Monetics — A threat to democracy

It is wonderful that we survived that extremely competitive, sometimes acrimonious and in some cases, brutal political campaigning towards the 2008 presidential and parliamentary elections.

Any sincere appreciation should confirm that it was a “touch and go” brinkmanship situation that could have plunged the nation into senseless lawlessness.

Of course, we have every right to clap aloud for ourselves for not plunging our nation into chaos. And surely, we should also be happy for receiving universal acclaim for the successful conduct of the elections.

But it is important to note that the effects of the elections have not yet settled into a course that leads to reconciliation, cohesion, development and progress. Indeed, it seems that across the board some political elements that fuelled the acrimony and divisiveness do not appear to have reconciled to the political logic of the situation.

This negative attitude needs monitoring and management so that it does not continue to sow the discordant seeds for the 2012 elections. Four years is not too long a distance.

It is positive that various institutions, groups and individuals have been assessing what went wrong with the elections and what ought to be done to assure a more credible and applaudable elections next time.

Some of the issues are incompetent or compromised security arrangements, suspected bloated electoral registers, partisan, corrupted or irresponsible election officers and party agents and so on.

In all the discourses, one thing is clear. There is the determination to ensure that those wrongs, difficulties, challenges and problems are dealt with through constitutional, legal, institutional and regulatory mechanisms.

But there has been one dangerous issue that has not received the serious attention it commands. That is, money, politically referred to as monetics. The pervasive invasion of money into our political process and the threat it poses to our democratic development, and, indeed, our national security, has not been fully recognised. It is about time that was done otherwise we could labour in vain.

The massive publicity campaigns swallowed big piles of cash. The huge political rallies gulped down loads of cash. The mindless political hoodlums and goons who unleashed violence on opponents sucked in plenty of cash. It was monetics all over.

Of spectacular significance were the primaries that elected presidential and parliamentary candidates, because of the obscene splashing of hard cash. That was money in profane display.

There were immediately several pressing questions. Where did all that money come from? The banks? Which banks? Was it genuine money voluntarily donated by clean sponsors and well-wishers? Was it money from dubious, even criminal sources? There was even allusion to drug monies.

No matter where those loads of raw cash emerged, it is naive to expect that that was “free lunch” cash. Never. Obviously, some of those vast sums expended were meant to constitute the dark foundations for blatant corruption that would manifest in kickbacks, dubious contracts and the resulting shoddy unaccountable performances. And of course, it is the people who suffer the consequences. It is the adverse effects of monetics — political money.

There was this piercing joke that I heard the other day. It was such a loaded one. Asked about what he would do in future, the young boy of 10 years promptly replied that he would like to be a “delegate”.
Delegate? Yes of course. His father was a clever professional delegate during the political campaigning.

Money, rice, sugar, pieces of cloth, cartons of fish etc. flowed unto the house after every “delegates” meeting. So the youngster concluded that the “delegate business” was quite lucrative. Of course, all those attractive goodies came from “political cash”.

Monetics.
Then there was that schoolmate of mine who, as a rolling stone, had done almost everything under the sun with no indication of any improvement in his rather not too successful situation. So when in early 2008, I met him looking financially rehabilitated, I was intrigued and had to enquire what he was doing for a living.

“Oh K.B., I am in the “political industry'”.
“Political industry? I never heard of that”.
“K.B., there is money in politics. You can make it in politics either as a Member of Parliament, a minister, District Chief Executive and so on. But I make money dancing around politics and with politicians. I make plenty of political money”.

He was going on, but I cut him short. To make fast money from the “political industry” is in my judgement, the sharpest way to corruption and political disaster.

The other question that arises is this. What is it in politics that drives people into sourcing and spending so much money? Why would people contract huge loans to enable them to campaign or bribe their way to become Presidents, Members of Parliament or District Chief Executives? Why would people sell valuable property to enter into political office?

Is it really the noble desire to serve the people that drives people to burden themselves with possibly huge debts if they lose? No. It cannot be; because it does not make sense.

So that shabby chameleon argument bandied about monotonously that all the people go into politics to serve the people and the nation, even most deceptively, that theirs is a sacrificial activity, is complete bunkum.

It may be true of some. Certainly, not all of them are opportunists. But our recent experiences must open our eyes that many people want to go into political office, for personal acquisition of wealth and property. No two ways about that. That is why my friend referred to the political industry as very lucrative.

The reason should be clear. For some, politics has become the fastest way to wealth. You watch a struggling colleague of yours enter politics and if he is fortunate to be on the winning team, his circumstances change dramatically overnight. He dresses better. He eats better. He drives a better car. He lives in a better house. He may even have more beautiful girls. And he begins to acquire property over and above his legitimate earnings.

In some cases, this visible dramatic improvement shows on the quiet. In other situations, the opulence is actually displayed as if those working decently and honestly are fools. So why won't they conclude that politics is lucrative.

When this “End of Service Benefits” (ESB) fracas hit the streets, I noticed two interesting contrasting reactions. On one hand, there was an angry reaction that bordered on disgust and revulsion. There were plenty of such nasty questions like “these politicians, do they think we are fools? Idiots? Do they think we wash our faces upwards? Why should we tolerate such greed and insensitivity? Is that the reason why they have been resorting to all sorts of ways, even invoking satanic spiritual forces, to defeat their opponents?

In their view, political office is definitely profitable. They demand that salaries, allowances and benefits of political appointees should be made public. That should be one countercheck against corruption and greed.

But there was this other reaction that drew comments like: “Charlie, this political business is good. Very good. Look at what massive benefits they reap. Look at how prosperous they look. So why won't all of us enter into politics and enjoy too?”

Either way, it does not augur well for our democratic evolution. When money and other personal material gain become the motivating drive in politics then... as sure as day leads to night, you should expect massive corruption, the arrogance of power and the impunity of office.

The situation gets even more serious when established political institutions for all practical purposes, have to self-regulate themselves, in the absence of any meaningful oversight supervisory mechanisms.

Or when the entire political system turns into a money-oriented “scratch my back, I scratch your back” club or mafia for the pursuit of wealth and property.

So we have to face this destructive reality. Monetics has become a dangerously poisonous factor in the nation's political development.

Certainly, it is important we ponder over such reforms as are necessary to ensure transparent, free and fair elections. But if our politicians have to dig deeply for big cash, no matter the sources, to campaign effectively and competitively, then our parliamentarians will enter Parliament not only with huge debts dangling over their heads. They certainly face the possibly insensitive manipulation of their financiers, especially if their interests are inimical to the national interest.

Maybe, and it is only maybe, that is why they end up enacting laws or approving loans and agreements that are visibly bogus and against the national interest. Like when they approve a business agreement that provides for the indemnity of anticipated corruption. Could that be monetics at work? Probably not. But the suspicion advertises itself.

I recall with real bewilderment that at the tail end of the previous Parliament, an announcement was made that Ghana Government had sold 70 per cent of its shares in the Volta Aluminium Company (VALCO) to two foreign companies.

Almost immediately and incredibly, those companies hit back that they had not bought anything from Ghana. That was a bombshell. So who sold what and who bought what. So did our parliamentarians deceive the people of Ghana? And what made them do that? Could that be the extension of monetics?

Probably not. But the temptation to suspect something concretely fishy is real. Now what has happened to that bizarre sale? Where is accountability?

The discourses about how to right the wrongs of the 2008 elections are positive and productive. That should include accountability from our parliamentarians.

How to combat the dangers of monetics should be seriously considered otherwise our democracy will be at the mercy of the mercenaries of monetics. That will be useless provocative democracy destined to implode or explode some day. You cannot fool the people all the time.

— The author is a former Director of the BNI and former National Security
Co-ordinator.

   Comments0