Elections are around the corner in both America and Ghana and the airwaves are filled with spin. In the United States, former pizza mogul Herman Cain’s campaign is over due to accusations relating to womanizing and harassment. Here in Ghana, every few days, there are accusations about the moral failings of one candidate or another. There are charges of womanizing, homosexuality, drug use and lack of smarts. How do voters feel about these charges? It depends. Polls in America show that about half of the voters care about a candidate’s private life. Here in Ghana too, it appears that they do. Periodically, spokespersons for candidates threaten to sue those making accusations against them. Campaigns try to create the perception that their candidates are moral or Godly. There are constant visits to churches and mosques as well as frequent references to God. Campaign teams spend inordinate amounts of time concocting nicknames and looking for songs that would cast their candidates in the best light. Indeed, single candidates have been known to get married secretly ahead of elections to appear more complete to voters. While on the face of it, it makes sense to presume that people who have “cleaner” private lives make better leaders, is that really true? Imagine in 1940, looking at the following descriptions of three of the most powerful men on earth. Leader “A” did not take alcohol, did not smoke and had been an ambulance carrier during a war in which he saved lives. He was punctual to a fault, may have been a vegetarian and married his first sweetheart. Leader “B” drank habitually, swore frequently, was untidy, went to bed towards dawn and slept late and had been a very bad student in school. Leader “C” barely got out of University, had depended on his mother financially most of his life, was having affairs and was once described by one of the most celebrated Generals as “A man who would never tell the truth if a lie was available.” Well. Leader “A” was Hitler of Germany—the man who brought the world concentration camps. Leader “B” was Winston Churchill, believed by many to be the greatest Prime Minister in British history. His aides regularly ensured that during long meetings, his tea was spiked with brandy to keep him happy and calm. Leader “C” was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, accepted by most as the greatest President in American history. Those were war years and we may claim that unusual circumstances call for unusual men. Even in peace, flawed men have proven very successful. To pick some recent examples, in 1980, the born-again and morally upright naval academy graduate Jimmy Carter was president when America appeared to be failing. Inflation was going up—the price of petrol was going up and some Americans had been held hostage in Teheran for over a year. Americans turned to the once divorced and not-so-moral Ronald Reagan after he pointedly asked in a debate, “Are we better off than we were four years ago?” And Reagan delivered. He rebuilt America’s defense, its economy and its prestige. In the process, he created about 18 million jobs and won re-election in a landslide. In 1992, America was at the cross-roads again and this time, the man with good morals and the pristine biography was President George Herbert Walker Bush. He had graduated with honors from Andover academy and from there had joined the US military, becoming in the process, the youngest pilot in the Second World War. Afterwards, he had married his childhood sweetheart and gone on to graduate from Yale. And he had served as Reagan’s Vice-President with distinction. As President, he had put together one of the greatest coalitions in history to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Afterwards, his approval ratings briefly hit 90%. His opponent was William Jefferson Clinton—a flawed candidate if ever there was one. He had, by his own admission “smoked but not inhaled” marijuana. He had women of all colours and sizes coming out of the woodwork to accuse him of harassment and/or affairs. He had one or two financial scandals. And he had a wife who offended people every few times she opened her mouth. And yet—Clinton won. And he delivered as President. Both Reagan and Clinton won because Americans were being pragmatic. They recognized that the Presidency was no Priesthood. They judged both Reagan and Clinton on their performances as Governors and the solutions they were offering to the problems of ordinary Americans. As Clinton put it memorably,” Those who are attacking me are trying to prevent us from discussing your problems by focusing on my problems.” For the avoidance of doubt, I do not believe that all these flawed people who were successful leaders owed their success to their flaws. I believe they succeeded despite these flaws. To be even-handed, many men of high moral standing have been very successful leaders. Indeed, Jimmy Carter, after his Presidency, went on to do many outstanding things as ex-President. Before him George Washington, who had a much admired private and moral life, had given America a great start as a nation as the first President and many others had followed in his footsteps. On our own continent, Nelson Mandela has been one such leader too. But the pragmatism that I referred to is not only seen in America. When Ghana needed a leader just before independence—we had choices. Joseph Boakye Danquah had earned a PhD and distinguished himself before paying to bring down here a young man with nothing to his name. As Ghanaians contemplated their choices, that young man was unmarried and in jail. Quite a few young women claimed to be expecting his children. He was Kwame Nkrumah. Ghanaians chose him, and he gave Ghana the most visionary leadership we have had since independence. After his death, a BBC poll picked him as perhaps the greatest African. To return to the present, it appears that all our potential Presidents are – to put it delicately—imperfect. The Bible must have had them – and all of us in mind when it stated in Romans 3: 23 that “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” We can dismiss the empty pontifications of their “amen corners” about their moral uprightness. However, I believe as real living men and women who are imperfect in our own ways, we should not judge them too harshly. After all, they are not stepping forward to be our priests. If we wanted morally upright people to be our Presidents, our parties would be courting the likes of Cardinal Turkson, Pastor Otabil and Maulvi Wahab Adams. None of our leading candidates can be confused with any of these men of God. Not Mills—Not Nana—Not Nduom. Two conclusions stand out from all this. First, there is no clear correlation between private character and success in leadership. Second, even if there was, none of our potential Presidents stands out morally. Therefore, we must focus on our problems and their solutions rather than their pretensions to piety. Of course, while our leaders and their campaigns should bear the major responsibility for our campaigns of insults and personalities, others too, must share the blame. The first is the media, who help to peddle the lies that candidates feed us about their moral righteousness and their opponents blemishes. In this process, too often, our media outlets lend their airways to imperfect men pointing out the imperfections of others. I am looking forward to the day when our media outlets can start educating us about our leading candidates. Where did they go to school? What do their teachers and classmates say and think about them? What have been their biggest disappointments and triumphs? What do their former bosses think of them? What do their former subordinates think of them? Are they good parents? Such articles, well researched, will help us make our minds about those who hope to lead us. The second is our opinion leaders. Too often, their responses to issues have too much to do with partisan pulls and too little to do with national priorities. I yearn for the day when private think-tanks and opinion leaders will be balanced, fair and consistent in how they see issues. The ultimate factor in all these is the voting public. As long as we tolerate those who will insult others and cheer on those who threaten violence we will get more of the same. Let us insist that politicians talk about us and our serious problems instead of each others’ weaknesses. Let us ask them what they have done and what they will do for us instead of what they have done in their private moments—with women or men or drugs. Let us, like the Americans, vote our interests instead of our biases and our hatreds. Let us move forward to elect a President who will focus on our problems and not on his image from day one—together. Arthur Kobina Kennedy University of Cape Coast—Cape Coast Email: arkoke@aol.com Monday, December 5th, 2011