Education Minister Haruna Iddrisu has called for greater tolerance of dissent and constructive criticism in Ghana’s democracy, stressing that opposing views can help improve governance and the lives of citizens.
Speaking on Joy FM on Tuesday, October 13, the Tamale South MP said public office holders must focus on making life easier for Ghanaians, regardless of their political differences.
“For the good of our democracy, it’s good to tolerate dissent, and it’s good to tolerate constructive criticisms,” he said.
He explained that such criticism should help strengthen the country’s governance structures and improve the quality of life of the Ghanaian.
“Ultimately, we’re all looking to a Ghana where life is easier for Ghanaians to make a living,” he stated.
Mr Iddrisu, a former Minority Leader, made the remarks while reflecting on parliamentary leadership and the challenges facing the current Minority.
He said Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin was doing his best but faced constraints because of his side’s numerical disadvantage in Parliament.
“The current Minority Leader, Afenyo-Markin, is doing his utmost best, but he’s simply overwhelmed with the numbers. Very little to do, very little influence with those numbers,” he said.
Drawing on his own experience, Mr Iddrisu recalled periods when the Minority’s limited numbers meant that even a walkout could have little impact on parliamentary proceedings.
He noted that numerical strength could determine the outcome of debates, even when the smaller side had a valid argument.
“In every democracy, the most important institution is Parliament. That’s why it’s referred to as the citadel of democracy, where right and wrong is debated, but right must always prevail,” he said.
Mr Iddrisu also highlighted the importance of consensus, explaining that parliamentary leaders must sometimes allow backbenchers to take the lead on issues before engaging them to help resolve differences.
“Consensus is the beauty of any democracy,” he said.
On the handling of parliamentary disputes, he argued that the House should exhaust its internal mechanisms before referring matters of privilege to the courts.
“I rather will exhaust any matter of privilege within Parliament than want to refer it to a court to decide,” he said.
He linked that position to the separation of powers, stressing the need for Parliament to resolve matters within its authority through its own procedures.