[ 2013-11-17 ]

The Policy Paralysis In Ghana: How We Could Move Forward
If you want to know what baptism of fire is, go
talk to President Mahama. From energy and water
supply crisis to large budget deficits; from
labour unrest to the perception of wanton
corruption, this administration has seen it all.
The government, however, is not helping itself by
the seeming helplessness it is displaying with one
inconsequential directive issued after another.

Apart from the usual platitudes, the government
has failed to either spell out or advertise any
clear policies to deal with the problems
confronting the country. No one therefore knows
where the country is heading, even though we
appear to have borrowed in 5 years more money than
all previous governments put together. The policy
paralysis that we are experiencing is not
characteristic of only the Mahama government but
has been with us since January 2009 when the NDC
was voted back into power.

What really is a policy? The Merriam-Webster
dictionary defines it as “a high-level overall
plan embracing the general goals and acceptable
procedures especially of a governmental body”.
The definition which, however, appeals to me is
this one from the UK’s ‘Modernising
Government’ White Paper of 1999:

“Policy making is the process by which
governments translate their political vision into
programmes and actions to deliver outcomes and
desired changes in the real world”.

It is clear from these definitions that
governments are expected to formulate policies to
achieve outcomes that lead to changes desired by
their populations. These policies are informed by
vision or ideology. Policies can be derived from
party election manifestos, which at the global
level, address the general direction the governing
party wants the country to go. Policies can be
dictated by unforeseen events or develop out of
undesirable situations in sectors that affect
particular ministries and government departments.
As a corollary, policies are either initiated by
heads of governments or by ministers.

Amidst the hustings for political power,
politicians receive no training on how to
formulate policies. Hence Presidents and ministers
only rely on their own competencies developed from
their qualifications and more importantly from
whatever experience they may have. If they have no
previous policy formulation or analysis
experience, it can lead to policy paralysis with
governance reduced to announcements of one ad hoc
measure after another.

To overcome this shortfall in policy formulation,
political leaders usually appoint advisors with
expertise in the relevant areas. The tendency in
Africa, though, is for Presidents to appoint, as
advisors, people they can control or those who
will condescend. Whilst they live in this comfort
zone, though, their nations suffer.

Policy formulation is only one side of the
required action; policies also have to be
operationalised and implemented to achieve their
aims. This latter function is usually carried out
by the civil service. Thus whilst the Executive is
required to formulate policies (i.e. spell out the
‘what to do’), the civil service is required
to analyse and develop options for implementation
(i.e. specify the ‘how to do them’).

Situating the foregoing in the Ghanaian reality,
it is not difficult to appreciate why we have the
current policy paralysis. There are two dominant
political parties: the NDC and NPP. It does not
require divination to be able to forecast that for
the foreseeable future one of them will be in
power one time or the other. The NPP is good at
formulating policies founded on their ideological
tilt towards a ‘free market’ economy. Based on
their 8-year rule, from 2001 to 2008, the record
also shows that they were more capable in
formulating and implementing policies to better
the welfare of Ghanaians. The problem they have
though is that, for whatever reasons, they are
unable to win political power as often as they may
wish. The NDC, which has won most elections in the
4th Republic, on the other hand, professes to be a
social democratic party; a label it placed on
itself in 2003. It is difficult, though, to find
anything in their actions in government to
underpin this ideological claim. Their record in
government, as far as policy formulation and
implementation are concerned, is not very
noteworthy. Whenever they have come under
pressure, they prefer to issue directives, which
are oftentimes not grounded within any legal
framework, and hence are susceptible to being
ignored.

I am aware that some will find this observation
very controversial. I, however, stand by them
based on the fact that I have never heard or read
a high-billed policy speech on any aspect of
national life given by anybody from the NDC,
whether Presidents, Presidential candidates, MPs
or party Executives. If I have made a mistake in
this assertion, I stand to be corrected. The
insults that have greeted the latest Bawumia
speech on the state of the Ghanaian economy
illustrate vividly this conviction of mine.

With the fact of political life as we have it, we
must find ways of helping whichever government is
in power to be able to formulate and implement
policies to seek the general welfare of Ghanaians.
How can we go about this? Some have suggested that
we should develop a single national development
agenda, which all elected governments would be
enjoined to execute. I am not convinced by this
proposition.

First, if we were to adopt a common development
agenda we stand the risk of our elections
degenerating into personality contests without the
freedom to choose between ideologies and ideas.
Secondly, specifying a single development agenda
does not wish away the need to grow the economy to
fund such an agenda. Hence governments should have
the free hand to run the economy in the manner
which they believe will create and increase the
national wealth. Further, the external world
environment is not static; it is changing all the
time. Having a national development agenda might
lull those we elect into thinking that all is well
so far as they are pursuing that agenda. This will
stifle the innovation that may be required to
solve problems of the times. Lastly, the
implementation of a national development agenda
requires that competent individuals are placed at
the helm of affairs. However, if a particular
President decides to place political
considerations ahead of competency in the
appointment of ministers and other officials, what
would be there to stop him? We would still be
saddled with the situation we are currently
complaining about.

By the way, who says we do not have a national
development agenda? A national development agenda
is comprehensively spelt out in Chapter 6 of the
Constitution in the Directive Principles of State
Policy. It touches on almost every aspect of
national life – freedoms, justice, economy,
employment, education, property rights, health,
agriculture, industrialisation, security and human
rights. Where the Constitution might be faulted is
the requirement in Article 36 (5) that an incoming
President should present to parliament a
coordinated programme of economic and social
development policies, to suit the principles,
within two years of assuming office. This is way
too late in a 4-year term.

This clause needs amending to require that such
coordinated programmes are costed and presented
within six months of assuming power. It should not
be difficult for a President and a party who sat
down to prepare a manifesto to win elections to
present policies and action plans to meet the
directive principles in 6 months. If we have had
to wait for two years for such coordinated
programme, it is not surprising that nothing
appears to be happening.

As a way forward from the current situation, we
should amend the Constitution to require that
presidential candidates and political parties
present their manifestos along the matrices
prescribed by the Directive Principles of State
Policy. This will make it easier to compare the
different proposals submitted by different
parties. There will also be a common basis for
assessing the appropriateness, feasibility,
affordability, and credibility of the programmes.

In the advanced democracies, the manifestos of the
political parties who can potentially form the
next government, are usually analysed and
developed (with implementation options) ahead of
elections. This is done to ensure that,
irrespective of whoever wins, the winning party is
ready to swing into action immediately after
assuming office. This exercise is usually carried
out by the civil service, in collaboration with
the policy heads of the various parties. However,
with the political interferences by past and
present governments, it is doubtful that the Ghana
Civil Service is politically neutral to be able to
carry out such a function. Some recent reports
have even questioned the availability of the
required competency within the civil service for
it to carry out policy analyses with a view
towards implementation.

To rectify this situation we should also be
looking to amend the Constitution to develop the
National Development and Planning Commission
(NDPC) into a policy analysis and implementation
body independent of government. Its funding should
be protected and charged on the consolidated fund.
It should be empowered to develop its competence
by carrying out its own recruitment, appointing
its leaders and to commission expert reports.

Given that we have two dominant parties in Ghana,
the re-oriented NDPC should be charged, ahead of
elections, to analyse and transform both the NPP
and NDC manifestos into achievable and measurable
implementation plans. This should be ready for
whichever of them is elected to start to implement
from day one.

At the moment we appear to be on a hiding to
nothing and that should worry every well meaning
Ghanaian. I believe a radical shift as proposed
above may be what is required. Who knows, perhaps
if we adopt such proposals we might even see the
situation where the elected may even decide to
‘steal’ from the vanquished!

Source - Dr Yaw Ohemeng

... go Back