In parties we trust
Political Parties and leadership in GhanaPolitical groupings have been part of the Ghanaian political landscape since the colonial era. The anti-colonial struggle was led largely by interest groups coalescing to act on behalf of the population, even at a time when there was no entity called Ghana. Even the then Gold Coast (as Ghana was known) was hardly a cohesive entity. However, there was a recognition by the intellectuals and elite of the period that colonial rule was an aberration which had to end at some point, and took steps to hasten the defeat of colonialism in Ghana. The Aborigines Rights Protection Society was one of such groups. When the United Gold Coast Conventional (UGCC) was formed by leading activists of the anti-colonial struggle, it was in realisation that only a united “party2 could work to dislodge colonialism. The UGCC disintegrated amidst the onslaught launched by Kwame Nkrumah and his new Convention Peoples Party (CPP). The UGCC metamorphosed into several forms, leading to the National liberation Movement, (NLM). Even though this coalition now calls itself the New Patriotic Party (NPP), its ideology remains the same. Parties in Ghana are therefore the result of mass popular struggles for succession to the colonial regime, and for a wider political mobilisation for freedom from poverty and colonial racism the and its divide and rule tactics. The above summary of a complex history shows that political parties have been and remain the main avenues for political mobilisation based on ideas and leadership. What has made Ghanaian parties relevant in both the pre-colonial and post colonial times have been their independence, the fact that they represent a constituency of ideas – even if they are ethnic abased. The NPP and its predecessor parties have been largely based on the dominant Akan groups in Ghana, drawing their support from cocoa farmers, traders and lawyers. The CPP, the ‘veranda boys’ also drew their support from immigrant populations in the Ashanti region, form the north and other social groups who considered themselves well enough and were therefore opposed to the ‘socialist’ policies of the CPP and Kwame Nkrumah. None of the above descriptions will apply to these parties today, as the NPP has become national, and some sections are beginning to reject the socialist foundations of the CPP. Their relevance is underscored by the fact that they exist to capture power for the groups they represent, and that has been their mainstay, even when the military has seized power, they survive, and live in the hope that they would return one day to capture power. Ghanaian parties are therefore social institutions and legitimising agents of political process and interest group networks who also promote a certain economic and political philosophy. That is the main difference between the Kwame Nkrumah family or Nkrumaists, and the Busia/Danquah fraternity. Unlike other countries, parties in Ghana have institutional history and social roots. These parties have successfully built a committed cadre of leaders within a democratic process, no matter how flawed it may be, to represent their interests. The recent presidential aspirants nominations of the main arties – the NPP< CPP and NDC produced an impressive list of candidates, a process which was judged by most Ghanaians to be democratic. In Ghana, political parties are socio-political institutions that people recognise as their own, and therefore represent their interests. Parties remain the main interface between them and the state. Peoples see themselves as CPP, NPP, NDC (National Democratic Congress) and so on. During and after elections, parties become the main legitimising agents of government. Political parties are also primary legitimizing agents of the government and governing systems of the state. The social function and legitimizing role of political parties are under unprecedented strain. In Ghana, the process of the process of decolonisation was led by a conscious group of politicians who ensured the emergence of a people led, cohesive and democratic systems of governance under the leadership of Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. The seeds for a viable multiparty democratic system was sown. The claims that the absence of a so-called “vibrant middle class” makes political parties less viable as vehicles of democracy is not supported by Ghana’s example. To what extent do these parties or political institutions promote democracy? Undoubtedly, political parties remain the most crucial instruments for sustaining and promoting multi party democracy. But single party states can and do also promote democracy. In this case, I refer to the one party rules of Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana and Julius Nyerere in Tanzania. In the case of Ghana, a vibrant multiparty system, with multiple ideological and identity base helped to sustain, strengthen and underpin our brand of democracy, in the time of Kwame Nkrumah and recently, under the post military era. The CPP party of the left, and the NPP, a party with right wing liberal ideology, have contributed to making Ghana a viable multi party democracy. The Achilles heels of governance? In spite of this impressive record, parties in Ghana risk undermining their own role. The increasing display of wealth and the use of financial inducements to attract votes during the recent NPP presidential aspirants contest was stomach churning and deeply offensive the ordinary supporters of the party. It created that impression that these parties are led by career politicians with a single point agenda of winning state power with all the privileges that come with it. This trend is not Ghana specific, even in the land of the ‘mothers of democracies’ (the UK), this trend is becoming the norm, as for the USA, politics will not be interesting without the millions of dollars they spend on getting themselves elected, and therefore beholden to vested interests. If parliamentary democracy is the route to accountability, democracy and a people based political system, parties remain the engine for this vehicle. As Akyaaba Addai-Sebo wrote in an essay recently, “national interest demands that leaders of political parties must also be representative voices in parliament. Experience is the best teacher as parliament becomes a veritable testing ground to mould statespersons widely respected for integrity and impartial concern for the public good. Leading politicians, especially party leaders, would serve their parties and the nation better through the platform that parliament presents. Parliament enjoins discipline – that efficiency of purpose.” Addai-Sebo continues: “political parties therefore have a duty to first think about what is best for Ghana and put forward candidates who through responsible service have proved that they can represent the national interest. In order to deepen representative governance presidential candidates must have had the experience of serving the needs and protecting the rights of their constituencies. They must really have a record of providing for the needs and meeting the aspirations of the people either at the constituency or national level through exemplary performance in public and/or private sector service. … Political parties consequently owe such a duty to the nation in the selection of candidates for national office.” If political parties are to oil this engine and provide parliamentary democracy with the human resources, it is important that the instruments for achieving this are not undermined by desk-bound academics and civil society activists who do not dare to take up the challenge. Civil society has a role, but it cannot replace political parties, and should not seek to undermine the legitimacy of political parties by their constant whining and headline grabbing antics. Political parties should not also undermine their own role. If citizens are to trust their parties, they should be seen to be open and accountable. I do not think that foreign organisations should pay parties to play their role as is being proposed. Parties have existed in the past through membership contributions, making them accountable. If parties are funded by foreign non governmental organizations, they cease to be accountable to their own people. They become beholden to some foreign interest as they are forced to open their books for inspection, and will spend time writing “project reports” for their foreign funders. Foreign funding of groups who are likely to rule Ghana should not be encouraged. It undermines national sovereignty. As Africa tooters towards finding our own brand of democracy, it is important to build institutions. Parliaments represent the people, but there can be no parliaments without political parties to provide the candidates and the wherewithal. But parties and those who represent them, should promote and protect national sovereignty, not undermine it by behaving like charities. Parties are not charities. Those foreign organisations fronting this policy of paying parties should be resisted and banned from doing so by parliament. Zaya Yeebo
Funding Political Parties – to whose benefit? March 22, 2008
Poverty in Africa and the Aid Industry June 19, 2007
The Politics of poverty: Managing poverty without eradicating it Is Africa poor? The Economist magazine seems to think so. After all, in 2005, it described Africa as that “poverty-stricken continent.” (The Economist, Friday June 10th 2005). Apart from the obvious generalization about a whole continent, such description gives succor to the colonial mentality that sees no interest in our strengths and development goals, but in our tribulations. Such patronizing and often insulting descriptions of Africa are not new. Describing Africa as “poverty stricken” does not only ignore the fact that Africa is doing something about it, but also justifies the continuing exploitation in the name of humanitarian relief. If statistics alone were sufficient, I think we have enough proof. According to the United Nations, 8 million children die each year because of poverty, 150 million children under the age of five suffer from extreme malnutrition, and 100 million children live in the streets. Every three seconds, poverty kills a child somewhere. About 3 billion people receive only about 1.2% of the world’s income, while 1 billion people in the rich countries receive 80%. In a recent document, the UN restated these grim facts: “Currently 4.8 million children in sub-Saharan Africa die before the age of five every year – that is, nine deaths every minute. With one fifth of the world’s births, sub-Saharan Africa currently accounts for 45% of child deaths. … If current trends continue, there will be 5.1 million deaths in 2015, with Africa’s share rising to 57% of the total.” Such statistics provide grim reading. Even without these figures, the reality that confronts anybody with a fleeting interest in the life of people will notice it everywhere in Africa. Social and economic chaos, poverty, misery, youth unemployment and general unacceptable levels of deprivation. These grim statistics stand in contrast to the political improvements that Africa has seen of late. At no time in African history has the continent scored such high points in its democratisation process. Successful elections, high voter turn out, functioning parliaments, the mushrooming of political parties, increasing NGOs and civil society organizations. In spite of these successes at the political front, and the immense advantages which globalisation has offered other regions, poverty is increasing daily in Africa. As things stand today, it would be churlish to assume this trend can be reversed within our lifetime without a fundamental rethink. For decades to come, we will be debating why and how Africa is poor. Poverty, like most concepts, also suffers from a lack of understanding of what it really entails. More often than not, the people who define it, and lead the struggle against it, are coming from a position of affluence, and from a cultural mindset that inhibits their clarity of understanding. For example, all talk about poverty is reduced to how incomes corresponds to the US dollar. For example what odes it means to say that Niger is poor because its farmers earn less than one dollar a day. How does Niger’s situation compare with that of Ghana? Such bogus comparisons may have meaning for some faceless bureaucrats at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), but to someone working to make sense of how people life in such abject misery, it is absolute bunkum. The problems of African farmers, youth, women, and citizens in general cannot be compared simply to another country’s currency, no matter how many smart bombs that country possesses. Some African leaders ignore the grim reality that the above statistics provide. Indeed, in some cases, people are advised to put it with it. Of course, there is another Africa that makes the talks of poverty and demands for social justice seem unnecessary and uncalled for. The roads of some African cities like Nairobi, Accra, Abuja, are full of the most expensive jeeps and 4×4 cars, Benzes, etc. Our politicians and business classes build mansions, have access to the best goods on the market and live in luxury which Europeans will envy if only they knew. This is the Africa nobody talks about. But that is hardly the point. The hard truth is that poverty is stalking the people of Africa under a global system which is supposed to promote equality, social justice and shared values. The global struggle against poverty has two fronts: the global and the Africa. On the global front, anti-poverty programmes are influenced largely by a mindset which is alien to the African cultural milieu in which grim poverty thrives. It is within this context that the use of the term “alleviating” has a particular flavour. How would a poor farmer in Mozambique or the Democratic Republic of the Congo want us to deal with poverty? What does it mean to tell a child who has only one meal a day that all that we can do is to alleviate his or her suffering? Do we really want to abolish the suffering or merely to ameliorate it? Analysing poverty has become an industry and an end in itself not a means of understanding it. Government and institutional libraries are bulging with volumes of reports analyzing poverty. Yet, one would be hard pressed to find any durable and Africa-led solutions in these volumes. Western development agencies like the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) has spent more money on poverty Consultants, researchers, and analysts, than it has spent on actual poverty eradication programmes in my village Kongo (Ghana). I dare DFID to disprove this. The response to poverty in Africa itself has many contradictions. In rural Africa, poor men, women and youth are too busy trying to stay alive. Most of whom are even unaware that governments are supposed to help them find jobs, gain access to schools and primary health care. The resilience of these people should be celebrated and not questioned. From my experience, poverty is not a reflection of poor people’s inability to stand up for themselves, or the inability of poor people to compete in a free-for-all society as demanded by the axis of economic evils: IMF and World Bank and multinational corporations. Infact, poor people’s resilience to their conditions is a mark worthy of study. Most poor people have, from the cradle to the grave, relied on their own creativity, intuition and wit to survive. Most poor people in most African countries will not have contact with a “government” (except in election time when they will probably see a desperate politician). Corrupting society Unable to deal with the structural causes of the problem, some ingenious souls have now imposed another problem on Africans. That of corruption. Some have even suggested that corruption is a major cause of conflict in African. Anti-corruption industries are creeping up everywhere in Africa today, once again led by self imposed apostles of politician-bashing NGOs and civil society organisations. The current euphoria about corruption is not new. In the 1970s – 1980s, every coup maker used it as a legitimate excuse for overthrowing a civilian government. Ghana represents the most extreme of these examples. Infact, no African country has goner to such brazen lengths to deal with supposed cases of corruption. The result is almost nauseating. In 1979, the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) regime, led by the now retired Jerry Rawlings, tied up and executed several army officers, including three former Heads of State (General Afrifa, General Kutu Acheampong and General Akuffo), for alleged cases of corruption. That has not done much for the anti-corruption crusade in Ghana. Rawlings, who led this execution, was later to preside over one of the most corrupt governments in Ghana to date – the Provisional National Defence Council regime and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) governments. It is important to acknowledge that corruption is a problem in many cases, but the extent to which this phenomenon contributes to increasing poverty is not proven. Italy, and in some cases, the EU bureaucracy has been accused of corruption in the media, yet, there is not huge industry of latter day saints setting up huge offices to combat it. This statement will no doubt irritate and irk those African intellectuals who have become apologists for Rawlings and his excesses. It is worth repeating: the whole Rawlings era, and the Rawlings government, is one of the most corrupt periods in Ghanaian history. The number of homeless children in Ghana today, the sight of dilapidated hospitals (e.g. the Tamale hospital in Ghana) and clinics, and the extreme poverty in rural Ghana speaks volumes. Rawlings spread the poison of dishonesty, deceit, corruption, dishonor and mistrust in Ghanaian society. His whole period has been a weapon of moral destruction in Ghana. Yet, there is no evidence that a state-led anti-corruption bureaucracy will change the situation in Ghana. State bureaucracies will not eliminate nor stop people from being corrupt. However, what is new about the current spate of anti-corruption initiatives’ is the amount of resources being spent, and the fact that it is now a “donor-driven” (to use a common cliché) agenda. Corruption is a symptom or if you like a malaise of the whole process of underdevelopment, and the failure of the neocolonial agenda. To take money which should have been spent on building primary schools to get children into school or clinics for children and mothers, to set up huge bureaucratic machines – called “anti-corruption commissions”, or so-called “accountability centres” while ordinary people, especially, children, die for lack of drugs, is to say the least sickening, and does not deal with the problems at all. Infact this whole anti-corruption agenda is a mere fiddle to make us look the other way while multi-national corporations and their African supporters make away with the wealth of the people. The numerous workshops and press releases on corruption are just another gimmick to hoodwink the people that something is being done, while in actual fact, the leaders of civil society, and the politicians they criticize meet at the junction of plenty, from which they drink from the same water point. The foreign donors who prop them up are part of the same web of deception. It will have no impact because the structural causes of poverty and why people are prone to corruption are not being addressed. That is why I refuse to fall for this gigantic con-trick being perpetuated today.Contrary to what Western governments would have us believe, poverty does not persist solely because of incompetent, corrupt governments that are insensitive to the fate of their people. No. Poverty persists because of historical problems created by colonialism, neo-colonialism and now in a global world in which more resources are spent on killing machines than on pro-poor programmes. For the past two decades, development experts have held the view that if NGOs, faith groups, and international organisations build primary schools, clinics, dig bore holes, and wells, etc, the lives of the poor in Africa will improve. The number of NGOs in Africa and globally seem to confirm this optimistic view. Undoubtedly, some of the organisations have made some positive contribution to peoples lives. Others have a made a complete mess in these attempts. The reality is no matter how many wells are dug in Bukina Faso and Mali, no matter how many income generation programmes are fronted, and no matter how many workshops are held in the affluent parts of Accra, their overall impact on poverty is at best paltry. It also appears that the more aid money is poured into a country, the more lethargic the government becomes, and the poorer the people. In the 1960s and early 1970s, Ghanaians were better off relatively than they are today, yet there were fewer NGOs and little donor money. Today, there are too many NGOs, lots of donor money, yet the people are poorer. Explain that to me. The reason for this is that many of the programmes that are required to break away from the cycle of poverty are frowned upon. NGOs do not deal with the structural causes of poverty, workshops don’t. Actual improvement in education, health, housing, the agricultural sector, basic industries to provide employment, is the avenue to eradicating poverty. But IMF structural adjustments have ensured that government support to education, health, food production and welfare, have been removed completely. Yet, it is an investment in these areas that will improve the quality of live, and ensure that we begin that fateful road to a government supported welfare state. NGOs do not build roads and hospitals (they may build health centres and train local midwives). But to what extent do such local interventions lead eventually to eradicating poverty? Very little. International NGOs and their Ghanaian counterparts are good at managing people’s poverty, not at eradicating it. Government intervention in school and health infrastructure, improvement in the road system, support to local entrepreneurs, should be the answer to eradicating poverty in Africa. I take my example from the early years of the Kwame Nkrumah government in Ghana. Kwame Nkrumah and his Convention Peoples Party (1954 – 1966) undertook an ambitious and radical reshaping of Ghana, building the foundations of one of the most admirable welfare states in African history. This was demonized after the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency – US) overthrew the Nkrumah government in 1966. I know it is common for people to fall for imperialist and local propaganda about the Kwame Nkrumah administration. Claims that this government was repressive and corrupt is absolute nonsense. Did it deal with the problems of poverty? Did it respond to the needs of children’s education in Ghana? Did it lay the foundations for self reliance? Did it make an impact on the anti-colonial struggle? The answer to all these questions is YES. No Ghanaian government has achieved so much in a short a little time. It is no wonder that Kwame Nkrumah remains a giant among African leaders. In essence, we need to return to the early days of African independence in which our founding fathers tired to instill in us a sense of national and patriotic pride and love for Africa. Nations are built on these foundations. What the Nkrumah era shows is that if the state and our governments respond to the most pressing problems facing people of every country through targeted welfare programmes, corruption will cease to have an attraction to people. Create a poverty-ridden society, remove the moral fabric of that society through IMF-supervised and led structural adjustments, and corruption will thrive.
(c) Zaya Yeebo – June 2007
Scramble for Africa June 8, 2007
Africa has once again become the theatre of struggle between the various world powers. How different is this from the scramble for Africa in the 19th-century? Africa has once again become a vital strategic arena for contest between the great powers – the United States, France, the United Kingdom, China, and to a lesser extent, India. This has once again raised the spectre of Africa becoming a proxy for other peoples wars and conflicts. In the era of the cold war, Africa became the theatre for conflict between the communists regimes of the east led by the Soviet Union and, and the capitalist regimes of the West led by the United States. How beneficial is this to the long suffering people of Africa? The doubting Thomas’s in Africa will see this as a red herring. They will argue that Africa has nothing to attract the supper powers. In fact some academics in the US have argued that they do not need Africa. They were wrong. Africa is home to very strategic minerals, and has some of the largest deposits of these natural resources: timber, diamonds, gold, bauxite, and coltan. Of all these oil stands out as the most well known natural resource for which countries like the United States will go to war for. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is about oil. Nothing more. Oil has become so important that there is intense competition between states and western multi nationals to secure access to this important resource. According to the UN World Investment Report, foreign direct investment (FDI) flows are concentrated in oil, mining and gas. Eights of the world’s oil producing countries are in Africa: Nigeria, Sudan, Algeria, Chad, Egypt and Equatorial Guinea, Congo-Braziville and Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Sudan and Nigeria alone attracted 48% of Africa’s investment flows. The United States, ever the highest oil consuming nation, has said it will protect its interests to ensure that oil flow is not interrupted. The US is therefore intersected in Africa for this reason. It needs an alternative to the problematic areas of the Middle East, where US hegemony is under threat from anti-occupation forces in Iraq, and radical regimes in Iran and elsewhere. In Latin America, the US is facing similar problems from the radical Chavez regime in Venezuela. As its problems mount, the US is turning to Africa. At the moment, West Africa supplies 12% of the crude oil needs of the US. America’s own national intelligence Council predicts that this will rise to 25% by 2015. How can America protect its oil source? Apart from the US, France the United kingdom are also increasing their investments in Africa. France has huge investments in Francophone countries such as Gabon, Cameroon and Chad. while the UK also supports its former colonies. Apart form oil, Africa exports timber to Europe and china. The American forest and paper Association estimates that. Ghana is a major exporter of timber. Liberia, Cameroon, and Gabon are also on the list as major exporters of timber. Military basesElsewhere in this edition, we carry an analysis of the concerns expressed by some Ghanaians that the US is planning a military base in Ghana. Both the US and the Ghanaian governments have denied this. But credible evidence points to the fact that is the US is to secure its interest in West Africa, it will need a military base. In February 2007, the US set up an African Command (Africom). The US has established bases and signed access agreements with 5 African countries, including Ghana, Gabon, Senegal, Mali and Namibia.
