PRIVILEGES OF THE RULING, WHAT OF THE RULED ?
PRIVILEGES OF THE RULING, WHAT OF THE RULED?
The subject of privileges accorded members of parliament had been an issue that had lingered on the minds of many. To proceed, let me emphasis some confusion that might arise out of the title of this article. The ruling are not only about those in the executive, but all who are part of decision making are part of this class of individuals including members of parliament as they review policies of the executive and take decision on behalf of their constituents.
What some seemed confused over hinged on the fact that, society had over the years, experienced some show of powers by the rulers over the ruled when the ruled were said to have breached the rulers’ privileges.
These are the hazards of granting power to people who may not have what it takes to guard the laws that grant them some immunities.
Not too long ago, Professor Dodoo was halled before the house of parliament over what the house claimed was an attempt to show disrespect to them.
The professor was said to have made some comments to the effect that members of parliament were ignorant on their outburst on their passing of Ghana for the Ebola medicine test.
Perhaps, coming from the experiences we have had over the period, the professor could have classified “some” other than the omnibus and combustive description of the entire occupants of the house of parliament.
We have noticed members of parliament openly engaged in verbal attacks on each other on live radio.
Whiles the house would be quick to hall the less privileged, the people who have subsided their sovereignty to them before them to show “something small”, they have always lacked the speed to invite their own recalcitrant members before them even in situations where they have abused their own colleagues.
This leaves room for others who seem to have been caged and not allocated with such powers, to express their disgust at the house and its exercise of powers over the ruled.
Not too long ago, a radio host was halled before the house for also stating that over 80% or so members of parliament smoke marijuana. When halled before the August House, the occupants of the house had managed to reduced the young man to nothing.
Yes, it would be good to ensure to maintain discipline in society. However, how do you expect to have the respect of others when you do not seem to respect yourself?
Recently, and I thing even more recent, the member of parliament for Asin Central had decided to go ballistic. Blazing all cylinders and without reason, he launched an attack on two radio personalities in Accra.
While he made several damming allegations about people outside these personalities who seem to have been minding their business, his outburst can be classified as stupendously unacceptable.
Reason should have prevailed. One would posit that he was justified for his second outburst after another female radio host seem to have questioned his reasoning for his frequent uncontrollable outbursts.
However, bearing the title of “Honourable” was supposed to have come with some “improved” and “elevated” reasoning.
Getting down on this pedestrian angle only goes to weaken the fact that such an individual had fallen short of the level of appreciation that ought to have led people in the category he had found himself.
The attacks on the female radio personality on the next day can best be taken to the theatre of unreasonableness. It is indeed a disappointing appearance and a further deplete of the title accorded such persons.
As an honourable member, you are to behave above pedestrian personality attacks and the likes. Meanwhile, since entering parliament, the honourable member had consistently shown reasons why his constituents must regret his elevation.
I must use this medium to express my disgust at the attempt by some members of the New Patriotic Party to defend such acts of a member of parliament. This is a man who had classified all members of the New Patriotic Party as fools, regretting his membership of the party.
What was funny was that, while they defend his statements on the female radio host, they assume to want to distance themselves from his classification of them as fools. How appropriate would it be, to associate with one insult of the man and dissociate from the other?
If the house must be accorded the respect we have granted it, it would be appropriate to take a very relevant position on issues no matter who is involved. They must dragged with glee, their own as they do others who are not in that house. Anything short of that would amount to the politics of divide and rule.