The recent Graduate Student Association of Ghana (GRASAG) elections, held on the 20th April 2009, from which Mr Moses Adu-Gyimah and Miss Davida Borteley emerged as Presidents for local and national levels respectively, will go down as one of the most interesting, if not controversial in the recent history of graduate student’s politics.
This fact is attributed to: the inefficient leadership and corrupt legacy of the out-going executives, the attitude of the Electoral Commission (EC) , the interesting personalities who presented themselves to be voted for and the factors which influenced students at such high level of learning to vote the way they did. While we congratulate the members of this prestigious association for coming out with leaders for the next academic year, we believe that our efforts at building a sustainable future for Next Generation will not be complete if we do not reflect on democratic processes as this, to build formidable democratic institutions for Ghana.
The first evidence of democracy in any society or the least democratic requirement for a society is a sustained electoral process, which is fair in the selection of leaders for that society. Hence, the role of elections in setting the tone for building a durable democratic institution cannot be over emphasised. Elections in recent history have become a credible gauge to not only measure the sentiment and wishes of the masses but a platform where the best ideas win and all fragmented sections of society are united under one leadership. A distorted electoral out-come does not only rob the individuals contesting the process but it constitutes a threat to all the good consequence of elections mentioned supra.
To start with, this year’s GRASAG elections was organised at a time when inept and ineffective leadership of the out-going executives has induced so much student apathy as reflected in the few number of students who turned out to vote and be voted for. Of the five positions available, only two positions were contested for by more than one candidate.
As an institution, GRASAG has become alienated from the average graduate student. There is virtually no communication between the leadership and the rank and file of the association. Most students have had to put up with very poor sanitation, water shortages and deteriorated standards in the hostel. Most students are in the process of completing their programme of studies yet the questions about the delay in the release of thesis grants, bursaries and certificates remains outstanding. As if that is not enough, the office of the Dean of Graduate Studies and the Judicial Committee of GRASAG are all hearing various cases of corruption and defrauding charges against the out-going administration in which millions of students monies cannot be accounted for.
Again, the attitude of the EC and his legislations to regulate the conduct of the elections is of great significance in reflecting on the electoral process. The filing fee, the voting venue, timing of the elections and publicity for the electoral process are aspects of the process, which deserves special mentioning judging from the quantum of impact it had on the electoral process.
Quite alien in the history of student politics, and unprecedented in the politics of GRASAG, graduate students were compelled to pay a non-refundable amount of hundred Ghana cedis as filing fees for the presidency of GRASAG and half of that amount was charged for other auxiliary positions to the presidency. Though members protested, the EC was adamant. Little wonder then when persons who had earlier expressed intentions to contest for various positions dropped out. Many positions remained vacant until after several extension of the deadline for the nomination date, which saw students reluctantly filling them and even that, they went unopposed.
Secondly, Graduate students scattered all over the various faculties of the University of Ghana, were for the first time required to vote at a central location, contrary to previous arrangement of voting in front of their respective hostels. This development also accounted for the low turnout in the voting process, as most students given the poor record of the existing administration did not see the need to walk such long distance to exercise their franchise.
Thirdly, the timing of the electoral process was fixed immediately after the Easter festivities. This is also the same period as the revision week and therefore students had very little time for extra-curricular activities.
Fourthly, the EC failed drastically to advertise the various activities earmarked for the campaign activities. The poor attendance at various manifesto-reading sections and the lack of euphoria characterising the elections is a case in point.
Furthermore, the sharp contrast between the two personalities who presented themselves to contest the presidency of local GRASAG is worth commenting on. Freda Addu is obviously a young female with record of accomplishment as a former Vice President of the University of Ghana Business School (UGBS) Junior Common Room (JCR). Her experience spans from being a research assistance of the human resource department of UGBS, a board member of the management week of the Business School for more than once, executive committee and programmes committee member of GRASAG, to being a fellow of IMANI-Ghana/ CATO-USA, both centre for policy and research institutions and a fellow of EMPRETEC entrepreneurial network.
On the contrary, Moses Adu Gyimah is an adult male. Unlike his competitor, his experience is not in politics. On the contrary, his record of accomplishment in leadership is composed of donations of school uniforms and helping some orphans. Quite predictably, he resorted to desperate measures and non-issue campaign to win the elections.
Lastly, it is important that we attempt to reflect on perhaps what influenced the Graduate student to vote the way they did. This can be done by assessing the campaign actions of the two contestants for the local presidency. Moses Adu Gyimah throughout his campaign was seen as a friend to the existing administration. Speculations were rife that should he win, he was going to put a halt to all processes to get the out-going administration to account for the looting of student’s funds.
Moses did not have any problem with the corrupt administration and did not denounce them openly in any of his campaign platforms. The deep pockets of Moses proved handy during his campaign. He allegedly purchased three DSTV and pay several months subscriptions as an inducement for the GRASAG electorate. He also on the 6th March 2009 sponsored a beach party for majority of graduate electorate. Again, he allegedly footed the bills for the organisation of a massive sports fiesta for members of the association who are potential voters. There was enough to eat and drink as there was music to dance to. Moses currently finances a teaching assistant of the business school to teach various electorates who belong to that school. He is also responsible for making photocopy materials free of charge to all the graduate students at the Business School. Money was the campaign strategy of Moses - spends, spend, and spend. His efforts paid off. He won.
Freda Addu, Moses’ rival also campaigned on the mantra “Making GRASAG Relevant”. She unlike her opponent did not engage in the money politics. She was also very critical of the mal-administration of the out-going regime. Hence, it was not surprising when they took a centre stage to support her opponent and openly undermined her campaign. In her view, GRASAG was not relevant because it was not beneficial to the Graduate student. She bemoaned the indifference of members towards the association and hoped that there could be a platform, which enable members to voice out their grievance.
Freda organised the first ever forum which brought together all the stakeholders of the association to discuss pertinent issues affecting them. She also organised a major press conference to press home some of the major issues which came up during the said stakeholders forum; the delay in bursaries/thesis grants and deteriorated standards in the hostels. She authored several thought provoking articles about GRASAG and critically demonstrated how her previous experience as student leader could be brought to bear on GRASAG. She won the heart of many, being the first lady to venture such an enterprise. Nonetheless, she lost the election.
The question is- what influenced graduate students to vote the way they did?
In conclusion, politics and politicians have assumed very derogatory labelling and in some extreme cases, certain religious sects have admonished their followers against participating in it. Again, elections in Africa and some parts of the world has been a source of major conflicts leading to extreme poverty and violent deaths. Interestingly modern governance is indispensable of electoral process. It is for this reason that we all need to pay serious attention to the experimentation of democratic culture at the student level. If our graduates get their electoral processes right whilst at school, we are convinced that Ghana will get it right when these people become leaders of our country. Any attempt to encourage negative politicking among young folks will stand in our way to build a sustainable future for the next generation.
Source:
Nelson Oppong-Kyekyeku - GRASAG member, (okyekyeku2001@yahoo.com, 233243052028)
Benjamin Akyena Brantuo - Executive Director, NGYL (benakyena@yahoo.com, 233244825187)
Wahab Suleman - GRASAG member, (233246963201)
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Tags:
