The closeness of the election results has led many to believe that the country is split in the middle and they therefore call for national unity. Of course we should strive for national unity in all spheres of activity. We know where we have come from and if we revert to our various parochial entities we perish as a nation. We have come far in forging an admirable but not very solid unity. We should persevere and forge ahead. The elections did not create disunity. They only revealed the various divisions in Ghanaian society. Party leaders and politicians should carefully analyse the results and determine how they would satisfy the electorate. The divisions revealed by the election results may be characterised by local or community dissatisfaction that may have ethnic overtones. But in essence they indicate disenchantment with the ruling NPP administration over various social, economic and local issues and also fear of what may happen under an NDC government. These issues and fears are not addressed by "national" or "all-inclusive" governments whatever these terms mean in our situation. The problems we face require hard choices and difficult action. We should disabuse our minds of the belief that if we all share the spoils of victory all would be well. Elections are not contests for sharing national wealth among the victors. Unfortunately many share that view without being aware of what they believe. Therefore when some talk about "national" and "all-inclusive" government they believe that the arrangement would enable even non-party members to share in the fruits of victory. This they reckon would bring peace. The current ideas about national or all-inclusive government stem from a wrong idea about the elections. For example a supporter of an inclusive government has stated in an article that "the election has resulted in a draw". He continued to suggest what this "all-inclusive" government could do and I would not quarrel with that. The important point is that once you entertain the wrong notion you view the elections as a contest in which if there is a draw the spoils must be split. But the elections are not for sharing the fruits of office. The elections are for choosing people who have promised to slave away to rescue this country from unnecessary poverty and usher in that peace and prosperity that the Ghanaian rightly expects. There cannot be a draw in the contest. Whoever has more votes wins, however small the majority. So far as a "national" or "all-inclusive" government of all the talents is concerned, such an administration would not necessarily usher in the unity of mind and the progress required. We need a government with ideas and ideals that would determine economic and social action. The government should listen to the people including the opposition but it cannot abdicate its responsibility to the learned or talented be they even Nobel Prize winners. The Daily Graphic of January 7 carried a report that quoted the World Bank as saying that the country faces "socially painful financial crises". We can only confront this grim future successfully if our leadership shows the way with grim determination. The problems cannot be solved by wishy-washy all-inclusive or national government. In time of war or great emergency a government of national unity may be formed. But such a government is established to deal with a well-defined crisis. It is to prosecute and win a war. To get the country out of its present economic crises requires resolution of many complex issues. It requires comprehension, a value system and a commitment to serve. The purposes of government cannot be achieved without dissension even within the governing pal1y. We should not take unity to mean the tranquility of the grave yard. Discussion and arguments are the essence of democracy and progress. They lead to agreement or consensus that binds all. We may cite a simple example of an issue that may divide parties. A party may genuinely believe that the poor should be assisted by direct handouts of money. Another may insist that jobs should be created for the poor. And how does one create the jobs? And what happens to the poor in the meantime? Such an issue could lead to bitter arguments that even the talented and experts would find it difficult to resolve. But we should welcome such debates. What we should not do is to disregard those who do not share our views. We need a government that welcomes and is influenced by discussion and argument while executing a thoughtful strategy for sustained social and economic development. And so while we hold the NDC to its manifesto and ask that it settles down quickly to establish a dynamic purposeful administration we should sigh with relief and satisfaction that the elections have gone well and we have overcome the great dangers that threatened the nation at the end of the electoral process. In this regard we should be thankful to the Electoral Commissioner, Dr Afari-Gyan. He has shown that there are Ghanaians who would discharge their duties as required and who would be independent of government as necessary. We should also be grateful to various organisations and leaders of society for their intervention at appropriate times. The Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana) came out boldly to say that the democratic process should be allowed to move forward and that defeat should be conceded where appropriate. Veteran politician and former chairman of the NPP, Mr da Rocha, came out boldly to say that the courts could not stop the Electoral Commissioner from declaring the results. President Kufuor showed his commitment to democracy by entreating all to remain calm and allow the results declared by the Electoral Commissioner to facilitate the transfer of power on January 7, 2009. Finally, we showed that our choice of leaders was not lightly made. Nana Akufo-Addo exemplified his leadership qualities by congratulating his opponent and Prof. Mills declared that "I will be a true father for the entire nation and a President for all". We should congratulate ourselves and ask Prof. Mills to establish a good administration and not a government of good people without vision and purpose.