NEWS COMMENTARY ON IEA DEBATE
BY GEORGE ASEKRE.
 If there is any truth in the saying that coming events cast their shadows, then the IEA's Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates must be critically examined again.
It is true that the IEA is a private institution and has the right to use any criteria it deems fit and best serves its interest based on its mission and vision in all its endeavors. It is also true that any institution that engages in any public event is under legal obligation to uphold the constitutional provision on similar treatment to avoid being tagged biased. Article 55 clause 3 of the Constitution states that subject to the provisions of this article a political party is free to participate in shaping the political will of the people to disseminate information on political ideas, social and economic programme of national character and sponsor candidate for election to any public office other than to District Assemblies or lower local government unit. The deliberate attempt by the IEA to  limit the debate to only parties with representation in Parliament raises eyebrow. It appears to be  an attempt to deny millions of Ghanaians  access to different views on how they want to be governed. Besides, the IEA is gradually trying to restrict the constitutional provision of widening participatory democracy which must not be allowed to continue. These were reinforced by the comments made by the executive director of the IEA, Jean Mensah and a Member of the IEA debate planning committee. In fact, they created the impression that the IEA debates are to provide Ghanaians the opportunity to examine the view points of the candidates and hence inform their decision in the polls. By this, is the IEA telling the electorate to make choices from only the four candidates who had access to its platform? Nothing can be more discriminatory than this. Why should the IEA think that no independent candidate is  worth winning the election, hence have his views articulated through the IEA platform if indeed that platform has the power to effect change? The argument that the Commission on presidential debates in the US restricts its debates to only two parties is neither here nor there. Ghana is a sovereign state and is not under any obligation be it legal or moral to emulate everything from the US. In any case, is Ghana  the US? The claim by the IEA that its decision is partly due to logistical constraint is untenable. Are we not constantly told that democracy is expensive? Should inadequate resources lead to unjustifiable, subjective and individually or selectively targeted decisions? Another serious constitutional issue that ought to be looked at critically is the provision in Clause 12 Article 55 which mandates the state-owned media to give the same amount of time and space to all presidential candidates to present their programmes to the people. By carrying the IEA selective programme live, it is incumbent on the state own-media to find alternative ways of giving equal time and possibly prominence to all other registered presidential candidates to also present their views  since such is their non-negotiable right. Ghana is for all of us,  hence any participatory competition that is transparent need to be embraced by all whist any move that is selective must not be encouraged . After all,  are thieves not dealt with when caught, but is it not true that some people steal purely to satisfy their hunger? If  the limited resources argument by the IEA is justified, others might make similar flimsy excuses to engage in unfair treatment. If the state wants such competitive debate, then the NCCE must be empowered to organize one. The IEA must come again.
 GIA