2012 alert: America can’t seem to get its voting system right

Those of us from the so called developing world have always looked up to America as the paragon of liberal democracy. However recent developments in the run up to the 2012 US presidential elections have often caused me to rethink this perception. On Rachel Maddow’s show this evening I just learned the Secretary of State for Colorado (Republican) is suing Denver’s election clerk and recorder (Democrat) for mailing out ballots to inactive voters. This is unbelievable. How can a state official, expected to ensure full participation of citizens in the electoral process go to such lengths to disenfranchise his own people?

This is the kind of backhanded tactics that happens in undeveloped electoral systems not the US of A. Secretary of State Scott Gessler says he wants to prevent voting fraud while Ms. Johnson, the top election official says this is really about fairness since most of the inactive voters happen to come from minority and low income earning communities.

It’s admirable for Mr Gessler to curb voter fraud in elections but what's the evidence that inactive voters are more likely to commit fraud? Is there any correlation at all? After all, this is the United States, a country which claims perfection when it comes to electoral politics. I mean these are the folks who invented the ballot box. Surely, they should have a trusted way of checking voter fraud. If this happened back in Accra, Nairobi or Lagos, I’m sure you’d find western officials breathing down their necks and threatening sanctions.

America often holds many countries accountable for their electoral practices, often excoriating them for any form of voter mishap or electoral inaccuracies. Maybe it’s about time we also sent election observers to monitor their elections.

I’d think the system will err on the side of participation rather than disenfranchisement. Mr Gessler has even ordered election officials not to send out ballots to soldiers fighting abroad who haven’t voted in recent elections, classifying them also as inactive. This sounds pretty insensitive and unfair to me.

I'm astonished because if America can’t get its voting right, then perhaps the whole democratic philosophy might just not be all that it’s cracked out to be.

Why Gingrich might clinch the Republican nomination

There’s been a lot of talk lately about Republican dissatisfaction with Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. You’d think, listening to all the chatter, that these are the only people running for the GOP nomination. The media are decidedly fixated on the horse race between the two candidates, focusing very little on the others.

I believe we’re yet to see a full scale coronation of any republican candidate until the causes and primary season actually begins. Having followed the 2008 elections closely, history tells us that a certain John McCain was polling in the single digits around this same period during the last election cycle. In fact if you followed the Iowa logic, you wouldn’t have guessed right who Obama's Republican opponent would be. McCain came up a distant third place trailing Huckabee and Romney and tied with guess who—Fred Thompson at 13%.

I think it’s still too early to hedge bets on who gets the Republican nomination. Gingrich has some bold ideas and is the only one so far among all the nominees to put forth a straightforward plan on how he’d go about solving the country’s problems.

I don’t necessarily agree with all his ideas but there’s little doubt that this is a man of immense political strength and deep conviction. Newt is a big thinker who has to be credited at least for being bold and clear minded with his proposals. He may be polling badly now but could end up pulling a McCain.

Obama reclaims the bully pulpit and the kind of speech he should have given

Obama stepped into the Legislative chamber a wounded man needing to make major changes to his presidency or risk being a one termer. Politically, this speech was both timely and important for a few reasons. First Republicans were now beginning to have a sense of hope—real or unfounded—about their 2012 prospects after a long period of dissatisfaction with their nominees. Second, after the downgrading of the US economy and insurmountable unemployment rates, there was a simmering feeling that Barack Obama and the Democrats may after all be vulnerable.

I think the White House read the political temperature perfectly. With the GOP race gradually heating up and a solid front runner in the person of Rick Perry emerging; what Obama sought to do was to take back the narrative.

In this speech Barack Obama tried to sound feisty and combative. He tried to appear presidential and authoritative. Watching Obama deliver the speech you get the feeling he almost wanted to invoke a Regan’s “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall moment”, moment: “Members of Congress, pass this bill”. It would have been nice if he actually succeeded in doing that but at such a volatile moment the last thing Obama wanted to do was to invoke drama. It was a risk he wasn’t willing to take. So he ended up with a somewhat toned down “Pass this bill and….” which came off as more persuasive rather than authoritative. Time will tell whether his strategy will pay off.

However, on the positive side, he did have some specifics. There will be tax incentives for small businesses which make new hires, an overall cut in payroll takes and Medicare and a direct attempt to reinvigorate the US economy through public sector investments. Though the speech was focused on jobs, Obama used the opportunity to address other important sectors such as education and infrastructure. Having heard several Obama speeches you sometimes wonder if he can meet his own standards repeatedly. Barack didn’t disappoint in this aspect. He gave another soaring call to action trademark speech. Whether this will resonate with a polarized congress and achieve the desires results is another matter. Personally I believe the time has come for Americans to hear Obama speak from his heart. This was a game-changing moment in his presidency and I think Mr. Obama should have abandoned the teleprompter for a minute or two and spoken directly to the American people.

For instance he could have said “Fellow Americans, I know there are many who are looking at this as yet another political speech to save my presidency. Tomorrow morning pundits across the news circuit will analyze how this speech will affect the 2012 race. Some will perform rhetorical analysis on every word and sentence I’ve spoken tonight while yet still others will engage in body language interpretations. Score keepers will bring out their stash of cards asking you to grade my speech. But I’m here to tell you tonight that I’m no more interested in saving my own job than in saving those of the 14 million Americans. Country men and women, I’m here to tell you tonight that if pushing this Jobs Act, if reaching out across the aisle, if making public sector investments, if asking all of us to rededicate ourselves to the letter and spirit of our union—the United States of America—will cost my presidency then this is a sacrifice I’m willing to make.”

We’ve heard the professorial, bully pulpit, campaign trail, media-savvy, debate prepped Obama speak. Now is the time to hear the inner Obama.

In cancelling Spitzer's show, CNN loses big time

What in the world is happening to CNN? How can you cancel a show after just five months of airing? How many shows on cable can boast of hosts as intelligent and as well rounded as Spitzer? What kind of reasoning went into this decision-making?

CNN is not the most credible news organization but it’s neither FOX nor MSNBC. With FOX and MSNBC towing ideological lines the best CNN could do was to 1) present objective or balanced coverage and 2) first-rate news analysis.

In Spitzer they provided the latter.

I’m so sad to see Eliot Spitzer leave CNN. He and Fareed Zakaria were two of the sharpest brains on cable. CNN has received lots of criticism for different things. I’ve always defended them believing the big-men up there were genuinely committed to serving quality content. Even when they sacked Ms No bias No Bull Campbell Brown and let Dobbs go I was ready to give them a chance. But now I realize the only thing they care about is ratings.

Can someone tell CNN you don’t build a formidable network by poking the charts? Didn’t these folks date in high school? When you try too hard to impress a girl, she will tune off.

Sometimes you need to quit trying too hard. Some things are just not worth the effort. People are not stupid. They will recognize good and quality things when they see it. You don’t need to force. You don’t need to embellish. CNN needs to just focus on delivering good content and the ratings will follow. There’s no need to manipulate the process.

People tune to FOX and MSNBC for right wing and leaf leaning talking points. There’s a middle out there yearning for in-depth, prescient and cutting edge analysis on important issues. Spitzer and his guests filled that void. Attack him all you want, call him anything you’d like but every day at 8 p.m, Eliot Spitzer delivered. He was a solid host and a consummate discussant. Wherever life takes him, I wish Mr. Spitzer all the best. He will be missed.

As Atta Mills faces internal dissent over second term bid, will the NDC survive?

For the first time in its recent democratic history, a sitting president in Ghana is being seriously challenged for his party’s nomination.

When Nana Konadu Rawlings decided to vie for the flagbearership of her party, some thought it was nothing but a bad joke. After all, incumbents in many democracies almost always get re-nominated. At least this has been the convention in Ghana’s nascent democratic politics. In fully fledged democracies such as the United States, internal challenges to a sitting president are nothing new. James Buchanan challenged Franklin Piece, Regan challenged Ford, JFK/McCarthy challenged Johnson, Ted Kennedy went against Carter and more recently Pat Buchanan fought the senior Bush. Yet only a handful of such confrontations have been successful.

Democratic Maturity vs. Partisan Imbroglio

After almost two decades of liberal democracy, this is the first time a sitting president is being seriously challenged in a party primary. Konadu’s presidential aspirations can be perceived through two prisms. First, it can be viewed as an attempt to re-gain control over the party built squarely around her husband and herself but which they’re gradually (if not embarrassingly) losing control of. On other hand, this can also be seen as a sign of democratic growth in Ghana as incumbents can no longer take their re-nomination for granted.

End of an era

Let’s face it: the sight of a “Rawlings” whether Agyeman or JJ subjecting themselves to scrutinization by other human being in Ghana is not one that many would have conjured up a decade or two ago. To see Nana Konadu grilled by “mere mortals” and succumbing herself to the process is indicative of how things have changed in Ghana. Both Rawlings’s are still potent voices within the partisan and national political scene in Ghana. There have been reports of a potential Rawlings coup or party split. However for the wife of a former dictator who was very much an active player in her husband’s iron fisted rule to come down to such levels indicates that the days of personality based politics in Ghana may soon be waning.

Mills now his own man

One of the most important outcomes of this whole partisan bickering is what it has done for Atta Mills’ reputation. Often viewed under JJ’s shadow, Atta Mills is finally beginning to emerge as his own man. It might be too late and no one can make empirical correlations between such a development and his performance but it does reflect well on his political image. In other words Atta Mills will now have a legitimate voice, legitimate constituency, legitimate bargaining chip and ultimately legitimate influence within his party.

Ghana wins

Overall if the NDC emerges from congress still standing, they should look back at this period with pride rather than prejudice. The NPP has already scored raving reviews over their restructured all-inclusive party nomination procedures. If the NDC sticks despite dissent, it will signify a coming of age for a party whose history is mired in military coups and iron-fisted rule. No matter our political stripes, we should wish the Akatamanso folks a successful congress. This is because strong party systems generally reflect positively on the national level. And in the end, the Ghanaian state wins big time.

On being black and international in Iowa

Barack Obama surprised everyone by winning in Iowa, a predominantly White Midwestern town but how does it feel like to actually live in the state? In this radio show, panelists discuss diversity and multiculturalism in Iowa City.

On a personal note, I'll confess that the one thing I had always wanted to be when I was a kid was to become talk show host. I read, listened to and watched anything by Kwaku Sakyi Addo, Paul Adom-Otchere, Cyril Acolatse and Kwaku Sintim Misa. I admired people like Randy Abbey who could host an audience glued to a talk program for over two hours. That man was a total monster. When he hosted Good morning Ghana, he was even better. I also liked Nana Yaa Ofori Atta when she hosted Newsfile. Her piercing voice and no nonsense attitude did not only elicit answers but ensured there was no hiding place for cagey guests. Talking point, Crossfire, Frontpage, Talkshop and Time with David were some of my favorite programs. As you can imagine these are not things you own up to in your teenage years.

At Legon, I did not own a TV and most of the "TV room" sets were tuned to either sitcoms or one reality show or the other. Never had a problem with that--people have different interests--but I'll rather listen to talk. Sounds kind of embarrassing now but there were many days in Legon where I made eager journeys back home so I could watch my mentors do their thing.

In Ghana being a talk show host or journalist was not considered prestigious enough so I never really admitted it to anyone. But that childhood urge never left. This summer I finally embraced myself by applying to and securing a spot on KRUI. Forgive the amateur presentation as I'm not a trained journalist but I've never been this happy doing any job in my life (well apart from teaching and reporting).

Spio's out but what would he have brought to the table? A pro-con analysis

Pro: Spio-Garbrah has three things you’d like to see in a post-modern president: intelligence, panache and nuance. In my opinion, the case for a Spio presidency is compelling. His academic training is well rounded with pedagogy from both within and outside Ghana. His CV is an interesting panoply of career stints both private and public, local and international stretching from his days at the African Development Bank, his ministerial career and his current gig with the Commonwealth of Nations. Here’s a man who has worked hard for everything he’s ever achieved. He’s not only smart and wonkish but does have the experience, wit and gravitas to become president of a nation full of promise but in serious need of transformational leadership.

Even more, trust Spio to shine on the global arena where he has garnered enormous respect and technical know-how. There’s no denying that at heart Professor Mills is a bleeding democrat who conducts himself in a mature manner. He’d most likely win re-election but that does not undo the advantages Spio has over him. Dr Spio-Garbrah is a box-to-box politician who possesses in abundance one of the most potent swords in pluralistic contests: oratory. To be a good campaigner you have to be engaging and persuasive. Ekwow often gets the bad rap for being arrogant and I don’t deny that he’s a talkative but on any given day; on any platform the man simply outshines Mills in any kind of communication. He compares with Konadu when it comes to sheer political doggedness but somehow you get the feeling Spio’s a bit more polished, pristine and poised for prime time.

Cons: In another democracy, Spio’s smartness and self-assurance should wow the electorate but in a terrain like Ghana it wounds up as an albatross. People perceive Spio as probably over-confident or to put it in Ghanaian parlance “too known”. And such an accusation is not without reason. Anybody who’s been following Ghana’s democratic revival since the 1990s is probably familiar with Spio-Garbrah’98. Ghana’s journalism scribes of that era certainly won’t forget his infamous “Item 13” declaration where he basically reduced journalists to snack mongering exploiteurs. In a political system where the press wields some power over the construction, framing and counter-framing of your public image, those are dangerous grounds to thread. His biggest drawback will come from anti-Rawlings elements in the NDC who see him as too close to the former first couple. Within the wider electorate, this could very well be a liability. Or maybe not.