Voice from Afar: Peace not the absence of controversy

K.B. Asante

Many have called and prayed for peace in Ghana. They are right. Experience has shown that rudely upsetting the peaceful order with the aim of dramatically improving the social and eco­nomic order and democracy has not been successful or beneficial.

But we cannot ignore what moved those who disturbed the peace and the support they had from many people. Therefore, if we really want peace, we must find out why many sup­ported the peace-breakers. Generally they were supported because life was near intolerable for many and change was therefore welcome.

For real lasting peace therefore we should address the misery of many. Oppressive and offensive inequality should cease. We must find a response to the intolerable ills of society.

But this response is precisely what the gov­ernment elected by the people is expected to provide. Now the true response is economic and social development. And therein lies the problem. It is difficult to reach agreement on the development path. But a choice has to be made and it helps in designing the path to be mindful of our circumstances and not merely do what the experts suggest.

Experts and people with knowledge are helpful in addressing and designing the devel­opment path. But their role is somewhat dif­ferent from that which obtains in other fields. For example qualified medical practitioners will agree on the ailment of cancer and con­clude that removal by surgery is indicated. Not so with economic ills. Often there are as many views as experts. As the great Winston Churchill once said, if you ask the advice of 10 economists, you will get 11 views, two from John Maynard Keynes.

Experts in the field of social and economic development differ because of the coverage of their knowledge, their experience and interpre­tation of information. Political leaders should however know when to choose, when to reflect, when to hasten and when to act; always guided by their political philosophy and vision. If the chosen experts and talented do not share this philosophy and vision progress along the chosen path is difficult.

The development path to ameliorate the sit­uation of the people is normally chosen by the leader and the party. In practice the path is chosen and the people are asked to endorse it at elections. In implementation however the choice is often somewhat controversial and the ruling party tends to get cold feet from attacks, suggestions and expectations by the opposition, from its own weak-hearted supporters, and from the experts. The attitude of the inter­national community which gives development and financial assistance is also pertinent.

But here is where leadership must play its role. The information Services and the relevant state apparatus should be mobilised to explain and promote government policy and strategies and not employed in futile exchanges of trivial views and events and the dissemination of untruths. Government should have confidence in the people who will eventually be freed by the truth.

Government should not be apologetic of political philosophy or ideology. An ideal, a vision, a grand expectation should inspire the action of govermnent leaders and functionaries and influence the response of the people other­wise in our present circumstances, power and opportunity will lead to corruption and self ­advancement.

Policy choices will often lead to differences between parties. Within a vibrant party, there will be differences about choices and strate­gies. Controversy, compromises without abandoning principles and consensus should be expected. The economic progress which will end the misery and frustration of the peo­ple cannot be led by a government of all the talents working together in tranquility to maintain the status quo in peace. Real social and economic transformation cannot be made without pain and sacrifice.

We should get rid of this idea of all inclu­sive government whatever it means. It is not the brains or talents that we need. We have them. They are in the various parties. What we need are competent men and women to work loyally along a clearly chosen develop­ment path under the inspiration of a leader with vision and total commitment.

We should have confidence in ourselves. I remember telling the great Milton Friedman at a symposium in the Hague in the middle sev­enties that his ideas and plans could not rescue Ghana out of her difficult economic predica­ment. Now Milton Friedman was a leading exponent of monetarism and a distinguished economist who won the Nobel Prize for Eco­nomics in 1976.

He was policy adviser to Pres­ident Reagan. Clearly compared with him I was an ignorant upstart functionary. But I had the confidence developed at independence that Ghanaians were capable of charting their own future. We learnt not to stand in awe and accept all that the experts say even when their advice and suggestions were accompanied with development funds which incidentally have kept us where we have been for decades.

Inci­dentally at the Hague symposium, a few academics supported me. Prof. Friedman was upset at the impudence of the ignorant and he put on his Chicago hat and left. Let those who want to impose on us leave.

And so let the NDC government vigorously put its development plans in train while it lis­tens to the other parties and explains its strate­gies to the public. It should show how its plans will lead to more production, the creation of jobs and the abolition of poverty. If there is to be controversy or even tension it should be about the success or otherwise of the measures taken.

We should realise that the country is not developed by comments and speeches of min­isters and deputy ministers. The various administrative and governance institutions have vital roles to play. It is therefore most important that these institutions should be adequately and competently staffed and led not by speeches but by quiet hard productive work.

We should make up our mind, how we man these institutions. Should the leadership of the army, the police and similar institutions change when there is a change of government? Natu­rally normal advancement in these institutions should be by merit. Progress by competence. should be strictly maintained otherwise the government would undermine itself. I would prefer even the highest offices to be attained by normal progression based on capability. But if an incoming government should select a new head the mode should be clearly spelt out. Nat­urally the head should be acceptable to the ser­vice, otherwise the government will impose an unnecessary problem on itself. The term of office should be clearly spelt out so that the incumbent knows when he or she is to leave.

The choice of heads for state enterprises and similar institutions poses a more difficult problem. There are many Ghanaians capable of holding these offices. Moreover intense lobbying makes sober choices difficult. The problem is the same for directors of these enterprises.

It appears to be the practice that these posts are "jobs for the boys". Unless the economy expands and many lucrative or high-profile jobs appear it would be difficult to change this practice. But we should aim at competence even in present circumstances. A strong Pres­ident may go outside the party to choose an incumbent in the national interest. Prudence however suggests that the party should be happy with the appointments made. The appointments should however always be made in a competent manner and the tenure of office clearly spelt out.

I have always bemoaned the fallen stan­dards in the civil service due to the attitude and action of past governments. Incompetent pub­lic officers often embarrass the government and impede national progress.

A competent civil servant will for example not place a draft letter of appointment before a minister without the date of assumption of office and its termination. When a new gov­ernment takes office and changes are being made he or she will see to it that courteous let­ters are addressed to the incumbents thanking them for their service.

Unfortunately the general fall in standards has robbed us of civilised courtesy. The civil servant is no longer the "obedient servant" of the public. I have cited crude letters addressed to incumbents of public offices informing them that "with immediate effect you are no longer chairman." The costless courtesy of thanking outgoing public officers for their services is absent. We should stop these boor­ish practices and make it clear that even party appointments to public offices are expected to serve the nation and not the party. Unless they mess themselves up while in office, they deserve the gratitude of the nation when they leave at the change of government.

Service to the nation should be the aim of all public appointments. And this service should respond to the needs ind concerns of the people as addressed in a national plan whose implementation is refined by informed debate and discussion. The peace of inequali­ty and corruption which comes from sharing the spoils of office has no place in the quest for national wellbeing. It does not last.

Experts and talents alone cannot deliver that real peace which we need. Peace will be elusive so long as so much poverty and misery persist. We need a plan, not ad hoc measures, to usher in rapid and sustained economic and social development. Thus can the peace we deserve be assured.

Credit: K.B. Asante