In the extensive wilderness where the lion, a symbol of dominion, reigns supreme, one is prompted to ponder upon the intricate loyalties of the zebra and antelope. Analogously, in the vast and limitless ocean where the formidable shark claims its throne, to whom do the tuna and mackerel pledge their fidelity? Likewise, in the boundless sky ruled by the majestic eagle, where does the allegiance of the Gull reside? Allegiance, as delineated by the Oxford Dictionary, is defined as “loyalty or commitment to a superior or to a group or cause.” This concept is deeply entwined with loyalty, which is fundamental to our understanding of allegiance.
The national pledge of Ghana commences with a solemn promise to remain devoted and loyal to the motherland of Ghana. It invokes a spirit of unwavering fidelity to Ghana, binding every citizen, regardless of their geographical location, to the ideals of the nation. However, this brings forth a philosophical quandary within the populace, focusing on the contrasting loyalties to the “Government of Ghana” and the “State of Ghana.” The State, in its elemental form, embodies Sovereignty, Political, and Socio-economic independence of a populace. In contrast, a government in a democracy provides the structural framework for administering a State, leading to the pivotal question – to whom does the Ghanaian owe their allegiance?
This inquiry probes deeper into the essence of national duty and citizenship. There exists a clear distinction between owing allegiance to the transient government structure and the enduring State of Ghana. Even the head of government architecture, the President, pledges to be “faithful and true to the Republic of Ghana” and to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana” before assuming official duties. This affirms the inherent duty of the Government to serve the State, reinforcing the enduring nature of the State in contrast to the transient nature of the government.
However, there emerges an ironic scenario when the State, which should ideally be the recipient of the government’s loyalty, finds itself yielding loyalty to the government. This misalignment of allegiance has sparked discussions and calls for constitutional amendments, particularly focusing on reducing the President’s appointing powers, as per article 70 of the 1992 constitution. These provisions have been criticized for allowing politically motivated appointments, leading to a depletion of public trust in sensitive institutions. This reveals the precarious balance between governance and statehood, questioning the allegiance of enforcing bodies such as the police during times of civil unrest and democratic expression, as evidenced by the “Occupy Julorbi House” protest.
To fortify Ghana’s democratic ethos and rekindle a sense of patriotism, it is crucial that allegiance to the State is profoundly ingrained and constitutionally affirmed. A failure to reinforce this might cultivate a generation whose loyalties waver between governments or political entities, neglecting the State of Ghana. Such an imbalance has severe implications for the sustainability of our democracy.
In conclusion, this exploration of allegiance sheds light on the dynamics and interplay between governance and statehood in Ghana. It is pivotal for citizens and governmental structures alike to align their loyalties with the enduring State rather than the transient governing bodies. By doing so, the essence of democracy and the spirit of true patriotism will be preserved, ensuring the enduring greatness and strength of our homeland, Ghana. May God continue to bless our nation and make it robust and resplendent.