The variety and intensity of the responses to the Chronicle story about my views on Ghana’s recent announcement of an oil find (Ghanaweb, June 24, 2007) are an indication that as a nation we have ways to go yet, that we need to talk (not cuss) even more. I found it mildly amusing, though, that in their haste to pass judgment – either to commend or condemn me for the things attributed to me in the story – some even thought that I was the writer of the story!
Of course, I wasn’t. I merely granted a telephone interview to the reporter who later wrote his own story, and while in the main the story captures my views on the purported oil find in particular and the challenges of development in general, the reporter certainly took liberties in parts and proved reckless in others. For example, I said nothing about us not having the “proper institutions for managing the oil exploration.” The exploration of course is already being done, with some success, it seems. I dealt instead with managing the revenue from oil. Elsewhere in the story, the reporter also says I noted that “exploration of oil would increase the country’s capacity to finance development”. That is inaccurate. Again, what I said was that revenue from oil, not exploration as such, would increase our capacity to finance our development. What we make of that increased capacity of course is a separate matter; it’s a classic case of necessary but not sufficient conditions. Perhaps, the biggest flaw in the story is the obvious disconnect between the headline and the body of the story. While the headline proclaims that I said the “current leadership cannot manage oil,” the body of the story deals with the thrust of the points I made in the interview, which was that we don’t have the NATIONAL institutions, irrespective of which government is in power, to manage any surge in government revenue from oil. I noted that the problem, which goes back decades, was general to other resources and I cited the case of shiploads of cocoa disappearing from the high seas in the 1970s as an example. (I most certainly did not say that people were smuggling out cocoa because the government could not manage it! Those were the words of the reporter, not mine.) I point out these lapses not to dissociate myself from the story but to encourage, if only indirectly, our journalists to be conscientious in the way they report events and interviews. If someone grants you an interview and you shade the resulting story with your own views and interpretations, to say nothing of making contradictory statements in the same story, that person would be less likely to grant you another interview in the future. (Those interested in directly hearing my views on the oil find and related issues may visit the Joy FM (Newsfile) links at the bottom of this article). That said, let me also note that placing the problem of institutional dysfunction in a wider historical context does not in any way absolve the current government of any responsibility in the way it mishandles national resources. The un-accounted-for US$20 million given to Ghana@50 Secretariat is only one of several examples of the consequences of weak institutions, including Parliament, whose actions are sometimes biased towards the majority party at the expense of the national interest. One need only read the annual reports of the Road Fund for years 2003 and 2004, for example, to appreciate the scale of corruption in the road construction sector under this government. And that’s all just a tip of the iceberg. The consequences of weak institutions are two-fold: (1) A diminished capacity to formulate and implement development policy; and (2) pervasive corruption, which diverts resources for national development into the hands of a tiny few, aggravating inequality and fostering the conditions for the kind of crime wave we are experiencing now. The cost of not having strong and responsive institutions is very high indeed. Consider the following developments at a time when Ghana’s infrastructure such as roads and schools, the basis of economic growth and national development, were crying for investment and renewal: “Cmdr. Addo, former chief executive of the Cocoa Marketing Board, told the committee investigating its affairs that the CMB spent nearly ¢1.million [US$571,000.00] on drinks alone between August 1977 and July 1, 1978. Giving evidence, Cmdr. Addo said during his tenure of office, he instituted certain measures to boost the morale of the directors. As part of these measures, he said, all the eight or ten directors were given a bottle each of whisky, brandy, and gin at the end of every month in addition to receiving a table allowance.” Source: Markets and State in Africa, Robert Bates, pp. 27-28. Some 30 years later, our “leaders” (descendants of this earlier venal generation of “leaders”, of course) have no qualms splurging millions of dollars on luxury vehicles even as we beg outsiders to come build schools and toilets for us (see, “Japanese Embassy pledges support for education”, Joy FM March 22, 2007). It seems we are now bereft of both conscience and shame. There is a reason why in 2000 Mr. Rawlings, after 20 years of prosecuting a “moral” revolution, stood before the queen of England here in Accra and asked her to help him fight corruption in Ghana. It was one of the most embarrassing requests ever made by our leaders of our former colonial masters – especially when that leader’s administration saw people lose life, limb and property because of accusations of corruption. It was proof positive that the thunder and brimstone of the “revolution” had hardly touched the country’s institutions for national development. And certainly there is a reason why Mr. Kufuor’s pre-2001 battle cry of “zero tolerance for corruption” has become all but a farce, as members of his own party, such as P.C. Appiah Ofori, accuse him of failing to fight corruption even when confronted with evidence he repeatedly asks for. The president’s infamous “waawaa” speech, in which he told us how he simply turned away people who tried to bribe him (he didn’t report them to the authorities as a civic-minded citizen, especially the president, should), was effectively a cry for help, an admission that he’s failed us. And as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, any government – including a CPP government – which takes power tomorrow without aggressively addressing our institutional deficits in both the state and non-state sectors will face the same failures and embarrassments of their predecessors. I have come to this conclusion after nearly 10 years of development work in this country at both the national and local levels, for governments and non-governmental bodies alike. Trust me, weak institutions are the Achilles’ heel of our development efforts. And here, let me make an important distinction between “organisations” and “institutions” (from the point of view of development economics). While an “organisation” is simply any group of people with a name and a mission backed by some activities, “institutions” are the systems, rules, and procedures that determine how things are done in those organisations. Get your institutions right and you are on your way to greatness; neglect them and you can’t even host an AU conference competently, much less fight poverty. You’d become the laughing stock of the world.
The variety and intensity of the responses to the Chronicle story about my views on Ghana’s recent announcement of an oil find (Ghanaweb, June 24, 2007) are an indication that as a nation we have ways to go yet, that we need to talk (not cuss) even more. I found it mildly amusing, though, that in their haste to pass judgment – either to commend or condemn me for the things attributed to me in the story – some even thought that I was the writer of the story!
Of course, I wasn’t. I merely granted a telephone interview to the reporter who later wrote his own story, and while in the main the story captures my views on the purported oil find in particular and the challenges of development in general, the reporter certainly took liberties in parts and proved reckless in others. For example, I said nothing about us not having the “proper institutions for managing the oil exploration.” The exploration of course is already being done, with some success, it seems. I dealt instead with managing the revenue from oil. Elsewhere in the story, the reporter also says I noted that “exploration of oil would increase the country’s capacity to finance development”. That is inaccurate. Again, what I said was that revenue from oil, not exploration as such, would increase our capacity to finance our development. What we make of that increased capacity of course is a separate matter; it’s a classic case of necessary but not sufficient conditions. Perhaps, the biggest flaw in the story is the obvious disconnect between the headline and the body of the story. While the headline proclaims that I said the “current leadership cannot manage oil,” the body of the story deals with the thrust of the points I made in the interview, which was that we don’t have the NATIONAL institutions, irrespective of which government is in power, to manage any surge in government revenue from oil. I noted that the problem, which goes back decades, was general to other resources and I cited the case of shiploads of cocoa disappearing from the high seas in the 1970s as an example. (I most certainly did not say that people were smuggling out cocoa because the government could not manage it! Those were the words of the reporter, not mine.) I point out these lapses not to dissociate myself from the story but to encourage, if only indirectly, our journalists to be conscientious in the way they report events and interviews. If someone grants you an interview and you shade the resulting story with your own views and interpretations, to say nothing of making contradictory statements in the same story, that person would be less likely to grant you another interview in the future. (Those interested in directly hearing my views on the oil find and related issues may visit the Joy FM (Newsfile) links at the bottom of this article). That said, let me also note that placing the problem of institutional dysfunction in a wider historical context does not in any way absolve the current government of any responsibility in the way it mishandles national resources. The un-accounted-for US$20 million given to Ghana@50 Secretariat is only one of several examples of the consequences of weak institutions, including Parliament, whose actions are sometimes biased towards the majority party at the expense of the national interest. One need only read the annual reports of the Road Fund for years 2003 and 2004, for example, to appreciate the scale of corruption in the road construction sector under this government. And that’s all just a tip of the iceberg. The consequences of weak institutions are two-fold: (1) A diminished capacity to formulate and implement development policy; and (2) pervasive corruption, which diverts resources for national development into the hands of a tiny few, aggravating inequality and fostering the conditions for the kind of crime wave we are experiencing now. The cost of not having strong and responsive institutions is very high indeed. Consider the following developments at a time when Ghana’s infrastructure such as roads and schools, the basis of economic growth and national development, were crying for investment and renewal: “Cmdr. Addo, former chief executive of the Cocoa Marketing Board, told the committee investigating its affairs that the CMB spent nearly ¢1.million [US$571,000.00] on drinks alone between August 1977 and July 1, 1978. Giving evidence, Cmdr. Addo said during his tenure of office, he instituted certain measures to boost the morale of the directors. As part of these measures, he said, all the eight or ten directors were given a bottle each of whisky, brandy, and gin at the end of every month in addition to receiving a table allowance.” Source: Markets and State in Africa, Robert Bates, pp. 27-28. Some 30 years later, our “leaders” (descendants of this earlier venal generation of “leaders”, of course) have no qualms splurging millions of dollars on luxury vehicles even as we beg outsiders to come build schools and toilets for us (see, “Japanese Embassy pledges support for education”, Joy FM March 22, 2007). It seems we are now bereft of both conscience and shame. There is a reason why in 2000 Mr. Rawlings, after 20 years of prosecuting a “moral” revolution, stood before the queen of England here in Accra and asked her to help him fight corruption in Ghana. It was one of the most embarrassing requests ever made by our leaders of our former colonial masters – especially when that leader’s administration saw people lose life, limb and property because of accusations of corruption. It was proof positive that the thunder and brimstone of the “revolution” had hardly touched the country’s institutions for national development. And certainly there is a reason why Mr. Kufuor’s pre-2001 battle cry of “zero tolerance for corruption” has become all but a farce, as members of his own party, such as P.C. Appiah Ofori, accuse him of failing to fight corruption even when confronted with evidence he repeatedly asks for. The president’s infamous “waawaa” speech, in which he told us how he simply turned away people who tried to bribe him (he didn’t report them to the authorities as a civic-minded citizen, especially the president, should), was effectively a cry for help, an admission that he’s failed us. And as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, any government – including a CPP government – which takes power tomorrow without aggressively addressing our institutional deficits in both the state and non-state sectors will face the same failures and embarrassments of their predecessors. I have come to this conclusion after nearly 10 years of development work in this country at both the national and local levels, for governments and non-governmental bodies alike. Trust me, weak institutions are the Achilles’ heel of our development efforts. And here, let me make an important distinction between “organisations” and “institutions” (from the point of view of development economics). While an “organisation” is simply any group of people with a name and a mission backed by some activities, “institutions” are the systems, rules, and procedures that determine how things are done in those organisations. Get your institutions right and you are on your way to greatness; neglect them and you can’t even host an AU conference competently, much less fight poverty. You’d become the laughing stock of the world.
Copyright © 1994 - 2024 GhanaWeb. All rights reserved.
