By Colson Akanbasiam In recent times, media reports suggest that Ghana’s political landscape is characterised by the use of intemperate language. This has become a source of great worry to political observers, development partners and politicians as well as governments. Disagreement is not alien to multiparty democracy but rather an inherent feature. This is the case because; underpinning every multiparty democratic system is an open political space that allows for expression of a plurality of ideas, views, and beliefs. We espouse these difference mostly in our attempt to project (and implicitly undermine) the interest of other individuals, political parties (factions), or sometimes for self glorification/interest. Politicians and other political actors engage in these political debates in order to win the sympathies, hearts and minds of the electorates in particular and Ghanaians in general. In the process of the debates, there is bound to be disagreements. Disagreements are not inherently negative but a democratic imperative that gives democracy its flagship beauty across the globe. The challenge in Ghana’s democratic practice is not about expression of our political difference and preferences but spate of political intolerance. This paper attempts to explore ways in which we can enhance political tolerance towards election 2012 and beyond; the effects of ‘verbal violence’ on individuals, our political parties and the nation, Ghana. We will conclude the presentation by looking at the role of the youth in enhancing political tolerance. It must be stated that the papers will try to steer off philosophical abstraction and be more practical as possible. Ghana has come a long way in its democratic practice. Ghanaians, our development partners and the every political party in Ghana (in opposition/government) has contributed to building our young democracy not withstanding challenges that confront us. Although the socio-economic dividends of our democracy are not meeting the expectations of the masses of our people, we still aspire to sustain while improving its shortcomings. It is from this backdrop that Ghana’s political observers and actors are appalled about the manner we express our dissent and criticisms especially by raising false alarms, using provocative and bellicose language that appear to be gaining ‘legitimacy’ in the run-up to 2012. Appeals have therefore been made on how we can improve political tolerance. We will look at the concept of political tolerance for the purposes of clarification. The concept, political tolerance is defined to mean accepting and respecting the basic rights and civil liberties of persons and groups whose viewpoints differ from one's own. Other scholars posit that political tolerance implies a willingness to 'put up with' those things that one rejects. To put up with each other’s views from the political divide, all citizens, including political leaders, have a responsibility to practise political tolerance in their words and actions. Are our political leaders prepared to practise political tolerance in their words and actions in their desperate attempts to maintain or capture parliamentary seats and government by playing by the rule of our multiparty democratic game? Hmm! our politicians cannot be wholly trusted. We should therefore be concerned about the appalling level of political tolerance because the use of foul, negative, hate provocative language is needless and preventable if we want to preserve the peace we have and democracy we are building. The use of intemperate/violent language is needless for several reasons. The use of intemperate language may dent our democratic practice and credentials that we have earned especially since the early 1992. It may also corrupt public morality since indecent, vulgar, violent language becomes part of our socio-political lexicon-this is certainly not what we want for our society. The use of insulting or bellicose language may divert our political discourse and our attention from the ‘bread and butter’ issues, social and infrastructural development to ‘non-political’ issues. Some of these non-political issues include insults, who is tall or short, handsome/beautiful, who has a first class honours and who does not have at the university. Is that what politics is about? If the non-political issues become agenda for our political discussion, they have the tendency of increasing our political temperature to absurd levels, which may create fear, panic and insecurity. Whether the insecurity is real or imagined, resources may be diverted from development projects and programmes to increased security intelligence gathering, peace building, conflict resolution and peacekeeping. For example, the funding of Inter-Party Youth Committee (IPYC) programme, funding for the promulgation of the political Parties Code(s) 2008 and 2012 (recently launched), the establishment and funding for the National Peace Council. The list trust and confidence building programmes are endless. Lastly, investment (Local Direct Investments or Foreign Direct Investments) in the Ghanaian economy may suffer because investors may fear that the safety of their investment cannot be guaranteed: unemployment, underemployment and poverty may stand still or even increase. Is that what we want for Ghanaians by engaging our political opponents? From the above, it obvious that the negative impact of the use of intemperate language does not affect only the individual or groups involved the entire Ghanaian society. As Ghanaians, we can over the challenge of intolerance by making our politicians work together and commit themselves to a more civil and issues-based campaign. By working together and doing issue-based campaigns, we may build trust and confidence that may ultimately create a more tolerant political environment. Youth (especially political party youth) are critical in the creation of a more tolerant political space because they are actively involved in grassroots mobilization for their political parties. In addition, the youth create the funfairs prior to political rallies equally attend these rallies. The youth are equally critical in enhancing political tolerance by the fact that they are always on our radio and TV programmes, featured in the print media and in recent times on social media. For example, face book and twitter. Notwithstanding the fact that the media is a useful in our democratic dispensation, the media is accused of fanning the flames of political intolerance. The validity of this accusation of the media is by no means being justified but the jury is out there for Ghanaians to make. The youth need to be on these political platforms to sell the ideals of their political parties in order to shape the minds of the electorates and the national policy making process; ultimately to form government or maintain government. To enhance political tolerance, the youth of particularly our political parties need to engage in activities that can build trust, confidence, respect and fairness among them during political discussions, and rallies towards election 2012 and beyond without breaching the peace we struggling sustain over the years. We have a couple of suggestions on what political party youth can do to enhance political tolerance. • Political youth should always exercise the utmost self-introspection and restrain in our political interactions. • The youth our political parties should constantly remind and if necessary reprimand their colleagues who make careless statements to desist from such actions. • Political party youth should collaborate more and work together to build trust, respect and confidence among ourselves-thanks to FES-IPYC programmes and others; through sports, seminars, common public fora with leaders/candidates of their political parties on constituencies and national platforms. • The youth in their drive to sell the ideals of their political parties to Ghanaians should focus on the issues in our discussions and rallies. Not the insults, false claims, character assassination and ethnocentric comments • Again, the youth of political parties should research and read widely to build their expertise on the issues pertaining to our parties and our country. If the youth are abreast with the issues, they will have a lot to say in their political platforms. They will not adopt ‘rough tactics’ (that is insults, threats, false claims, ethnic or religious politics) to survive in a political discussion/rally to win votes. • The youth of Ghana should refuse or ignore request from candidates/leaders of their political parties to do negative campaigns for since they cannot do so by virtue of their political stature. As youth, beware that these leaders may abandon you thereafter. If they do not abandon you, the spectre of your actions may haunt you in your future political life. • The youth can equally shun or fail to comment or spin on statements made by a leader(s) of our parties that are in bad taste. E.g. “All die be die”; “They should dare make a wrong move...”, “Ghana will be Rwanda”; the girl friend and chinhinga saga, “I will not tolerate the Ndoum nonsense and the Egyptian goddess fracas”; “greedy bastards”. The list is endless. • As political youth who want to enhance their own integrity and that of their political parties, they must be quick to apologize when the need arises because of (an accidental) intemperate language. Apology is not a sign of weakness but magnanimity. Arrogance and pomposity will accumulate ‘compound interest’ that awaits us in our future public life. Watch out my friends! • In the run-up to 2012, the youth of Ghana should facilitate the work of law enforcement agencies and other institutions in the execution of their legitimate duties rather than obstruct or undermine them. We should stay away from politicising, shelving criminals or rallying to their support at our police stations or courts in the name of ‘solidarity’. • Besides, the youth should develop the culture of seeking redress through legal means or presenting their grievances to the appropriate party and social structures rather than taking the law into their own hands. E.g., mob justice etc. I am therefore appealing to all political parties to begin discouraging the formation of youth militias. For instance, the Azoka boys, the Bamba boys, the Aluta boys, the Kandahar boys, the Action Troupers, the veranda boys, and Friends of this person or that person. These groups of young men are for me a ready ‘army’ for deployment by a political party. This syndrome is not stopped may haunt us someday either at the interparty or intraparty level. • More so, the youth should stop obstructing the political activities of their opponents or deface their posters and other party paraphernalia. If youth obstruct the activities of their opponents in may result in unpleasant reaction. • Finally, each political party youth should be mindful of mercenary journalist, who may create a fertile ground the use and broadcast of intemperate language. You should not forget that bad news sells the most. The youth should therefore not be quick to speak to or respond to every issue that they are not well informed about just because the media will give them publicity. In closing, multi-partyism is inherently prone to conflict because it allow for expressing of difference. There is none other system of government that is better than multiparty democracy. Fellow youth and compatriots, Ghana through the toil of all has not only made some gains in her socio-economic development, she has equally enlarged the political space for all to come aboard. Thanks to multi-party democracy. The challenge among others to our democratic practice is political tolerance and the role the youth of PNC, GCPP, CPP, NRP, EGGLE, NPP, NDC etc can play in enhancing political tolerance. The buck stops with the youth of political parties. Posterity will not charitable to the youth of today if we fail to prevent what we should have prevented. Ghana’s pace of socio-economic development and democratic practice is a flagship in Africa and comparable to any other country across the world. Let us uphold and defend the good name of Ghana during and after election 2012 by putting up with the views/actions others across the political divide. I live you with the maxim of Martin Luther King, Jr., which said; The ultimate measure of a man [woman] is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. The writer is an aspiring National Youth Organiser of the People’s National Convention (PNC)