No Representation Without Taxation II

Electoral Apartheid and Hidden Sacrifices The debate on the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill rages on. The point has been made in rebuttal to my earlier article that (Daily Graphic 17th August 2005) that I am making moral arguments in a purely legal issue. Implicit in this argument is the assertion that the constitution has already given Ghanaians abroad the right to vote and that it is only PNDC Law 284 which stands in their way. This position is not acceptable. Chapter 1 of the Constitution of Ghana says:

(2) This Constitution shall be the supreme law of Ghana and any other law found to be inconsistent with any provision of this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

2 (1) A person who alleges that - (a) an enactment or anything contained in or done, under the authority of that or any other enactment; or (b) any act or omission of any person; is inconsistent with, or is in contravention of a provision of this Constitution, may bring an action in the Supreme Court for a declaration to that effect.

If the proponents of this bill truly believed that Ghanaians resident abroad had a legal right to vote, they would have gone to the Supreme Court. By going to parliament to seek an amendment instead of the Supreme Court to seek a declaration, the proponents of this bill have conceded that their position is currently illegal and requires legislative amendment to become legal. Parliament's role in this is (through the elected representatives of the people and through extensive direct consultation) to determine what the will of the people is in this matter and accordingly amend the law or otherwise. Since the issue is in parliament it ceases to be purely legal, and becomes a general issue upon which, among other things, social, political, economic and cultural perspectives can legitimately be brought to bear.

Electoral Apartheid In the earlier article I made the point that the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill if passed into law, as it is, will create a privileged class out of Ghanaians in the Diaspora. They would be privileged because they would have been allowed the full exercise of the rights of citizenship and effectively exempted from the performance of the duties thereof. This would be contrary to the constitutional aspirations expressed in the Directive Principles of State Policy Chapter 41 of the Constitution which says that “41 The exercise and enjoyment of rights and freedoms is inseparable from the performance of duties and obligations, and accordingly, it shall be the duty of every citizen…”

Another reason why this bill creates a privileged group out of our citizens residing abroad is the fact that the proposed amendment seeks to selectively amend the law only for those citizens resident outside Ghana. The relevant portion of the Bill reads:

“A person who is a citizen of Ghana resident outside the Republic is entitled to be registered as a voter if the person satisfies the requirements for registration prescribed by law other than those relating to residence in a polling division”

That is to say, the "6 months residence in a polling division" eligibility clause is being removed only for those outside Ghana. However, it will still apply to citizens resident here in Ghana. As an illustration consider a situation where two Ghanaian siblings who have lived outside their hometown all their lives desire to register to vote there because of emotional ties to the place and the fact that they both “hail” from there. One of them now lives in Accra and visits the hometown for funerals and other social functions but does not live there. The other who is permanently resident in Amsterdam has never set foot in the hometown. Should this bill be passed into law, the one in Amsterdam can simply register to vote in his hometown while the Accra-based sibling has to physically go and reside there for 6 months or forget about ever registering to vote in his home town. How can this be fair and equitable? Which part of our constitution supports such a blatantly discriminatory situation? If PNDC Law 284 is a fetter on people's right to register to vote in the area of their choice then it is a fetter on all people. Why liberate some and not all people from its “unjust” effect. What have Ghanaians resident abroad done to deserve such special treatment? Conversely, what have those of us who have chosen to live in Ghana done to deserve such discrimination? This amendment which I still maintain is well intentioned will have the unintended effect of creating a privileged group of Ghanaians who are only special because they chose to leave this nation to live and work in greener pastures abroad. Apart from the wrong signal this sends to our youth, I am concerned at the inordinate importance our leaders place on the contribution of emigrants through remittances and the implied relative devaluation of the contribution of those of us resident in Ghana towards national development.

Hidden Sacrifices To analyze the extent of the contribution of locally resident Ghanaians I will once again use the example of a medical doctor. In an increasingly global labour market, if the international market value for a doctor is $100,000 a year and his local salary is $10,000 a year, the local doctor has effectively made a hidden sacrifice of $90,000 to the state by choosing to work locally instead of going abroad. Additionally, out of his salary he may have to contribute income tax of possibly 30%, and social security contributions of 17.5%. Furthermore out of what he has left to spend, he pays 12.5% VAT and 2.5% NHIL on most purchases. He therefore contributes about half his salary as taxes, a contribution for which he receives no direct value in return. If we use his market value abroad as the base then his real contribution towards nation building is about 95% of the international market or export value of his services. His contribution to this nation is therefore truly immense. National income accounting however will only recognise a contribution of $10,000, being his annual salary, to the nation's Gross National Product (GNP) as accruing from his work. On the other hand a similar $10,000 (10% of his market value) remittance sent by his mate - now working abroad - for the purpose of acquiring a plot of land will feature in the remittance section of our national accounts creating the illusion of equal contribution. A simplistic reading of national accounting figures where the 'remittance' figure looms large and the “hidden sacrifice” is not captured could mislead our leaders into under valuing the contribution of local residents to nation building. Although the medical doctors' example provides poignant illustration, the above analysis applies to all locally resident Ghanaians. In the global economy to the extent that a market for our labour/services exists abroad at prices higher than what pertains here, every local worker is making to a greater or lesser degree, a “hidden sacrifice”. Furthermore, the life expectancy in Ghana is 58 years and that of the Western countries is averagely 78 years. By choosing to live here instead of abroad we are tacitly accepting the possibility of having to sacrifice 20 or so years of our lives. One hundred and four (104) children die of malaria in Ghana every day. By choosing to live here we accept the risk that our infant child may belong to the batch that would die tomorrow. One hundred and eighty new people get infected with HIV/AIDS each day. By choosing to live here we accept the possibility that our teenage child may get infected today. It is a generally accepted principle that, when risks are commensurate with return then one is investing. When risks far outweigh any possible return then one is sacrificing. We, who live here, have effectively chosen to sacrifice our lives for this nation. In view of the extent of our sacrifice for this country do we deserve to be discriminated against in legislation? I know our leaders mean well with this bill, that they have thought it through but I would like to ask them to please think again.

Ingratitude? During this debate some comments have been passed to the effect that refusing to grant the vote to Ghanaians in the Diaspora would amount to ingratitude which would be punished with a cessation of the flow or reduction of the quantum of remittances. I do not understand the logic in this argument. Who should be grateful to whom? We whose taxes provide infrastructure, security and services or they who send remittances to buy the land so secured and serviced? We who stay with the pain from which they drained or they who only enjoy the gain? We, who remain in the trenches in the war against poverty, ignorance and disease or they, who deserted the battlefield for a life of ease abroad? Apart from the insult inherent in the ingratitude argument, the threat of cessation or reduction of remittances is fatuous. The total amount of remittances is an aggregate of numerous individual, uncoordinated decisions to send money home. No person or group of persons has control over the flow or quantum of these transfers. If remittances are being sent now without voting in local elections what is the basis for the assertion that they will no longer be sent if the status quo remains unchanged. Much of the remittances sent are to achieve the very objectives - such as buying land, building a house, starting a business or educating a loved one- for which the senders went abroad in the first place and would therefore not cease. Let's pause for a moment! Are remittances necessarily good for the receiving economy? Clearly it currently helps to support and stabilize our currency on foreign exchange markets. But are they necessarily always good for the receiving economy? In his book “Globalization and its Discontents” Nobel Prize Winning Economist -Joseph E. Stiglitz, describes an economic condition called the “Dutch Disease” in which massive inflows of foreign exchange from certain sources can lead to an appreciation of a nations currency, making imports cheaper and exports expensive. This could ultimately impede economic development by seriously hurting the local export industry thereby creating a dependence on the very inflows that are the source of the trouble in the first place. Such inflows can also negatively impact national competitiveness by creating a dual economy, bidding up factor prices and the local cost of production. It is important that we maintain some level of objectivity and balance in our appreciation of the impact of remittances on the Ghanaian economy.

Relevance of the Ghanaian Diaspora Is the point therefore being made that the Ghanaian Diaspora is irrelevant to our development? Absolutely not! On the contrary our brothers and sister resident abroad are crucial to our national development! They probably are the remnant that God in His wisdom has set aside to ensure the survival, redemption and advancement of this nation. Their relevance however does not lie in remittances. Their true relevance lies in their return home with resources, international contacts, new ideas, superior perspectives, habits, values, skills, attitudes and knowledge with which we can turbo charge and accelerate our development effort. With their help we can mount a final and decisive onslaught in the fight against poverty, ignorance and disease. Policies should therefore be designed to facilitate their return and not merely allow them to dabble in Ghanaian politics from the distance, insulation, comfort, and security of their foreign domiciles.

Tribute to the Martyrs On 28th August 2005 Professor J.M.K. Quartey, Dr Isaac Bentsi and Dr Benjamin Osei-Wiafe, all of the Urology Department of Korle-Bu Hospital, perished on the spot in a road accident. As I write, preparations are afoot to give these three doctors a befitting state burial. I choke with emotion as I contemplate the extent of sacrifice these noble men have made. They knew the facts about the safety of our roads; they knew the risks of living and working in Ghana and yet chose to sacrifice for their country. These men are fellow soldiers who died 'in the line of duty' in the war against poverty, ignorance and disease. In my minds ear I can hear the bugler sound “The Last Post' in honour of these fallen heroes, in my minds eye I see the honour guard with their heads bowed. I join them to recite a verse from Laurence Binyon's “Ode to The Fallen” “They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them” We will remember them when we sing the patriotic song “Yen ara asase ni”. We will remember them among the noble ancestors whose blood was shed to preserve and develop this nation. We will remember them when our time comes to sacrifice for Ghana. We will remember them!

May they take their place in our hearts and in the pantheon of venerated ancestors alongside Kwegyir Aggrey, George Ekem Ferguson, Paa Grant, Sgt. Adjetey, J. B Danquah, Obetsebi Lamptey, Akuffo-Addo, Kwame Nkrumah, K. A. Busia, W. Ofori-Atta, Ako-Adjei, and the unknown thousands of honest hard working Ghanaians who have lived and died in the service of our great country! WE WILL REMEMBER THEM!!