Monetization And The Slow Demise Of Our Nascent Democracy

The relationship between Economics and Politics goes back to antiquity. During the medieval period in Europe, this relationship found expression in the enormous power and influence wielded by the Nobility and Aristocrats who exclusively controlled and exploited the peasants and serfs (in the case of Russia) through self-serving decisions and decrees made by the elites in these societies.

A similar relationship of dominance and subordination existed in other non-European societies such as Africa, where, for instance, chiefs and their aristocratic allies who were resourceful lorded over persons who were captured during the wars for state formations in these societies.

This social stratification was a universal phenomenon throughout most of human history, however, the formal elaboration and its empirical demonstration had to await the work of Karl Marx, the erudite German Philosopher during the second half of the 19^th century.

In his work, Das Kapital, which formulated his “Theory of Economic Determinism”, Marx painstakingly demonstrated, through research conducted mainly in the libraries of London, the citadel of modern capitalism, that those who control economic resources simultaneously control political and social power in the society.

In fact, Marx’s famous dictum that Parliament is the Executive Committee of the Bourgeoisie meant to state the verifiable or testable hypothesis that the middle class who controlled the economic resources in the society were the people who, ipso facto, occupied the seats of parliament at the time.

Karl Marx, of course, was not the only Western scholar who made this observation. Joseph Alois Schumpeter, the Austrian Economist made a similar observation in his Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, while contemporaneously, Daniel Bell, the pre-eminent Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Harvard University, in his The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism concurred with this central critique of capitalism.

“Monecracy” or Democracy in Ghana?

The common thread that runs through the three above-mentioned critiques of the capitalist system with regards to the influence of money in politics is the observation that the political system—liberal democracy--in capitalist societies is co-terminus with the economic system or the so-called market system.

In practice, what this means is that just as rational actors or people exchange goods and services in the marketplace guided by the invisible hand of the forces of demand and supply, in the political domain, these same actors interact in exchanging ideas for votes for representation in the decision-making structures of the state.

Historically, through the colonial enterprise, Ghana has been integrated into the capitalist system for and in the process acquired the West’s the ethos especially, its political system of liberal democracy.

With the exception of the brief period in her history when Nkrumah experimented with socialism, successive Constitutions of Ghana have been underwritten by the essential tenets of liberal democracy and its concomitant market system.

It is therefore not surprising that economic interests in the country have always overlapped with political interests in our body politic. In recent years however, the influence of money in our politics has become so gross that it is threatening the very survival of our nascent democracy; in fact, the worsening influence of money in our politics is no longer an urban legend.

The most obvious manifestation of this canker of monetization of our politics is the payment of huge sums of money and in kind by aspiring MPs to so-called delegates during primary elections by the two dominant political parties.

Aspiring office seekers no longer pay delegates secretly as was the practice in the past, but rather they pay cash and commodities such as television sets, cars, and even food items; in the recent NDC primaries, there was a huge outcry over one candidate who openly “sprayed” cash at the venue of the election.

Of course, there are other subtle manifestations of monetization beside the payment of cash to sway delegates. Similarly, candidates for office pay bribes to constituency executives and election officials to manipulate party primary albums and for favourable positions on electoral ballots respectively.

The most repugnant and democracy-busting manifestation of monetization is the payment of huge sums of money (often in foreign currencies) for executive appointments once a party wins political power.

Because the public sector is the source of accumulation of wealth in our country now, ruling party officials begin to steal and accumulate money to be able to influence intra-party succession processes to ensure their preferred candidates come into office to protect their loot.

Expectedly, some of our compatriots with vested interests in the monetization of our politics are quick to argue that the influence of money in politics is more pronounced in the West than ours. Examples of this include the expensive political campaigns through advertisements and the mega donations by the wealthy who seek to influence policies eventually.

While this is generally true about politics in the West, these apologists of money-for-votes in our politics tend to gloss over the fact that in the advanced liberal democracies the role and influence of money are regulated by laws such as for example, the Campaign Finance Act in the United States.

Essentially, this law imposes limits on the amount of money individuals and organisations can contribute to political parties and candidates for political office; even wealthy individuals who run for political office cannot use their own money willy nilly in their own campaigns under this law.

Examples abound of how infractions of electoral laws can land a person into trouble in Western countries. In the US, former President Donald Trump has been criminally indicted by the Manhattan District Attorney for the use of campaign money to pay for sexual favours by a porn star; Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas has come under heavy fire for failing to declare certain financial interests; and there are currently calls to impeach the Attorney-General of Texas a similar offense.

Whereto From Here?
Even though in recent years, Ghanaians have been divided immensely along party lines, the one thing that has united us now is our common apprehension about the increasingly negative role and influence of money in our politics.

This apprehension about the increasing monetization in our politics is the common belief that monetization is the cause of the widespread corruption that has brought the economy and society to the brink of collapse, while there is a glaring decline in the quality of leadership in all spheres of governance.

This sad state of affairs has led to the public clamouring for lasting solution(s) to this growing problem. To be frank, some political groupings have proffered solutions; however, these solutions have so far proven to be cosmetic and self-serving in many respects.

Following its defeat in the 2008 election cycle, the NPP pushed for the expansion of its Electoral College before the 2012 election cycle. However, the intent of this measure was to ensure that the grassroots voted massively for the party and not the elimination of monetization.

Similarly, the NDC expanded their Electoral College but the problem of monetization in their internal electoral processes persists because that was not the target of the expansion of their electoral college.

The need for a sustainable solution: Adjei-Darko to the rescue

As is always their wont, political party elites prefer to prey on the electorates with their oratorical and grammatical skills to demonstrating competence in engineering measures that will better the lives of the electorates.

They often do this under the guise of conferences that are occasionally organised with huge sums of taxpayers’ monies. This was the case with the so-called “delegates conference” that was organised by the NPP in 2021 in Kumasi, ostensibly to amend the party’s Constitution.

It was during the lead up to this conference when I stumbled upon a proposal authored by and submitted through the Bono regional Council of Elders by Honourable Kwadwo Adjei-Darko, the former MP for Sunyani West and President Kufuor’s Minister for Local Government.

Specifically, this proposal aimed at the elimination of the influence of money in our politics, however, expectedly, this noble proposal fell through the cracks of empty speeches and resolutions that are the hallmarks of such conferences. Without a doubt, this is the most thoughtful and far-reaching proposal I have come across as far as the solution to the problem of monetization in our politics is concerned.

What is outstanding about Hon. Adjei-Darko’s proposal is the fact that it seeks to eliminate the “delegate system”, while at the same time it resources the party from the constituency to the national level.

How do you get rid of a system that is entrenched in our political culture because of its functionality for a few wealthy individuals and a few party members who constitute the Electoral College?

According to the proposal, you get rid of the delegate system by allowing every registered member of the party (assuming every Constituency registers party members) in a Constituency who is in “good standing” to vote in the party’s primaries. He defines a member in good standing as any “member who is registered and pays only GHc2 (Two Ghana Cedis) a month as dues to the party.”

I worked with Hon. Adjei-Darko during his time as the Minister of Local Government when I was a deputy national coordinator of the School Feeding Programme (The Programme was then under his ministry}. The man is a very thoughtful and hugely practical person who disdains ideal speculation!

According to his proposal, assuming a Constituency registers 12,000 members and out of this, say, 10,000 members happen to be in “good standing”, an amount of GHc20,000 will accrue to the Constituency every month The Constituency can keep 50% (GHc10,000) and remit 25% (GHc5,000) to the Regional and National outfits respectively for party activities.

In this scenario, take the case of the national level party income that would be generated every four years: (Ghc5,000x275x48=GHc66,000,000). It is needless to say that this internally-generated revenue would offset the need for the party to be at the mercy of a few individual benefactors who, more often than not, tend to be charlatans and thus hold the party to ransom.

Even though according to this estimation, there would be variations in the total amount of money (cash) that would accrue to the regions, there will be proportionate amount of resources for each Constituency to work with throughout the year to avoid dependence on the benevolence of a few wealthy individuals and or MPs.

When every one of the hypothetical 10,000 members vote in their hometowns like in a general election, the opportunity for contestants to camp and bribe a few so-called delegates would naturally fall away and the influence of money as an incentive would be drastically reduced if not eliminated

Acheampong Yaw Amoateng, Ph.D
(Emeritus Professor of Sociology, USA)

.