Is it true that Mahama and NDC have never introduced a single social intervention?

When Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia rightly dared the Social Democrats, the NDC operatives, some time ago to claim ownership of any successful social intervention, he was, in fact, referring to “social interventionism” and not “social infrastructure or amenities.”

Social democracy is a political ideology that originally advocated a peaceful evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes (Britannica.com).”

In essence, social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed economy.

Based on the preceding ethos and values, social democrats, such as the National Democratic Congress operatives, are expected to take great interest in "social interventionism."

The overarching question every Ghanaian should be asking then is: do the NDC loyalists really believe in the provision of social interventions?

Well, your guess is as good as mine.

Since the NDC has an abysmal record in the planning and implementation of social

interventions to impact positively on society, it came as no surprise at all to some of us when the NDC loyalists woefully failed to give any tangible response to Bawumia’s query.

It would, therefore, appear that the NDC faithful, who apparently take pride in social democratic ideology, are not in the business of promoting the welfare of the masses, but rather on a mission to advance their parochial interests by persistently proselytising and hoodwinking the unsuspecting voters to gain electoral advantage.

In a grand scheme of things, social interventionism is “a pragmatic action that involves the intervention of a government or an organization in the social affairs of society.”

In essence, social interventionism refers to the effective, prudent, and appropriate means of ameliorating social or economic difficulties being faced by people.

Social interventionism, therefore, is an umbrella term for social intervention, social protection, social welfare, or poverty alleviation.

Social interventionism, so to speak, differs from the provision of social infrastructure and amenities, such as toilets, electricity, schools, hospitals, water, roads, and interchanges, amongst others.

I have always insisted that it would only take a doubting Thomas to challenge the fact that the NDC faithful, who take pride in social democratic ideology, are not in the business of promoting the welfare of the masses.

One would have thought that individuals who pride themselves on being social democrats would be extremely empathetic to the needs of the masses, but this is not the case with the NDC as a party.

The general belief, however, is that the NDC is only good at running down or cancelling crucial social interventions.

It is an illustrative case of social democrats who do not know how to initiate and manage social interventions.

If you may recall, the erstwhile Mahama administration cancelled/collapsed the Nurse’s Allowance, the Teacher’s Allowance, SADA, GYEEDA, NHIS, the Maternal Care, the School Feeding Program, and the Mass Transport System, amongst others.

It is also true that the NDC operatives campaigned and voted against the poverty reduction Free SHS policy during the 2016 electioneering campaign.

As if that were not enough, the NDC loyalists have persisted with their utter disgust for the poverty alleviation-free SHS by needlessly attacking its implementation.

Given the circumstances, it will not come as a surprise to some of us at all if the future NDC government decides to cancel the policy altogether.

Since the inception of the Fourth Republican Constitution, the self-proclaimed social democrats have been opposing social interventions that have been proposed by successive NPP administrations, such as the Free Maternal Care, the NHIS, the Metro Mass Transport, the School Feeding Programme, the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP), and the Free SHS, amongst others.

In theory, social protection is often seen as a safeguard for the poor and vulnerable, such as children, women, older people, people living with disabilities, the displaced, the unemployed, and the sick.

In effect, social protection is generally understood as public and private organisations that give means of income to the poor and take care of the vulnerable against bread-and-butter issues with the main aim of reducing economic and social hardships.

However, the reasons behind social protection differ very broadly, ranging from minimising poverty and vulnerability, building human capital, empowering women and girls, improving livelihoods, and responding to economic and other adversities.

Thus, the form and function of social protection programs can be quite diverse, depending on the particular intervention (Hanlon et al., 2010).

Based on the preceding explicit definitions of social interventionism, we can confidently delineate some social interventions as: the Nurse’s Allowance, the Teacher’s Allowance, SADA, GYEEDA, NHIS, the Maternal Care, the School Feeding Program, the Mass Transport System, the Free SHS, the Nation Builders Corp (NABCO), the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP), the Disability Common Fund and the Capitation

Grant.

Besides, other forms of social protection aim at long-term development and allowing people to move permanently out of poverty (Babajanian et al., 2014).

Suffice it to say, long-term goals include improving opportunities for inclusive growth, human capital development, equity, and social stability. Some social protection programs intend to be transformative, supporting equity, empowerment, and human rights.

Some experts, however, contend that social intervention is not only designed to alleviate poverty but also to transform lives through the implementation of policies and programs that normalize inequalities.

In light of the above, we can conclude that social intervention is an investment in human capital that increases capacities and the accumulation of productive assets.

In the grand scheme of things, social intervention contributes to human capital either by providing skills and services or by offering cash and access, which enable households to invest in their own development.

Interestingly, a small number of countries (including India, South Africa, and Uruguay) and organisations recognise social protection as a human right and an entitlement against low standards of living (Jones & Shahrokh, 2013).

In conclusion, given the party’s appalling track record, we can draw the inference that the NDC government will most likely cancel social interventions such as the Nurses and Teachers Allowances and the Free SHS if presented with another opportunity in the near future.