Parliamentary Majority And Development In Ghana

To begin with, it is important to point out that the basic objective of parliamentary majority is the promotion of development of our societies. Democracy means development and Parliament, which is an expression of democracy, is an engine, a driver and an agent of development. It is in this regard that parliament makes the ground rules to facilitate the general development of the country by adopting the socio-economic and political plans and programmes of the government of the day.

Parliament consists of the Majority and Minority. Decisions are reached by the majority of members and this becomes binding on the country under every circumstance. In a situation where the minority opposes any decision, the majority goes ahead and approves it for purposes of political expediency. This creates the myth that the majority decision is legitimate and the minority decision is illegitimate. This therefore brings to focus concerns expressed about the rightness of the majority decision in democracy. Is it a truism that the majority is always right and the minority is always wrong?

It is imperative to situate the majority decisions in the context of development in general. Do majority decisions have any positive influence on the development of the country? In this way, it is important for the majority to understand the processes leading to the formulation of any decision through due diligence. The majority should not just use its numbers as a tool to approve any decision without putting the national interest first. The nation must have value in any transaction. This value must be flagged at all times and becomes a premium consideration in any deal in Parliament.

In Ghana, it is sad that most of the decisions taken by Parliament are influenced by loyalty to political parties. The majority takes decisions that will favour their party, whether in government or not, irrespective of suggestions from the minority. The majority always throws caution to the wind and approves the transactions without due diligence and value for money.

Every Member of Parliament is compelled to toe party line in whatever discussions or decisions are taken on the floor of the House. This is in keeping with party discipline. The application of party discipline tends to devalue debates and decisions of the House. Party members who disagree with any decisions of their party will still have to support that decision at all cost and pretend that there is an agreement. The party leader has to make the worse seems the better. This encourages hollowness and insincerity and has the tendency to lower the moral tone and intellectual standards of members. Honesty is discounted and reason receded into the background. This practice does not promote good governance.

The application of parliamentary majority under Ex- President J.E.A Mills and President John Dramani Mahama has been grossly abused. Most transactions approved by the majority clearly lacked due diligence and value for money. The minority always raised concerns about these transactions but they were ignored with impunity by the majority on account of their numerical strength. Sheer numbers do not matter in technical and commercial transactions but competence and the ability to understand such issues. The minority warned that the majority was riding for a fall. Consequently, the sheer numbers have failed to give Ghanaians value for money and indeed, the over six years of NDC government has been counterproductive and valueless. Parliamentary majority has been disappointing in these directions.

When the NDC government tabled a memorandum in Parliament for a loan facility from the China Development Bank (CDB), the NPP minority raised serious issues about it. Among these issues were lack of due diligence, no value for money, poor financial agreement vis-à-vis the ambiguous Master Facility which had unwieldy sub-agreements with unclear terms. Despite these concerns, the majority used its numbers to approve the facility. The CDB could not fully discharge the facility because of poor terms and uncertainties in the agreement. This vindicated the minority's position on the terms of agreement.

Another ill-fated loan agreement which was hurriedly approved by Parliament was the STX deal. This deal was so stinking that the minority raised concerns and disagreed with the majority. As usual with an ill-informed government which is always in indecent haste to access any loan facility to prosecute its dubious agenda, no due diligence and value for money analysis went into the preparation of the agreement. The off-taker agreement lacked detailed technical direction. The good idea to provide housing facility for Ghanaians was grounded on poor technical feasibility of the project and consequently the deal was abandoned.  This is another vindication of the minority NPP in Parliament.

Recently, the NDC members in Parliament used their numbers again to approve a loan facility from Russia. This is a $300m credit facility between the Government of Ghana and VTB Bank Capital. This loan facility has also come up with many concerns to be addressed in order to make it a technically sound and feasible transaction. The minority once again raised issues such as proper due diligence and value for money but this was brushed aside by the majority.

During debate, the focus of the minority was on upfront payments, the interest elements and management fees. The minority compared the interest element against the prevailing international credit conditions and argued that it was not a good deal for Ghana. The minority was concerned about who would take the management fees and also who would manage the portfolio of the lender, and held the view that the deal was fishy and therefore the transaction was not credible.

Proper due diligence and value for money in our transactions can act as catalyst for the development of the country. It is therefore imperative for the government to scan the capital market when seeking syndicated loans. The government must satisfy itself about the general conditions precedent, conditions precedent to each drawdown, available period for the payment of commitment fees and drawdown mechanics attached to a particular loan facility in the capital market. This will form the basis for approving or disapproving the facility and members of Parliament must be furnished with these prevailing conditions in the market.

When the capital market is scanned, it must highlight and establish the credibility of the lender through background checks. The background checks must involve performance records over the years (history), current annual statement of account, audited report, recommendations by rating agencies which must be positive management structure as well as decision making processes, information sharing systems,  office location, capital structure, the core business, and many others. These steps are necessary to deepen the due diligence processes to ensure a hitch free transaction devoid of ambiguities.

The above analysis demonstrates that the majority decisions in Parliament are noxious to the development of the country. The inordinate desire to approve all transactions at all cost put due diligence and value for money on the back burner and this adversely affects the development of the country. It is important to use the parliamentary majority to advance the development of our society.

 By Leo-Nelson Adzidogah