Benjamin Joe Danso: Waving the banner of neutrality when convenient

When discussing recent political appointments, it is essential to maintain a neutral standpoint, as this article does not take a position on any particular decision. The objective of this piece is to contribute to the ongoing conversation regarding the expectations placed on public officials and the challenges they face in maintaining impartiality.

Throughout the article, the author emphasizes the notion that individuals are inherently biased due to their upbringing, experiences, and affiliations. This perspective asserts that it is unrealistic to expect anyone, regardless of their position, to be completely neutral in their actions or decisions. Instead of focusing on the concept of neutrality, the author advocates for objectivity – the ability to make fair and impartial judgments based on the evidence at hand.

The author uses examples of neutral figures such as football referees and judges to illustrate the difference between neutrality and objectivity. Referees, for instance, cannot erase their personal preferences for a particular team, but they are expected to enforce the rules consistently, regardless of which side benefits. Similarly, judges enter the courtroom with their own opinions and biases but are held accountable for applying the law without favoritism or prejudice.

The piece goes on to critique the selective use of the term 'neutrality' in Ghanaian politics. The author observes how political parties often invoke neutrality when they perceive an appointee as being biased towards the opposing side, while dismissing the same principle when the appointee is seen as aligning with their own party.

This selective application of the term undermines its value and fosters mistrust among citizens, as it suggests that those in positions of power are unable to rise above their political affiliations.

To address these concerns, the author proposes a shift in focus from demanding neutrality to evaluating appointees based on their conduct and actions. The suggested criteria for judging these individuals include transparency, reasoned decision-making, consistency in applying rules, willingness to rule against one's perceived allies when the evidence demands it, and openness to scrutiny and correction.

By emphasizing objectivity and rigorous evaluation of decision-making processes, the author believes that this approach will help restore credibility to institutions and promote trust between citizens and public officials. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure that political decisions are made based on the merits of the case rather than the perceived backgrounds or loyalties of the individuals involved.