Challenges and Realities of National Developmental ...

Challenges and Realities of National Developmental Efforts in Africa: the Case of Ghana

It has often been asserted that Africans are incapable of self governance and since independence the African ruling elites have not been able to lift their native people from the crouches of poverty, backwardness and underdevelopment. Most people who are concerned about the plight of Africa have wondered whether the cream of home-based ruling elites are ever going to be able to move the native people from poverty and lead them to the promised land of achieving a higher standard of living.

Factors affecting Underdevelopment

In the discussion of the lack of development in most African countries including Ghana, attention is usually paid to such factors as leadership, bribery and corruption, nepotism, cronyism, incompetence, selfishness, pull-him-down (PHD) syndrome, tribalism, ethnic wars, poor education, civil-service red tape, political instability, crime, brain drain, and national security. It is very interesting that virtually no consideration is given to the flawed system of governance that is practiced in most of these countries. The institutions of governance including the civil service, education, health care, transportation, law and order, national security, communication, housing, food production, and all economic activities were designed by the colonial western powers without any consideration for the beliefs and true aspirations of the natives of these individual countries. The aspirations of the good people of Ghana are no different from those of the people in the developed countries of the world. The good people of Ghana want the basic necessities of life Vis a Vis food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, appropriate and sustainable infrastructure development, higher standard of living, security, basic human rights, law and order and peaceful coexistence.

Leadership

The factors for underdevelopment listed above are the typical shortcomings of human development and they are not limited to the African people alone. Let us consider the issue of leadership. In the past, without the availability of information technology, it was hard to compare the leaders of the various countries of the world. It was easy then to make the bold statement that the political leaders in Africa including Ghana were mediocre compared to their peers in other countries. Some leaders from the Asian countries come into mind including Mr. Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore who has been hailed by some African elites as someone that our leaders could emulate. I bet if you asked an African who had the chance to study with Lee at Cambridge they will tell you that he did not possess any special leadership qualities that the African students in Cambridge did not have. The same will be true for Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush in Yale University or Mr. Blair in Oxford. Also a critical look at the current political leadership of the world including those from the developed countries does not reveal any special qualities that the political leaders of the developed world possess and African political leaders lack. Considering the current political leaders from USA, UK, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, China, France, Germany, Russia, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Canada, Australia, etc one cannot state with any high degree of confidence that the leaders of the developed countries as individuals have shown special leadership qualities that the current African leaders lack. Most of the current and past leaders from the developed countries have shown various degrees of incompetence and lack of vision in leading their countries. I leave it for readers to make their own judgement about the leadership qualities of the current political leaders of the developed nations and compare them with those of the less developed nations of Africa. The main reason that these leaders succeed in their respective developed countries while African leaders fail is the system of governance, period. Moreover, there are several Africans who excel as leaders while living in these developed countries but as soon as they are transported to the system of governance in the African countries, they fail miserably. On this particular cyber forum, we have had Ghanaians who used to criticize previous governments while they were here in the Diaspora but when they returned to Ghana as part of the ruling elite they were also considered as total failures. There is no guarantee that the new crop of potential leaders will do any better given the chance and I predict that if any of them gets the chance in 2008, we will be reading on this same forum in 2012 that they have become incompetent, corrupted and have failed miserably so far as they choose to operate under this system of governance.

Since attaining independence from UK about half a century ago, Ghana (previously Gold Coast) has had eleven different heads of state. From the ?great? Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the ?learned? Dr. Kofi Abrefa Busia, Mr. Edward Akoffo-Addo, Dr. Hilla Limann, the ?Gentle Giant? J.A. Kuffour, through Major General J. A. Ankrah, Lt-General E. K. Kotoka, ?Okatakyie? Akwasi Afrifa, the ?incomparable? I.K. Kutu Acheampong, Major General F.W.K.Akuffo, and Dr. Flight Lt. J.J., ?boom?Rawlings. The political ideologies of these heads of state have run the whole gamut from left wing socialism to right wing capitalism interspersed with brutal military dictatorship and occasional attempt of self reliance. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Ghana has experienced the broad range of leadership styles without any evidence of change in the lives of the good people of Ghana during this half a century political history. It is also logical to conclude that other future leaders who will have similar political ideologies and ambitions (as those leaders that have come before them) will not do any better so far as they continue to operate under this flawed system of governance. I realize that most politically motivated Ghanaians have their individual preferences for these heads of state and they will go to any extent to convince anybody who cares to listen that their favorite head of state was or is the best among them. Unfortunately the evidence and data do not support such claims. There is not enough time and space to evaluate the leadership qualities and performance of these heads of state and therefore I would like to leave that issue for others to tackle.

Recently, a writer on the Ghanaweb asked whether President J.A. Kufour was the right leader at the right time. Of course JAK is not the right leader at the right time. None of the native Ghanaian leaders that have ruled the country since independence was the right leader at the right time and none of the future leaders will be the right leaders at the right time so far as the system of governance is allowed to continue. If we are serious about true national development then it is time to use our God-given brains, knowledge and common sense to design a system of governance that can be operated efficiently by the home-based native elites. Otherwise, in 2012, we will still be writing about the underdevelopment of Ghana and complaining about lack of political leadership no matter who will be the head of state at that time.

Corruption

The other factor that is usually mentioned is bribery and corruption which go hand in hand with leadership. Those of us in USA can attest to the fact that there is bribery and corruption in the government from the local level to the federal level. Currently, there is a major case of corruption in the federal government involving a lobbyist but at any level that one looks; one will find some form of bribery and corruption in the USA political establishment. Cases of corruption have also been reported in the highest level of government in Canada, UK, Japan, Korea, Australia and other developed countries. Therefore, the factor of bribery and corruption is not exclusive to Ghanaian politicians. Even in the religious establishment, one finds corruption and several religious leaders in USA have been accused of these vices and some have in fact been jailed for their crimes. But at the end of the day when we get up in the morning here in the USA and flip on the switch the lights come on, when we turn on the remote control for the TV, the TV will come on and stay on, when we go to the bath room and turn on the faucet water will flow, when we get into our vehicles and head toward our places of employment we know and in fact we will get to our place of work within a reasonable time, when we get sick we know the health system will take care of us, when we need basic education for our children no matter which part of the country we may be located, the system will accommodate us, when there is a power outage we know that the utility companies will work extra time to bring the power back on, when there is a water pipe break down, the water utility company will work extra time to fix the problem and get the service back on line, when we get into a legal bind, we expect and will get representation and defense by the legal system, when there is a natural disaster, in most cases we know that our government will respond to help those affected.

We take all these necessities of live for granted and these leaders will deliver these basic necessities no matter how good or bad leaders or how corrupted they might be. Of course we expect these from our government and the providers of these services because we know these services are not free and we pay for them. Why then are Ghanaians unable to operate efficiently with similar incidents of corruption? The answer lies in the system of governance. The major difference is that their systems of governance have been designed to operate efficiently despite the incidents of these human deficiencies whereas the system of governance in Ghana has not.

I could go through all the factors listed above and present examples to show that they are not peculiar to Ghanaians. However, it would not be useful to spend more time on this since this must be obvious to readers with analytical minds and intellectual integrity.

System of Governance

A century and half ago, the good people of Gold Coast (Ghana) were coerced and duped to accept a system of governance under the influence (GUI) which was based on the three main objectives of the European adventurism into Africa: trade and commerce, religion (Christian Missionary) and civilization of the primitive natives.

Unfortunately, about half a century ago, the good people of Ghana were again coerced to accept the transfer of this same flawed system of governance to the natives under the guise of independence. This has resulted in the comedy of errors and chaos coupled with dysfunctional elitism that we continue to witness in our dear country. It is not true that Ghana has not had nor possessed the people with leadership qualities required for national development but I submit that so far as Ghanaians continue to attempt to rule themselves under this system of governance, the home-based native ruling elites will continue to fail in their attempts to deliver the native population from evil (poverty and under development). Some Ghanaian elites including those in the Diaspora believe that they can do better and some of them have in fact started campaigns to seek the highest political leadership position in Ghana. So far as this present system of governance is allowed to continue and flourish, they cannot do any better than those who have come before them and they will fail miserably as those who have come and gone before them.

In order to understand this flawed system of governance, one will have to go back to the 19th Century (1884-85) to the European adventurism to Africa and the Scramble for Africa. The main goal of the European adventures into Africa was to indulge in trade and commerce, introduce religion (mainly Christianity) to the natives who were heathens, and to civilize the native people who were considered as primitive. Unfortunately for the Europeans, only trade and commerce were accepted willingly by the natives. Consequently, trade and commerce was practiced on equal basis initially until the Europeans were able to get the upper hand and began to oppress the natives. Christianity was rejected by majority of the natives and the Christian missionaries had a difficult time to operate and had to fight to survive. Some of the missionaries were persecuted by the natives and some lost their lives. Civilization of the natives was equally rejected by majority of the natives. The Europeans used trade and commerce (the only accepted goal) to indoctrinate some of the natives, a small number, who became collaborators for the European adventurism to gain the upper hand and began to oppress the natives.

After gaining the stronghold in these colonies, the Europeans used their military power, with the help of the native collaborators, to subdue the natives and attempted to achieve the other goals through deceit and coercion. The native collaborators were introduced to the European lifestyle of Christianity and civilization and every effort was made to increase the number of the native collaborators. European commercial and trading companies were established to employ the collaborators, European and Christian Missionary schools were established to teach and indoctrinate the native collaborators. As these native collaborators became indoctrinated, they began to behave as the Europeans but were never considered by the Europeans as equals. On the contrary, they were always considered as inferior and treated as such. These collaborators began to change their identity, began to behave like the Europeans, and began to enjoy the European food and culture. Europeanization of native names became the order of the day in the European-built schools and churches as European names were given to these native collaborators. The sad part of this episode was that the collaborators lost their identities but never acquired the true identity of the European and their culture. They just copied the European style without any attempt to understand the principles and the rational behind them. This in a nutshell is the commonsense interpretation of the genesis of European colonialism. We will never know what would have happened to Ghana if these collaborators have not helped the Europeans to get the upper hand and oppress the native Ghanaians into submission. Therefore, if you sense my indignation and contempt for the native collaborators, you are right.

The indoctrination of the native collaborators continued during the 19th century up to the middle of the 20th century, the number of native collaborators increased and the European influence gained a stronghold among the natives. Although the native collaborators became indoctrinated, they were never considered as civilized by the Europeans and were always looked down by their European mentors. A master servant relation was actually the mode of operation for the relationship between the Europeans and the native collaborators. These collaborators were never allowed to come into contact with the Europeans in order to learn the true European ways. They were separated from the Europeans and only allowed to learn the lifestyles that the Europeans considered important for the natives to know. A false sense of understanding of the European identity was created by the native collaborators. To continue and maintain this relationship the Europeans created a special system of governance for the natives.

This system of governance was rooted in the three goals of the European adventurism, trade and commerce, Christianity and civilization of the natives. It had nothing to do with the true aspirations, the culture, the beliefs, the ability and capabilities of the natives. The system of governance was designed to be operated by expatriates preferably European (oburoni). It was designed in such a faction that the native collaborators could not operate it, period. The system of governance was based on master-servant, white man-black man, European-African, superior-subordinate, bungalow-compound house, main house-boys quarters, white dress-khaki dress, Christian-heathen, civilized-primitive, educated-illiterate, expatriate-home based, foreign-native, store-market, imported goods-domestic goods, master-driver, temporary-permanent, modern-primitive, Christian name-native name. This is what has been called colonialism and it was designed to be run and operated by expatriates preferably European whites. It was definitely not designed to be run by native Ghanaian elites. The important qualification was being an expatriate. The expatriate especially European did not have to be qualified nor have some experience. They could operate the system very well whiles the trained native Ghanaian elite could not.

Unfortunately, this system of governance was transferred to the native collaborators about half a century ago under the guise of independence. The native leaders of the independence movement who accepted this flawed system of governance were at best ignorant and naive or at worst willing collaborators of the European adventurism which continues to haunt the people of Ghana even today as I write this article. Despite what the so called African ?progressives? may want us to believe about the current systems of governance in most African countries, they are still the same colonial systems that the Europeans used to oppress and subdue the natives during the 18th and 19th Centuries. Many African politicians and elites have written all kinds of books and thesis about the colonial system of governance, they have given several inspiring speeches about the evils of the system, but folks anybody with intellectual credibility and an ounce of common sense will agree that these ruling elites have tried very hard to operate the same system of colonial governance and they have all failed miserably, and any future leaders who will try to operate the same system will also fail miserably.

The reality is that this system of governance worked very well for the objectives and goals of the Europeans because that was what it was designed for. The system was not designed to provide housing for the natives, health care for the natives; education was only set aside for the collaborators and not for every native. Even for the native collaborators, they had to become Christians to enjoy the education system. Since this system of governance was specifically designed to be run by expatriates and NOT natives, Ghanaian qualified elites (collaborators) were not considered for leadership assignments. Another reality is that the native Ghanaians did not understand nor believed in the system of governance and in fact did not care how the institutions of the system of governance worked because it was not designed to serve the interest of the natives. Even today majority of the native Ghanaians do not understand and do not care about how the institution of the system of governance operate. Most native Ghanaians including the elites do not understand the constitution of Ghana (which was supposedly written or should I say copied by the Ghanaian elites) and that is the reason majority of Ghanaians do not obey the laws of the country. This has resulted in the high incidence of bribery and corruption and chaos in the society after independence. It has never been important for the native Ghanaians to know how the system of governance works because in reality the system was not designed to serve their interest. Therefore, Ghanaians have become accustomed to using whatever means possible to make this flawed system work for their own individual selfish benefits. This is the genesis of corruption, inefficiency, lack of accountability, lack of maintenance, lack of innovation, lack of creativity, functionally challenged elitism, lack of planning, lack of commercialization, and dependence on the state for survival and self aggrandizement.

Solutions

In order to provide credible solutions to this problem, it is important to establish the criteria for success and how such success will be measured. My own definition of success will be the provision for the true aspiration of the native people of Ghana Vis a Vis food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, appropriate and sustainable infrastructure development, higher standard of living, security, basic human rights, law and order and peaceful coexistence. It is important to note that the true aspirations of the people of Ghana are dynamic or elastic and will change with time and prevailing conditions. This success will be measured by how efficient the system of governance will provide for these aspirations. Recently, the general consensus for the measure of Ghana?s development has been the Vision 2020 that has a goal of per capita income of $1,000 by year 2020. As far as I am concerned, this vision is a joke if one considers that the reported per capita income of Ghana in 1957 was $430 and the time value of money. I cannot see why anybody will consider a per capita income of $1000 in 2020 as an achievement. Folks, our ruling elites should do better than that. The problem with our elite leadership is that they are easily satisfied and they refuse to challenge themselves. The world is always in a state of flux and everything is relative. I believe the future value of $430 in 1957 is $2,794.15 in 2020 at 8% annual interest rate. Therefore achieving a per capita income of $1,000 in 2020 should not be considered as a successful goal.

Basically three solutions are proposed to solve this problem. Firstly, Ghana can continue to use this flawed system of governance and run it the way it was designed to be run, with expatriates! It is important to remember that the Asian countries, that most African elites admire and prefer to use as the standard, employed expatriate managers to run their system of governance long after they achieved their independence. They did not kick the Europeans out based on some crazy ideological tantrums as was the case in Ghana. This may appear to be a non-starter because one would ask how we could go back after all these years to ask expatriates to come back and run our system of governance. Well if Ghana wants the system to work and deliver the majority of the good people of Ghana from evil (poverty) and lead them to the Promised Land (prosperity), then at least the system should be run efficiently. For those who can think outside the box, this solution is not as bad as it sounds. Currently, Ghana has a very sophisticated professional expatriate population (in the Diaspora). Instead of European expatriates, why not use Ghanaian expatriates? Leave the system of governance as it is now but run it efficiently with expatriate Ghanaians from the Diaspora. As the saying goes: the devil you know is better than the angel you do not know. This system of governance has been tested for more than one and half a centuries and maybe it has become acceptable by the people of Ghana. Personally, I would prefer to have an entirely new system of governance that is based on the beliefs, culture, aspirations, the strengths, resources, and liabilities of the people of Ghana. But hey, I have spent more than half of my life living outside Ghana and I probably do not know what makes the people of Ghana tick. Remember that this system of governance is based on master-servant, white man-black man, European-African, bungalow-compound house, main houseboy quarters, white dress-khaki dress, Christian-heathen, civilized-primitive, educated-illiterate, expatriate-home based, foreign-native, store-market, master-driver, temporary-permanent, modern-primitive, Christian name-native name, and the Ghanaian expatriates should run the system on that basis. Bad leadership, corruption, nepotism, cronyism, tribalism, will continue to exist within the system, but these expatriates will and should be able to operate efficiently despite these human deficiencies and provide the enabling conditions to move the good people from poverty to prosperity and national development. The most important criterion will be performance. The objectives of the system with goals and milestones should be defined to serve the interest of the people. I realize that this proposed solution seems to be contradictory and confusing. It is intentional because this is a very sensitive subject and I want readers to think seriously about it and come up with their own proposed solutions.

Secondly, Ghana can change the system completely and replace it with a system that is based on the aspirations of the good people of Ghana, their culture, their beliefs, their expectations, their resources, their liabilities and their abilities. I cannot sit here in my comfortable environments in USA and begin to suggest what such a system will entail. But I believe if the good people of Ghana wishes to find a system that can be run by the natives, they can design one or have one designed. For any new system to work efficiently under home-based native Ghanaian elites, it should have the following principles: system, maintenance, management, accountability, planning, innovation, and commercialization. There should be a clean break from the European colonial system of governance, similar to the break by USA from Great Britain in the 18th Century. This means the constitution should not be a carbon copy of the European or American system but it should be designed on the basis of common sense, the true aspirations, beliefs, culture, the need, resources and liabilities of the native population. Any new system should be innovative and draw from the positive ideas of the colonial system but rely heavily on the aspirations of the native people. The system may not be acceptable by the Europeans, but they are not the ones that will operate it nor live under it so who cares if they accept it or not. Obviously, any new system of governance should not depend on the handouts from the developed countries for development and the survival of the native people.

The third solution (a combination of the two) envisions maintaining the flawed system but making modifications on the basis of the suggested second solution. The idea is to get the best out of the two solutions.

Final thoughts:

In less than a year (Mach 6, 2007) Ghana will celebrate the 50th Anniversary of independence. There will be several activities to celebrate this occasion and every attempt will be made by the ruling elites to tout the achievements during this period while neglecting to face the reality and state the truth about their failures of underdevelopment. I wish to implore the good people of Ghana to remove the mental block against rational examination of the state of the nation, Ghana, after 50 years of self rule. This mental block has allowed the good people of Ghana to accept lack of development and the failures of the ruling elites. This mental block amounts to willful ignorance that has created the cannot-do attitude as evident in the saying ?this is the way things are done in Ghana? (eha deε saa).

This is the 21st century and it is time for Africans, including Ghanaians to indulge in self examination. The time has come for Ghanaians to do away with the false sense of stupid pride, stop hiding our heads in the sand pretending that all is well and face reality. Dysfunctional elitism should be cast away and replaced with common sense, performance and achievements. Ghana does not need elites with titles (such as Nana, Dr., Professor, eminent personalities, Sir, Lady, Honorable, learned, academicians) who cannot create but only rely on the hand outs from developed nations for their survival and self aggrandizements. Such Ghanaian elites have destroyed even the little development that the European colonial leaders left for Ghana. And it is a further shame that in this day and age these people continue to destroy and cannot maintain what Ghana was able to accomplish under the European leadership. Ghana cannot develop if Ghanaians do not come up with a system of governance that will be based on the true aspirations of the majority of the natives of Ghana. Ghanaians cannot continue to blame their lack of development on the factors that have been listed above because these factors are not exclusive to Ghanaians. The rest of the world faces the same problems and yet their ruling elites are able to provide for the aspirations of their people and lead their native population from poverty, backwardness to development and a higher standard of living.

Our ruling elites should move away from the dependence-on-the state mode into the creative mode. They should use all the knowledge that they have acquired to create jobs, provide the needed infrastructure development through better management techniques, systematic maintenance approach (remember every matter in this universe has a life span and without proper maintenance, they will all perish before their time), accountability, planning, innovation, and commercialization (all the theoretical knowledge acquired through the books that others have written will not help to develop the society without the ability to commercialize). Ghana needs a system of governance that will provide the enabling and sustainable conditions for its elites to become creative and provide innovative ideas and solutions to Ghana?s problems.

Finally, I would like to introduce a new term as a tool for performance evaluation of our ruling elites: activity index (as in chemical activity). This is defined as the ratio of sustainable creativity (personal contribution for the development of the state including jobs and income or revenue generation) over the dependence on the state (accumulated personal assets, revenue or income from the state for personal survival and aggrandizement using elite status).

This activity index should quantitatively be greater than one. Sustainable creativity should provide the enabling conditions for the improvement of the standard of living of the good people of Ghana.

Dependence on the state will include but not limited to using elite?s status to accumulate wealth from the state?s income or revenue as well as the existing insane perks that is available to the elites. Although these two parameters will have both tangible and intangible components, it is possible to quantify them to be able to make a rational judgement of the performance of the ruling elites.