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.
