Who Can Lead Ghanaians To The Promised Land?

Akua Bonsu

Our wise ancestors had an adage stating that a human head is not like a

pawpaw; one cannot cut it open to find out what is in it. This adage is

applicable to the intentions of those who lead us as a nation. The heads of

whoever is in power are not like pawpaw so it is difficult to find out what

their motives are. But what we can do is to take a critical look at what

they are doing to figure out the motives of our leaders.

Not long ago Ghana was very easy to rule. Just shoot your way into power and

ask all citizens to obey you or else…. These days we have something called a

democracy – a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

One cannot use the gun; one has to work with people to be able to stay in

leadership. And that is where the rubber meets the road.

So far we have had two different parties rule our nation. Accusations are

flying between them as to who stole what and who killed whom. But one thing

is clear. They both have two distinct tendencies. So let us analyze their

tendencies and see which of these two parties is really good for our

country. There will be no mention of names. But please look at what has

transpired in the last two decades and draw your own conclusion as to which

is better. Then come 2012, vote accordingly. But first ask yourself if you

want to be free or you want to be controlled.

One party has figured it out. Most Ghanaians go to school with the

aspiration to get a good job to raise a family. Then there are those who

want to go into business for themselves. For those in the Former group,

prospects are not that great because the government currently employs nearly

40% of the full-time occupational workforce compared to a place like United

States where the government, federal or local, employs a mere 5% of the

full-time occupational workforce. Thus in Ghana, you have a 40% chance of

working for the government.

Agreeably we do not bite the hand that feeds us so we stay clear from

criticizing our employers lest we lose our jobs. That means almost 40% of

the people in the workforce will think twice before criticizing the

government that employs them. This party wants to increase that percentage

so that when it puts some information out, a larger portion of the

population will not question or criticize it. One of the ways to accomplish

this mission is to increase the size and scope of the government. Buy up or

seize private properties or businesses and reduce the size of the private

sector even though every single progressive nation is doing the exact

opposite.

So you say, why would Ghanaians go for that? Simple. Propagate the old

argument that if it is in Ghana, it is for ALL OF US. It does not matter

that one person decided to spend his entire day drinking palm wine and

playing ‘oware’ while another person borrowed money to risk it in a farming

business. And since the poor far outnumber the rich, this is a winning

argument. The poor would always side with a government that wants to take

from the rich and share with ALL OF US. Even if it is an institution that,

although Ghanaian, works with rules set forth by the rest of the world like

FIFA and the International Olympic Committee, the same rule applies. If it

is in Ghana, the government must own and control it. To this party, the

formula is simple. Expand the government to cover the most people possible.

Then if you control the government, you invariably control the people. Then

you can even “slap” anyone who criticizes you.

The other party – poor souls. They don’t believe in any of that. They would

rather pass a law that makes it easier for the citizens to criticize it. In

fact, its leader once asked a rhetorical question when talking with friends:

“would you rather they insult you on the radio and television or would you

rather they pick up a gun and overthrow you?” The freedom that enables the

citizens to insult others and to commit crime is also the freedom that

unleashes their ingenuity, which develops our land.

Notice that because this party is not consumed by a motivation to control

the citizens, it does not worry if they become successful in their own

right. To that end, it actually encourages private sector and individual

success initiatives by opening up the system and enabling personal freedoms.

And if Ghanaians must deal with a small uptick in crime – which is

prosecutable via the legal system instead of by the barrel of a gun – and a

few insults here and there in exchange for an explosive growth in the

economy, jobs, and global acclaim, then may be it is not such an

unreasonable price to pay.

And talking about the economy, over 90% of economists all over the world

agree that it is the private sector that grows economies. Ask the Chinese.

From 1950 to 1989 when China was a purely socialist economy, it averaged

7.1% in annual economic growth, and most of those figures were not empirical

– the government just put them out without any analysis from anyone else. In

the last 20 years since China opened her economy up to private sector

development, it has grown an average of 9.6% annually.

Even the Chinese have seen the merits of open market economy. They have a

far longer history than a young country like the United States. Yet it has

seen the latter take a little over two centuries (about a quarter of China’s

existence) to grow from a barren land to a world superpower using a simple

concept called capitalism that unleashes human ingenuity by guaranteeing

personal freedoms. It is not rocket science. There is nothing special about

those who have accomplished notional development that is not prevalent in

all of us in Ghana; we just have to graduate from our pettiness and

jealousy.

So this other party in Ghana that is committed to private sector development

and even set up a ministry for that very purpose, it cannot get Ghanaians to

understand the merits of developing the private sector. The FOR-ALL-OF-US

crowd has accused them of taking what belongs to ALL OF US and shared it

amongst themselves. Meanwhile those arguing FOR ALL OF US have amassed

immense wealth that is JUST FOR THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES.

There is instant gratification built into the ALL OF US syndrome that is

very damaging in the long-term because after a while, no one would want to

take risks and bring in rewards that benefit ALL OF US even if those rewards

benefit the risk taker more than the rest of us. One party believes in this

basic human ingenuity. Another party believes in the ALL OF US syndrome. Now

figure our which is which.