Party Manifesto Vs The National Development Plan

Under the 4^th Republic, it is obvious that both the NPP and NDC focus on their respective party manifestos to tackle the development-related issues of the country. But how related are the manifestos to the national development agenda? To which agency can we direct our concerns on the development related issues? For instance, to which agency can one make a complaint on a project that has been executed poorly, or for an abandoned project? On the other hand, when there is an issue with the electoral system, we count on the Electoral Commission (EC) to address it impartially, irrespective of the ruling party. Can we say that the National Development Planning Commission or any other agency is responsible for development issues, and could address the earlier questions?

Per article 87 of the 1992 constitution, the National Development Planning Commission (NDPC) is supposed to advise and guide the President of the Republic on development issues. However, the elected president comes into office with a plan - the party’s manifesto, and its promises - that must be fulfilled before the next elections. So, does or would the national development agenda fit into the plans of the ruling government? A glance through the 2021-2024 manifestos of both NPP and NDC, reveals the disconnection from the commission that is supposed to be in charge of the development agenda for the country. In other words, none of the two parties referred to a national development plan in their respective manifestos.

Let me put the earlier questions in another form. Who (on behalf of the electorate or the people of Ghana) ensures or should ensure that the parties’ manifestos are in the interest of the nation? I am talking about a commission that can ensure that:

1. the party’s manifesto is in the interest of the citizens, and can address the expectations of the people;
2. that the manifesto is not full of unachievable promises just for the sake of winning votes;
3. that the manifesto would not polarize the country further on party lines;
4. and that the manifesto is in line with the long-term national development plan, and not a deviation.

Observation of activities in our country (in recent times) suggests that the use of the manifestos in running the development agenda of the country appear to have negative effects on the advancement of the country. Some of such negative effects include:

1. Low quality of works. The ruling party tries to fulfil a lot of promises with little resources available, which result in doing ‘symbolic’ but low quality works in the communities ahead of the next elections. Low quality works could also come from ‘contractors’ with little or no experiences, who are awarded contracts because of alleged association with ruling party, etc. It is a repeated phenomenon to see roads ‘constructed’ in election years developing potholes after the first rains.
2. Projects undertaken under the manifestos are mostly rushed; and procurement processes could be skewed;
3. Supervision and evaluation of projects are disregarded, and the appropriate state agencies and processes are sidestepped under the certificate of urgency or presidency.
4. Projects undertaken in previous administration are either stopped, abandoned or delayed by the new administration -
5. possibly to avoid giving credit to the previous administration (the opposition party);
6. for audits on the award of contract, expenditure, etc.
7. likely to redirect available funds to the new administration’s listed projects, which are now the priorities.

Projects are distributed to specific areas or sectors based on political interests - in line with campaign promises, and focus on winning the next election.

Continuation of works on abandoned projects can be more expensive to the tax payer – e.g. resumption of works on an abandoned road/infrastructure project could require new mobilization and demobilization costs; and it could require repair works of the previous job done before continuation of main project works, etc.

Less judicious use of public funds, because the priority is the fulfilment of the numerous promises before the next election. Mismanagement of funds, and financial loss to the state become associated easily.

Excessive borrowing becomes the pattern, in order to fulfil the tall list of promises.

Infrastructure projects are labelled and viewed as party projects, rather than national projects.

Short-term solutions to employment creation; over-burden of the public service and public purse, etc.

Neglect of the essential but unpopular socio-economic challenges, i.e. sustainable job creation ventures; inadequate attention to the development of the agricultural and manufacturing sectors mainly; and the reliance on imports, including foodstuffs - most of which we can produce locally and also export, if planned and implemented as a national agenda.

The absence of a guided system such as the national development agenda; except for the drive of each party to win the next election.

The danger is that, the course of our development agenda appears to have already been entangled through the use of the party manifestos. A dramatic view of our development quest can be put as follows: - one ruling party takes us on a ride through some bad roads, then the next administration asks us to abandon that vehicle and join its vehicle. The new administration takes a different bad route (looking for shortcuts), but neither the previous nor the new administration seemed to be driving on the path they promised, making it unattainable to get to the Promised Land. In short, we seem to be going in circles whilst accumulating debts term after term.

The Ghanaian expects to get better value under the democratic process with regards to the development and advancement of the country, and it is my opinion that it can best be achieved by empowering the NDPC to play its role on development issues. That is, the National Development Planning Commission must be responsible for the evaluation, implementation and monitoring of all development related projects in the country.

Apart from its limitation to just advise the president, and preparing proposals of long-term national development plans, the composition and term of office of the NDPC make the commission partisan. Furthermore, the national plans proposed by the commission over the years have been turned into academic documents – the Vision 2020 plan was quickly shelved; the 40-year Development Plan (Vision 2057) drawn by the NDPC under the John Mahama-led administration is also on the shelves without any references; while the Nana Akuffo-Addo-led administration gets another office to come up with the Ghana Beyond Aid Agenda. In other words, we do not have a National Development Plan that is acceptable to all parties. Nevertheless, the development commission is a potential institution that can be empowered to do much more - to drive the development agenda of the country, irrespective of the administration in office.

By empowering the NDPC, similar to the Electoral Commission - with the type of independence in article 46 of the constitution - the National Development Planning Commission would take control of the development agenda of the country, and put a seizure to the current float where the development agenda of the country is on a rollercoaster from one political party to the other, with no determined direction as a country.

Thus, in order to return to a guided course of development that each ruling party must operate within, the following considerations should be made:

No need to form another commission, but to empower the NDPC to take the responsibility. The current function of advising the presidency is best played by the council of state.

The NDPC must be independent of the ruling government; it must have a non-partisan Commissioner; while its term of office should not be limited to the term of the ruling party, but similar to the EC’s.

The NDPC must be empowered to own and be responsible for the development agenda of the country, irrespective of the political party in office.

The empowerment of the NDPC would compel all parties to partner the commission to formulate, finalise and adopt a long-term national development plan of the country. That is, all parties must then accept and abide by the adopted National Development Plan.

Some of the functions that the commission is expected to execute with regards to the parties’ manifestos include:

That all manifestos (from the parties) must be in line with and linked to the national development plan

That the NDPC must review and approve the parties’ manifestos before they are launched and used for campaigns. Such reviews should take into account the above, and ensure that the manifestos carry no unachievable, unrealistic promises.

That apart from evaluating the development plans or party’s manifesto, the NDPC must be responsible for the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of all development related projects. This is expected to make the projects national in character and not party projects. Yes, an administration can take credit for the project’s initiation and execution, but the involvement of the NDPC should move us away from the current practice where projects are considered to belong to party A or B.

In other words, the NDPC becomes the agency that should be held accountable for any projects abandoned or poorly executed (similar to the EC being held accountable for electoral issues). Furthermore, the adoption of the above functions of the development planning commission would allow for projects started in the previous administration to be continued under the next administration without stopping works, abandoning, re-awarding the projects, etc.

Party manifestos and promises would still be with us under the current democratic practice. Therefore, there is bound to be some deviations due to political influences, once in a while. However, the role of NDPC is expected to help reduce the deviations and the running in circles; by compelling the parties to remain focused on the agreed national direction of progress; by compelling the parties to present manifestos that are realistic and achievable within the 4-year term; and by practicing continuity in our development process, irrespective of the ruling party.

We chose multi-party democracy under the 4^th Republic and instituted the Electoral Commission to manage its electoral processes. However, we left the key component - ‘Development’ – in the hands of the political parties to play it like Rugby, without rules nor referees. All of us citizens, parliamentarians, CSOs, journalists, etc. have the duty to help put Ghana back on the right and guided track of development, else the sustainable development goal would continue to be elusive.