the first to lament over his comments from government-expressing absolute disappointment in his 'lack of neutrality' onthe pulpit. I have also heard supporters of the Rev. Samuel Asante Antwi former President of the Methodist church of Ghana say that what the man did was engaginging in 'liberation theology'.
I have my own view of this situation that has been variously observed by different schools of thought.
First, I don't believe this is the first time a 'man on the pulpit' has engaged in government criticism.And this particular man is widely known to have been an open critic of Chairman RAWLINGS during the reviving days of the PNDC. He was also reported in 2008 to have put on his cell phone a ringing tone that also served as a campaign signature tune for Nana Akuffo Addo-making him an open supporter of the opposition NPP. Just this time, he was more pronounced in his declaration of support for the opposition and indeed, his disdain for the ruling party.
Nobody can convince me that his utterances on the pulpit last Sunday represent liberation theology.
Why? What does liberation theology teach? It teaches that 'Christians must work for social and economic justice for all people'. If The Rev. Minister is really espousing a liberation theology, then he ought to be learning from Jean Bertrand Aristide of Haiti whose liberation theology led to his ex-communication from the Roman catholic church as a Salesian priest and who continually organized mass protests against the Jean Claude Duvalier regime and protecting the rights of the poor in Haiti. Better still, he could take inspiration from the Zapatistas of Mexico who in 1994 took over official buildings in the state capital and proclaiming war for the 'looting ofour natural resources'. Or again, this 'man on the pulpit' can draw some lessons from the Sandinistas in Nicaragua where some priests who professed 'liberation theology' decided to join Daniel Ortega and the urban resistance campaign to oust Anastasio Somoza in 1979. That was pure concrete liberation theology.
That is how far liberation theology has been espoused and practiced in other jurisdictions. And I do not think that the Rev. will want to begin his liberation theology only after he retired as the president of the Methodist church Ghana. Besides,where was his liberation theology when President Kuffour's NPP government proclaimed themselves 'enemies of the poor' in Ghana under a 'property owning democracy'? Indeed, liberation theology and property owning democracy are running parallel to each other. Where was his liberation theology when the military turned Ghana into an experimental state where coups had become so fashionable and poor people got poorer and social justice got buried until a certain chairman RAWLINGS came to halt it all with his version of 'liberation theology'? where was Asante Antwi when other clergy joined J.J Rawlings and his colleagues to work for economic and social justice for all in Ghana?
Having said all that, I do want to say that I have nothing in principle against any man on the pulpit actively and openly engaging in party politics like the Rev. Samuel Asante Antwi. Indeed, many of them-if not all-are already engaged covertly in party politics. And as a political youth activists, I have enough experience to conclude that the real political actors aren't necessarily the ones who are loud on the campaign platform. There are many 'hidden hands' whose works for political parties are more strategic than what Chairman Rawlings, Kuffour, Atta Mills or Akuffo Addo will do on the campaign platform.
This Rev. has obviously been one of those 'hidden hands' that has influenced a lot of support for the NPP in that Methodist denomination in Ghana. Is he the only one? Absolutely no! I know one 'man on the pulpit' who used his sermon times during the 2008 general elections to campaign for the NPP. How do I know? Of course I was not in the congregation but my party member who was also a member of this church left the church in a loud protest-The church lost a member-and the NPP didn't win more votes a sa result.
As I have indicated, there are also other 'men on the pulpit' who were a part of the PNDC movement in 1979 and are still a part of it now. Just recently, a priest from east Africa-who espouses liberation theology-joined believers and adherents to the AFRC/PNDC movement to commemorate 31 years of the june4 uprising in Tamale. I didn't see anything wrong with it. Indeed, I loved it.
Severally, many lovers of our true democracy have denounced our religious leaders for hypocritically keeping mute over glaring social and economic injustice in Ghana. I have heard the former President Rawlings and many others asking the 'clergy' to not keep quiet over social injustices or during political upheavals. Interestingly, many of them have decided to make 'selective comments' as and when it suits them and their interests. And for me,that behavior by our religious leaders smacks off hypocrisy in the highest order akin to the biblical Pharisees. It will be really useful and progressive for our religious leaders to get loud on issues bordering on social and economic injustice. They must get political when the need arises but they cannot engage in the usual NPP-NDC politics and call it 'liberation theology'.They must speak against injustice whether perpetuated by NDC or NPP. After all,they're already covertly engaged in politics as I have stated already.
People will make arguments about separating church and state. Yes. Let's separate them by all means but we can only have a cosmetic separation like the one between our 'legislooters' and our executive.We all know that there is no such real separation of powers between the three arms of government in Ghana or Africa at large. And i doubt if there is any such thing in the so-called solid democracies like the US OF A and Britain. So my argument is that all the 'men on the pulpit' must begin to speak openly about what they feel or see wrong with our social,economic or political order. If for nothing at all, they will be enriching our democratic debate, plus, they will be clearing their tainted and 'pharisaic conscience'. But let no one even try to convince me that the Rev. Samuel Asante Antwi, the retired Methodist bishop is pursuing liberation theology with a sycophantic praise of the opposition leader. For all you know, this man is covertly negotiating with Nana Akuffo Addo for council of state position in the unlikely event that he ever becomes president of Ghana in 2012. That will just be a prudent move by the man on the pulpit and a testimony to the nature of our 'stomach politics' in Ghana!
SaCut Amenga-Etego
(YFL General secretary)
I have my own view of this situation that has been variously observed by different schools of thought.
First, I don't believe this is the first time a 'man on the pulpit' has engaged in government criticism.And this particular man is widely known to have been an open critic of Chairman RAWLINGS during the reviving days of the PNDC. He was also reported in 2008 to have put on his cell phone a ringing tone that also served as a campaign signature tune for Nana Akuffo Addo-making him an open supporter of the opposition NPP. Just this time, he was more pronounced in his declaration of support for the opposition and indeed, his disdain for the ruling party.
Nobody can convince me that his utterances on the pulpit last Sunday represent liberation theology.
Why? What does liberation theology teach? It teaches that 'Christians must work for social and economic justice for all people'. If The Rev. Minister is really espousing a liberation theology, then he ought to be learning from Jean Bertrand Aristide of Haiti whose liberation theology led to his ex-communication from the Roman catholic church as a Salesian priest and who continually organized mass protests against the Jean Claude Duvalier regime and protecting the rights of the poor in Haiti. Better still, he could take inspiration from the Zapatistas of Mexico who in 1994 took over official buildings in the state capital and proclaiming war for the 'looting ofour natural resources'. Or again, this 'man on the pulpit' can draw some lessons from the Sandinistas in Nicaragua where some priests who professed 'liberation theology' decided to join Daniel Ortega and the urban resistance campaign to oust Anastasio Somoza in 1979. That was pure concrete liberation theology.
That is how far liberation theology has been espoused and practiced in other jurisdictions. And I do not think that the Rev. will want to begin his liberation theology only after he retired as the president of the Methodist church Ghana. Besides,where was his liberation theology when President Kuffour's NPP government proclaimed themselves 'enemies of the poor' in Ghana under a 'property owning democracy'? Indeed, liberation theology and property owning democracy are running parallel to each other. Where was his liberation theology when the military turned Ghana into an experimental state where coups had become so fashionable and poor people got poorer and social justice got buried until a certain chairman RAWLINGS came to halt it all with his version of 'liberation theology'? where was Asante Antwi when other clergy joined J.J Rawlings and his colleagues to work for economic and social justice for all in Ghana?
Having said all that, I do want to say that I have nothing in principle against any man on the pulpit actively and openly engaging in party politics like the Rev. Samuel Asante Antwi. Indeed, many of them-if not all-are already engaged covertly in party politics. And as a political youth activists, I have enough experience to conclude that the real political actors aren't necessarily the ones who are loud on the campaign platform. There are many 'hidden hands' whose works for political parties are more strategic than what Chairman Rawlings, Kuffour, Atta Mills or Akuffo Addo will do on the campaign platform.
This Rev. has obviously been one of those 'hidden hands' that has influenced a lot of support for the NPP in that Methodist denomination in Ghana. Is he the only one? Absolutely no! I know one 'man on the pulpit' who used his sermon times during the 2008 general elections to campaign for the NPP. How do I know? Of course I was not in the congregation but my party member who was also a member of this church left the church in a loud protest-The church lost a member-and the NPP didn't win more votes a sa result.
As I have indicated, there are also other 'men on the pulpit' who were a part of the PNDC movement in 1979 and are still a part of it now. Just recently, a priest from east Africa-who espouses liberation theology-joined believers and adherents to the AFRC/PNDC movement to commemorate 31 years of the june4 uprising in Tamale. I didn't see anything wrong with it. Indeed, I loved it.
Severally, many lovers of our true democracy have denounced our religious leaders for hypocritically keeping mute over glaring social and economic injustice in Ghana. I have heard the former President Rawlings and many others asking the 'clergy' to not keep quiet over social injustices or during political upheavals. Interestingly, many of them have decided to make 'selective comments' as and when it suits them and their interests. And for me,that behavior by our religious leaders smacks off hypocrisy in the highest order akin to the biblical Pharisees. It will be really useful and progressive for our religious leaders to get loud on issues bordering on social and economic injustice. They must get political when the need arises but they cannot engage in the usual NPP-NDC politics and call it 'liberation theology'.They must speak against injustice whether perpetuated by NDC or NPP. After all,they're already covertly engaged in politics as I have stated already.
People will make arguments about separating church and state. Yes. Let's separate them by all means but we can only have a cosmetic separation like the one between our 'legislooters' and our executive.We all know that there is no such real separation of powers between the three arms of government in Ghana or Africa at large. And i doubt if there is any such thing in the so-called solid democracies like the US OF A and Britain. So my argument is that all the 'men on the pulpit' must begin to speak openly about what they feel or see wrong with our social,economic or political order. If for nothing at all, they will be enriching our democratic debate, plus, they will be clearing their tainted and 'pharisaic conscience'. But let no one even try to convince me that the Rev. Samuel Asante Antwi, the retired Methodist bishop is pursuing liberation theology with a sycophantic praise of the opposition leader. For all you know, this man is covertly negotiating with Nana Akuffo Addo for council of state position in the unlikely event that he ever becomes president of Ghana in 2012. That will just be a prudent move by the man on the pulpit and a testimony to the nature of our 'stomach politics' in Ghana!
SaCut Amenga-Etego
(YFL General secretary)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)