With all due respect, which ‘wing’ is NDC?

The term, political ideology, is used as a descriptive label for a set of ideas and values about political parties in a democratic dispensation. Political ideology, therefore, comprises the body of ideas that undergird the conduct of political parties.

I must admit, it won’t come as a surprise at all, if observers, at a glance, instinctively raise an objection to the caption of this article.

Well, the title is neither destitute of merit nor can be deemed as an isolated thinker’s thought process, far from it, so hold your breath, my dear reader, sit back, relax, and make an effort to travel the whole distance with me to the final destination, then you may engage in a carefully considered deliberation and form your opinion accordingly.

Let me venture to stress, albeit, unhesitatingly, that based on the rich history of the Nkrumaists and the Danquah-Dombo-Busia traditions, the CPP and NPP loyalists have the bragging rights about the authenticity of their respective ideologies.

Conversely, the supporters of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), a party that sprung out of a series of truculent coup d’états, have been parasitically holding on to the Nkrumaists tradition. How ironic?

Take my word for it, my dear reader, that could never be right, because as far as Ghanaians are concerned, the NDC was founded on the ideals of pharisaic coup makers, who had no spelled out ideology back then.

Perhaps more than anything else, the brassbound NDC supporters are not happy with their violent and weird tradition, and hence seeking refuge, albeit with an unabashed disgust in the Nkrumaists tradition.

The NDC apparatchiks, so to speak, have over the years been hoodwinking and proselytising unsuspecting Ghanaians in believing that the NDC is a subsidiary of the Nkrumaists tradition. How pathetic?

The fact however is, the NDC was founded on the ideals of coup making enthusiasts, who were without doubt novices in the political terrain.

My dear reader, given the bizarre circumstances in which the NDC was formed, one would have expected a true probity, transparency and accountability within the successive NDC administrations, but that has never been the case.

In the grand scheme of things, the topmost goal of every political party is to work strenuously to win power and form a government with the view of putting pragmatic policies and programmes in place to impact the lives of the masses.

We can, therefore, draw an inference that a political party must have a sense of purpose and direction in order to be taken seriously in its pursuit of winning political power.

A political party, ideally, should have a philosophy, or a set of ideas and values to serve as a guide in the delivery of its political mandate.

In Ghana, for instance, the two largest political parties, the NPP and the NDC boast of divergent political ideologies. Whereas the NPP believes in liberal conservatism (centre-right), the NDC claims to be social democrats (centre-left).

The overarching question then is: which of these two political parties is much more competent in the delivery of its mandate?

For the purposes of fairness and to situate the annotation in the right perspective, the article will grub into the relevant summary of the initiation and implementation of social intervention programmes and policies between NPP and NDC from 1993 to 2025.

The article will also throw light on the National Democratic Congress’s (NDC) much publicised social democratic descriptive tag.

“Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed economy.”

“Social democracy is a political ideology that originally advocated a peaceful evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes (Britannica.com).”

Some experts maintain that social democrats are of the view that both the economy and society should be run democratically so as to meet the needs of the vast majority of the citizenry.

Interestingly, social democrats are against the idea of running the country in such a way that only a few end up benefitting.

Apparently, there are three main tenets of democratic socialism: freedom, justice and solidarity.

Based on the preceding ethos and values, social democrats, such as the National Democratic Congress, are expected to take great interest in ‘social interventionism’.

The all-important question every Ghanaian should be asking then is: do the NDC loyalists really believe in the provision of social interventions?

Well, your guess is as good as mine, my dear reader.

When Dr Bawumia poignantly dared the NDC operatives a few years ago to claim ownership of any successful social intervention , he was, as a matter of fact, referring to “social interventionism”, and not “social infrastructure or amenities”.

Since the NDC, a supposedly social democratic party, has abysmal record on the initiation and implementation of social interventions to impact positively on society, it came as no surprise at all to some of us when the NDC brassbound supporters woefully failed to give any tangible response to Bawumia’s query.

In a grand scheme of things, social interventionism is “a pragmatic action which involves the intervention of a government or an organization in social affairs of society.”

In essence, social interventionism refers to the effective, prudent and appropriate means of ameliorating social or economic difficulties being faced by people.

Social interventionism, therefore, is an umbrella term for social intervention, social protection, social welfare or poverty alleviation.

Social interventionism, so to speak, differs from the provision of social infrastructure and amenities, such as toilets, electricity, schools, hospitals, water, roads, interchanges, amongst others.

I have always insisted that it would only take a doubting Thomas to challenge the fact that the NDC brassbound loyalists, who take pride in the social democratic ideology, are not in the business of promoting the welfare of the masses.

One would have thought that individuals who pride themselves as social democrats will be extremely empathetic to the needs of the masses, but this is not the case with the NDC as a party.

The general belief, however, is that the NDC is only good at running down or cancelling crucial social interventions.

It is an illustrative case of social democrats who do not know how to initiate and manage social interventions.

If you may recall, the erstwhile Mahama administration cancelled/collapsed the Nurse’s Allowance, the Teacher’s Allowance, SADA, GYEEDA, NHIS, the Maternal Care, the School Feeding programme, the Mass Transport System, amongst others.

It is also true that the NDC operatives campaigned and voted against the poverty reduction Free SHS policy during the 2016 electioneering campaign.

As if that was not enough, the NDC loyalists persisted with their utter disgust for the poverty alleviation Free SHS, by needlessly attacking its implementation.

Since the inception of the Fourth Republican Constitution, the self-proclaimed social democrats have been opposing social interventions that have been proposed by the successive NPP governments such as the Free Maternal Care, the NHIS, the Metro Mass Transport, the School Feeding Programme, the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP), , the Free SHS, amongst others.

Social protection, in hindsight, is seen as a safeguard for the poor and vulnerable, such as children, women, older people, people living with disabilities, the displaced, the unemployed, and the sick.

Social protection, in fact, is generally understood as public and private organisations that give means of income to the poor and take care of the vulnerable against bread and butter issues with the main aim of reducing the economic and social hardships.

However, the reasons behind social protection differ very broadly, ranging from minimising poverty and vulnerability, building human capital, empowering women and girls, improving livelihoods, and responding to economic and other adversities.

Thus, the form and function of social protection programmes can be quite diverse, according to the particular intervention (Hanlon et al., 2010).

Based on the preceding explicit acceptations of social interventionism, we can confidently delineate some social interventions as: the Nurse’s Allowance, the Teacher’s Allowance, SADA, GYEEDA, NHIS, the Maternal Care, the School Feeding programme, the Mass Transport System, the Free SHS, the Nation Builders Corp (NABCO), the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP), the Disability Common Fund and the Capitation Grant.

Other forms of social protection aim at long-term development and allowing people to move permanently out of poverty (Babajanian et al., 2014).

Long-term goals include improving opportunities for inclusive growth, human capital development, equity and social stability.

Some experts however contend that social protection is not only designed to alleviate poverty but also to transform lives, through implementation of policies and programmes that normalise the inequalities.

In light of the above, we can conclude that social intervention is an investment in human capital which increases capacities and the accumulation of productive assets.

In the great scheme of things, social intervention contributes to human capital either by providing skills and services or by offering cash and access, which enable households to invest in their own development.

Needless to say, some social protection programmes intend to be transformative, supporting equity, empowerment and human rights.

Apparently, a small number of countries (including India, South Africa and Uruguay), and organisations recognise social protection as a human right and an entitlement against low standards of living (Jones & Shahrokh, 2013).

It seems, most strange, to some of us, that the NDC loyalists, who apparently take pride in the social democratic ideology, are not in the business of promoting the welfare of the masses, but they are rather on a mission to advance their parochial interests by persistently proselytising and hoodwinking the unsuspecting voters to gain electoral advantage.

K. Badu, UK.
k.badu2011@gmail.com

   Comments0