There is one fundamental weakness with humans, the desire to readily condemn or rubbish actions or decisions taken by others, especially those we do not agree with or dislike.
The other is what the English put succinctly as to give a bad name to a dog so that it can be destroyed.
The reality is that at any given time, there would be people at the helm of affairs who would be required to take decisions.
Whatever it is, those decisions would be based on certain factors and considerations that we all cannot accept or agree with.
More important, those who are not part of the decision-making processes may not understand or appreciate what informed those decisions.
Consequently, what must be done in a democratic setting is to state any disagreement over continuing with the policy, but not to describe the policy or rationale behind the policy or such acts as without merit, irresponsible, uninformed or actuated by malice.
Such decisions may not necessarily lack merit, be misguided or ill-informed but based on alternative choices, especially where they have become highly appreciated and embraced by the majority of the population.
All it means is that we do not agree with what others have done and giving the opportunity, we would do it differently.
It makes better sense to see it this way than to unconditionally dismiss it with veiled contempt, dishonour, scorn and disdain when democratic choices are about alternatives than superiority over inferiority.
As our elders say, “se wo de w’ano do enwere a ebi nnwo wo”, meaning, if you clear thorns with your mouth, none would prick you, what the English renders as ” it is easier said than done”.
I have never disagreed with our elders in the saying that “dee oretwa esa no nnim se n’akyi akyea” meaning, the one beating the path does not know whether it is straight or crooked since he cannot see the back and front simultaneously.
But my caveat is that one should not jump into concluding that the path beater has crooked eyes, without finding out whether there is any obstacle making it impossible to have the path straight.
The devil you know…
But in a society where the general belief is that “The devil you know is better than the angel you do not know”, it makes little sense to argue about the wrongness of such a belief or to question who seeks to gain from discrediting others, for what they realise to have intrinsic value for the people far beyond politically partisan interests.
One of the most functionally inclusive policies adopted by the Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo administration, apart from the Free Senior High School Programme, was the policy of rotating the celebration of the Independence Day, March 6, to the regional capitals.
It brought back our sense of nationhood and nationalism in recent years than any other policy framework.
Indeed, the overwhelming and enthusiastically nationalistic crowd that welcomed Nana Akufo-Addo at Ho, during the celebration of the auspicious day in the Volta Region were more than he ever received in any part of the region for the whole of his political career.
Indeed, throughout all the regions where the celebrations were held, the sense of nationalism prevailed over parochial political partisan support and affiliation.
Beyond the sense of nationhood, there was the psychological satisfaction that the most important national day in the country has travelled to the people at their regional capital. More important it enabled some Ghanaians to see other parts of the country beyond their own regions as the celebration moved from one regional capital after the other, as the years passed by.
The Minister of State for Government Communications who announced the decision to terminate the rotational regional observations of the Independence Day, only mentioned the fact that it cost the nation averagely about gh¢50 million to host the celebration.
Though the President mentioned how much it would have been spent this year at the Jubilee House, the citizens were not provided much economics about the utility of the policy.
It is not for nothing that our Constitution emphasises inclusiveness in all that we do in the name and interest of the people of Ghana, who are sovereign.
Those in government must never assume that they have exclusive right over the interest of the people of Ghana.
They have only been entrusted with overseeing the aspirations and welfare of our people.
Where they see policies and programmes that have received the unalloyed and unqualified support of the people, they should be wary at varying them.
More important, in the specific instance of the regional celebration of the Independence Day, beyond psychology, it made business sense.
Entrepreneurs in all the regions, particularly those in the hospitality industry, can attest to the direct economic gains they made when the Independence Day was celebrated in their respective regions.
The net effect is the concomitant tax revenue, which increased and surged in all the regional capitals in the years that the regions hosted the day.
If we want to justify policy shift, we must be bold to state that this is what we intend to do.
Before Nana Akufo-Addo decided to rotate the National Independence Day celebration, it had never travelled beyond Accra.
Therefore, when the new government decided on a policy shift, it must have been bold to state so, rather than look for a scapegoat, about wasteful expenditure, without a comprehensive outlook at the impact of the regional celebrations.
Indelible imprint
Surely the new administration cannot be bound by any policy, however benign, introduced by the previous government, except where the policy has left an indelible imprint and has been beneficial and wholesome and accepted, approved and enthusiastically endorsed by the majority of the people.
To that extent, discontinuing such a policy would demand a justifiably reasonable argument to be sustained.
As for our people, they can express their views but they cannot force the government to do what they want.
If some well-meaning Ghanaians have found the regional celebrations functional and meaningful, then the government must not look for ruses or resort to unproven facts.
That can only be interpreted as underlining a recognition of the utility value of the policy to the grassroots who experienced the enactment of our becoming an independent state and nationhood.
The celebration of the National Independence Day at the Jubilee House may have its good part in cost saving, but how does that benefit the many Ghanaians, especially food vendors who make a lot of financial gains from the event by selling food items to participants, when the event was held in a restricted area?
It must not be like the saged saying of “penny wise, pound foolish”
That is why I suggest the government must reconsider the ideal of the rotational National Independence Day celebration next year by referencing our Ghanaian saying that “akyea na emuye sen abebuo nyinaa” translating as it is bent but not broken surpasses all other proverbs.
There is also one about “sankofa yenkyi”, going back to something is not a taboo.
