Ownership of development projects - who are the real owners

Wa, October 7, GNA - Projects provided by government have become a bone of contention between the Members of Parliament, District Chief Executives, and Assembly Members as to who the real owners are.

The 'who is who' in ownership of development projects in rural districts of Ghana between Members of Parliament, District Chief Executives and Assembly Members has become a source of worry in recent times.

Ownership of government's development projects is now the new campaign message among Members of Parliament, District Chief Executives and Assembly members, especially in rural Ghana.

The scramble for ownership of development projects has become a fight back issue between Parliamentarians, District Chief Executives and Assembly Members when it comes to electioneering year in Ghana.

In some of the communities, government has no projects; all projects that government had provided the people, politicians are claiming ownership of them, , while central government, a major implementer of development projects in the entire country is being marginalised.

The question then is: who provides development projects in the communities? Is it the government, members of parliament, district chief executives or assembly members? The people in rural Ghana are more confused as to who the real provider of development projects are.

This writer in his rounds to the rural districts in the Upper West Region during the just ended District Assembly Election, at various forums and no radio stations in the Upper West Region, heard members of parliament, district chief executives and assembly members, all of them claiming ownership of the same projects that the government had provided to the communities.

These projects range from school blocks, boreholes, Community based Health and Planning Service (CHPS) Compounds and roads infrastructure among others.

The utilization of these projects, especially water facilities, school and health infrastructure as well as other social and economic projects to help improve the lives and livelihoods of rural people in the various communities, are being patronised on political lines.

The danger is that some communities prefer to drink from unsafe water sources either than boreholes government provided them, because of polarisation, politicisation and ownership challenges.

Besides, the government has no social contract with the people because projects provided, had become the property of these 'three wise men'. In effect, government seems virtually doing nothing for the people.

This behaviour of these 'three wise men' has been counterproductive as they continue to making government more unpopular among the people. It is that government has no name in the lips of the people; it is rather the Members of Parliament, District Chief Executives or the Assembly Member who the people know as providers of projects.

The provision of water, electricity, health service, and education facilities among others in the communities are to help improve the socio economic advancement of the people. However these are being politicked among the 'three wise men', a dangerous practice which is impacting negatively on government development efforts.

The situation is too serious and the fear is that sooner than later, Ghanaians would be experiencing some confusion in the communities because anyone of these 'wise men' would have the edge to close down rural schools, ban some community members from fetching water from the boreholes and using latrines and roads that government had provided the people.

This writer is never surprise at the Community Water and Sanitation Agency's (CWSA) outcry about the mismanagement of water systems in the Upper West Region.

The CWSA recently spoke about the mismanagement of water systems to the extent that that most of the facilities are operating marginally and beneficiary communities are unable to take advantage of the huge investments in water supply to improve sanitation.

No wonder, the Municipal and District Assemblies the in region have been applying their scanty resources in fixing broken down boreholes and mechanised water systems to the detriment of providing other projects to enhance the livelihood of the people.

The disturbing phenomenon in the region is the rate in the breakdown of water facilities and the refusal of communities to pay for the water services they are provided with.

This lackadaisical attitude of community members towards social and economic amenities provided them to enhance their livelihoods is as a result of the polarisation of development projects and the infighting for ownership among members of parliament, district chief executives and assembly members.

This is not only experienced in the water sector but many other sectors, including education and health where there is equal community apathy, resulting the breakdown of facilities and the lack of maintenance.

This writer is also not surprise that in some other regions, water systems are properly managed and the resources are applied for other related to water, sanitation and hygiene challenges but the story in the region is different.

It could be suggested to the Local Government to come out with a new development strategy for assembly members in the communities to stop them from claiming ownership of government projects.

Their lots should be that of self-reliance development in the communities. Assembly members should be tasked to mobilise their people to undertake self-help projects rather than the over-reliance on central government and district assemblies to roll out projects.

The success and failure of assembly members should be measured by the number of self-help projects an assembly member has been able to implement in the communities. They can take credit or ownership of projects they have been able to mobilise community members to undertake but not what central government and the district assemblies rolled out.

The self-help spirit experienced during the 90s is dying off and needed to be rekindled in the communities to tackle issues of sanitation, which is now a source of worry to central government, metropolitan, municipal and district assemblies.

The local government should be seen providing appropriate lobby skills to assembly members to lobby other organisations and individuals to support development projects in the communities.

The Members of Parliament should let the people know that they are lawmakers, securitising and passing bills and not agents or implementers of development projects. Whatever development projects they are able to implement, should be labeled to distinguish them from the district assemblies and central government projects.

District Chief Executives must also stop hijacking development projects which are implemented with the taxpayers' money. Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies are not property of District Executive Executives and whatever development projects that they carried out, belong to the people and let nobody claim ownership of such projects.

Projects provided by the district assemblies are just to complement central government efforts and no credit or ownership should go to anybody appointed by the government or elected by the people.

The scramble for ownerships of projects in the communities is doing more harm than good to government and community members. Development projects are provided by government for the benefit of Ghanaians, irrespective of their political affiliations or ethnic considerations.

Government should take up this article serious because the attitude of some politicians regarding the ownership of projects is not helping the unity of Ghana. It is that Ghana is for all Ghanaians and its resources must benefit all segment of its society.

Absolute care should be taken not to marginalise governments for selfish gains and let not our selfish interest divide the people. Politicians should know that Ghana is a patch, patch country that needs absolute unity, integration and coherent.

A GNA feature by Bajin D. Pobia