[ 2014-10-04 ]

President Mahama and ‘Bohyenomics’
In order to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of
the accolade “Bohye ba” given to the
President, I googled the phrase “Mahama
promises” and the results were more than
promising.

Some of the search results are as follows:
President Mahama Promises theatre for Kumasi;
President Promises food security; Mahama promises
‘unprecedented’ prosperity in Ghana; President
promises to execute mandate; Mahama promises to
support indigenous industries; Mahama promises
sustainable funding for climate change; Mahama
promises to smoke out Seikwa chief’s killer;
Mahama promises to raise funds for troubled Guinea
Bissau; Mahama promises poultry farmers support.

The list goes on endless. And as leaders are known
by their specific traits, so would President
Mahama be known for his promises- which we can
comfortably refer to as “Bohyenomics”.

To put things in context: leaders the world over
have their own way of keeping their populace
“under control” in order to consolidate their
power.

Brutality is for instance employed in countries
where the leaders or ruling class are unable to
find a creative way of getting things done or
ensuring some peace and quiet in the midst of the
storm.

The police and armed apparatus of the state are
the main tools employed there. Others resort to
foreign policy as a means of dealing with the
inefficiencies and challenges in the domestic
setting.

A classic case of adoption of hostile foreign
policy posturing in order to ensure domestic calm
is Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe or Iran under
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In the Zimbabwean case, the “colonial and
imperialist detractors” continually receive
flaks from the nonagenarian leader, Robert Mugabe,
for being behind the failing economy and worsening
political and leadership crisis in the country.

In the case of North Korea and Iran under
Ahmadinejad, devious strategies in the form of
nuclear saber-rattling and threats of war fare are
employed, all in the bid of boosting a national
sense of pride and importance; and which, as a
result, momentarily compels citizens to look above
and beyond their predicaments.

Napoleon Bonaparte is often credited with the
statement “a leader is a dealer in hope.” Hope
is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as a feeling
of expectation and desire. And there can be no
hope except through promises. By his
[Bonaparte’s] calibration, a leader is always
supposed to be in the business of creating a sense
of expectation and desire in the hearts and minds
of her people.

He is never to be seen in a state of
hopelessness, despondency and aimlessness. This
way, by creating such a feeling in the hearts and
minds of the people, he is able to lead them on to
the expected end.

This very essential character of a leader is
reflected in another quote attributed to Alexander
the Great who says, “I am not afraid of an army
of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of
sheep led by a lion.” This quote underscores the
view point that the feelings, thoughts,
aspirations and dispositions of a leader are key
determinants in the mood and standing of a
nation.

So for those who have a problem with the
President’s numerous promises: imagine the
President mounting a lectern or a podium flanked
by his aides and security details as usual and
says: “we have come to a point where there is
nothing left for us to do as a nation other than
to cross our fingers and keep praying.”
Afterwards, he walks away.

What would we say about the President? what would
you think about the President? Bear in mind that
there is something worse than the making of
promises; and that is not making them at all.

And in a world where investor and market
confidence is tied to fragile elements such as
statements of leaders, one can’t help but have
sympathy for a President who is faced with a
challenged economy and yet puts out a positive
outlook.

That, said, moderation is important in all things.
And if there is anything worth stressing, it
should be that the words of a leader [in this
specific case, a president] should be something
people can clinge on to as the last word.

The utterances of a President should be the
guiding light in every discussion. But where it
generates cynicism and disbelief as we are
beginning to see, then certainly the President has
to slow down with the promises and act more.

Some members of the opposition party have rightly
raised the question of the cost of the promises
since most of them are in the form of investments
and infrastructure. And in a challenged economy,
where money is not readily available for off the
cuff promises, any reasonable person would have
concerns with the President’s never ceasing
promises.

Mahama’s Bohyenomic is not necessarily a bad
thing, but it is effective only where it is used
in moderation and backed by some concrete
actions.

Source - Graphic - Samuel Alesu-Dordzi

... go Back