Presidential package – Joining the debate

In the last few days there has been a lot of debate about the Chinery Hesse Report on entitlements for former Presidents. A lot of this is being conducted without substantive information being made available to the public. Thus no one is much aware of what informed those recommendations.

From what I have heard over the air waves and read through written articles, these provisions are being seen through politically-coloured glasses. A lot of people, including professors and parliamentarians, have disregarded the fact that this was supposed to apply to all former Presidents - current and future ones. They have failed to see that these apply to the dignity of the Presidency rather than that of the occupant.

Allied with this politicisation is an exercise of disinformation where President Kuffour is solely tagged with these recommendations. In a ridiculous way, an article by GHP (whatever body this represents) on Ghanaweb (21/09/09) even compared Kuffour's benefits to that of George Bush and falsely concluded that somehow Kuffour's entitlements dwarf that of the immediate past US President. Amazingly, a gullible Ghanaian public has accepted this and is working themselves to frenzy over this.

Mischievous people always try to fill an information vacuum. This is all due to the fact that our institutions are still evolving and we appear to bump along rather than sitting down to fix some obvious anomalies in our governance systems. This present situation is due to:

1. A Parliament that has not seen it fit to review the workings of our constitutional provisions and their ramifications;

2. A general government machinery that is not predisposed to put information that affects Ghanaians in the public domain where people can access and review for themselves; and

3. A media (print, broadcast and electronic) who do not do the necessary legwork to shed light on issues of national importance. Rather the preference is to join the bandwagon on both sides of the political divide by casting rumours and innuendos as facts.

Rather than join in this frenzy, I prefer to throw out some questions to fellow Ghanaians for all to consider. Like everyone, I find the provisions excessive. In fact to borrow the words of Dan Botwe: “they are outrageous”. However, will this be a fair comment without any analysis at all? I think not. This is where the call should be made for the Chinery Hesse Report to be made public before we all hastily condemn what it may or may not contain.

I will like to put my remaining comments into some perspective. To do that, I will discuss briefly the US Federal Pension and Retirement Benefits for Former Presidents. My reference is Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, dated March 18, 2008 and written by Stephanie Smith (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-249.pdf).

I quote below a summary of that report:
Congress enacted the Former Presidents Act (FPA) in 1958 to provide former Presidents an annual lifetime pension, currently $191,300, and office allowances administered by the General Services Administration (GSA). The FPA, as amended, also provides former Presidents with travel funds and mailing privileges (3 U.S.C. 102 note). Secret service protection for former Presidents is also authorised by statute. P.L. 110-161, the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, authorises $2,478,000 in funding for former Presidents. The President's FY2009 budget requests $2,934,000 to provide former Presidents with pensions and office allowances.

This report also contains a table which breaks down the provisions for each of Presidents Carter, Bush (Sr.), and Clinton as well as Presidential Widows for Financial Year 2008. I reproduce that table below.

Allowance Widows Carter Bush Clinton
Pension $0 $191,000 $191,000 $201,000
Staff salaries 0 96,000 96,000 96,000
Staff benefits 0 2,000 64,000 65,000
Travel 0 2,000 56,000 50,000
Rental payments 0 102,000 175,000 516,000
Telephone 0 10,000 17,000 79,000
Postage 12,000 15,000 13,000 15,000
Other services 0 83,000 76,000 65,000
Printing 0 5,000 14,000 14,000
Supplies 0 5,000 15,000 26,000
Equipment 0 7,000 69,000 35,000
TOTAL $12,000 $518,000 $786,000 $1,162,000
Source: Data Provided by the Office of the Budget, General Services Administration, on January 24, 2008

By using the US as my reference point, I am not in any way implying that Ghana should aspire to these figures. I have only done this to correct the impression created by a GHP article on Ghanaweb that sought to twist the facts. I am also using this example to give the historical background to the US provisions.

The US Congress passed the Former Presidents Act (FPA) in 1958, after news spread then of the financial struggles of former President Harry Truman. President Truman wrote this in his memoirs: “I could never lend myself to any transaction, however respectable, that would commercialise on the prestige and dignity of the office of the presidency”. In other words, President Truman thought it undignified for a former President to go into the employ of any company. He was also not prepared to cash in on the knowledge and influence that his presidential status had brought.

The US Congress, in 1958, agreed with these observations and therefore passed the act that would ensure that former US Presidents live dignified lives that befit the office they once held.

Contrary to the GHP article that misleadingly summarised the provisions such that the Ghanaian one would look extravagant, I will rather proceed to discuss the benefits available to former US Presidents. Again, my motive is not to lobby for Ghana to go this same way but to refute the claims made in that article.

Office accommodation
The FPA provides a former President, for the rest of his life, with an office staff and suitable office space, appropriately furnished and equipped, at a location within the United States to be chosen by the former President. This provision includes office supplies such as stationery and long distance telephone service.

Pension
The former President is provided with a taxable pension that is equal to the annual rate of basic pay for the head of an executive department (Executive Level 1 equivalent to that of a sitting Cabinet Secretary). This figure currently stands at $191,300. A presidential widow is provided with $20,000 annual lifetime pension and franking (i.e. postal service) privileges.

Transition Expenses
Funding for transition expenses is available to an outgoing President and Vice President for 7 months to facilitate their relocation to private life. This is to pay for suitable office space, staff compensation, communication services and printing and posting associated with the transition. For the 2005 financial year the budget office requested $7.7m for this purpose (as a contingency against President Bush losing to Senator John Kerry).

Staff and Office Allowances
Six months after a President leaves office, The Former Presidents Act also makes provisions for the funding of an office staff. For the first 30 months, this funding cannot exceed $150,000 per annum. Thereafter, the figure is capped at $96,000 per annum.

Travel Expenses
The General Services Administration is authorised to make funds available to a former President and no more than two members of his staff for official travel and related expenses. You can make reference to the table above for an indication of the level of these expenses per annum. It is not subject to any capping other than the fact that the travel has to be in connection with official duties.

Medical expenses
Former Presidents and their spouses, widows and minor children are entitled to treatment in military hospitals. They may also enrol in private health plans at their own expense.

Secret Service Protection
The Secret Service provides lifetime protection for former Presidents (who entered office before 1st January, 1997) and their spouses. Surviving spouses of former Presidents receive protection until remarriage. Protection for a former President's children is also available to them until the age of 16 or for a period not exceeding 10 years, whichever occurs first.

Following an amendment in 1995, Secret Service protection for Presidents who took office after 1st January 1997, and their spouses, is limited to 10 years. Thus President Clinton is the last President who will enjoy lifetime protection.

For security reasons, the cost for offering protection to former Presidents are not publicly disclosed. However, as an indication, the Government Accountability Office, in a Report, fixed the cost of protecting all former Presidents from 1977 to 2000 to $370m.

The question I will ask at this juncture is: has anyone seen a former US President travel? He is treated almost like a sitting President with security detail and armour plated cars. Anyone living in the US can attest to this. Does this lend credence to the claim that former US Presidents receive no cars? Simply they have no need for them as they are provided as part of their security protection. Most of the trappings of office are retained.

Seriously, no one expects to go to Crawford, Texas to see George Bush, driving his own car to the local supermarket to buy a can of tuna. He will still travel in a Security Service convoy.

Having made my point with the US example, let us look at the Ghanaian issue. The question for all Ghanaians to address is: what benefits do we give our former Presidents such that they do not fall on hardship or struggle financially after leaving office? This question should be answered honestly in a patriotic vein. We should not just be jumping up and down thinking that this is the time to make some President pay for some 'misdeeds'. Like we say in Akan: “wo to aduro bone a, ebi ka wo”. Literally, if you cast a spell badly, you can also become a victim.

Ghana will only be as respected internationally as we respect our constitutionally elected Presidents. Of course, the former Presidents are also required to adhere to certain norms of behaviour to uphold the respect and dignity the office they occupied demands.

I for one believe that former Presidents, if they want to and are able, will always find gainful employment after their term of office. We have to ask, whether as a country we deem it dignified for our former Presidents to take up employment. If we feel it is dignified, that would be fine. We then have to consider the decisions we expect them to make whilst in office? In that scenario, what stops President Kuffour from taking up an appointment with Vodafone after the sale of GT? It is to prevent conflict of interest and to ensure that Presidents make decisions in the interest of the nation that we should not expect them to work after leaving office. If he cannot work, do we need to compensate him or her? My answer is yes. The contention might be the level to peg this.

The constitution has provisions that make every Ghanaian, of a certain age of sound mind, and without certain forms of criminal record, eligible to be President. We can therefore have a situation where a President on coming into office, owns no residential property. There are two ways we can deal with this – either we pay our Presidents so well that they can build their own house to retire into or the state provides them with one on leaving office. This will maintain the dignity of the office they once held.

We must endeavour to look beyond President Kuffour or President Rawlings in this case. It could be President Asomasi who used to live in a government bungalow or rental property. I therefore believe that providing them with a house is not misplaced. The question, though, is how many houses? For me, the answer should be a single house but in addition, a fully staffed and equipped office should be provided as well. This should be irrespective of whether the outgoing President owns or do not own a house. The option, though, should be there for them to turn it down.

Despite what anyone says, President Kuffour or for that matter President Rawlings cannot retire into private life. They may want to but the public and the media will never let them. They are not like you and me who can walk down the street without being recognised. I will say that their spouses too have this same problem. Does the risk to a President's life diminish when he or she leaves office? No. I will rather say that they become even more vulnerable but with time, maybe it will diminish depending on individual circumstances. Therefore the provision of security, I hope, will not be disputed by anyone.

What would Ghanaians have felt if the retirement package had only asked for security protection (like in the US) and then left the national security agencies to design that? I strongly believe that it would have involved the same 6 cars to protect former Presidents and their spouses. The cars would then be drawn from the state protocol pool at the Castle but permanently assigned. The result would have been the same without the current uproar. Replacing the word 'given' with 'assigned' would have prevented this uproar. When dealing with the public, presentation matters. I doubt that these 6 cars are to be registered in the name of the former Presidents – they will still remain state property.

The other provisions – paid holidays abroad and $1m foundation is not really necessary. Former Presidents should be allowed to solicit private funds for these. We might have to be careful though that this does not inadvertently open the door to corruption and conflict of interest whilst in office.

In conclusion, I urge Ghanaians to ask the necessary questions to find out the bases of the recommendations. They should also ask themselves the question of what the living conditions of a former President means for the prestige of the country. More importantly, how do we take care of our Presidents such that they operate with their nation's interest foremost in their minds? I humbly suggest that if we cast partisanship to one side, we may find a lasting answer to these questions.

I believe that President Kuffour will be alright without these benefits. But what about President Asomasi further down the line? It could even be me or you.

Dr Frank Ohemeng, Manchester, UK

   Comments0